the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 426. the nays are zero. the bill has passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and passing h.r. 2194 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2194, a bill to amend the iran sanctions act of 1996 to enhance united states diplomatic efforts with respect to iran by expanding economic sanctions against iran.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. >> madam speaker, on that ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a suficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 11.

present are four. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412. the nays are 12. the present are four. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and agreeing to h.res. 150, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 150, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives that a. philip randolph should be recognized for his lifelong leadership and work to end discrimination and secure equal employment and labor opportunity for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is asking for the yeas and nays. the gentlelady has requested a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

toip the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 395. the nays are 23. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing s. 1472, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: 1472, an act establishing a section within the criminal division of the department of justice to enforce human rights laws, to make technical and conforming amendments to criminal and immigration laws pertaining to human rights violations, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. he speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote having been requested, those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 415. 2/3 having responded in the

affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 416. the nays are three. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: by the direction of the committee on judiciary, i send to the desk a privileged

report for filing under the rules to accompany house resolution 920. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 920, resolution directing the attorney general to transmit to the house of representatives all information in the attorney general's possession regarding certain manners pertaining to detainees held at naval station guantanamo bay, cuba, who are transferred into the united states. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will be in order. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman rise? mr. dicks: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks, and i'd ask the speaker if she could bring the house to order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dicks: i wanted to inform my colleagues today that out in the great state of washington in rick larsen's district today, the first 787 dreamliner did its first successful flight. this is one of the great airplanes built in the united states by the boeing company. and i want you to know it was built without any launch aid. not like the a-330 that received $5.7 billion in launch aid. this plane was built the old-fashioned way. boeing put the money in the pot and built the plane and it flew today.

and i just want as we get in the discussion on tankers later this year, i just wanted to remind everybody that the a-330 received $5.7 billion in subsidy. and i think it's wrong, and i think we need to go back to the w.t.o. and make sure that they follow through and make sure that the europeans stop subsidizing all these airbus aircraft. and boeing is a great company in the pacific northwest. and i'm proud of the 787. there are over 900 orders, and it's a great airplane. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. moran: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. please remove your conversations to the cloakroom.

the gentleman may proceed. mr. moran: madam speaker, there are those in congress who want to restrict antibiotic use in agriculture. they overlook the good it does to improve animal health if they are restricted to only treatment of already sick animals, it will increase the abundance and safety of our food supply. when -- mark banned it for growth promotion in pigs, animal deaths and disease rose requiring the use of more drugs for therapeutic purposes. meanwhile, there was no improvement in human health. potential increases in the occurrence of food-borne illness is another concern. an ohio state university study said that pigs raised outdoors had more risk of food-borne pathogens.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor from h.res. 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. doggett: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: madam speaker, our constituents from across the spectrum have asked us at the federal level to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. . the gentleman may proceed. mr. poll cloins our constituents across the ideological speck strum have told us our immigration is broken and it's our responsibility to fix it. we in the united states congress have taken the first step today with the introduction of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. this bill would strength yen -- strengthen american families and

stop the undermining of our laws by the presence of 1 million undocumented immigrants. this law will protect our borders. immigration reform is good for business and workers. our constituents have made their opinions clear. they are tired of the lack of action in washington, d.c. i encourage my colleagues to join me in co-sponsor a comprehensive immigration reform to help make america stronger and maintain the integrity of our laws and constitution within our borders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the ready mix concrete company of statesville, north carolina, to its commitment of preserving our natural resources. the if a silt -- the facility recently received the national ready mix concrete association's green star certification for its dedication to environmental

excellence. this accomplishment demonstrates how hard this company has worked to adopt its business practices today's rapidly changing culture of sustainable visits. these efforts will not only protect the environment, but will also make the ready mix concrete company a better competitor and employer. that means more good jobs for the people of north carolina which is what we need most during these difficult economic times. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. i rise to address what could develop into a humanitarian catastrophe in iraq. residents of camp ashrov, response opponents of the iranian regime who found a home in iraq appear to have been abandoned by the united states and other nations as they are subjected to unlawful seizure

and detainment by iraqi forces. the iraq government must be called upon to respect the human rights of the residents and honor its written commitment that it will treat all residents humanely. the u.s. government must ensure that the new democracy that we have helped prop up in iraq does not forcibly return the residents to iran where they will face certain persecution, torture, and possibly even death. they must not be relocated to any country where they will be persecuted based upon their believes. on a day when we have demonstrated here on the floor, our support for the people and pro-democracy forces inside of iran, let us not forget those in camp ashraf, iraq. i thank the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tiahrt: madam speaker,

earlier last week the e.p. announced carbon dioxide is a health hazard and pollutant that should be regulated under the clean air act. that means you and i are polluting simply by breathing. make no mistake about it, the timing of this announcement was intentional. by issuing the rule last week, the e.p.a. is attempting to gloss over the inconvenient truth that thousands of emails by climate researchers revealing ways they manipulated or hid evidence that disposes their theories of climate change, furthermore the ruling is an attempt to avoid the fact that the american people are opposed to this job killing cap and tax bill that has been stalled in the senate. inconveniently that leaves negotiators in copenhagen unable to broker an agreement. the e.p.a. is destroying the democratic process. while the american people support the administration's latest effort to regulate even more private companies out of business, i wouldn't hold my

breath. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask permission to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> madam chair i rise today to recognize an outstanding -- the outstanding career of jerry hayes of huntsville, averl alabama. his decades of responsible journalism have earned him the respect and trust of hundreds of thousands of people. his 30 years at whnt news in north alabama have brought inspiration and guidance to an untold number of aspiring journalists looking to begin their careers. when he is not in the studio or at the scene of a story, jerry is bettering the community around him. his work for tennessee valley children is near to my heart and north alabama parents owe him a debt of gratitude that is almost impossible to repay. each year the national academy

of television arts and sciences recognizes individuals who have made a meaningful contribution to broadcasting by inducting them into the silver circle. jerry epitomizes the type of excellence that the academy looks for and i congratulate him on this achievement. madam speaker, i would like to thank mr. jerry hayes for his 30 years of service to north alabama, our community would not be the same without his dedication to the families of the tennessee valley. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. we will be judged by two measures in the united states congress, by action or inaction. i stand here before you today to tell that you we will recover from this economic recession and that's why bipartisan efforts like myself and congressman

chris lee have worked across the aisle to make research and development tax credits to companies permanent so that they can manufacture and produce and research their products right here in the united states. my legislation creates american jobs, helps companies innovate by giving them a incentive to research and develop right here in the united states. this tax credit is an investment in our nation's manufacturers. by making research and development tax credits permanent, our bill takes critical steps to make the u.s. more competitive because our credit will be comparable to those offered by other countries. we will recover and we will be judged by action or inaction. we will recover from this recession by investments into our manufacturing base in this great country. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today throling legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and

include therein extraneous material. mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. ms. woolsey of california. ms. edwards of maryland. mr. nadler of new york. mr. denazzo of oregon. mr. polis of colorado. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. doggett of texas. mr. holt of new jersey. and mr. grayson of florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. mr. gingrey today for five minutes. mr. murphy today for five minutes. mr. mcclintock today for five minutes. and ms. foxx today and december 16 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence

requested for mr. young of florida for today until 3:30 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. jones of north carolina. the gentleman can address without objection. mr. murphy: i rise to speak about h.r. 1110, the phone act, it will be voted on tomorrow. this bill addresses the growing and serious problems of caller i.d. fraud that allows the caller to hide their true identity to obtain personal

identification. answer your phone is like answering your door. you are letting someone into your home and you need to know whoever that person says they are is true. caller i.d. was originally designed to give you that information so you could see side to answer your phone and have the confidence you were not talking to a call who was unwanted, unsafe, or unknown. that's why i worked across the aisle with representative bobby scott to introduce this bill. now we are again working together in the 111th congress to pass this very important bill. i thank representative scott for his leadership and teamwork in passing it. the legislation is aimed at preventing and prohibiting caller i.d. spoofing. spoofing is made available with internet service that is will provide false numbers and even disguise your voice so you can easily fool the person on the other end of the phone. criminals coax victims into giving up sensitive personal information by making it appear the call is come interesting a legitimate institution such as bank, doctors office, government office, or family member. misleading caller i.d.

information also allows the spoofer to cause the victim to accept a call they would earwise avoid leading to harassment. even more serious pea tension dangers exist. a pedophile could stalk a child by stealing a school phone number or phone number of a friend or child. sexual predator could use a doctor's office phone number to call their victim. the problems with caller i.d. spoofing are real. let me give awe few examples. there are cases where criminals using stolen credit card numbers call a service, the program the caller i.d. to originate from the home and use the credit card number. seniors have been misled into believing they missed jury duty. victims were asked to prevent prgs. -- were asked for a social security number to spreent prosecution. a swat team surrounded a building after it appeared the

call came from within when the call was come interesting another location. the swat team showed up expecting to face an armed perpetrateror. one could imagine if an unsuspecting bystander happened to be at that location a series of misunderstandings could end up in tradgedy. unfortunately this process has occurred dozens of times. just this month there have been two serious cases of caller i.d. fraud in the news. in columbia, maryland, a teenager was arrested for making terrorist phone calls to his former school. calling in a bomb scare and telling school officials there was a student on campus with a gun. the teen used spoofing to make the phone number appear to be coming from texas. fortunately the police were able to subpoena the phone records and arrested the teen. in brooklyn, new york a. woman used caller i.d. fraud to exact revenge on her husband and his pregnant girlfriend's newborn baby. she illegally obtained a prescription that would induce labor early and called the girlfriend using spoofing to make it appear her obstetrician

was calling. the woman took the medication and the baby was delivered two months premature. police were able to track down the woman when she tried to deliver a poisonous mixture to the hospital. allegedly intending to kill the baby. the police arrested a woman avoiding a tragic and fatal outcome that originated by using caller i.d. fraud. this could have been avoided if the caller had not use add fraudulent caller i.d. this bill will make the act of caller i.d. fraud a felony and criminals could see fines of up to $250,000 and jail time up to five years if convicted of using caller i.d. fraud in perpetrating another crime. i urge all my colleagues to pass this phone act, h.r. 1110, because criminals must know they cannot use this technology loophole to escape the law and cause further harm to our citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i rise today with a number of my colleagues to express our continuing concern about the president's decision to escalate our military effort in afghanistan by an additional 30,000 troops. 30,000 additional americans put into harm's way in afghanistan is a big deal, madam speaker. and i am concerned that the house of representatives will be adjourning for the year without a real, meaningful, substantive debate about this morning issue. i happen to believe that increasing our military presence by 30,000 troops will make it 30,000 times harder to extricate ourselves from this mess. but whatever my colleagues believe about this decision, support, oppose, or noncommital, we owe it to ourselves and to the people that we represent to have a thorough debate about our policy. i would urge this administration to submit their supplemental request for this escalation

sooner rather than later. congress has a constitutional role to play. we have the power of the purse and the responsibility to declare war. we haven't played that role in any meaningful way since 2001. that was the last time that this chamber had a debate on afghanistan. 2001. and those eight long years hundreds of american soldiers have lost their lives. thousands have been wounded. and we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and we still do not have a clear exit strategy. everyone seems to agree that afghanistan requires a political solution. the question i still have is this -- when does our military commitment to that political solution come to an end so we can bring our troops home? . in no way do i believe we

should abandon afghanistan or its people. they have been through far too much trauma over the last several decades. nor do i believe that we should abandon our fight against the people who murdered thousands of americans on september 11, 2001. indeed, i am concerned that by committing over 100,000 american troops to nation building in afghanistan, we will be less able to target those who attacked us, and that is al qaeda, because al qaeda no longer has a large presence in afghanistan. our top generals say that maybe there's 100 or less al qaeda still in afghanistan. they have moved to pakistan, and i do not believe that the best, most effective way to fight al qaeda is to increase our military footprint in afghanistan. in afghanistan, we need a new strategy. i would urge my colleagues to read a recent on-ed in "the new york times" by nicholas christophe. he said for the cost of one u.s. soldier deployed in afghanistan we could build 20

schools in afghanistan. let me repeat that. the cost of one american soldier in afghanistan for a year we could build 20 schools in afghanistan. not only that, it seems the administration have failed to look into the best way forward. madam speaker, without the support of the local leaders who have the respect of the afghan people, nothing we do will work or be sustainable. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the article into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i also continue to be deeply troubled about the karzai government. today, president karzai's scheduled to convene a three-day conference on corruption. at a minimum, this conference is supposed to provide a forum where the afghanistan government admits publicly that it runs on bribery, cronyism, which in turn fuels the taliban

insurgency. president karzai called this conference not because he campaigned on cleaning up his own government but because of international pressure. he ran a fraudulent election that undermined international support for the war in afghanistan, and this is an attempt to show the international community and especially the united states that he will somehow clean up his own house. but we'll have to wait and see if it's more than just more talk, talk, talk. we'll have to see if he's willing to kick out of office the very warlords, drug lords, family members and cronies appointed to high government positions. and if he does, whether he appoints others in their place. madam speaker, we are about to embark on a new escalation in a very troubled part of the world. congress needs to debate this critical issue. our men and women in uniform and every other american we represent deserves no less. thank you, madam speaker.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. poe from texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. we debate throughout the world the concept of global warming, but we don't call it that anymore. we call it climate change. all the big leaders. world are in denmark talking about how they can figure out a way -- all the big leaders are in denmark talking about how they can figure out a way for man not to pollute our wonderful climate. the consensus has been for sometime that global warming, climate change continues because man is the perpetrator. but now we're beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus, that there is global warming or

climate change. we now heard about climate gate, where the expert scientists hid emails in england that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. we've even heard now new evidence that even nasa is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change. i think a history lesson is in order, madam speaker, and i'd like to read from a couple of well-thought of in the science community a couple of magazine articles. one of them is under the science tex of "time" magazine. it's dated june 24, but the year is 1974. the article begins with this comment, "another ice age." so much for global warming. as they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather patterns over the past number of years, a number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many

seemingly contradictory events are occurring in global climate upheaval. there's a wide -- the weather widely varies from place to place and time to time and meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe. they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler the last three decades, and the trend shows no indication of reversing. let me repeat that. according to scientists in 1974, their trend shows no indication of reversing the cooling trend. scientists are becoming increasingly apprehensive for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the beginning of another ice age. so if we were to live in 1974 -- and, you know, i lived in 1974. i read that article then. i believed it. i believed we were all going to freeze in the dark. it goes on to say man polluting the atmosphere with farming and

because man farms and dust gets up in the air, that blocks the sun rays coming to earth and that cools the earth. maybe that's a new idea of carbon emission cooling that was in 1974. i'd like unanimous consent to introduce this "time" article from 1974 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: the following year that notable newspaper or newsmagazine "newsweek" in 1975 under its science section in the back talks about the cooling world. there are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may be bringing a drastic decline in food production. throughout the world. to scientists, these dramatic incidents represents the advanced signs of a fundamental change in the world's weather. the central fact -- you got that word? fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinary mild conditions,

the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. and that's from "newsweek." and here's a chart they put in their expert scientific article and it's entitled -- i think it's nice they put it in the nice blue color and it shows that the average temperatures are getting colder and colder. april 28, 1978. and like i said, madam speaker, i believed we were all going to freeze in the dark. scientists told us that we were going to freeze in the dark because of the weather patterns. climates do change, madam speaker. in the 1970's it was getting cooler. they say it's getting warmer. climates do change. that's what seasons are. most of us in the north have seasons. in houston we have two seasons. we have summer and we have august. other than that the seasons change in most parts of the world. they get warm, they get cold. and we are going to try to trust the world's climate

prediction to a group of people from the 1970's and now 2000 to a group of people who can't even predict correctly tomorrow's weather. you know, people in the weather industry are the only people i know who can consistently be wrong and keep their jobs. but yet these same people trying to predict mars' weather or from now on saying that climate change is because of man, the culprit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the remainder of my time and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to fondly honor my friend, dr. john sheer, who passed away on november 18, 2009, at the age of 77 in california. publicly, john was a powerful

advocate for children's health care, health care reform. he preferred a single payer system. and privately he was a kind, selfless man of great integrity. as a physician, he was expert, compassionate and gentle, the kind of doctor you would want to have care for your sick child. and i should know because dr. john sheer was our family doctor and my family adored him. a native of kokomo, indiana, john moved with his family to detroit and originally trained as a pharmacist. then, he earned his medical degree from wayne state university in 1962. john moved his wife and his children to california in 1964 where he started the medical clinic with three other doctors. his son recalled that his

father made a lot of house calls in the early years of his practice. in those days, you see, there were no ob-gyn's, so he delivered hundreds of babies. dr. sheer was very active in community and social issues. he was involved in physicians for social responsibility, an organization dedicated to preventing nuclear war and proliferation and to halt global warming and toxic degradation of the environment. and in 1972 he was part of a grassroots to save our school, or f.o.s., that i also worked on with him in pataloma to keep grants elementary school open when it was threatened with closure. in the 16980's, he was the head of physicians for social responsibility in the north bay. he also began the children's health initiative to ensure

that all uninsured children in sonoma county would have health care. dr. sheer served as medical director of the jewish community free clinic. he was the chief of the medical staff at hilcrest hospital in 1974 to 1975. and president of the valley hospital medical staff in 1986 to 1987. he also serve as chairman of the valley hospital ethics committee for many years. he served as president of the california physicians alliance, an organization of physicians advocating for single payer national health insurance. he served -- john is survived by his wife, donna sheer, his son, david sheer of washington, his daughter, annette of california, and two grandchildren. madam speaker, even as john

sheer was a tender man with impeccable manners, he was a bold and fearless activist for justice in health care. he advocated among a single payer system among his peer group. he was a prince of a man who is lived and respected by many and will be genuinely missed. john, i thank you for your friendship, your counsel and for making my family feel like they were part of yours. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran, is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: madam speaker, thank you. over the past several years, i've worked hard to remind my colleagues in congress of a real threat of a nuclear iran. the obama administration has been engaged in discussions with iran during the last several months. as many of us expected, the president's open hand to tehran

was met with a clenched fist. despite international efforts to negotiate with iran, iranian leaders continue to be devious and defiant. enough. now is the time for congress to act. and fortunately today the house of representatives did. iran already possesses enough nuclear fuel to build two nuclear weapons. even while negotiations were taking place, iran continued to enrich uranium in defines of five united nations security council resolutions, increasing its supply of uranium and becoming more and more dangerous each and every day. while there are many domestic issues that demand our attention of us in congress, we must not forget an iranian call for a world without a united states or an israel. a nuclear armed iran threatens the safety of american troops in the region, is a threat to israel's existence, emboldens

hamas and hezbollah, and leads to a perilous nuclear arms race in the middle east. these are all things we cannot accept and must not tolerate. passage of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act takes an important step to counter the iranian threat to our national security and that of our strong democratic ally, israel. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: ms. edwards from maryland. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to take her time. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. doggett: president obama is to be commended for the thoughtful and thorough consideration that he has given to our alternatives in afghanistan. in essence, he was really asked given the mess he was given

there, he was asked to choose the least bad alternative. my personal belief is that a good manmade the wrong choice. but i think it is incumbent on this congress to do as our president did and give thoughtful consideration of what our alternatives are there and whether there is a better way than dispatching another 30,000 american troops to afghanistan to assure the security of our families. we have had now almost a decade without a debate of afghanistan policy in this congress. i believe we must take a hard look at how hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars and thousands of the lives of young americans are being put on the line in afghanistan and ask if this is the most effective way to defeat terrorism. some were forced pleas that the president indicated in his speech that july, 2011, a period

of a little more than a year and a half, would mark a point in this long war at which we would see the beginning of the end of the war and some of the troops that were being dispatched there begin to return home. almost as soon as the speech ended, administration officials began to explain that deadline away. first we learned that not all the troops would get there until the fall of next year. they're not going for the weekend or a two-week stay or a stay of less than a year. and then, secretary gates made clear in interviews the nature of this july, 2011 deadline. he said that at the time of july, 2011, some handful, in his words, or some small number or whatever the conditions permit might be departing afghanistan at that time, but that we would, in his words, have a significant

number of troops there, forces there, for some considerable period of time. and it was only a few days after that that afghan president karzai indicated just how long that commitment might have to be when he announced that, quote, for another 15 to 20 years, afghanistan will not be able to sustain a force of that nature and capability with its own resources. we are talking about a very extended commitment of more and more american troops and more and more american dollars at a time when some of our allies who have been in afghanistan, like the canadians, like the dutch, are making plans to withdraw their troops as our troops enter the country. and i have heard from not a few constituents expressing their concern about this decision to escalate the war in afghanistan. whether we agree or disagree on

whether this is the best approach, we all agree that our objective is to work to make our families safer. one person who i presented the veteran of the year award to just last month in texas, retired colonel bill stanbury, inducted into the officers hall of fame offered this observation. there is no sign or promise of a viable leadership in the government in afghanistan, an ingredient that is absolutely essential to the success of the program. we are allowing our adversaries to determine the kind of wars we fight and how we fight them. we need to find ways to exploit our strengths and not be lured into battles or war where our substantially weaker adversaries have the advantage by dictating how we fight. our strategic choices in afghanistan, i believe, are not

narrowly limited to either escalatingly rapidly or departing rapidly. but they include more effective ways of using the resources that we have already committed to accomplish our original objectives. and our ambassador in afghanistan, he had some of the same concerns that i do. it is widely reported that he sent two classified tables to washington expressing deep concerns about sending more u.s. troops to afghanistan without a meaningful demonstration by president karzai, who had just stolen a million votes to stay? power, that his government would be in mismanagement that has fueled the taliban's strength. we went to afghanistan to take out al qaeda not to change it into switzerland.

let's keep that commitment and do it in the most cost-effective way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled resolution. the clerk: house resolution 62, joint resolution employing the day of the day of the 111th congress. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: claim the gentleman's time. thank you so much, madam speaker. just last week, we observed another human rights day without freedom in cuba. as to be expected, the regime had its thugs out in full force to attack all who dared to walk the streets in support of this important day and what it represents to the world community. for two days, the members of the peaceful ladies in white group

were pursued and harassed by agents of the regime. marches and peaceful demonstrations in support of human rights and fundamental freedom came to an abrupt end as security forces rounded up, detained and brutally attacked some of the participants. the wife of a doctor was one of the many apprehended by the secret police on her way to one of the planned marches in havana. dr. ferrara is a civil rights leader currently imprisoned by the dictatorship. his crime? illegally purchasing materials to repair damages to his home. the truth, dr. ferrara has exposed the reality of the apartheid health care system and the disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

his life was threatened on this human rights day by the cuban dictatorship in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. those seeking freedom in cuba, have shown time and time again that they will not waiver in the face of repression. the castro tyranny does not limit the application of its repressive tactics to the oppressed cuban people, however. second secretary of the british embassy was pursued and chased away by the regime's apparatus. on friday, an american citizen was detained, likely in response to u.s. efforts to support the inalienable rights of the cuban people. we are hopeful for his immediate and safe return home soon. for the people of cuba, every day is a desperate struggle to maintain a glimmer of hope for a brighter future.

hundreds and hundreds remain behind bars due to their refusal to give up on that brighter future. we must never lose sight of the plight of those living under this regime. we must also not turn our backs on these individuals by cutting deals with their oppressors. we must not put principle over profit. security before popularity. though the castro tyranny may try to convince the world otherwise, it will never miss an opportunity to tighten its iron grip on liberty. it is time that the hypocrisy be lifted. the cuban people are no less worthy of freedom and human rights than any other oppressed nation. leaders worldwide, they do not hesitate to denounce the regime in sudan and i agree with them or the brutal military in burma

and i agree with them. however, they remain silent and i don't agree with them when it comes to the cries of those dying in castro's jails because they seek freedom and democracy for their cuban nation. how much more must the cuban people suffer before the world acts against this cruel regime and its communist leaders? those who ignore the struggles of the cuban people serve as willing accomplices as their brutal oppressors. as one prisoner said in his jail cell, i quote, government, institutions, organizations and human beings in general have an obligation to promote and respect the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as ensure their recognition and universal and effective application. dr. ferrara continued, our recognition will be in every

corner of the earth for the inherent dignity and inallenable rights for the dignity of the human family. today, let us renew our commitment to bring the light of freedom to those living in the darkness of oppression wherever that darkness is. today, let us make clear, we will never stand for another human rights day without freedom in cuba. thank you, madam speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields the time. mr. nadler from new york. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: take mr. nadler's time. president obama held a white house meeting to wall street bankers. a few months ago in september, he traveled to new york to speak with them. most of them didn't have the courtesy to show up. last week, his treasury secretary called again on wall

street's big banks to work out mortgage loans for the six million americans who have flown into foreclosure. wall street didn't do it. they'll pocket over $140 billion in bonuses this year for themselves. yesterday, the president vowed to recover every last dime of taxpayer money that was bestowed on these giants which now control 40% of deposits in our country, five banks, 40% of the deposits. but you know what is important to ask the president, which taxpayer is he talking about? just the tarp money? that would be half a trillion dollars. that figure doesn't include the hundreds and hundreds of billions dollars that is doled out by the federal reserve right to the big banks. what about the damage those giants continue to do to our mortgage markets and property values despite what they have been given? how how do we get the money back? they aren't working out the tule

ims. quite a. what about the smaller banks they have driven out. do the investors get the same deal? what about the community bond ratings that have dropped across our country? how do we get that money back? what about all the americans that have lost pences, how do they get their money back? what about the unemployment? the cost of that? food stamps and health care, by those who have been hit hard? how do they get their money back? the president is looking through too narrow a key hole. what the white house advisers fail to admit is that their approach isn't working. the tarp should have never been passed by congress and it protected the wrongdoers. tarp turns the banking system

into a political chess board by putting the department of treasury putting it in the driver's seat. rather than using the independent financial regulatory agencies as has always been done throughout our country. if you've got the wrong regulators, replace them, but be independent about it. the entire credit system of our country remains frozen up. as tarp and wall street street had sucked out the confidence in our credit system. the value of your home is dropping. today it was announced, 1.8% inflation increase doubled what was anticipated and biggest increase in a year. the fundamentals are all out of whack. when tarp passed, the bush administration said it would save america from depression. but then the dow fell over 2,000 points from october 1 to march 9 of this year. our nation fell into depression. and now 27 million americans are

either out of work or working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. the trouble is, when you don't fix something right in the first place, the problem only worse worsens. this is what should have happened. the s.e.c. should have reimporesed regulations and used mark to market accounting. the fdic should have declared an emergency and claimed all depositors protected and should have used the emergency power to restore capital in banks. that wasn't done in time. even now we need to restore prudent banking -- separate prudent banking from speculation and restore and strengthen normal banking regulations and not depend on the overpublicized treasury department. yes, we have to increase capital, and eliminate cyclical rules and increase congressional

oversight with the financial accounting standards board while strengthening the fdic. i have some other bills including recan you pleasing the bonuses, the over $140 billion in bonuses that wall street will take and another bill to authorize the f.b.i. and s.e.c. to be fully funded with investigators to prosecute the white-collar criminals responsible for this fraud. i have another bill to give each region in the country equal voice so the new york fed doesn't overwhelm the rest of the country. america needs more than rhetorical flourishes from this administration or the last to restore sanity to our financial markets. it's time to take the political manipulation out of banking regulation in our country. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise to applaud the passage today of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act of 2009. iran's regime is consistently -- has consistently lied to the world over its nuclear ambitions. yesterday's revolution that iran's been working on nuclear bomb detonators should convince even the most naive officials within our government of iran's ultimate intention. i do not believe that the petroleum sanctions alone will dissuade the iranian regime from its obvious intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, nor fromity stated goal of wiping israel off the map, nor from its unremitting hostility toward our own country. but i do believe that it will send a vital message of growing western resolve at a critical

moment in world history. iran should interpret the house's action today as an overwhelming expression of american commitment that spans the wide spectrum of political views within our nation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio from oregon. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you. madam speaker, i wanted to address the question of afghanistan. the president was confronted with the very serious and difficult decision and the decision that he made as america knows is to increase the troop strength by 30,000 stroops, also seek support for an additional 10,000 troops from allies. the question really that confronts america as well as the president is this, what is the best strategy to protect our

homeland from another attack that would be perpetrated by and inspired by al qaeda? the question is, whether having a military force of occupation, now 100,000 troops or soon to be 100,000 troops from the united states of america, in afghanistan, doing nation building is a sustainable strategy that will be the one that can protect america from a future attack? i believe that it is not. there's a couple reasons. first of all, as we know, al qaeda goes where our military is not. there are presently according to general jones 100 al qaeda in afghanistan and about 500 in pakistan. al qaeda moves to areas of opportunity. it is not just there, it's in yemen, it's in somalia, it's in other parts of the world. also as we know the internet is a tool and folks who have been

plotting and planning to do destructive conduct, hurt our american people, some of them live in the united states and other parts of the world. it is not a threat that is confined to afghanistan, it is a decentralized threat. so where you have a threat which by definition is decentralized and not from a nation state doesn't make sense to deploy the vast majority of our troops, 100,000, and the vast majority of our resources, $1 trillion minimum over the next 10 years, in a single country to then take on the goal of nation building, of institution building in afghanistan. i believe it does not. it is not an effective strategy that's sustainable militarily. the not an effective strategy that's sustainable financially. the second effect of making a decision to do nation building in afghanistan is that by

definition our military and our government needs a functional partner, no matter what the shortcomings of that partner may be. hence the embrace of the karzai administration despite the fact that it has losing credibility -- that it is losing credibility among its people, despite the fact that the election was not only deeply flawed but it's documented that the karzai government stole a million votes in order to stay in power. and the more work that we do that requires us to line up and cooperate, conciliate, to protect a karzai government that does not have the support of its people, every day we do that undercuts the support and the definition of the mission of the american soldier in afghanistan. second, as is well known, a major problem is pakistan. and what we've seen is that we now have to have a significant

alliance with the pakistani military. as the only institution that can provide some measure of security in pakistan and because they control the nuclear weapons. and this is obviously of great importance to the american people. but the pakistani military is notable for two things. number one it has been mr. adler: never air is of democratic develop --ed a adversary of democratic development in pakistan, in a place that's destitute and getting poorer. secondly, the pakistani military as recently as today as reported in "the new york times" made it clear that however urgent it is for the united states to take out the network that is in the tribal areas and is crossing into afghanistan on a regular basis to attack our troops, the pakistani military regards the network as its ally in geo

politics in the afghanistan region. so it will not do what needs to be done to protect the american military and american security and that is attack the network which is the afghan taliban and in fact has made it explicit that it sees the network as its ally to keep india at bay. so what we have as a strategy that depends on nation building which has very doubtful prospects of success -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. welch: in an alliance with two, quote, friends that aren't there that help us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gingrey from georgia. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the gentleman from georgia's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, more than 190,000

women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the united states this year and more than 40,000 will die. in the last 20 years there have been declines in the breast cancer mortality rate and those declines are attributed to increases in early detection and to improvements in breast cancer treatment. today when breast cancer is found before it spreads, the five-year relative survival rate is 98%. but that rate will decline to 84% for regional disease and 23% when cancer has metastasized or spread to other parts of the body. in november the u.s. preventative services task force released new guidelines for screening mammography and these changes have again reignited the controversy over mammography screening, a debate that has raged for a number of years.

however, it is important for us to remember that the susan g. komen for the cure organization agreed that ma mammograms saved lives in women age 40 to 49 as well as women over 50. additionally, while the uspstf has chosen to make revisions in its guidelines for screening, patient advocates and professional organizations, not just the susan g. komen for the cure, but also the american cancer society, the american college of obstetricians and gynecology and the american society for clinical oncology, have reviewed the same evidence and they continue to recommend annual screenings beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier for women with known risks for breast cancer.

our real focus should be on the fact that 1/3 of the women, some 23 million, who qualify for screening under today's guidelines are not being screened, they're not being screened due to a lack of education and awareness or access. that issue needs focus and attention. if we can make progress with screening in susceptible populations we can make more progress in the fight against breast cancer. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. grayson: madam speaker, i invite you and everyone within the sound of my voice tonight, all americans, to reach into your pocket, take out a dollar bill, turn it around. on the back you'll see the great seal of the united states. our founding fathers had very few ways to communicate with us, they lived before the time of television, they lived before the time of radio, they lived before the time of photography, so they communicate to us through the constitution, they communicate to us through the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, letters that they wrote and only one image and that image is this image, the image on our dollar bill, the image of the great seal of the united states. i invite to you take a close look at it. i have one right here, the one in my pocket is in black and white or green and white, if you will.

the one here is in color. take a look at it and you'll see the american eagle and you'll see that the american eagle is holding arrows on the right in its claw, an olive branch on the left. this has deep symbolism to our founding fathers, the seal was adopted before the constitution itself was ratified. and the gentleman who had to explain and support the adoption of this symbol as our country's great seal said that he had the eagle holding arrows and an olive branch to symbolize war and peace. specifically what he said was that with regard to that olive branch he wanted to illustrate the power of peace. he said the power of peace, not a phrase we hear very often, we hear a great deal of the power of war, but we don't hear much of the power of peace, and you

will note that that eagle is not looking toward the arrows, that eagle is looking toward the olive branch. and the reason why the american eagle was placed by our founding fathers with an olive branch is because they always wanted america to be looking for peace and i'm sad to say that we have forgotten that. this message from our founding fathers from over 200 years ago, we've forgotten that but it's still here in our pockets today and on our dollar bills to remind us that the founding fathers wanted us to be looking not for war but for peace. and what is that power that peace has? that power what peace has, the power to educate your children, the power to maintain your own health and the health of other citizens, the power to build roads and hospitals and bridges

and the power of war is the power to destroy all of that. and that's why our founding fathers warned us against foreign entanglements and why our founding fathers reminded us in the great seal to be looking all the time to peace and not to war. . and the soviet union stopped doing it in the 1990's. too late to save the soviet union. and to a large degree, the destruction of the soviet union came from a disrespect from the power of peace and worship for the power of war. let's hope that we recognize that mistake and let's hope we

don't repeat it in iraq and afghanistan, wherever the next war might be. in washington, d.c., you hear much discussion of leadership. everyone wants to claim that mantle. i'm a leader, she's a leader, i'm a leader. the kind of leadership we need right now very badly and that is the leadership that looks into future and recognizes what is inevitable and tries to make it come sooner. i have no doubt in my mind that one day the war in afghanistan will be over. i have no doubt in my mind that one day the war in iraq will be over. the question is when. we are the strongest country on earth, the strongest country that the earth has ever seen. we end a war when we decide to end a war and i submit to you that that time has come. there is no force on earth that will make us end the war. we have to do it now. we have to fight for the power

of peats. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- fight for the power of peace. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. foxx of north carolina. mr. holt of new jersey. mr. holt: madam speaker, today, members received another classified briefing on our policy in afghanistan, a briefing that raised questions that need answers before our country commits further troops. these are not loaded questions or simply rhetorical but real questions and some of the real questions that people in central new jersey are asking. with this proposed troop increase bring us closer to killing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks? if the al qaeda realm napts americans are seeking to capture or kill are on the pakistani side of the border or in yemen or east africa how will more

troops help us to get those terrorists who attacked us on september 11 or might attack us in the future? should we send troops to where al qaeda isn't? should we expand our aerial strikes? would an escalation in air attacks do more good than harm? is our intelligence capable of giving our military and political leaders the intelligence they need to wage this war? given our lack of foreign language capabilities do we know what is going on in the farms, towns and villages. ? does the deterioration result from americans have taken or failed to take and if so, how do we avoid those problems in a surged military action? and what constitutes victory or success in this conflict? what is it that we hope to leave behind once we exit afghanistan? and what can we reasonably hope

to leave behind? is the afghan government a viable partner? is it viewed as legitimate by the afghan people? do the people have the same dedication to human rights, education and public welfare as we do? if so, how will our military troops bring improvements in those areas? do the afghan people have the same revullings to corruption? can the afghan forces be expanded quickly? is president karzai correct that he needs extensive military u.s. security assistance for 15 or 20 more years? will such assistance require the use of many private security contract tors? if so, what will a reliance cost the american taxpayer if contractors are employed, do the state and defense department have sufficient oversight members of the committee nisms to ensure they operate more legally than they have in, for

example, iraq? what lessons from afghanistan's history can we learn about the population's reaction to long-term presence? could afghanistan degenerate into a civil war as happened in iraq? is the government of pakistan a viable partner? are they serious about helping us? are elements of their military and security services still supporting the afghan taliban who are attacking our troops? what if the president is overthrown as has happened with previous leaders? will our allies actually provide the troops the president is requesting and if they commit 10,000 troops and we have 90 troops, will it be seen as an international effort or american war? if there are casualties, will nations pull out of afghanistan and leave our troops to bear the burden? should we pay for the war openly and up front or commit troops

and consider how to pay later? how would we pay for such an escalation, including the long-term costs of caring for our wouppeded veterans? is the department of veteran affairs hiring another counselors to treat the number of veterans who need counseling and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder? do we know how to treat ptsd? what should we make of the fact that the estimated $100 billion we'll spend on the war each year is equal to the costs of the health reform bill each year that we are debating now? are there alternatives to the president's approach that congress and the nation should explore? what is truly the best way to secure our country against future terrorist attacks? are we putting the right emphasis on a military approach to counterterrorism policy?

when they recruit terrorists over the internet, are we fighting on the right battlefield in afghanistan? are we doing enough at home to prevent future tragedies like the one that occurred at fort hood. fulfilling our constitutional obligations regarding matters of war and peace requires that congress get answers to these questions and many more and help the american people get these answers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house and speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker, and i join my colleagues as a member of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia, on the house foreign affairs committee. today our committee debated a very important nirttive dealing

with iran sanctions, but it is interesting that we find ourselves in one domino effect after another. iran, iraq and then by extension, afghanistan and pakistan. today i rise with a plea to this government and to the state department to save those who are now huddled at the camp in iraq. this government that we have propped up, that we have seen thousands of our treasure lost in iraq so we could have a democratic government so that it would have its own boundaries and own sovreignty and would not be a puppet of some other country. yet iranian dissidents are huddled and fearful of their lives. we are more concerned about a desire to move the camp to

someplace else inside iraq. the expectation is they would try to move them to a different location in iraq and that would lead to bloodshed. iraqi authorities say we must not forcibly relocate and force them and put them at risk to arrest, torture and unluffle killing. i have met with the iranians, their families, many of whom who are in this camp, a niece, a mother, a brother, and they have no relief. they have no refuge but us. and so it is crucial that we intervene with the present iraqi government seemingly sometimes a puppet of iran, to not in anyway cause the bloodshed and loss of these dear souls. all they wanted to do is be in freedom. yes, they have disagreement with the present government, but they

are refugees in the world order and they are fleeing oppression. and let me tell you where iraq wants to send these huddled few thousand who simply want to be left alone, who have already been under the eye of the storm, who have seen loved ones lost bloodshed inside the camp. they want to send them to the east of this area and resting place for tribes. moving sandy hills, which in the summer reached temperatures of 158 degrees under the heat of the sun, prevent growth of plants and prevention of waterways and toilets for the tribes. some of the wild trees which cover a small part of the area are desperate to survive during sandstorms and the relocation of sand hills. many of them have been trapped, while many others are taken with the sandstorm to locations,

dozens of miles away. this is where the members of the camp will be sent. a vast desert of death. it is imperative that this government we have propped up and sent our soldiers to die for, won't kill dissidents who simply want to live in peace. i hope we can reach our government to provide safe solace fonch -- for them. the question of who might attempt toll supply refined gasoline to iran or enhance their oil refinery. this is to make a firm stance against iran's nuclear proliferation and a stance against its abuses and penetration in countries around the area, including iraq, where

they cannot seem to be independent enough that they would do the bidding of the iranian government and try to move these innocent people, women, men and children to a place where they will surely die. i'm grateful in the language that was submitted in this bill that my language was kept that had to do with concerns of human rights in iran and that this was put in the findings. it is important that we acknowledge that throughout 2009, the government of iran has violated the rights of its citizens. and it is important for the united states to support the dissidents inside iran who charge the government with irregular and illegal election. i hope that we can move forward in saving these lives. madam speaker, as i close on pakistan and afghanistan, pakistan is a ally to the united states in trying to bring peace

to afghanistan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. lummis is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam speaker. thisening's speaker is the fellow fresh men and an honor to serve with you, madam speaker. thank you for your time this evening as we proceed into the christmas season. wer as fresh men republicans, going to spend some time with you reviewing the episodes of the last 10 months, where are we in terms of america's fiscal house, where have we been in the last 12 months and more importantly where are we going as we prepare for the new year 2010.

i am i am joined this evening by my colleague, leonard lance of new jersey and we will be joined by other freshmen republican colleagues throughout the next 60 minutes and we look forward to this opportunity to cover these subjects with you this evening. we began our freshman year by approving a $350 billion tarp extension without accounting for the first half of the tarp. we then moved into a $787 billion stimulus package, $1.1 trillion if you include interest and steve austria will be discussing this evening how that and other bills were shaped by the fact that they were done without the kind of transparency that we expected to see when we came here and which our new president campaigned on. we then moved into a $410

billion addition to the 2009 budget. we then moved into bills that would take over the financial services industry, the automobile industry, the student loan industry that created the largest tax increase in history by way of enormous cap and trade bill that places a tax on every single american that consumes energy and we passed about a month ago in this house, a health care bill that created an additional, roughly $1 trillion in obligations for this nation. that bill now being debated in the united states senate. during the course of this year, all of those complicated pieces of legislation, which were passed frequently without the opportunity to read the full bill, created enormous debts for this nation.

and we want to talk about t fiscal picture this evening. before we do, i want to yield to my colleague, mr. austria, to discuss the issues of transparency and the issues of the speed in which of which that complicated and lengthy legislation was brought to the floor. mr. austria. . mr. austria: i thank the congresswoman from wyoming for her hard work here in congress and for putting this freshmen special order together this evening. i think it's a great opportunity for us as new members of congress to be able to give our point of views as to coming to congress, as to what we're seeing and how we think we can do better in the future. but i thank you for putting that together and as our class president i think you would agree with me that we have a lot of talent that came in with this freshmen class on both sides of the aisle and i think most of us would probably say it's been very challenging, to say the least our freshmen year, but

we're all committed to working very hard to represent our constituents and that means listening to our constituenting and understanding what they're talking about. i think this week -- constituents and understanding what they're talking about and i think this week marks a defining moment for our nation. as we finish our first year in congress our national debt continues to grow. it's now over $12 trillion as government encroaches into every aspect of our life. and i fear that this administration and this congress, as they continue this outrageous spending and the running up of debt, that we're reaching a point of no return and it will take another piece of our liberty with it. i served 10 years in the state legislature in ohio before i came to congress. and in ohio we were forced to balance our budget. that meant tough decisions sometimes. we were willing to make those tough decisions and those 10 years in congress i think were a good learning experience and a training ground for congress but

i don't think anything could have prepared us for what we've seen these first 12 months in congress. if you think back to when we were sworn in and when the president came in after his inauguration, in the first sentence of his executive offered -- order, president obama stated, my administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. in november of 2006 speaker pelosi pledged to lead the most honest and most open congress in history. yet when we've seen in our first year is that time and time again this congressional leadership has ran through costly bills with devastating consequences for america's small businesses and working families, that no member of congress in many cases had an opportunity to even read and i think that's outrageous as a freshman in congress. if we put things in perspective, the first four or five months in congress we were faced with voting on the second half of the bailouts, the tarp bill, the

$700 billion for the financial markets. we were asked to vote on a $400 billion omnibus bill that contained over 9,000 earmarks. we were asked to vote on a stimulus bill, a 1,073-page nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill that was posted online at 10:00 p.m. the night before it came up for a vote. and that not one member of congress had an opportunity to read before we voted on that. and i think that's unacceptable and outrageous. we should have an opportunity to read the bills before we vote on it and that bill, as we found out, contains a tremendous amount of infusion of government spending, expansion of government. it wasn't targeted on helping small business create jobs, small businesses that can sustain those jobs over the long run. then we moved into the month of june and we took up an energy policy known as the climate change bill or cap and trade bill. when we -- what we saw was at

the very end an amendment that was tacked onto a $1,200-page bill which turned out to be a national energy tax bill at 3:00 a.m. in the morning that came up for a vote that again the member of congress didn't have an opportunity to read and fully understand what was in that bill before we voteden to. that's unacceptable in my opinion -- voted on it. that's unacceptable in my opinion. that's a bill that's not good for midwest states like ohio think a represent. in ohio nearly 90% of our energy comes from coal. this bill in my opinion is going to cause unemployment and raise the cost of energy for ohioans and americans across this country. and during a time when we're going through a difficult economic time, that's not a good thing. this freshmen class then came together as you know, as the congresswoman from wyoming, you know, because you participated in this, congresswoman lummis, and that was we had a press conference. we were upset about not having the opportunity to read this bill. as a freshmen class we came before the national press and we

expressed our concerns about having an opportunity to read the bill before we vote on it. and the importantsy of having that transparency, the importance of letting the american people know what we're voting on here in congress. what we saw shortly after that and we saw a number of people come to congress the day before or a couple days before we voted on the health care reform bill. what we saw was rolled out shortly after that press conference was a 2,000-page health care reform bill. that we spent days setting up a reading room to try to read through and understand what was in that bill. and try to get that message out to the american public. and what we found was it was a huge spending bill again. a trillion-dollar health spending bill that would raise premiums for many people who would pay for that, increase taxes by over $700 billion, most of that burden is being put on small businesses to pay for the health care reform bill. when we should have been focused on lowering costs and making it more accessible, more accessible

to families and maintaining the doctor-patient relationship. so we can do better and what has all of this led to? it's led to a tremendous amount of debt. we're now borrowing 50 cents on every dollar that we spend. and i have three teenage boys at home and i didn't come to congress to run up these type of debts. and what we're doing is we're further increasing our nation's debt and placing an astronomical amount of debt and burden on the backs of our children and our grandchildren and that's unacceptable. and what we're seeing as a result of this tremendous amount of spending, this runaway spending, this huge amount of debt, is we're seeing unemployment now reach the highest it's been in recent decades, at over 10%. and that's unacceptable. it's time that this administration and this congress understand that government spending of -- alone is not going to turn this economy around. we need to be helping our small business, we need to stop government spending, we need to stop increasing our debt and we need to be focused on helping

those that create jobs across this country, the economic engine across this country, and that is our small businesses. we have it backwards. i think as a freshmen class, we meet on a regular basis, and one of the things that we've talked about is how we believe that americans that we in congress -- that americans -- that we in congress should allow americans, the small businesses, the taxpayers, give the money back to them, give them an opportunity to invest it back in the economy and sustain jobs. but unfortunately what's happening here is we've got it backwards. congress is taking the american people's tax dollars and government thinks that it knows how to spend those dollars better than the american people and they've got it backwards and unfortunately what's happening is that this leadership in congress is brokering deals behind closed doors, they're not listening to the american people and their constituents and that message is very clear to me and that is that more government is not the answer.

and with that i will yield back to the congresswoman from wyoming and again i thank you for having this special order tonight with our freshmen class. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from ohio and the consequence of what the gentleman from ohio pointed out is illustrated in this chart. here is the federal budget deficit when we began as members of congress. the budget when we came in had a $459 billion deficit or just under a half a trillion dollar deficit but since we've been here this amount of roughly a half a trillion has been increased by almost a trillion, $950 billion in increases, from 2008. for a total of over $1.4 trillion in deficits. now how did we get there? a $-- $320 billion of that roughly is from lower tax receipts due to the recession. that's roughly 27 million americans who are either unemployed or underemployed and

they're paying less in taxes. as are businesses and as are our families. so we're experiencing lower tax receipts because of our recession. in addition the stimulus bill has added $200 billion to our deficit for this year alone, half is spending and half in lower taxes. then an additional $154 billion for bailouts for financial institutions and the auto industry. $91 billion in bailouts for fannie mae and freddie mac. those, of course, are the g.m.a.'s set to housing programs. $73 million in unemployment benefits due to the recession, again, associated with this loss in tax revenue due to the fact that so many americans are unemployed and the fact that the stimulus dollars that we spent were not adequately weighted toward infrastructure

construction like what the bill that mr. austria and mr. lance and i co-sponsored at the beginning of this year. and then $112 billion in other accumulated bills throughout the course of this year have gotten us to this point. $1.4 trillion in deficit. now i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, to talk more about what are the consequences of all this debt? mr. lance: thank you very much, congresswoman lums, for your leadership and certainly it is a pleasure to be associated with this special order and i commend you for your knowledge about what is occurring here in washington. it's also a pleasure, always, to see our distinguished freshman colleague, congresswoman dahlkemper, in the chair. madam speaker, i rise today to draw this body's attention yet again to our ever increasing

national debt. in the next day or so we're going to be asked to vote to raise our nation's statutory debt limit. back in april the democratic majority voted to raise the debt ceiling here in the house by $800 billion. and that would increase it to $13.29 trillion. that bill is still pending in the nat -- senate. now we are being told that due to the pace of spending of the administration and the congressional majority an $800 billion increase in the debt ceiling will not be enough to get us through this fiscal year. we've been told that we will ultimately need to raise the debt limit by nearly $2 trillion and that will be a total debt ceiling of roughly $14 trillion. some blame the previous administration and the previous majority for our current fiscal situation. the fact is that the $2 trillion increase needed for next year is

roughly equal to the total budget deficits from 2001 to 2008. it is also true that prior to the onset of the economic crisis the budget deficit had been decreasing for the previous three fiscal years. reaching a low of $160 billion in 2007. 2008 then saw a dramatic increase in the deficit as we started dealing with the fiscal crisis and we hit a $454.8 billion yearly deficit in 2008. unfortunately the deficit for fiscal year 2009 which ended on september 30 nearly quadrupled to $1.47 trillion due to the tarp program as congresswoman lummis has explained and spending in the stimulus bill and other aspects of spending this year. now we are being told that for

2010 we must go another $2 trillion in debt. i implore our colleagues to stand with us in insisting that we get this spending under control and do so now. the pace of irresponsible spending is not only on sustainable -- is not only unsustainable, it's a matter of national security. this congress must impose some kind of restriction on spending and i will not be supporting any increase in our statutory debt limit unless it is directly attached to implementation of a bipartisan commission tasked with advising congress on how to get its spending under control as quickly as possible. i remain disappointed to hear that a $2 trillion increase may be attached to a bill to fund the military, including funding for our brave men and women currently serving in combat in iraq and afghanistan.

we all wholeheartedly support our military and believe it should be provided the funding it needs. the attempt however to use the military as a political tool to pass a potentially massive increase in our debt limit is terrible public policy. there should be an up or down vote on raising our debt ceiling. as a matter of history, madam speaker, in this decade in 2001, there was a budget surplus of $128 billion. in 2002, the deficit for that year was $157 billion. the next year, $377 billion. the next year, $412 billion. the year after that, $318 billion, the year after that, $248 billion, the year of that $160 billion, a total for the eight prior years from 2001 to

2008 of $2 trillion. that is eight years. i am not excusing that. that is a great deal of money. this year, however, in the fiscal year that ended on september 30, we had a one-year deficit of $1.47 trillion. $2 trillion over the eight years from 2001 to 2008, and in the fiscal year that ended this september 30, roughly $1.5 trillion and that will be replicated again this year in the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves. >> will the gentleman yield briefly? the consequence of of what you're saying is the chart that appears here. the interest payments on that debt create a check marc. -- a check mark. in other words, this is 2008, the beginning of this chart.

we are seeing a dede-cline in the interest dollars were paying, but here we are, the end of twune, and from here on, because of the accumulated $2 trillion you discussed over the earlier part of this tech cade and then the additional $1.4 trillion of this year alone, boy, those interest payments take off. it creates a -- creates this check mark effect, so at the end of this chart, 2019, the u.s. net interest payments, $800 billion, that's as much as the stimulus bill we passed at the beginning of this year. i yield back. mr. lance: congresswoman lummis has pointed out what we're going to face over the course of the decade. we have to pay interest first before we feed hungry children, before we engage in housing for

those who need house, an jobs before we -- for those who need jobs. before we even fund the military, we have to fund our debt. it crowds out other needed spending and makes it difficult for there to be borrowing in the private sector, raising interest rates in the private sector to get the economy moving again. it is also ultimately a matter of national security because who is purchasing our debt? it is being purchased by foreign nations, by china, saudi arabia, and by other nations across the globe and ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune. this is a matter of national security and undoubtedly the american people will recognize now what congress has not yet recognized, and that is, we have to get our federal spending under control. no one in congress thinks that we can balance the budget this

year. however, we need a glide path toward a balanced budget and instead we have a rocket in the other direction with ever-rising levels of annual deficits. c.b.o. predicts that by the end of this next decade, our total debt may approach $20 trillion. that is simply unacceptable. it places an undue burden on the next generation. for the first time in the history of this country, there is an open question whether the next generation will have a higher quality of life than this generation. the promise of -- the promise of america has always been that each generation works as hard as possible to make sure our children will have a higher quality of life, whether or not we will have a second american century here in the 21st century, the way the 20th century was an american century, is now in question, based upon this fundamental issue that confronts all of us

in congress that is the issue of out of control federal spending and a massive debt that is increasing enormously. let me state, madam speaker, that in the 1990's, with a democratic president, president clinton, and a republican congress, we did a better job. in 1997, the annual deficit that year was $21 billion. the next year, there was a surplus of $69 billion. the next year a surplus of $125 billion. the next year a surplus of $236 billion. that's in year 2000. the last year of the clinton presidency. and in the first year of the presidency of george w. bush, a surplus of $128 billion. i want to give credit to president clinton and also to the republican congress then in power and i think that it is a

responsibility of the presidency and the congress working together. in the eight years of the bush presidency, six years with republican control of the house and senate, there was a combined debt in those eight years of $2 trillion and in this last year, the fiscal year that ended on september 30, we had in that one year a deficit of $1.5 trillion and this year, we're going to have that amount yet again. i implore the white house to get serious on this issue of annual federal deficits and the overall federal debt. we, the republican freshmen, want to do our part. we came here to reform the system. we want to reform the system in a bipartisan way. congresswoman lummis is taking the lead for the freshman class

on this, in my judgment, the most important issue confronting the american nation, as important as reforming the health care system. as important as the burden that we share with others around the world, including the brave young men and women who fight in afghanistan and iraq because this, the dead issue is a mat -- the debt issue is a matter of national security as well as a matter of economic prosperity. i yield back to the congresswoman. mrs. lummis: i applaud the gentleman from new jersey for his view that we need to have, tied to an increase in the national debt, a mechanism that will begin to address this problem. one of the mechanisms is one that you mentioned that you support, legislation that would create a commission to begin to advise us on this structural deficit. and this chart illustrates why

this structural deficit is so much worse than it's ever been and one of the points in this chart you brought up in your discussion, and that was a point right here, this is the years when we have the clinton presidency and a republican congress and you saw tax revenues increasing over expenditures as a percentage of g.d.p. and creating the surplus that you discussed. what's really interesting about this chart is the fact that it runs from the 1970's, actually from the year 1969 to 2009. so it's a 40-year chart, that compares spending to g.d.p., taxes to g.d.p., and then the deficit to g.d.p. the amazing thing is that when you look at gross domestic product, that is the value of everything we produce in this country every year, and you use that as your constant, we chair that over 40 years to the way

congress has spent money, the way congress has taken in taxes, and then to the deficit, what you see is remarkable stability. remarkable stability for 40 years. it's always hovered around a little over 20% of g.d.p. in terms of spending, and around 18% in terms of taxes. there has been a structural deficit for all those years of roughly $2.-- of roughly 2.4%, means for about 40 years we've taken in a little bit less in taxes than we've taken in -- than we've spent. and so it's created some deficits over time. but even the deficits have hovered within that average of about 2.4%, the average spending, it's the dotted line down here, remarkably stable.

over 40 years. now look at what's happening in the future. these are projections. the sources are the congressional budget office and the office of management and budget. we're talking about government agencies that are projecting this. here's the line where we begin the next decade, starting in january. spending and taxes separate dramatically. as you can see, the year 2009, which is illustrated by this tremendous separation right here, this is where we are now. and the reason we've taken in less taxes is because of the recession. but the reason that we spent so much are all the bills that we discussed from the beginning of this hour. it's just become completely out of the realm of anything we've

ever seen in the last 40 years. so it creates a structural deficit, meaning a very, very wide gap, going forward, between taxes and spending. this gap is projected by c.b.o. to be between 5% and 6%, more than twice of what it's ever been over the last 40 years and it goes on and on from there, so you can see the projected deficit in the decade coming forward, down here, is an enormous gap over what it's been. that is what you were talking about when you said, will we give our children a better country than we received? and there's a real question about that now. and that's why we have to address it. i know you're on a committee where federal reserve chairman

ben bernanke has come, as am i, and said, you've got to come up with a plan to deal with this problem, this specific problem, the structural deficit. this is the structural deficit. it is caused by the mismatch between taxes and spending. and while we as partisans get under each other's skin by saying, democrats, you've spent too much, and the democrats saying, republicans, you gave tax cuts at a time when we were at war. well, we're both right. and now here we are. i yield back. mr. lance: thank you, congresswoman. -- mr. lance: thank you, congresswoman, madam speaker. the fact that spending has been at roughly 20% of g.d.p. for 40 years is note worthy. the chart that congresswoman

lummis has is informative and revealing. however we're entering a new era where, as a percentage of g.d.p., governmental spending is rising dramatically, to 25%. this is a significant and very disturbing difference. and the fact that over the next decade our projected deficits are so much larger than they have been historically as a percentage of g.d.p. is also disturbing and in a bipartisan fashion, we have to have a glide path toward fiscal responsibility. i think that it is impossible to balance the budget until we get out of this deep recession, but once we were out of this deep recession, in and -- and in my judgment we're still in the recession because unemployment rates are at 10%, the highest they've been since 1983, a generation ago, once we get out of this deep recession,

we have to have a plan to make sure that we move forward the historic average of no more than 20% of spending in the governmental sector at the federal level as a percentage of g.d.p. my own view is that we need a bipartisan commission to advise us, like the black commission, regarding the closing of military bases, then there can be an up or down vote on what is recommended by that commission here in congress. some oppose that, but do not provide an alternative as to how we're going to do a better job and to do nothing is to condemn the next generation to a lower standard of living. it is to condemn the next generation of businesses across this country with much higher interest rates because the government crowds out private sector borrowing. the government is the borrower of first resort.

of course ultimately, it could mean a lowering of the credit rating of the united states of america. obviously, we now have the highest credit rating, but there are some who predict that over time that will not occur and there are some who predict there should be a new currency worldwide, that the dollar should no longer be the currency favored across the world. obviously, all of us in congress, including freshmen republicans who are discussing this issue tonight, favor a continuation of the american currency, the dollar, as the currency that is honored across the world, but the chinese, for example, have floated the idea that there should be a new international currency, not the dollar, regarding international trade. this is as a result of the fact of these ever-rising deficits year in and year out, a result of the fact of an overwhelming federal debt, now at $12 trillion.

in the next week before christmas, we'll be asked to raise it to $14 trillion. we're not going to be asked to raise it on a stand-alone vote on that issue, it is going to be part of a bill related, i believe, to the military. i call again for a stand-alone vote on this issue and that stand-alone vote, madam speaker, should include the establishment of some sort of mechanism to get a handle on this situation, this, the midwest critical issue confronting us not only economically but also as a matter of national security, i yield back to the congresswoman. wyoming wyoming i -- mrs. lummis: the federal government is overleveraged. meaning we've taken on too much debt. both of the federal reserve, while they've been trying to help our banking system right itself, and we in congress by

not recognizing that in this recession we, too, should be making sure that government isn't growing in an outsized way when it is in fact the private sector that creates wealth. we are joined by the gentleman from colorado who is on the small business committee and small businesses in our communities are really hurting, as are community banks. among the things that we have talked about with the federal reserve chairman is the issue of how community banks sometimes have loans that are performing, that every year the borrower is making the payments, principal and interest. but when bank regulators come in and look at those loans they're worried that the asset that is backing that borrower might be a little shaky. so they might require the bank to write down that loan even though its performing -- it's performing. i know that the federal reserve

chairman says that should not be happening if the regulator is the federal reserve because they've instructed their regulators not to do that but 'also know there are multiple regulators -- but we also know there are multiple regulators and some of these regulators are still requiring that these loans be written down, that is a tremendous disservice to our community banks and to their borrowers whose loans are performing and i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, congresswoman lummis. that certainly is the case. i think that smaller banks in the united states are paying for the since of the larger banks and they've had the control of the currency as has come down on these banks and has mandated a 20% increase in their capital requirements and that's forced them as well to pull back on lending and so credit is really the life blood of small business, small business is the economic engine in terms of jobs

for this country and so small businesses in my district and districts across this country are hard hit right now in terms of credit, in terms of their ability to get extensions on their credit lines, their ability to fund capital purchases and all these things have led to downward pressure in terms of their ability to be that employer, that engine that drives this economy. mrs. lummis: and we're finding that there are changes in our economy that exacerbate this. some of the things i'm discussing tonight have been influenced by an article that i read in the national journal by john maggs, which i commend to your attention, the date saturday november 27, 2009, the

national "journal," the name of the article, the debt problem is worse than you think. not a very uplifting title, but i think very reflective of the problems that we're in and that we on a bipartisan basis need to begin to address after the first of the year. this chart, -- this chart i found to be tremendously interesting. the source again the congressional budget office. look at how in the 1970's which are represented by this quadrant of the chart then followed by the 1980's, 1990's and this first decade of the 21st century, look how much defense accounted for as a percentage of the federal budget -- near the end of the vietnam war or this at i guess 1969ers probably the height of the vietnam -- 1969, probably the height of the vietnam war. a tremendous amount was spent on

defense and very little on medical care for the indigent and the elderly. as a percentage of our federal budget. whereas social security and nondefense discretionary funding which is, of course, what we spend most of our time talking about here in congress, have been remarkably stable over that time. defense has dropped dramatically over time. here you see the decade that then caused the buildup into the end of the cold war and then you see it declining, the peace dividend as we called it during the 1990's which alloyed -- allowed congress and the president to balance the budget. it has stabilized at a point of about 20% even in this decade that we have just completed. so it's amazing how much defense has declined as a portion of the

federal budget. but what's equally amazing is the amount in which medicare and medicaid have risen as a portion of our federal debt or rather our federal spending and increasing. this is an ever-increasing line, the red line, because of people like the three of us in this room. we are all baby boomers and as this massive generation approaches retirement and medicare that number is just going to go up and up. so unless we address medicare in particular as part of this commission that you mentioned we're not going to get there and i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lance: thank you very much for yielding, congresswoman lummis. in 1982 and 1983 president reagan established a bipartisan

commission to deal with the issue of social security and based upon that bipartisan commission action occurred here in the congress with the support of the administration that have the result -- had the result of making social security solvent for almost a generation. we now have another challenge regarding social security and particularly medicare and medicaid. and i think we should replicate what occurred in 1982 and 1983 with a republican president, president reagan, and a democratically controlled house of representatives and the democratic party controlled the house of representatives from 1954 until 1994, for 40 years, we should come together in a bipartisan fashion to establish another commission to deal with the enormous federal debt and this commission could also have the responsibility perhaps to

discuss and evaluate the medicare and medicaid and social security issues, perhaps there should be a second commission for that, but it is clear based upon the chart that congresswoman lummis has in front of the chamber that medicare and medicaid are rising rapidly. the largest cohort is the baby boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964. those of us who are on the floor this evening are in that generation. obviously congresswoman lummis is at the end of that cohort whereas congressman coffman and i are in the middle of that cohort. let me say that it is the responsibility of us working together to address this issue. let me also say that we count funds that go into the social security trust fund as part of federal revenues and if we had

segregated them separately our annual deficits would be even higher than they are and when i state that the deficit for the year that ended september 30 of roughly $1.5 trillion, precisely $1.47 trillion, that includes the moneys that are paid into the social security fund. so if we were to place them in a separate pot of money the annual deficit would be even higher than it already is. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? mr. lance: i certainly will. mrs. lummis: and will the gentleman remind us to whom has the so-called social security trust fund been lent? and i yield back. mr. lance: thank you. it has been lent to the fact that we are funding these programs that we cannot pay and really the deficit is much

higher than that and medicare will be in the red in the next several years and social security not too far beyond that. mrs. lummis: so, will the gentleman yield? mr. lance: certainly. mrs. lummis: are you telling me that social security dollars that americans paid into a social security trust fund have been lent to the federal government to spend on these programs we've been discussing tonight? and i yield back. mr. lance: i thank you for yielding, congresswoman. absolutely 100% accurate. it is not going for the purposes for which it is intended based upon the social security program established in 1935. i do believe that those who established the social security program, franklin roosevelt, distinguished members of congress, including sam rayburn, francis perkins at the secretary of labor, that that generation would be appalleded by how we use -- appall by how we use

social security funds in this -- aballed by how we use social security -- appalled by how we use social security funds. mr. coffman: thank you, congresswoman lummis. i think there is a fear of the american people as well as some of us in congress that are here tonight discussing this issue and that is that the health reform bill that is past the house and they're debating iterations of it over in the united states senate, that both versions, the one that's being debated in the senate that we're aware of, and that which was passed in the how it's, plants the seeds for -- house, plants the seeds for new entitlements. so i think the american people are distrust. they know what government promised in terms of what the impact of social security would be. they can remember what the impact of what medicare would be and how explosive the realities of those are in terms of federal deficits and now the rising debt for this country and how damaging that will be and so i

think that there is real concern and that concern is very legitimate. and so i think that before the congress of the united states engages in new entitlements it needs to take care of the ones that we have and to get them under control so that they don't totally envelope this country's budget and capacity to borrow. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? is it true that the health care bill that passed the house of representatives a few weeks ago accumulated about seven years of taxes and fees to pay -- excuse me, 10 years of taxes and fees to pay six or seven years of benefits? and i yield back. mr. coffman: thank you, congresswoman lummis. yes, that's accurate because what it did is, i don't think the benefits start -- were effective until 2013 but the taxes started right away. so it's deceptive in terms of saying that you have to use some fuzzy math, some new accounting,

new-age accounting, to be able to say that it's deficit neutral. mrs. lummis: so will the gentleman yield? are you saying that then 10 years of taxes are going begin right away under the house health care bill and the benefits are not going to begin to be paid out until year 2013? mr. coffman: that's correct. mrs. lummis: and so what happens at the end of 10 years? mr. coffman: then, as in all it seems like programs that congress starts that unfortunately historically they've been financially disingenuous, because at that point in time clearly we are moving forward into a deficit situation. mrs. lummis: so you're telling me that there's going to be a structural deficit in the very health care bill that we passed in addition to the structural deficit we've been discussing tonight? and i yield back. mr. coffman: welcome to government accounting. and i think that that's unfortunate.

but i would hope that the american people would grow to understand this particular issue and ought to express their concern to their members of congress because we already have deficits and debts that are out of control and i believe that can very well choke off the ability for this economy to ever recover because of interest rates and inflation that are derivinged from deficits, prolonged deficit spending. so this is merely going to exacerbate the problem. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from colorado for raising that point and i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. coffman: i thank think gentlewoman. this could bring about generational conflict. we rely on the working generation for the taxes they pay. not only income tax but payroll taxes such as social security and medicare. if the next generation, beginning in the work force, is going to should they are tremendous burden regarding our

debt, and in addition, shoulder a tremendous burden regarding social security and medicare and medicaid, there is the potential of generational conflict and it is incumbent upon those of white house serve here to make sure that that generational conflict does not occur and it is the height of river sponsability and might i suggest, it is indeed immoral to place on the backs of the next generation this ever-increasing federal debt. this is new in its percentage, as you have rightly pointed out, over the course of the last generation. spending has been at roughly 20% of g.d.p., it is beginning -- going to expand greatly to 25%. some have indicated, some economists, that it may increase to 30% of g.d.p. that's a dramatic and unprecedented expansion.

the yearly deficit for the fiscal year that just ended on september 30 was the most amount of money as a yearly deficit, as a percentage of g. d.p., since 1945, at the end of world war ii when we were fighting for our existence and obviously during world war ii, the most extensive war in the history of the human condition, we were in a situation where we had to have deficit spending. but the fiscal year that ended on september 30, 2009, had the highest annual deficit as a percentage of g.d.p. since 1945 and let me repeat that i believe that in this new fiscal year that runs from october 1, 2009, until september 30, 2010, we are likely to have an annual deficit that approaches the $1.5 trillion annual deficit of last year. this is simply unacceptable and before we raise the debt

ceiling, as the majority intends to do in the next week, we should have a fundamental discussion about where we are headed and we certainly should have an up or down vote in this regard. i have written the speaker of the house for an up or down vote. i am joined by fresh american republican colleagues in this request and instead, we are likely to have a vote that is part of a larger appropriations act for the defense department. i yield back. mrs. lummis: i yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: i thank the gentlewoman from wyoming. congresswoman lummis, i think you and i were both state treasurers, you from wyoming, me from the state of colorado, and one thing we had, i know, i'm sure you had in wyoming, a balanced budget requirement. every year you had to balance the budget. it created a sense of fiscal discipline you had to make tough decisions. you couldn't have everything

and drive your state into deficits and further into debt. so it -- what is absolutely essential to have in the congress of the united states is a balanced budget requirement. the tradeoffs have to be made where hard decisions have to be made. where there has to be a reference point that at the end of the day, revenues have to equal expenditures. without that, i really fear for the future of the country. i think for the first time in hi life when we look at these deficits, look at the debt, when we think about the future of the country, and i know that democrats have pointed to republicans and said, you did it in the past. so now it's our turn. well, but -- i used to use that with my mother when i was growing up, i said, all the other kids are doing it and my mother didn't buy it, and the american people aren't buying it today. they realize, i think, that they have an unease about what's going on in the congress of the united states.

they have an extraordinary feeling of insecurity about what is happening in this country, not simply because the way the economy is right now, but they understand that the political class in washington, led by the majority party, is pushing this country over a cliff, and the american people get it. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? i'd like to quote, the alarm you expressed is shared by others. i would like to quote one sentence from this article to which i referred earlier, by john mack in the national journal, the debt problem is worse than you think, for your reaction. simply put, even alarmists may be underestimating the size of the problem, how quickly it will become unbearable, and how poorly prepared our political system is to deal with it. your reaction? mr. coffman: the tragedy of what i've seen in my first year

here in congress, as one of your fellow freshmen here, is that it is all about the politics of the moment. it is all about the immediacy of how can we placate the american people through spending, and not the consequences of what's going to happen to the next generation. the only thing is, it's done at such a rapid pace right now that it's going to envelop this generation even before it hits the next generation in terms of adverse effects. i think it's extraordinary. i believe that the deficits are such, and i think the american people are beginning to understand that unless congress can control its spending, that the ability for this economy to ever fully recover, that the consequences of this level of debt in terms of higher inflation, in terms of higher interest rates, will choke off this economy's ability to ever

fully recover. in addition, the situation is so bad that internationally, the focus is on the united states and the mismanagement of fiscal policy, where you have a country like china, the largest holder of u.s. public debt, foreign holder of u.s. public debt, stating their concern. about what america is doing to itself. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? mr. coffman: yes. mrs. lummis: are you prepared to say the republicans were wrong when they simultaneously passed medicare part d, the bush tax cuts, and tried to sustain that during during wartime? are you prepared to say that? mr. coffman: they were absolutely wrong. mrs. lummis: i'd like to ask the gentleman from new jersey, do you agree with that? mr. lance: i campaigned last year against the policies -- the republican president and a republican-controlled congress that had these deficits, i point out that over the eight

jurors, there was a $2 trillion deficit that was too large, it's even larger now and we have to work in a bipartisan fashion to get this under control. let me also say that i commend both the congresswoman from wyoming and the congressman from colorado, both having been state treasurers, because you had constitutions in your state that required a balanced budget. unfortunately, in new jersey, we've had a system where we have borrowed without voter approval for about 15 years. that was put to an end last november when we changed our state constitution. my constitutional amendment, the lance amendment that prohibits further borrowing in new jersey without voter approval, new jersey is in the equivalent situation of california and we have not discussed here the fact that there are quite a few states, including california and new jersey, that have tremendous

annual deficits and of course this comes out of the other pocket of taxpayers in these states and taxpayers are burdened not only here at the federal level but at the state level as well and i certainly agree that we have to work in a bipartisan capacity and i also agree with my colleague from colorado that simply because in the first decade of this century, the eight years from 2001 to 2008, there was a deficit of $2 trillion, that does not mean we should continue on this route and indeed accelerate on this route of irresponsible spending. two wrongs do not make a right and i agree with my colleague from colorado and my late mother, when my twin brother and i were children in the little town of glenn garden, huntington county, new jersey, we would say, other kids are doing that, and my mother would say, i don't care what other

kids are doing, you're not going to do that. we have to acknowledge what's occurred in the past, recognize there's been overspending, there's overspending now, it has accelerated. a yearly deficit of $1.5 trillion to be replicated, in my judgment this year, this will mean leadership will pass to china or some other nation in the world and all of the democratic values we share together, freedom of speech in which i'm now engaged, freedom of sole and exclusive, together here on the -- of association and -- here on the floor of the house, and all these other freedoms we share together, will pass out of american leadership, we don't want that to pass to china or to india or some other country as a result of the mass i federal deficits year in and year out and an overall federal debt now of $12 trillion and rising based upon nonpartisan congressional budget office analysis to $20

trillion in the course of the next 10 years or so. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? mr. lance: yes. mr. lummis: it is a rare man who has a constitutional amendment named after him. the lance amendment in new jersey will help get that state on the right track. we are beginning to summarize now. i go to the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: as freshmen, we went to an orientation, part of it was on the financial crisis. they said that it was right to do a stimulus, it was right to deficit spend, but it had to be very temporary. it had to end at -- in 2010 because the economy was expected to improve, and you

didn't want public sector borrowing colliding with greater demand for private sector borrowing. i also said it needed to be timely and fast acting and unfortunately, it hasn't been and also it needed to be targeted and they differed about what being targeted was. but the -- an interest -- it's interesting, the fact that they all felt you had to start controlling the deficit by the end of 2010 or you'd have dramatic effects on the ability of the economy to fully recover. it seem whence we look at the $787 billion stimulus bill, more money, i think, will be spent in 2011 than has been spent this year and hasn't been factored in. it certainly isn't temporary and it goes on and i would argue that it is not targeted, though the economists differed on what was targeted, but one thing they did say is -- they questioned if you went through the bureaucracy if you chose government to be the stimulus, would it be fast enough.

could the government bureaucracy, the federal government, move the money through fast enough? clearly we've been able to see it hasn't been able to get the money out the door to make a difference to the economy. mr. lummis: i wish to thank my republican colleague this is evening, the gentleman from ohio, the gentleman from new jersey and the gentleman from colorado. we are hoping that within the next year we'll see a bipartisan effort to address this problem and thank you, madam speaker. we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. sutton: i thank you and i am pleased to be here with my colleagues from new york, representative paul tonko, and i'm betty sutton and i proudly represent the 13th congressional district of ohio. i'm a member of the task force on job creation of our caucus

and in fact, i'm the co-chair and mr. tonko serves on that committee. we're here to talk about, today, just that we're here to talk about the need to create jobs, jobs, jobs in this country. both in the near term and for the long-term, that will be sustainable for our constituents and people across this great country. as we move forward, we have to make sure we secure an economy that will work for and with ordinary americans because we may recall that before the bush recession began, the republican recession began, the reality of it was we had an economy that wasn't working for many americans, already. before it went off the cliff. and so as we revitalize our economy, it's incredibly important that we don't just go back to the old ways where wall

street ran rampant and main street suffered, but yet that we create and facilitate, i guess, is a better word, facilitate an economy that will work for and with ordinary americans and that the prosperity of this great nation and the promise of the middle class will be prere-stored because that's what america is at its best. where the promise of the middle class is vibrant and well and thriving. so before the recession, before the republican recession hit in, the reality is productivity and profits were up. and as i said, wall street was reveling and ordinary americans, what was happening to them? their wages were flat at best. and so the task force is here to say enough is enough. we need an economy that offers

economic opportunity to people who live in neighborhoods across this country, who live in rural areas across this great country, not just those who make a living on wall street. so though the actions that we've taken, the american recovery and reinvestment act, have been helpful to many and in fact the c.b.o. has estimated that actually found that had has already created or retained 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, we still have an unemployment rate that is staggering at 10% and nearly 16 million americans out of work. so far too many americans across the country are without a job and far too many more are concerned about what tomorrow will bring, 40% of those who are unemployed have been jobless for at least half a year. so we know, representative tonko

and i have, that we have to put people back to work -- and i, that we have to put people back to work and it is not a simple fact, it is an ongoing task and in fact i say it's a mission because i've heard it said that we're in a jobless recovery. you have heard that, mr. tonko? mr. tonko: i have and that doesn't cut it with the american public, with middle class working families across this country, it simply does not cut it. but representative sutton, i do want to commend you for the leadership as co-chair of our task force on job creation. and i found your introducery comments to inspire a thought. let's really look at how this started. we went from a record surplus under the clinton administration to a record deficit. had we stayed the course the deficit reduction plan of president clinton would would have been completed -- would have been completed, it would

have completed its mission this year. we haven't seen deficit wipeout except for one presidency, that of andrew jackson. so this could have been an historic year, if we had stayed the course. what we found was that people will talk about the deficit which has driven -- the deficit has driven this recession which went longer and deeper than any forecasted and now it's the daunting task of all of us who serve here in washington to stop the bleeding and great indicators out there suggest, many key indicators suggest that that has happened and as you alluded to with 1.6 million additional jobs coming into the picture, direct and indirect measurement, we have also seen correspondenting to that a .3 to a .9% reduction in unemployment. that at least is welcome news that we could stop the bleeding

but now the overwhelming task, the challenge, is to grow this economy and how are we going to do that? there are a lot of needs out there that require us to create those jobs, to funnel the resource to those jobs, so as to improve america's competitiveness. we are asking our businesses and our workers to function in a global economy and there are investments that we can make, representative sutton, that will take us out of this economic catastrophe and allow us to climb back. but the last eight years have been devastating. they have put us into a deep financial hole and as we cleaned up the mess, as we put the war in iraq on line in the budget, as we took the doughnut hole that was created, that has hurt our seniors, who are medicare eligible, as they have had to reach into their pockets to work with medicare part d's doughnut hole, that was not put online in

a budget in a way that really reflected the cost of these programs and so now we have truth and honesty in our budgeting but that has produced an even deeper deficit because we're doing it with fairness and frankness, now with the task force and many members in a bipartisan, bicameral way, we hope, we can then get to the picture of job creation and that's what it's about right now in washington. how can we create the programming that will allow for the increase of jobs? be it at the energy-related field, in manufacturing, in our parks, in our municipal levels of government, with public safety, fire and police numbers, teachers in the classroom, all of these efforts need to be brought in and built, if we can, and we must build an innovation economy that will be sparked by our growing the competitive edge for our businesses so that we can win and retain and grow jobs. ms. sutton: representative tonko, i know that this is your

first term but it's hard to believe. i have to tell you, we are very inspired to have you here and you didn't arrive a moment too soon. the points that you make about the deficit, the surplus that, you know, was -- we were well established under president clinton into such an extraordinary deficit under the last administration, is a point that is a reality and unfortunately is one that we have to deal with, right? because, you know, fighting two wars that weren't paid for and as you point out, a lot of the costs done offline that weren't budgeted for. but it wasn't just an economic deficit that was created, it was this jobs deficit that was created, that we also are here to deal with, not only tonight, but until we resolve it. it has to be our mission. mr. tonko: right. some were shipped off into a foreign economy.

others simply evap waited -- evap waited and we saw in recommend -- evaporated and we saw in recommend numbers the losses that were out there because they simply could not compete and stay effective. i represent a capital region in new york state so we have the benefits, the buffer of public sector jobs, but our unemployment numbers are hanging near -- in excess of 9%. this is unacceptable. we need to do much more work as we go forward and, you know, we applaud the efforts to date to take that surplus and apply it as a down payment but that's as it's seen, as a down payment. there's many more installments to come in order for us to build hope in the lives of people and that's what it's about. you hear it, we've talked about it, i hear it in my district, the fear that -- with which people speak, the uncertainty of their tomorrow, the need for us to provide jobs for the youngest in society who are being released from higher ed, who are

in search of employment. those who have been chronically unemployed, as you point out, before this recession hit and as it hit, chronic unemployment in many of our neighborhoods. all of this has to be taken in to a full picture view and create those situations that allow us to be competitive. and i think we can do it. for instance in the energy related areas. we can grow jobs of the green collar variety. we can reduce demand for energy in this country. we're the most glut news to society as it comes to use of our energy supplies. we send hundreds of billions of dollars into the treasuries of unfriendly nations, those who inspire terrorist activities in our country and around the world. we're sending hundreds of billions of dollars there and do you think we could move forward with an energy security agenda, growing our energy independence, providing for energy audits, creating energy teams that can go into neighborhoods, allowing

jobs for those who have been chronically unemployed or those recently unemployed, training, retraining programs, through our community colleges, to advance those energy audits and then to do the implementation of the audits as they're developed. these are great jobs that reduce our demand of energy to an energy efficiency program, allow us to create american jobs as we generate our supplies locally through embracing our intellectual capacity as a nation, inspiring investments in r&d and research and development, that will then also deploy these ideas that are coming from public and private sector r&d centers, put those into working capacity for our nation's people. it's the cleverness, it's standing back and having a heart and a soul for our working families. and you know we can do it. you know we have the capacity here as a legislative body, as both bodies of the capitol here in congress and working with the white house, we can make it happen and the will must be

there because we have the way and the means to make it happen. ms. sutton: well, representative tonko, you have put it well and i know that you speak for your constituents and so many people out there in america who are feeling what we're speaking to and about and you're absolutely right. they know that they cannot wait any longer, that we can't have inaction because inaction -- inaction is far too expensive, it's far too expensive and not only in lost wages and in of course being held hostage to foreign regimes that are unfriendly to us and -- in the area of energy and we need to pass measures, some of which we already know are tried and true and are necessary. we need to invest in things like our infrastructure because we know that investment in infrastructure puts people to

work right away and also is accomplishing the creation of real value. you know, one of the things that was pointed out by you and is such an important fact about how we got to this level of a jobs deficit in this country was the loss of manufacturing and the loss of this country's investment in creating real value and instead so much was put on wall street, wall street took hold of the opportunity with very little, you know, hindrance on greed being the operative way of proceeding, and as a result they ran rampant, creating pretend value and trading in prevent value and as a result in ohio, for example, bad trade policies in this reckless way on wall street, the

lack of attention to manufacturing and its importance to the strength of our nation and in fact the national security of our nation, ohio since 2001 lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. that was long before the recession began. there are certain things that will help us and of course the job creation task force supports this idea that we have to build and strengthen our nation's crumbling infrastructure. and we also need and i'm inspired by your words about the innovative spirit and also the potential that exists in this nation, well some of that potential needs to be applied to our legislation because while some of the ways that we have pursue things in the past are -- pursued things in the past are tried and true and we need to move forward in those vains that work, we also need to think creatively. you talked about the environment

and, you know, representative tonko, you're well aware that i was the sponsor of the cars act which became known affection atly i hope as the cash for clunkers bill but the thing about cash for clunkers was it gave away, it shot down the old paradigm that it's either about jobs or the environment. it was about jobs and the environment. and, you know, we shored up the jobs in the auto and related industries that people across this countrydy pend upon for their livelihood and the ramifications and the ripple effects taking people all of -- off of unemployment, giving them the dignity and the opportunity to work a job and at the same time achieving improved environmental integrity and helping consumers to get something that they need during these difficult economic times and it went right to them. so it matters where you aim.

no more just aiming atwal street because we can't have a jobless recovery. there is no such thing in my view, is there, mr. tonko, as a jobless recovery that's meaningful? mr. tonko: not at all, representative sutton. and i again applaud your efforts with cash for clunkers. you were a leader in making that happen and, you know, you talk about the merit that that brought, but let's talk about the ripple effects that it inspired. dropping that pebble into the pond and having those ripple effects reach into the auto industry. not only did it inspire people to trade in an inefficient, energy inefficient automobile, but they were now purchasing an efficient automobile and they were sparking additional production for our auto industry which is absolutely important. so some of these actions that we take have positive follow-up actions. there are direct and indirect hits and all of that grows jobs, grows opportunity and speaks