is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> yesterday, i asked a parliamentary inquiry regarding the effect of a letter from mr. rangel to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, regarding his resignation as chairman of the committee on ways and means, to wit, speaker pro tem of the houseanced that gentleman from california -- house answered that the gentleman from california, mr. pete starbling, became acting chair of the committee on ways and means immediately by operation of house rule 10, clause 5. this morning, the acting chairman of the committee on ways and means, mr. stark,

submitted a letter to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, that states, i hereby resign as acting chairman of the committee on ways and means. that letter to the speaker was read into today's proceedings. at that time, the speaker pro tem in accepting the letter, stated the resignation is accepted. i have a parliamentary inquiry regarding the nature of that resignation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. carter: this morning's procedure is mr. stark the current chairman of the committee on ways and means? the speaker pro tempore: the house this morning accepted the resignation of the gentleman from california, mr. stark, as acting chair of the committee on ways and means. pursuant to clause 5-c of rule 10, the member of that committee next in rank, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, shall act as chair.

mr. carter thank you. further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. carter: under house rules and house resolution 24, is the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, still a member of the committee on ways and means? the speaker pro tempore: yes. keartkeart -- mr. carter: under house rules what is the current rank of the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, on the committee of ways and means? the speaker pro tempore: the rank is determined by his placement in that resolution to which you just referred. mr. carter: what is -- further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will -- mr. carter: what is his placement in that ranking that we -- that i just described? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may consult that resolution to discover the answer to that question. mr. carter: it's my understanding that mr. rangel stands as number one by the nature of that resolution.

could i get a clarification on that by the chair? the speaker pro tempore: the chair does not have that resolution before her, but the house has accepted the resignation. mr. carter: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. carter: it states in the absence of the member serving as chair, the member next in rank and so on as often as the case shall happen shall act as chair. under house resolution 24, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, ranks next after mr. stark on the resolution electing members of the committee. under that resolution and by operation of house rule 10, clause 5-c, is mr. levin currently the acting chairman of the committee on ways and

means? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has stated the correct facts. mr. carter: further parliamentary inquiry. under house resolution 8, mr. rangel was elected chairman of the committee on ways and means under house rule 10, clause 5. the chair has indicated that mr. levin is acting chairman of the committee on ways and means. does that mean that the house needs to adopt a resolution to make mr. levin chairman, in fact, and not just acting chairman? the speaker pro tempore: clause 5-c of rule 10 contemplates that the house will again establish an elected chair by adopting a resolution which is typically produced by direction of the majority party caucus. mr. carter: so the answer is yes? mr. stark is currently -- we do

need a vote or we do not need a vote? the speaker pro tempore: the house may elect a chair. at this point the gentleman from michigan is acting as chair. mr. carter: but i believe -- further parliamentary inquiry, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his further parliamentary inquiry. mr. carter: i believe that 10-5-c says that the next one in order shall act as acting -- the acting chair if mr. rangel, by at least of the declaration of someone on this house floor is number one, wouldn't he be the chair again in this -- in these circumstances? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has just stated the and so on character of the rule. mr. carter: sorry. i didn't understand you. would you mind repeating it? the speaker pro tempore: the rule says and so on as you

previously read, and you are just reached the conclusion that that rule is operating. mr. carter: so if i may further inquire, so the words and so on means that you don't go back to original order, you go to whoever is behind him at the first vacation took place? the speaker pro tempore: it operates in a cascading fashion. mr. carter: in cascading fashion? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. mr. carter: i thank you for that clarification. the speaker pro tempore: i thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1137, i call up h.r. 2847 with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto, and i have a motion at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 2847, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce, and science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. senate amendment to house amendment to senate amendment. mr. etheridge of north carolina moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1137, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the keb on ways and means or their -- of the committee on ways and means or their designees. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. etheridge, and the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, will each control 30

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. etheridge. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. prior to myself yielding four minutes, i'd yield to the lady of four minutes for a unanimous consent question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2847 and ask unanimous consent to place my statement in the record and to also submit to the record excerpts from recent joint economic hearings underscoring the need for targeted, timely action to boost employment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. and i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you. i am pleased to rise in support of h.r. 2847, the hiring incentives to restore employment act.

the hire act is really all about our three most important priorities in this congress, jobs, jobs and jobs. the hire act builds on legislation that the senate passed last week, including direct hiring tax incentives for business, support the recovery act bond incentives that put local dollars to work creating jobs across this country, and transportation funding that improves our communities, builds infrastructure and supports local businesses. all told, more than one million jobs would be created by this legislation. this bill really is help for small businesses on main street and millions of americans who are ready to see the benefits of a growing economy. across this great country, our economy is showing signs of recovery, but consumers need more confidence and employers need incentives to hire

workers. today, we give business direct incentives to hire new workers. and i am pleased that the hire act accomplishes this in a responsible manner. not only does it fully pay for all the important investments in job creation, but it actually contributes to reduce our deficit by nearly $1 billion. let me repeat that again. reduce the deficit by $1 billion. the bill is a good step to rebuild our job market, but we still have a ways to go. i expect this will be just a down payment on our continuing work to create jobs and restore our economy. this bill includes, as you've already heard, about $77.1 billion in the surface transportation projects. it also re-authorizes federal highway public transit initiatives and highway safety

funding that's needed all across america. when the extensions were blocked last week in the senate, transportation projects across this country were held up. and nearly almost 2,000 employees were furloughed. today, we are going to take action, not only to make sure that doesn't happen again, but that we create the kind of jobs by investing in local priorities across this country. not only transportation projects that needs to be moving in our community, building on infrastructure and providing jobs for america, but also the hire act that creates tax credits for local businesses. representative kagen and myself introduced a bill back in january for tax credits to hire new employees. this bill builds on that. it's a little different than what we had, but it makes a difference. despite some economic growth in

recent months, the unemployment rate around the country remains high, and too many americans are unemployed. in my state it's above the national average. almost 11.2%. just this past week, i visited an employment office were people were saying, all we need is a hand up, not a hand out. give us an opportunity to go to work. in addition to that, we are providing funds for making sure that our qualified school construction bonds in the recovery act that we passed last year will work. this bill really is about jobs. i can say to you when we're talking about jobs we're talking about education, and i happen to believe that education is that one thing that levels the playing field for everyone. today, we're going to have the opportunity to put our stamp and vote for a piece of legislation that will provide good places for teachers to teach and children to learn. with that, madam speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, if you first don't succeed try, try again. that seems to be the democrats' creed and motto. there wouldn't any need for today's bill if the failed $1 trillion stimulus package passed last year worked. they promised the so-called stimulus kept unemployment at 8% but today we are near 10%. put simply, you can't create jobs by dumping $1 trillion into federal agencies. the administration claims that $1.5 billion in stimulus moneys saved or created 1,664 jobs in california's san joaquin valley where i live. even if one assumes the accuracy of these numbers, the federal government has spent a whooping $900,000 to save or

create one job in the san joaquin valley. despite spending $900,000 per job, there are still communities in the valley that suffer from 20% to 40% unemployment. in fact in the wake of the stimulus we saw three million additional americans lose their jobs rather than the 3.7 million jobs that are now being promised by the obama administration. sadly, a record 16 million americans are now unemployed because the stimulus promises were empty and unaffordable. is it any wonder why the american people continue to ask, where are the jobs? it appears that the stimulus was not very stimulating outside of washington. so here we are back again with yet another multibillion dollar plan slapped together by the democrats that will probably once again fail.

madam speaker, the soviet union experienced that just because you're going to grow a billion bushels of potatoes does not mean that there will be potatoes on the shelves. similarly, just because the democrats have continued to message this as a jobs bill does not mean that it will actually create a job. the centerpiece of the democrats' new bill is a payroll tax exemption, a hiring credit for employers to bring on new workers. while i give the democrats credit for acknowledging that tax cuts are prmble to spending increase -- preferable to spending increases, sadly it is a political charade and it won't work. how do we know? because it didn't work when jimmy carter tried it in the late 1970's. numerous studies by noted economists from all across the political spectrum have confirmed that these temporary hiring incentives will have little, if any, positive effect on jobs. .7 c16 c13

think about it, if you're an employer are you really going to hire someone for a permanent position because you get a modest temporary tax incentive? we could have improved this bill had the ways and means committee actually held a hearing and a markup, but once again we see significant tax legislation taken directly to the floor without a committee hearing, without a committee markup, and without an opportunity to even offer amendments. i understand there was a change in the chairmanship of the ways and means committee yesterday, but in fact this bill on the floor today proves that it's a political sham. it is far from serious to enact sound policy to improve our economy when you can't even decide who the chairman of the

ways and means committee is going to be. you don't have to read adam smith to know that markets cannot thrive with uncertainty. what employers really need from washington is the assurance of the democrats' massive big government tax and spend agenda -- isn't going to drive them out of business. employers face uncertainty about the democrats' massive takeover of the health care system, about the new trillion dollar cap and trade energy tax. they face uncertainty with environmental regulations like those that have driven 84 sawmills from california since 1989. and they face uncertainty about the largest tax increase in american history that will be enacted this year. madam speaker, employers don't need more federal spending to create good private sector jobs. they already know how to create good jobs. if washington would just get out of the way. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from north

carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: i would remind the gentleman i was a small business man in the 1970's when this tax credit was in before. not only did we use it and create jobs, we had tremendous growth in this country. i talked to two chambers of commerce in the last month. they are tickled to death somebody is willing to help them instead of doing the he very thing the senate did last week and hold everything up. it's time we move on got something done. i yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. oberstar, who knows something about infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. oberstar: i thank the gentleman for his time and use this brief moment to be very specific. under the programs in the stimulus, under the jurisdiction of our committee of transportation and infrastructure, we can account for $1,095,005 jobs in the past

year. one year from the date of enactment. we have this documented in 14 incentive monthly hearings on progress made by state d.o.t.'s, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and state revolving loan fund organizations, as well as the other portions of our stimulus for which you have documented the funding investments that have created jobs. these are real jobs, building trades, associated general contractors, putting people to work, putting their equipment to work on job sites where they were shut down the previous year. with those jobs we are paying those workers are paying $353 million in federal taxes, avoiding $279 million of unemployment compensation

checks because they are getting a payroll check in12ed of an -- instead of an unemployment compensation check. we have 25,000 direct on project full-time equivalent in the revolving loan fund program, and paved 24,000 lane miles of highway and restored or replaced 1,200 bridges. that highway mileage is equivalent to half of the interstate highway system that took 50 years touild. is extenon ofungor t sur transation e nsin som ought to t toreward sense of at least breaking the tyranny of the 60-vote majority requirement. second, the real job generator in this legislation is to be found in extending the transportation funding through the end of the year.

madam speaker, the most effective job generating legislation that we could put forward at a time of 40% unemployment in many metropolitan areas in the construction trade is to put americans to work rebuilding and renewing america. this legislation provides $77 billion towards that objective, fully funding the first six months of this year and extending it through the full 15-month cycle through the end of this calendar year. this will give certainty to the men and women who are dealing with our transportation system, roads, bridges, transit, the whole range. it will save hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will incite economic activity and maybe, just maybe it will be a signal that we bring together a larger vision of rebuilding and renewing america and putting our fellow citizens back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is

recognized. mr. nunes: thank you. madam speaker, i would like to yield myself 15 seconds. i just want to clarify i heard the other side of the aisle say that this bill was going to create a million jobs. we are going to spend $13 billion to create a million jobs. the $1 trillion last year was promised to create 3.7 million. mr. blumenauer: would the gentleman like to qush -- mr. nunes: i would like to yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. nunes: i yield an additional minute. mr. blumenauer: what i said, i want to be clear if i misrepresented it, the $77 billion in transportation funding will protect or create hundreds of thousands of jobs. that's what i said. mr. nunes: reclaiming my time, i ask mr. blumenauer, my good friend, spoke about the jobs. earlier i heard another gentleman on the other side of the aisle speak about a million jobs. i'm just trying to figure out

the math. this is a $1 billion to $15 billion to create a million or hundreds of thousands of jobs. last year we spent $1 trillion to create 3.7 million jobs and we lost three million jobs. . mr. blumenauer: will the gentleman yield? mr. nunes: yes. mr. blumenauer: the bill includes $77 billion of transportation funding. that was my reference, and i think the experts agree that it would be hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not a million, saved or created with that transportation funding. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. mr. nunes: thank you. well, i'd like to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes: at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, a member of the ways and means committee, ms. brown-waite. ms. brown-waite: the gentlewoman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown-waite: i want to make clear there are some items in this bill, provisions that everyone in this chamber could

support. providing tax relief to small businesses is good. this raises an important question. if the majority recognizes that lowering taxes for businesses is a good -- is good for employment and certainly good for the economy, then why do they insist on dramatically raising taxes everywhere every single chance that the democrats get? i also think that it is worth discussing the nefarious accounting gimmicks in this bill. i voted for the principle of pay-go because i believed in it, but no sooner did the democrats finish patting themselves on the back for passo than they came back -- pay-go than they came back waving it and then sort of bernie madoffing it -- i think i created a new word, madam speaker. i don't want to get too far in the technical words here, madam speaker. this is pay-go compliant because of some accounting gimmicks. first quarter money into future years -- in the fourth quarter

of the previous year and presto changeo, the bill becomes pay-go compliant. the american people know we can't spend the same money twice. so let's take a closer look. the official cost estimate of the bill does not include a $20 billion transfer from the general fund to the highway fund. meaning we'll have to find that money someplace else. we'll have to find that general revenue money someplace else. probably china. and the cost estimate doesn't reflect $142 billion in new spending authorization for transportation projects that we don't have a source of revenue to pay for. and maybe that's why we were only given a few hours to read the bill before it was -- it's going to be voting on it. and in the issue of transportation funding, i did hear mr. oberstar say that the senate was going to fix it but the bill before us is not one that is good for transportation for the various states.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. nunes: i yield the gentlewoman's time has expired 30 seconds. -- i yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. brown-waite: it leads the rest of america have to say, what's it for us? well, i say zero. florida is a donor state and pays far more transportation taxes than it gets back. i can't support the bill before us today for that reason and several other reasons. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield two minutes to the acting chairman of the ways and means, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. i ask to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and thank you to my friend for yielding. the theme of this bill is very clear. back to work.

i would think that would unite us and not divide us. we are seeing recently economic growth, but we have not seen enough at all is growth in jobs. and that's what this is really all about. there's no easy or perfect way to bring this about. it takes a number of steps. the tax credit in this bill is one approach. we're going to need additional steps. another way that relates to economic growth in jobs is infrastructure. and we can argue about how many jobs, what the estimates are about how many millions will be created, but it's clear. the secretary of transportation has said that he can verify $60

billion to $70 billion in infrastructure for roads, bridges, ready to go this spring and this summer. and we should be united behind providing the authorization for this to happen. it should not divide us. there's money, also, as has been said for school construction bonds and energy bonds and also very importantly relating to expensing by small business which is very much within the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee. that also should unite us and not divide us because it's critical that we extend that provision. so for all these reasons i urge that we join together rather than dividing and pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, the ranking

member of the transportation committee, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. mica: my state with 11.8% unemployment, one of the top 10 unemployment states in the united states, i would love to come before the congress and say pass this bill titled the jobs bill, but i can't do that today for several reasons. first of all, let me say that those who have come before us and said that just getting more money even in a short-term transportation bill will get things going don't know the facts. over one year ago when we passed $48 billion in stimulus money that went to the department of transportation that so far as of march 2 only $8.8 billion has been spent.

this is not a six-year bill we're passing, and that's what we should be doing to ensure that states can do long-term projects, not just repaving sidewalks and simple things that we've seen done. this bill does not contain elimination of the red tape and the hoops that states have to go through for compliance to do a project. so this is -- this will be our fifth extension. it only goes to december 31. i was also told that we had to pass this because it was going to go straight to the president for his signature. intervening we did pass a 30-day extension. so this is not going straight to the president. we did not have an opportunity to correct the flaws in this bill. you heard of the senate passing -- what was it -- the nebraska deal, the louisiana purchase. i'm telling you, this is the four-state grab. california gets 30% of the

additional money in this bill. 58% of the money goes to four states. 22 states get nothing. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that this chart be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mica: and this shows each state, 22 states get nothing, 46 states are disadvantage because of the four-state grab in this. and it could and should have been corrected if it's going back to the united states senate. it should be corrected so everyone is treated fairly and exwitably in the transportation fund. mr. oberstar has ton a level best, and he was a written letter from ms. pelosi and mr. reid to correct it after we pass it. if this was the only flaw in the bill maybe we could look away. you heard democrats who also voted against the rule and

almost took this bill down also state their objections to provisions that should have had the opportunity for at least an amendment by this body. so no consideration of changing the bill, making the appropriate fairness changes, equitable changes so we would all be treated equitably. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. etheridge: i yield a minute to the speaker of the house, speaker pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the speaker. the speaker: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate his leadership and his intensive knowledge of this legislation and how important it is for us to proceed much madam speaker, i will not speak long because the sooner we debate it the sooner it goes to the senate and goes to the president. i agree with much of what the distinguished ranking member on

the committee said about wanting a six-year bill. our chairman, mr. oberstar, has been advocating for that and i agree. i also agree that the language has to be changed, and we have the commitment to do that as we go forward. but that tonet mean that americans are not suffering, that they do not need jobs and that we should act and we should act today to bring them closer today. i wanted to remind our colleagues to focus in time -- just over a year ago this congress passed the american recovery and reinvestment act. as a result of that, more than two million jobs were saved or created. very important. all over the country, as members go home to their districts, they see evidence of investments in the future, clean energy jobs for the future, the education of our chirp, the safety of our neighborhoods -- of our children, the safety of our neighborhoods, the creation of jobs, the stabilization of our economy, the stabilization of state and local budgets.

as a result of that, just think of what's happened since this one year. in january, 2009, the last year of the bush administration, america lost 779,000 jobs, 779,000 jobs. this january we lost 20,000 jobs. we don't want to lose any jobs. we want to be on the upside. we want to be creating jobs. the point is following the passage of the american recovery and reinvestment act and other initiatives taken by the boirks and this congress -- obama administration and this congress, a difference of over 250,000 jobs. 779,000, january, 2009. 25,000, january, 2010. in the final quarter of 2008, the final quarter of 2008 before president obama took

office, america's g.d.p. shrank by 6.2%. g.d.p. for that quarter was negative 6.2%. just one year later, the g.d.p. grew in the same period by 5.9%. over 12% change in the growth of g.d.p. thanks to the american recovery and reinvestment act and, again, other actions taken. you know, when we were debating the recovery bill last year around this time, earlier in january, february, the stock market was around 6500, 7000. it's 10,000, an increase of over 3,000 points. and yesterday we learned that america's manufacturing base grew for the seventh straight month and was now at its highest level in five years. still we must be unrelenting in

our efforts to create more jobs. too many americans are unable to find work. in some cases we're talking about putting people back to work. in some cases people haven't had opportunity. coming out of school they have not been able to enter the work force. it's not just about putting back to work. it's about creating a broader universe of jobs to have many more americans participate in the economic prosperity that we hope for our country. today, we are taking another step in creating jobs along the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. with the $15 billion in critical investments, this bill includes a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers, to create some 300,000 new jobs. with that privilege alone. and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain employees.

specific support to small businesses with tax credits and accelerated write-offs, extension of the highway trust fund. this is very, very important. allowing tens of millions of dollars -- tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment. $15 billion bill, but it triggers -- it triggers tens of billions of dollars more by eliminating the rescission of last year, by restoring the interest to the trust fund that was -- it was deprived of and by triggering contracting, tens of billions of dollars, probably one million jobs in this bill alone. in december, the house passed the main street act, jobs for main street act, a broader measure for creating good-paying american jobs paid for by redirecting tarp funds from wall street to main street. .

our key element to get americans back to work and strengthen our economy. i believe both sides of the aisle understand the urgent need to create jobs for our country and today we have an opportunity to do so. i know that some people have some concerns on one side of the aisle or the other about this provision or that provision, but the fact is that a million jobs will be created by this legislation. vote for jobs, vote aye on this legislation. i thank mr. etheridge and all concerned. mr. oberstar, the distinguished chairman of the transportation committee, so many others for making this important legislation possible. it's difficult. it's challenging. and more is yet to be done. but i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for jobs, vote aye on this

legislation. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: i'm going to have to yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i would like to remind my colleagues here in the house that last year there was a provision offered that didn't cost $1 trillion, didn't cost $1 billion, didn't cost $1 million, didn't cost $1. that was a provision to let water flow to mike constituents in the san joaquin valley of california so people could go back to work. but instead nearly every member, every democrat from california in this congress opposed that amendment. last summer we had tens of thousands of farmers and farm workers standing in food lines in the most productive ag land in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes: i would like to yield an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: so, a zero cost

provision could not go under this bill. and now we have farm workers eating carrots imported from china. so all this, talk about jobs, it's all phony. the american people have had enough of this nonsense. i would like to yield three minutes to my good friend from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. latourette: madam speaker, i thank you very much. i have spent many times on this floor about my great admiration for the chairman of the full transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. oberstar. and he knows that this bill isn't fair. and he knows that this bill isn't fair because he produced a chart last week that has all -- has 15 states plus the district of columbia, so it's 51, and 22 states get nothing under this bill. and four states walk away with 58%. not surprisingly i heard the speaker likes the bill, california gets 30% of the highway funding under this

bill. and any member who is interested is more than free to come and purr you ruse this at their leisure. i give the chairman great credit. he was unhappy with this last week and he fate with his leadership and he has produced today a letter from senator reid saying he's going to fix it sometime in the future. now, two things, that's the second big lie. the check's in the mail. the other thing is i hope the majority understands a letter from senator reid just doesn't fill us on this side of the aisle with warmth and fuzzy feelings. if you want to fix the problem, fix the problem. and the problem is not fixed. this is not a jobs bill and i also admire the speaker of the house, but i admire her more today because she did not break into laughter when calling this a jobs bill. this is a no jobs bill. this is a faux jobs bill. i look forward to the unemployment statistics tomorrow because i believe that within about 100,000 americans will have lost their jobs in the last month despite all

these great successes. and continuing with my admiration for chairman oberstar, my favorite part of the speech that he gives on the stimulus package is, all those jobs which he created through the infrastructure spending and stimulus, 8% of the funding, so that means, you'll have to figure out math, but that means in an $800 billion bill, half the jobs were created by 8% of the funding. and that's thanks to you and the work that you and your colleagues do on the committee. the other half were created by about $750 billion. that's a strange, strange, strange investment. mr. oberstar: would the gentleman yield? mr. latourette: i would be happy to yield. mr. oberstar: just briefly. if the gentleman, madam speaker, could assure us there would be no senate filibuster or hold on the bill, senator reid would have been happy to accept our changes. but he estimated he couldn't get that through the senate. so he agreed to fix in a subsequent bill and he put it in writing and we have to accept his written commitment. mr. latourette: my pleasure.

my appreciation of you grows every day. i will tell you what, if you can crack the code of the senate, republican or democrat, then you deserve much more money than you make as chairman of the full committee, because they are a strange bunch. it doesn't matter who is in charge. they don't seem to do anything. i want to get to process now because the president down at this health care summit at player blair house said nobody cares about process. i got to tell you, i have never seen this. this is my 16th year in the united states congress. mr. etheridge made his motion, mr. etheridge of north carolina moves that the house concur -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes: an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two additional minutes. mr. latourette: i appreciate it. mr. etheridge of north carolina moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with an amendment. that is really a procedural mouthful. you know what it means? it's a procedural way to screw the minority, the republican party in this house, not only can't we amend your bill, not

only did we get it at 9:30 this, we can't offer a motion to recommit. you know what mr. hoyer would be saying if we pulled that on him when we take the majority back next year? he would be screaming bloody murder and he would be right. madam speaker, as a result of that i would like to offer an amendment to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina would have to yield to that request. mr. latourette: i'll request the gentleman from north carolina to yield to me to offer an amendment to the bill. and if the gentleman doesn't think i'm sandbagging him, let me tell you what it is. i would move to add mend this bill to transfer the $13 billion in the sham tax credit that's not going to create one job and the dumbest idea i ever heard to infrastructure spending. i would further have in that amendment that the infrastructure spending now at $14 billion be distributed pursuant to the house proposal that mr. oberstar has proposed which means every state in the unedown benefits not just california, not just states that are walking away with a bunch of money. mr. etheridge, will you yield

to me for the pumps of offering an amendment? mr. etheridge: would the gentleman yield? mr. latourette: i sure. mr. etheridge: i thank the gentleman for his willingness to help. the rules do not provide for that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina would have to yield to a unanimous consent request. mr. latourette: mr. etheridge, we'll give it another shot because we are not going to be able to hide behind the rule. the rule doesn't provide for amendment. it doesn't provide for motion to recommit. the only tool in the minority's toolbox. so, mr. etheridge, i ask unanimous consent -- i guess you need to yield to me for a unanimous consent request. would you yield to me for a unanimous consent request? do i have to ask him to yield to me or do i yield to him to yield to me? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina would have to yield for any unanimous consent request. mr. latourette: mr. etheridge, i'm asking you to yield to me so i can make a unanimous consent request that you can deny. mr. etheridge: it's your time.

mr. latourette: i'm asking you to yield to me -- mr. etheridge: no. the rule does not provide for it. mr. latourette: that's nonsense, first of all. because the speaker just indicated if you yield to me i can make my unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes: i would like to yield an additional one minute to make his unanimous consent request. mr. latourette: i'm going to tell you what, mr. etheridge. here's the deal. if you would yield to me, which apparently you can under the rules but don't want to because you think the rule says so which it clearly doesn't, read the bill. i want to make a unanimous consent request that the $13 billion in this worthless tax credit be transferred to infrastructure spending and further that that additional $13 billion be distributed pursuant to the house plan as opposed to the senate plan. the house plan -- the senate plan rewarding only four states with 58% of the money, 22 states getting zero. mr. etheridge, i'm asking you to yield to me for that purpose.

mr. etheridge: what was the gentleman's question? mr. latourette: i'm asking you to yield to me for the aforementioned unanimous consent request. mr. etheridge: the gentleman is trying to dot same thing that happened in the other body. you are trying to slow down this process. mr. la tourt: is that a no? is that a no? is that a no? mr. etheridge: the rules do not provide for that and need a u.c. to do that. mr. latourette: that's a soup sand writch answer. the speaker just said you could do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latourette: madam speaker, this is nonsense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: i thank the gentlelady. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his outstanding work on this important bill. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2847, the hire act which will strengthen our economy by limiting job loss and creating new employment opportunities. in addition to provision that is will spur investment and infrastructure in construction projects, this bill provides much needed assistance and attention and support for small businesses in america. this bill includes a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers. and tax cuts to help small businesses expand and hire more workers. small businesses, madam speaker, have borne the brunt of this economic crisis and their inability to act as credit to keep their businesses operating has clearly added to the high unemployment rate across the nation, especially in my home state of rhode island, which has right now the second highest unemployment rate in the country. so, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this jobs

measure as well as working on additional legislation that helps small businesses and unemployed workers. our job is to create jobs, madam speaker, and that's exactly what this piece of legislation before us does today. i thank you. with that i urge my colleagues to support this important jobs bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for two minutes. mr. kingston:thank you, madam speaker. first of all let me say to the majority i am glad you have offset this money. that's a significant step for both parties to have a spending bill offset. i want to get that out of the way. now, having said that, i got to say that i am very leery of another government spending program to address jobs. we are here because last year we spent nearly -- we did spend $800 billion on a stimulus program that was supposed to keep us from going to 8%

unemployment. now we are at 10% unemployment. the stimulus program before just added 31 brand new federal programs and increased spending. i'm the ranking member of the agriculture committee and spending in the usda has gone up 26%. at some point we are going to figure out the federal government doesn't have the solution for everything. this is not our only stimulus proposal or jobs proposal. in may of 2008 we had $168 billion stimulus program that did not work. in march of 2008, the federal reserve said we are going to shore up wall street with bear stearns, $29 billion. in july of 2008 the democrat congress and president bush came in with a $200 billion bailout of fannie mae in order to shore up real estate. and not to be outdone the federal reserve a month later with the a.i.g. bailout, $85 billion that is now up to $140

billion that was supposed to avert financial collapse. and yet it did not. and then in october of 2008 we had a $700 billion tarp bill. then in january, $410 -- january, 2009, under president obama, $410 billion omnibus spending bill that was supposed to shore up the economy. and of course that brings it back to the other stimulus program. after a while we are going to figure out, everything we do is like cash for clunkers, it just doesn't work. if we want to help small businesses, we got to quick spending money. -- quit spending money. number one, number two -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kingston: 30 more seconds? mr. nunes: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: number two, we need to let community banks be released from some of the overbearing and unnecessary regulations in which they have to comply because that causes them not to be able to lend money and thus small businesses

are tied up in a credit crunch. number three, we've got to let small businesses compete. we set rules, big business and big government, sets rules so that small businesses can compete. there are things we can do, things we can do together on a bipartisan basis. we need to vote this bill down so we can get through them. i thank the gentleman and the speaker for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: madam speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds to remind the gentleman that how we got here was the american people lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-plus trillion dollars in the value of their homes and assets over the 18 months through july of last year. and until we passed something it started to turn around. since they gained about $5 thrill but we have a ways to go. i yield a minute to the gentleman from kentucky, the gentleman, mr. chandler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. .

mr. chandler: i rise in support of the hire act. this piece of legislation will help our small businesses heal during these tough economic times and help unemployed kentuckyians find good local jobs. the hire act cuts taxes for our small businesses and makes it possible for them to hire new employees making our small companies stronger and creating jobs for out-of-work kentuckyians. madam speaker, the unemployment rate is around 11% in the commonwealth of kentucky, and we have to do all we can to create and save jobs throughout this nation. small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the engines of job creation. investing in the long-term health of our small businesses is one of the surest ways to economic recovery. this legislation isn't just about small businesses, though. it's about helping that mom,

that dad who was laid off in the midst of this recession find a good-paying local job. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. chandler: 15 more seconds. mr. etheridge: i yield 15 seconds. mr. chandler: i urge members on both sides of the aisle in favor of this legislation today because it's a vote for middle-class families, for small innovative startups and the long-term economic health of central kentucky and the nation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, i still have yet to have someone explain to me from the other side of the aisle how the trillion dollar stimulus bill passed last year that was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs, instead we lost three million, and how this bill that spends $13 billion or so, still a lot of money but not nearly $1 trillion, is going to create

a million jobs as they continue to repeat on that side of the aisle. i'd like for someone to answer the question. i yield back -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: well, i ask answer the gentleman's question. the emphasis is on small business, which is an incredible economic engine in my state and other states across the country. and secondly, there is an extraordinary emphasis on transportation infrastructure. the gentleman may be unaware that in august of this year, the transportation infrastructure trust fund is going to fall short of funds, delaying reimbursement to the states and stalling out needed projects and investments across the country. this bill fixes that and once and for all we will get interest on money borrowed from the highway trust fund.

that's what people pay gas taxes for. we are not going to reclaim that money. we are going to put people back to work and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in this country. it will give us $1 billion more a month. i heard the gentleman from california talk about 58% of the bill. no, what he was concerned about was 58% of 1.2% of the bill which is .7% of the bill which under the agreement the chairman has reached with the leader of the senate will be fixed in the near future. and in fact ohio will get an extra $38 billion -- $38 million because of that and my state will get less. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: i will not yield. >> ok. mr. defazio: i thought it would be fair to put that in the overall formula so that all 50 states would benefit because almost every state is suffering from unemployment including the gentleman's state. this will bring an extra $38

million to his state. and for every $1 billion we spend in infrastructure we put about 33,000 more people to work. we sure as heck need those jobs. so i stand here saying we need to pass this bill. yeah, the senate's dysfunctional, it's a mess and it would be cleaner to do it all at once but it's the best we can do dealing with a body that's just ridiculous. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield knives 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, if you are going to spend $13 billion to create a million jobs, then why don't we just spend another $200 billion and we'd create 16 million jobs and everybody would have a job? i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from ohio to clarify an earlier point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. law torette: thank you, madam speaker. -- mr. law torette --

mr. latourette: thank you, madam speaker. oregon gets $40 million under the bill of the $1 billion and over $11 million under mr. oberstar's proposal. are you going to give me a 7% -- are you going to yield to me if you say it's not true? mr. defazio: i signed up on the chairman's agreement and my state would not get those other funds. mr. latourette: that's what i'm saying. mr. defazio: i get about $30 million less. mr. la tore receipt: that's -- mr. latourette: no disrespect to your majority but you have not done such a great job passing bills so waiting for another bill to come -- try not to be partisan about this -- but this mess was created by george bush and perpetuated by president obama because his transportation secretary says they don't want to deal with the six-year bill until march of 2011. 30% of the construction trade in this country is out of work.

why would you do this? and to my distinguished friend from oregon is transfer the $30 million and put it in the infrastructure. put these guys to work. actually build something. and again, going back to mr. oberstar's wonderful speech that he always gives, jobs with 1% of that. wouldn't it be great if we could give him $14 billion rather than coming up with a goofy tax credit, if you hire someone for $30,000 you can save $1,300 if you give someone a bill. this bill is wrong. that's what i was talking about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: i have no further speakers at this time. i'd reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time? who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, if there's no additional speakers i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: madam speaker, during this entire debate today, as the gentleman from ohio said, this is just a sham. and to sit here and complain about the senate and procedural things, i mean, we ought to do another sham wow summit at the white house. maybe that would clarify and fix the problem. we're not senators. we don't control the senate. i don't understand the math that you guys use. and no one's answered it yet. you guys spent $1 trillion last year, said you'd create 3.7 million jobs but lost three million jobs. now you say you're going to spend $15 billion and create a million jobs. so let's go over some math just so we can clarify things

because i know that we're going to continue to hear that republicans are obstructionists, republicans have no plans. so let me just go over some math that perhaps folks will understand. the democrats have 250 some-odd votes in the house. it only takes 218 votes to pass a bill. and the u.s. senate, you still have almost a supermajority with 59 votes. so what's the problem? quit calling republicans obstructionist. you have the white house, you have the senate, you have the house of representatives. no more sham wow summits, madam speaker. let's get back to work. vote no on this bill. this is a scam. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their comments and debate to the chair. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today we have an

opportunity to start the process of putting people back to work. and i would remind and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation. a piece that some my colleagues have disagreed with will put people back to work. i'd remind you that there were nine republicans on the other side who joined as co-sponsors in the piece of legislation. so it was bipartisan in the senate side. and the hiring act does four key things. let me remind my colleagues of this in closing. first, it will give direct tax incentives to businesses to hire new workers. a provision still to the bill that i introduced earlier this year. it also restores full value of direct payments, options for certain tax credit bond programs, including a program

that has been supported for previous congresses. it really goes to the heart of what we're about. you know, if we really believe and say we are for children, if we really say we're for jobs, there are $22 billion worth of 0% school bonds, tax-exempt school bonds in this bill and this bill fixes the problem so they can go directly to the treasury and get the credit. those bonds can be sold. we can put people to work across this country building schools and infrastructure. that's in addition to the highway dollars we have just been talking about. and finally, madam speaker, it would give small business tax incentives to buy new equipment and to grow. that is an important piece. if we truly believe we are for small businesses, today's the day we get a chance to put a vote on the board. are we for them or are we against them? they can tell very quickly

because this bill will go to the senate and then it's going to the president of the united states for signing. and finally, it would fwiff our state and local -- give our state and local governments certainty for funding highway projects. you know, i've long believed if we invest in schools now it will save money in the long term and make our economy stronger and make a difference in the future. i served eight years as state superintendent of the schools in my home state. i co-authored the provision that we're talking about here. we can now fix that problem. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this piece of legislation for jobs for the american people, schools for our children and the chance to help heal and help those who do not now have work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. all time for debate has

expired. pursuant to house resolution 1137, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. etheridge. those who are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. being i

the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> by direction of the committee on the judiciary, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule to accompany house resolution 1031. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1031, resolution to impeach a judge of louisiana for high crimes and misdemeanors. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

members will clear the well. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring ant next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognize. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader for the purpose os announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the republican whip for yielding. on monday, the house is not in session. on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour

debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 poom. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business and on friday, if needed, the house will neat at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow, as is the custom. in addition, we'll consider h.con.res. 248 on the afghanistan war powers resolution, introduced by mr. kucinich. we'll also consider h.res. 1031, impeaching g. thomas po trmbings ius junior of the eighth district of louisiana for high crimes and misdemeanors. it's also possible there will be further actions on the jobs agenda, it depends on what the senate or house has coming out of committee or out of the senate. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to ask the gentleman if he could give us some better indication of what he means by the jobs agenda. i yield. mr. hoyer: we believe that the number one priority for us is to continue to grow the economy so that we will a create jobs in this economy. as the gentleman know, my perception is we've gone from losing an average of 726,000 jobs in the last three months of the bush administration, the last three month, losing an average of 35,000 jobs, that is 95% in the right direction, but we need to continue to try to create jobs. as you know, in the bill we just passed, passed in a bipartisan fashion in the senate and to some degree here, we are trying to encourage the hiring of those who have been unemployed through giving a tax

credit, we have also tried to spur investment by giving businesses the right to write off items. we also ensure the continuation of the -- excuse me, the highway act, and in addition to that, as you know, we provided for a more -- a less expensive way for communities to expand public works and hire people to do that, public buildings, construction, -- construction of public facilities. so when i say the agenda, that was obviously part of the ageneral ta. we are still very concerned about lending. capital being available to small in particular but medium size businesses as well. the senate is considering a jobs bill now as you know with a number of component parts. when i talk about the jobs agenda, i'm talking about ways and means and efforts to grow

the economy and create jobs. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman refers to several areas that i hope he and the majority would work with the minority on in trying to do exactly as he stated, which is to create an environment for small businesses to create jobs. as the gentleman just saw in the vote taking place on the floor today, there are 35 members of his caucus that voted against the so-called jobs bill that was on the floor today. perhaps indicating, mr. speaker, that the gentleman may want to work with us as we have been continuing to propose tax cuts for small businesses. not necessarily connected with what kind of hires the businesses should do, not necessarily connected with some type of targeted credit that may or may not fit with the business model of any particular small business, but in general, mr. speaker, i think the gentleman would agree, making it easier for small businesses to keep the

lights on right now so that they can return to a mode in which they could increase payroll. mr. speaker, i would ask the gentleman if he could speak to his mention of the resolution dealing with the afghanistan war powers. as the gentleman knows, the republicans view a withdrawal from afghanistan within 30 days as incredibly irresponsible. mr. speaker, i would think that my -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield? it's my understanding that the resolution the gentleman from ohio has introduced is by december 31, not 30 days. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. still i would say the republican view is, we have consistently supported this president in his efforts in afghanistan, as he has listened to the commanders on the ground

to determine the focus and future of our presence there in terms of protecting our troops and the u.s. interests there. i imagine my friend from maryland, knowing his position on these thing, agrees with that and i'd like to know, mr. speaker, whether there will be an all-out push to make this some type of partisan issue and perhaps the gentleman could shed some light on his position on this bill that is being brought forward next week and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i've expressed support for the policy being pursued by president obama, and i certainly will continue to support that policy. the resolution is not consistent with that, so i think the gentleman is -- not going to be surprised that my expectation will be a bipartisan vote. perhaps on both sides of the proposition. yeah and nay.

-- yea and nay. i believe the president's policy that he has articulated is a thoughtful measured policy, and very frankly, i think he has done what perhaps we should have been done for some period of time, focused on where terrorism was organized against the united states, to ensure that we eliminate al qaeda and prevent the taliban from resurgence and re-establishing a base where from terrorists might attack us. i think that's appropriate. policy the president's pursuing, and i'd hope that the house would support that policy on both sides of the aisle. mr. cantor: i look forward to joining him in opposition to the resolution he's bringing to the floor. mr. speaker, if i could ask the gentleman to give us in the house an update on when he expects the budget resolution to come to the floor, and i

yield. mr. hoyer: we hope -- we hope that the budget resolution will come to the floor and we're working on that by the end of the month before we leave for the easter break. as you could well imagine given the fiscal situation that confronts us, that's a very difficult document to put together, but mr. spratt is working very hard at that with the committee. i know mr. ryan, i'm sure, the ranking member, is also working hard on that. i am hopeful we will be in position to bring that matter to the floor before the easter break. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask the gentleman, in view of the short period of time until the easter break, is it his expectation that the house will take up health care legislation within that time period, and i yield? mr. hoyer: it is the

president's and our's hope that is the case. we have said that will be our objective. as you know we have been working on this issue for well over a year. we passed a bill many months ago, the senate passed a bill two months ago. many of us have been working on that bill. as you know we had a very substantial, historic, really, in many respects, a discussion with the president at blair house last week. i understand the president has incorporated a number of ideas and he felt were good ideas that the republicans put on the table at that meeting. my expectation is we will be moving on this bill in the near future. and what i mean by that is again hopefully we will be able to consider this prior to the april break, the easter break. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, mr. speaker, the president has asked congress -- in fact

yesterday -- that the majority here consider using reconciliation process to pass this health care bill. and i'd like to ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, that is it his intention and the speaker's intention to adhere to the president's request and actually use the reconciliation process, and i yield? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows, we provided for reconciliation in the budget resolution that was adopted last year. so that is available to us. that has been used 22 times, as the gentleman knows, since 1980. 16 of those times it was used when your party was in the majority. you utilized that to do what the american people think is usually the case. we pass things by majority vote, up or down, and the majority rules. now, here, of course, when the majority rules it really does represent a majority of the country. in the senate, of course, even

when a majority votes it doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the people of the country because obviously every state, no matter how large or small, is represented. but having said that, we believe the republicans when you used it for the tax bill, welfare, or other very important pieces of legislation. tax bill having trillions of dollars of economic impact on the economy, you felt that process of passing it by majority vote in the united states senate made sense. we share your view. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for that. i would say that nothing compares to the use of or suggested use of reconciliation then as to now with this bill. and i would say that there was in the main bipartisan support and frankly support on the part of people of this country for

what was being done to reconciliation in those instances. but i'd like to turn the gentleman's attention, mr. speaker, to a question i have and that is statements that were made as late as september of 2007 when then can dit obama said, this is -- candidate obama said, this is an area where we are going to have a 60% majority in the senate and the house in order to actually get a bill to my desk. we are going to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50 plus one majority said then senator obama. you got to break out what i call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics. maybe you eek out a victory of 50 plus one but you can't govern. you get air force one and a lot of nice perks as president but you can't, you can't deliver on health. we're not going to pass universal health care with a 50

plus one strategy. that later quote again was the next month in october. so i'm having difficulty understanding, mr. speaker, why now the president and the majority seems to have done a 180 when it comes to using reconciliation with a bill, $1 trillion bill that could very well alter 1/6 of our economy and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. his 180 was incorporated as a way to go forward last year when we adopted the budget almost a year ago. so this is nothing new for the gentleman. i told the gentleman. his party has used this procedure 16 times out of 22 times it's been used which means your party has used it 2/3 of the time, over 2/3 of the time it's been employed. as a matter of fact, judd gregg, a member of your party,

a leader of the budget committee on your side, was member of the budget committee, now ranking member, when an objection was used on this, using quotes, when an objection was raised to that said as he turned to the democratic side, what's wrong with a majority vote? i thought a majority vote was what should prevail. that was judd gregg of your party. and i think it's ironic that when we're saying, ok, you think a majority vote's good, we'll take a majority vote. now, the president's quote is a demonstration that we all say things that unfortunately then don't become reality. i will tell you the reason they don't become reality. because, as jim demint said, i think many of your party hopes this is president obama's

rhetoric. that is a direct quote used by mr. demint. in your view, i do not attribute it to you, but as mr. gingrich said over and over again, if we fail, you win. if we fail, we believe the american people lose. and we think that's not fair. and i will give one more quote and cease and yield back to you. october of 2008, presidential campaign debate, national television, john mccain, your candidate said i want to see a plan that gives all americans, all families availability of affordable health care. that was the quote that senator mccain, your candidate for president, made just a few months ago. it was almost exactly what mr. obama said, so from my perception there was a

consensus with respect to where we needed to go. as a matter of fact, i think almost every member on this floor believes we need to reform the health care system. we've had a very vigorous debate, very open debate, very transparent debate over a year now on how this ought to be done. we have disagreement. and that -- that's the nature of democracy. but if a majority of the representatives in this body and the majority of the representatives in the other body believe a policy ought to be adopted, then frankly that's the way our system should work. there's nothing in the constitution, as the gentleman well knows, about having, except for some rare instances, supermajority and certainly none on policy. there are in confirmations and overriding the president's veto. but other than that, the perception is the majority vote rules. so it's the procedure you used, it's the procedure we anticipated last march.

we hope that wouldn't be the case. very frankly, we hope we would work in a bipartisan way to effect this end. this hasn't been possible. senator mcconnell has made it clear he has no intention in participating that kind of effort. i yield back to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i don't know if the gentleman is saying, mr. speaker, that the president was wrong when he spoke about not using this process, but i do know, mr. speaker, that 70 some-percent of the american people don't like this health care bill. all of us care about doing something positive for health care. republicans care about health care. we went to that forum with our ideas. the public began to see for seven hours that there were very different approaches to how we're going to deal with health care, and we said if we can stop the overhaul, stop the

$1 trillion attempt to lead us to a path for government getting in the way of decisionmaking between patients and their doctors, if we can set that aside there could be some things that we could work on much more modest and focused in terms of cost control. once we reduce cost people can have access. more people can have insurance. we could also do some things together to address the problems of pre-existing condition exceptions in coverage. all of us want to do something about that. so i'd say to the gentleman, i am disappointed, as i know he knows that we are that his side has decided to defy the protests that came from the president and others on his side of the aisle about the use of reconciliation for health care. but i'd ask the gentleman, will the house move next on health

care or will it be the senate? and i yield. mr. hoyer: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. we are still discussing exactly what procedure will be employed to effect a majority vote in both houses and send something to the president in the same form. so i can't specifically answer that question at this particular time. but let me say to the gentleman, he mentioned the forum we went to and republicans did put ideas on the table. we thought they were constructive. as a matter of fact, as you may recall, i responded to senator coburn, who is also a medical doctor, when he mentioned about fraud, waste and abuse. as you know, there is substantial investment in the house bill and the senate bill to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. senator coburn observed and thought there was a lot of money that could be saved there. we think that's the case as well. so we have provided to go after that. we also, i think, agree that

reform ought to be based on private market-based system. as the gentleman knows, the exchanges that are set up both in the house bill and senate bill, they differ but they are both based on private sector competition by private insurance companies. we also talked about wellness programs. dr. coburn also talked about that as did others. i think dr. boustany, congressman boustany also talked about that. we have very substantial investment in wellness and in practices as dr. coburn pointed out in practices that give cooperative care and are not reimbursed piecemeal but reimbursed by the quality of care that is given, the outcomes that are given as opposed to simply a process oriented. we also agree, i think, mr. cantor, on mechanisms to have competition across state lines.

we also abbreviate there's room for discussion of looking at how we might do that in other ways as well so we think that that's an idea and the pooling with respect to small businesses so they can create large groups so that they can have better competitive advantages, we believe that when we put small businesses into the exchange, that's exactly what we give them. for instance, in a large group as all of us know as we have in the federal employee health benefit plan, we don't have pre-existing conditions because we're large groups. most large groups don't. in the legislation you offered as a substitute to ours, of course, you did not cover pre-existing conditions. your legislation provided for about three million people having greater access to the system. ours had about 30 million. so while we agree that we ought to have people have access, frankly we believe that what we

have proposed provides greater access. we also believe that insurance acquiring health insurance at other prices, it seems to me we agreed on that as an objective, you disagree with the way we have done it in terms of our ex changes -- exchanges, which of course is what the plan is that you and i participate in. it's a large exchange, many different insurers in our area, we have about 25 or 26 different options that we can choose from. for the most part, private sector. to choose from. so, yes, we have differences, but as i told you before i'm still prepared to discuss with you and to work with you on suggestions you have that get us to an objective that we think is appropriate. let me just last and closing say, a recent polling shows a majority wants to keep working.

you indicate as a number -- as you do on regular basis that there are polls that show that people are against this bill. my view is, what they're really against is this competition and contention regarding these bills which is of course why the president said he thought having 60% would give a greater level of confidence. i agree with that. and i would hope that we would have created that kind of consensus, but 63% in a washington poll said that we ought to pass comprehensive health reform. 57% on the kaiser family foundation poll, february 22, 2010, kaiser poll also finds overwhelming support for key elements of the reforms in our bill. 76% support reforming the way health insurance works in our bill. 71% creating a health insurance exchange which is in our bill and 70% support expanding high risk insurance pools. so when you go to the individual

elements of our bill, we find very significant support for those individual elements, i tell my friend. and i continue to look forward to working with my friend to reach common ground. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and from the summation of his remarks i gather that there has been no willingness to listen to the american people on the part of the majority here in the house. the gentleman does know that all polls indicate that the american people want us to set the bill aside, to stop this construct that washington's going to tell everyone how to design health care and really start over. 73% of the public, a cnn poll said, last week said to start over. but, mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's time and i look forward to working together with

him in whatever way we can, frankly, focusing on the issue of getting america back to work. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: kumbaya. the speaker pro tempore: if you were the gentleman arise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns on friday, march 5, it adjourn to meet on 12:30 p.m. tuesday next for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, given the increased commitments i have made to my state, i resign effective immediately from the committee on the budget. it has truly been a pleasure to work with chairman spratt and the many dedicated members that care passion passion -- passionately about getting our

nation's fiscal house in order. fighting for fiscal responsibility as a member of the blue dog coalition for the past five years and pushing for a responsible budget has been an immense honor. i look forward to continuing to work hard for the people of louisiana and our great nation. thank you for your attention in this matter. signed, sincerely, charlie melancon, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the gentleman from tennessee, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> request a one-minute speech, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. today the congress passed a jobs bill and it was a small jobs bill but it was a smart. this country needs to work on jobs. this week i introduced an urban

sustainability act to direct $10 billion of tarp money into cities with 600,000 populations or more and unemployment of 10% or more, to put in public works projects and job training. it's important that we realize that urban america is suffering and suffering at a disproportion way against particular emphasis and i encourage other co-sponsors, we have nine or so already, to join with me and for the leadership to look it over for urban cities and the need for job programs and public works programs. last week senator sanders and i introduced a bill on solar. $10 billion -- 10 billion solar volume dayic panels on roofs and watbillion gallons of solar we need to invest in solar to earth and our resources so that protecting lines of y soldis portatioioioat are theo east. i urge the adoption of that bill andhe strong c c crararara e a it can

prprr r r pr and oururur o k k k mr. speaker. the er pro om g g gom rise? mr. g g gr.: mr. speaker, t minute, rerere, , , re extend..t minute. mrmrmrrey: uneneneneent ra h h hececececececececeve %.%.%.%.e e e be n n n n n n n e lololololoaaaafted dydydy f f f . of government furururur fpple stprivatatatatat r cococo tisan ill seseseseg,g, unqote. mr. toouatee unliliurrentalth c c c c c cth mocrats ararararar goinininineh am peoe's th

latione flr that will r r t t t t t a a a a a a our economy back on er therman track. and iield back. the speak tem: the gentleman yields back the nce of his tim for what p p pat does the gentlewoman from tex rise? house for one minute, revise and exted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jacksksksac: ank you very much, mr. speaker. this is a question of jobs and i don't want tomorrow's numbers if they happen to be showing that we've not reached the goals at we want to reach to any way distract om the work the democrats are doing and that we should be doing together. i have concerns about what we just passed as it relates to jobs although i support the infrastructure part of the bill. but i think that if we focus on jobs week of got to save nasa, we've got to ensure we continue human space flight. then we've got to go into neighborhoods ans areas where there's the chronically unemployed. we have to put up recruitment offices so we can provide the real opportunities for jobs, to

build america's infrastructure. we have to go to the public housing projects and make sure that those who live there can work on the rehabilitation of those projects. those who are chronically unemployed need to have a job in hand. they need to be able to retrain -- be trained and then work. those who are unemployed need to be able to be trained for new jobs and not lose their unemployment. we've got to put a job in the hand of the chronically unemployed, that's what i'll continue to fight for. that's the legislation that i will support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from the town halls in august of last year to the voting booths of massachusetts, the american people have spoken. the american people don't want a government takeover of health care and despite the president's latest polished pitch, obamacare 2.0 is still a government takeover of 1/6 of the american

economy. the american people know it. the latest version of obamacare is the government takeover because it will mandate private citizens' purchase of health care whether they need it or want it or not. it will cause millions of employers to cancel the health insurance they currently offer employees and force tens of millions of million -- americans into government-run exchanges. and it will create a health care zarqawi to impose price controls on private health insurance that will lead to shortages and force even more people into government-run insurance. mr. president, govern mandate, govern-run insurance -- government mandate, government-run insurance and more government control is a government takeover of health care. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas lies? -- rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to share a letter that i received

from my friends at the houston citizens' chamber of commerce. the houston citizens' chamber of commerce is the oldest and largest african-american chamber of commerce in houston. they are strongly in support of efforts to preserve nasa's constellation human space flight program. in their letter they stated that, quote, the future of our nation's long-term prosperity and national security is dependent on innovation and more young americans being educated in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. they also stated, what a source of pride and inspiration human space flight has been for african-american children who see african-american restaurants and know that the -- astronauts and see that the sky is not the limit. mr. speaker, the houston citizens' chamber of commerce understands the national value of human space flight. i urge my colleagues to support the constellation program in our

upcoming budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for march 11, mr. jones for march 11, mr. moran for march 11, dr. gingrey for today and mr. mccotter for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any specialereders 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. first is mr. schwartz myself

from pennsylvania, ms. berkley, ms. woolsey, mr. al green, ms. titus, mr. defazio and ms. kaptur each for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, thele following members are recognized -- the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. at first al gore claimed to invent the internet. now looks like he really did invent something. global warming. the nation had one of the coldest winters in years including record snowfalls in the south. but the warmers like al gore ignore the obvious and still claim we're all going to perish, saying man is the threat to the planet. the groundhog is a better predictor of the weather than al gore. his long-winded article in the "the new york times" over the weekend was long on claims and short on facts.

he didn't cite hard source -- sources for his information. like the rest of the global warming scientists who are using fraudulent information. we're supposed to take their word for it now that basic data supporting their claims has all of a sudden disappeared. that data remains to be -- has been found to be fraudulent, it's no wonder that data is disappearing. there seems to be no conclusive scientific data that proves the global warming theory. it's a theory. that's what a theory is. something that isn't proven. .j report in 2007 that made all kinds of claims about global warming. the report is based on faulty science. climate gate started last year when a whistle blower released emails.

the emails and other information released showed these guys had been cooking the books and a huge scandal unfolding on the front pages of newspapers all over the world, including england. the climate research center in england is the center of the climategate scandal where the emails were released. some revealed some scientists plotting to avoid disclosing information under the freedom of information act in england. and that's against the law in england. other emails showed that so-called scientists talking about how to manipulate the data and fix the outcome of their scientific experiment. sounds like fraud to me. then they spread this false information around to their buddies without a proper peer review. that's how you perpetrate the hoax. the data is based on the same fraudulent data from one of

these small group of scientists. why are these scientists caught in lie after lie? if it's the truth, why would they be lying in the first place. the british science community spoke about that this week and against their climate science peers. they said, quote, unless the disclosed emails are proven to be forgeries, there's no credible proof man causes the weather changes and way to bill being millions of dollars out of taxpayers with a carbon tax. it seems to be all about money. mr. gore is invested heavily in green technology. he was proclaimed to be the first green technology billionaire, that's a billionaire with a b. al gore has made a fortune off

of global warming. he should back up his claims with hard data, not the data that has been profede to be false. and other scientists should have to defend these claims as well. global warming is not a fact. the jury is still out. and it's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. ms. schwartz: earlier today, unfortunately, i missed a vote on legislation called hiring incentives to restore employment act, the hire act, because i, along with several of my colleagues were meeting with president obama in the white house. and i apologize for not getting back to the floor on time. i would have liked to, but i did want to speak on the legislation, because this is important. it is a jobs bill that i hope is

one of a series of bills we will pass in the house and senate and get to the president's desk to move this economy forward to enhance our economic competitiveness and create job growth, help stimulate job growth in the economy. this passed by 217-201 and i believe it will be an important step in giving america the tools to jump start job growth. it provides tax cuts to spur new investments by small businesses and allows tens of billions of new dollars for infrastructure investment. specifically, this bill will grow small business investments by extending provisions included in the american recovery and reinvestment act that congress passed in 2009 and which has been successful in stimulating new jobs. these provisions double the amount of -- that small businesses can immediately expend for capital investments and purchases of new equipment

made in 2010 from 125,000 to 250,000. the legislation also extends surface transportation programs to allow for billions more to be ininvestigate in infrastructure necessary -- invested in frark and borrow for school construction and energy projects and bolster the highway trust fund to highway projects. the house budget committee, i'm particularly pleased the hire act is fully paid for and it does not add to the annual deficit. it is paid for by cracking down on overseas tax havens and provides treasury to use new tools to find individuals who hide assets overseas. this jobs bill provides new investments needed to get our nation back from this economic crisis we have experienced to stimulate job growth in the

private sector by investing in small businesses and in infrastructure and does so in a fiscally responsible manner. i'm proud of the house work. i urge my senate colleagues to pass this legislation quickly and send it to the president. and i look forward to additional legislation that we will see and help work on to produce those new jobs and to rebuild this economy and make america is well positioned and well prepared for the 21st century and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones. without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank you. and i rise today to honor an outstanding athletic coach from my hometown of marietta, georgia, on the occasion of his

retirement. james friday richards had dedicated more than 30 of -- 30 queers of his life, retiring on january -- 30 years of his life retiring in january. coach friday is a teacher at the high school and retiring from full-time teaching at the end of this current school year. coach friday graduated from marietta high school in 1972 and wept on to play football at the university of florida. he then spent two seasons in the nfl playing for the new york jets and the washington redskins before coming back to where it all started. working at marietta high school is the only job outside of professional football that coach friday has ever had. up until his retirement, he was the longest-serving football coach in cobb county, georgia.

during his 15-year tenure as head coach, coach friday compiled a record of 107 victories and 58 defeats. he took the blue devils to the playoffs 10 times and won four regional titles. before he became head coach, friday was a marietta assistant for coach broadaway and coach dexter wood. under coach friday, more than 100 players from marietta have earned college football scholarships. coach friday told "the daily journal," that the thing that he'll miss most about coaching are the kids. well, coach friday, four of those kids, my kids, billy, now 38 years old,, where in the

world did the time go? coach friday, i can tell you that those four children that you mentored and coached, three of them cheerleaders, one of them a wide receiver for the blue devils, they miss you, too. it's your attitude of putting students and players first that made you, coach friday, such an outstanding teacher and a football coach. mr. speaker, he will, indeed, be a tough act to follow. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. ms. berkley: i thank you, mr. speaker. during the campaign, president obama pledged the citizens of nevada that he would kill the unanimous consenta mountain project. he has -- yucca mountain project. they pulled the license of the dump. the president's blue ribbon panel will find an alternative to yucca mountain.

but it's important for me to re-explain why the opposition to yucca mountain is so strong throughout nevada and the united states. there is a very long history here. the so-called, as we refer to it in nevada, the screw nevada bill that was passed over two decades ago decided all of a sudden there were three sites that were supposed to be considered for the distribution of nuclear waste. all of a sudden in the screw nevada bill, there was one state and we were the state that got screwed by the united states congress. so this was always a political decision. it never was based on sound science. and let me tell you what the proposal of this bill was. 77,000 tons of toxic radioactive nuclear waste being shipped across 43 states to be buried in a hole in the nevada desert,

where we have groundwater issues, seismic activity and volcanic activity and 90 miles from a major population center in the western united states. this was never based on sound science and it never was a viable option. however, for the last 20 some odd years, it has been the option that this congress and the former administration wanted to place on the american people. now, let me explain what some of the things are that are wrong with this. first of all, there's no safe way to transport 77,000 tons toxic radio active nuclear waste across the united states. it would take 300,000 trips of either on our highways or our rails, across this country where we would be going past schools, hospitals and residential areas in order to get to nevada.

now, just statistically, there would have been x number of accidents when you have 300,000 shipments. also, after 9/11, we became aware of a potential terrorist attack. what would prevent a terrorist from attacking a nuclear train that was bringing this nuclear waste to the state of nevada. that's number one. number two, there is no cannister that can safely store the waste. yucca mountain was supposed to be a natural repository that would collapse on itself when it was full. they found out it wasn't bone dry. there is moisture in yucca mountain. they said let's build a cannister to store the waste. but they did say the possibility that the cannister would leach into the groundwater. they said since the mountain is a natural repository and the cannisters didn't exist and if

they did exist, they couldn't protect the groundwater of leaching of nuke collar waste, that we -- nuclear waste. and then they came up with a brilliant plan in the last administration that there would be an army of robots because it would be too dangerous for a human being to go down to yucca mountain. so an army of robots that would have to be invented to go down to yucca mountains to seal the cannisters that don't exist in yucca mountain that is a natural repository. this is what we have been dealing with over two decades. the u.s. circuit of appeals overruled a decision because you know what? the shelf life of nuclear waste is 300,000 years. so that made no sense either. the nuclear industry continues and its allies to talk about

putting nuclear waste at yucca mountain, nevada. that plan is so dead, because the state of nevada supports the president of the united states, who has finally pulled the plug on this ridiculous program. this is going to cost billions and billions of dollars. where are we getting that money? nevada doesn't have a money tree? and you know what else? we don't have any water. we're in the middle of the desert and takes millions of gallons of water in order to cool the nuclear waste. i don't know where they expect to get the water, but they ought to look at the map because there's no water in the state of nevada. we're in the middle of a desert. i thank the president of the united states for honoring his promises. this blue ribbon panel will finally meet and find the process of an alternative to yucca mountain. we better finally figure out a way what to do with the nuclear

waste. i support the president and blue ribbon panel. i wish them well and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. moran of kansas. without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccotter: thank you, mr. speaker. we are now a week removed from the president's celebrated health care summit and we are a day removed from the president's press conference regarding moving ahead on the health care bill despite the wishes of the american people. . prior to the summit i was one of the voices urging the republican that -- that republicans not attend unless the president decided to start from scratch and find a principle basis for compromise amongst both sides. that principle basis was not

found and the principle divide remains. the house and senate republicans went in to the summit and they engaged admirably and honestly in the cause of putting forward republican solutions to health care. yet what we found was that afterwards the president has decided to arbitrarily negotiate with himself what he purports to be a bipartisan compromise bill, one which magically has been obtained without the consent of the minority party. as summarized by mr. charles crowdhammer yesterday, the summit was a sham wow summit and the good faith of those republicans in the room is now currently being used in a political charade upon the people to prepare them for the proposition that a bipartisan health care bill is before them.

i quote mr. crowdhammer. but they, the administration, wanted to present it to the american citizenry as having tried to reach out. that's why you had the charade of the summit last week, seven hours of discussion, when it was already precooked that nothing would change anything. but that's part of the deal. he, the president, wants to appear to be offering to incorporate republican proposals and now the pick of ot which we had today -- pivot which we had today. it's important that we not lose sight of the principle divide between the two sides. on the one hand the democratic majority wants to have one -- wants to have government-run bureaucrat-dictated health care. on the other, the republicans want to have wellness. no amount of taking republican proposals and sprinkling them onto the faulty premise of a government-run bill will make it bipartisan or will make the republican proposals effectual.

as trailer will be taking the democrats proposals and putting them onto a free market, patient-centered withness bill. it is a principle divide, one which abraham lincoln reminds us, important principles must remain inflexible. and in this instance the bridge between the two parties has not been established and the divide remains. also within this debate i think it is important to point out a second important aspect. this is not merely about the money, it is about the liberty. we can all talk about costs, we can all talk about coverage and in my view the current health care bill would be a catastrophic -- have a catastrophic impact upon the fiscal condition of the united states which is already tenuous at best. it is about the american people wanting to make sure that they retain these decisions in their hands and that the forces that we see around us throughout the communication and innovation revolutions that empower them to make their own decisions every

day to greater extents than at any time in human history remain in their own hands rather than those of the government bureaucrat. this is not mere supposition on my part. i cite two recent poll numbers. according to the rasmussen report, only 21% of the united states citizens believe that this government has their consent. i cite a second sobering statistic, according to cnn 56% of americans believe the federal government is the threat to the freedom of ordinary citizens. so as this health care debate proceeds forward despite the wishes of the american people, who are not en-- we are not only endangering their health care but their faith in their representative institutions, into their belief that this is a servant government of the sovereign people. so in conclusion, mr. speaker, i again point out that there is a principle divide between both parties.

one wants government-run bureaucrat-dictated health care, one wants free market patient-centered wellness. and as we move toward the former, the american people's faith in their representative institutions will be continually eroded as they watch an objectsitynant insistance by this administration to pass a health care bill that the american people have said they do not want. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. woolsey. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there are those who contend that we are moving too quickly, we're moving too swiftly and that we must slow down, in fact this frns lates into -- translates into, we really should not go forward at all. and to these who would contend

that we should stop at this point, that we should simply let it go, my response is, we cannot let health care go because it won't let us go. the system is not sustainable. it is unsustainable as currently implemented, currently we're spending about $2.5 trillion per year on health care. $2.5 trillion is a big number. it's difficult to get your mind around $2.5 trillion. $79,000 a second, however, is a number that we can comprehend and that is what we're spending, $79,000 per second. 2018, depending on who's counting and how you count the numbers, we'll be spending more than 20% of g.t.p. per second.

we cannot sustain the current system. it must be revamped. this system has to change. 46 million people uninsured depending on who's counting when you count and how you count. in my state of texas, six million people uninsured. $1.4 million children in the state of texas are uninsured. in the county where i reside, 1.1 million people are uninsured. the system cannot continue as it is constructed. we spend $100 billion per year in emergency rooms, $100 billion per year to cover those who are uninsured. money that could be well spent in a physician's office and would save us a lot of money and would also help us to deal with preventive measures as opposed to responding to illnesses when

they become almost dire. the system must change. we currently have a system where there are many people who are too young for medicare, they make too much to receive medicaid and they don't make enough to buy their insurance. the system has to change. we cannot allow preexisting conditions to continue to prevent pregnant women from getting proper treatment. pregnancy is a pre-existing condition under the current system. the system has to change. we must find a way to muster up the courage to take on this challenge. if we could pass and did pass social security when the polls

were against it, if we passed other crucial measures when the polls were against them we can pass health care reform. and for those who contend that in this country how you got here will depend upon whether you will get treatment, my response is this, if you commit a crime in this country and you harm someone and we should harm you as the culprit, when we capture you we will give you aid and comfort. in this country, if you are an enemy combatant and you hurt our warriors in battle and we should capture you and you have been wounded, we will give you aid and comfort. if this country, if you're on death row and you're going to meet your maker next week, we will give you aid and comfort if you are suffering this week and send to you your maker next week. if we can give the enemy combatant, the person on death row and the person who is a criminal aid and comfort surely

we're going to give it to people who find themselves hurt and in the streets of life. the system must change. dr. king said it best, he said, on some questions cowardess will ask, is it safe? ex peedencey will ask, is it politics? vanity will ask, is it popular? but conscience asks the ultimate question and that is, is it right? this is the right thing to do, i stand where dr. king stood when he told us we must do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular but do it because it's right. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. ros-lehtinen. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to take her time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: you know, mr. speaker, i have great respect for my colleague who just spoke and while listening to him a lot of people in their offices probably would think, well,

we're against the changes in the health care procedures in this country. that couldn't be further from the truth. obviously the health care system in this country needs to be adjusted, needs to be changed. but do we want a bill that's 2,700 pages long, that's going to cost about $3 trillion a year that we don't have and is going to put the government between people and their doctors, that's going to end up being a socialistic kind of approach to medicine and which i believe will destroy one of the greatest health care systems in the world, the best health care until world? i think it's a mistake to approach this from the standpoint that there's only one way to solve the problem and that is the way that the president wants to shove through the congress and doesn't want to even talk to the republicans or the minority about this. we've had all kinds of suggestions, you know, buying insurance across state lines to put more competition in it, allowing small businesses to

band together to get the same kind of rates that major corporations, individual medical savings accounts, making sure that people can take their insurance with them when they go to a new job, pre-existing conditions. there's all kinds of things that we've suggested -- suggestioned -- suggestioned that we support -- suggested that we support that will reduce the cost of health care and give everybody the opportunity to have health care. and we've suggested these time and again, the president had a bunch of our leaders down at the white house just recently and then he finally ended up by saying as he left, well, we'll leefpk it up to the electorate, that's what elections are for. indicating they're going to push through their plan whether we like it or not and their plan is going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. they're going to have 10 years of coverage with only six years of taxes and so when you take the overall cost and really figure it out, it's not going to

cost $700 billion or $800 billion as they said it's going to cost about $1.6 trillion minimum over the next 10 years. and what are they doing to get these votes? i will never impugn the integrity of my colleagues but i think it's important that the american people know, mr. speaker, if they happen to be paying attention or my colleagues in their offices what's being done to get these votes. in louisiana senator land rue is going to get between $1 and $300 million additional for her state medicaid population. vermont's going to get an extra $600 million in medicaid funding. they want to get those votes so they're porking up a little extra money for them in order to get those votes. at least that's the appearance. vermont and massachusetts, secured $1.2 billion in medicaid money, a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. vermont senator sanders also boasted he was going to get an investment worth $10 billion to $14 billion for community health

care centers that the rest of the country will be paying for. florida and new york and pennsylvania, they're going to protect -- they're going to have protected medicare advantage benefits even as the program sees massive cuts in other parts of the country. hawaii's getting a benefit, secured an increase in medicaid disproportion share hospital payments in hawaii while the other 49 states pay more for that special benefit. senator bachus reportedly secured expanded medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in libby, montana, in a mine in libby, montana. they're giving these things out to get their votes. at least that's the appearance. connecticut secured $100 million for a health care facility. western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that the other states don't get in order to get votes. cat lack plans, the unions secured a special deal with the senate bill. it was a $60 billion exemption for union workers from the quote, cadillac tax on health

insurance. now, while president obama's latest proposal removes the, quote, nebraska deal that was scheduled to buy a vote from a senator there, the unions still get their cadillac plans. if president obama's so concerned about public perceptions created with backroom dealing, why didn't he propose to strike all the special agreements which he did not? and then of course we just heard that one of our colleagues, mr. matheson, who voted against the health care bill, his brother was just appointed to the united states court of appeals for the u.s. 10th circuit. i wouldn't impute his integrity at all, but it does look peculiar that they're trying to get his vote an his brother was appointed to the circuit court of appeals. these things bother the people of this country at at a time when we really need to revise health care. i yield back the balance of my

time. . the speaker pro tempore: ms. titus, mr. defazio. ms. kaptur. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave absence requested for mr. tiahrt of kansas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: i rise to discuss technology and freedom. unfortunately, we americans can no longer rest assured that our freedom is secured and that the

genius and creativity of our people will bring forth the innovation that in the past has enabled us to deter or defeat our enemies and given us the ability as a people to overcome economic adversity and has provided the means to elevate the standard of living and general well-being of the american people as a whole. america's greatness has been measured not by the wealth and power of our elites as in other countries, but by the unbounding opportunity that has permitted all our citizens to live a decent, prosperous life. now we see a great threat to that promise which until now has been taken for granted by generations of americans. unless we change our course, our children will not have the opportunity to live fiscal year and better lives than what we have enjoyed.

they, in fact, may be condemned to a dismal existence of national decline and personal deprivation. this, unless we have the wisdom to understand what needs to be done, unless we have the responsibility to commit ourselves to getting that ar did youous job done, unless we have the character top accept the temporary self-sacrifice needed for long-term progress and the courage to take on powerful interests who profit from current policies. well, ronald reagan used to say, and i quote, the phrase status quo is latin for, the mess we're in, end of quote. even the rest of us, the american people, suffer hurtful blows to our economic well-being. but, of course, that's most of the american people are suffering these blows. but there are those who enjoy

great benefits from the current policies that are having such a negative impact on the rest of their fellow americans. our country and our people cannot much longer endure the current assault on our livelihood and personal financial stability. yes, we will survive individually and as a people. but americans deserve more than survival. ours should be the freedom and prosperity paid for by the blood and labor of those brave souls, those pates, who throughout our nation's 240 years stepped up and met the challenges to the dream of 1776, the dream that was threatened quite off in our country's history from within and without. but now, of course, it is up to us, the united states. that's us. it's us versus them. the pates versus the

establishment clique or perhaps best described as the globalists. in the last year, we have watched in horror as hundreds of billions of our people's dollars have been channeled to a group of wall street and financial market elites, many of whom put their company at risks with irresponsible business decisions and rewarded themselves with huge bonuses. humbled individuals would come forward to give backbone newses. no, not this crew. they didn't learn that at their ivy league schools. not one has expressed remorse or gratitude or a willingness to pay back the personal gains, huge personal gains made while driving their companies sole vensy into the dirt. all of these bailouts,

stimuluses and giveaways have done nothing but put our country in further jeopardy. the federal government is spending over $1.5 trillion more than it is taking in. we are now facing a liability, a mammoth liability that never should have been ours in the first place. we are at risk and not as a result of an uncontrolable business cycle. it is based and has come to us because of bad policies and bad decisions. it is a crisis we must confront and we must deal with or it will destroy the america we have known and loved. yes, we are facing a threat of that magnitude, a magnitude that could destroy the country as we know it. decision makers, from city hall, capitol hill and the white house, act as we can operate as

business in usual or put in place policies that will turn this crisis into a catastrophe by adding even greater burden onto the shoulders of our people and onto the shoulders of those people and those businesses, productive businesses throughout our country. they think they can even give more power and add more resources to the federal government. they think the federal government can co-op even more of the national wealth at the expense of the productive and wealth-generating workers and enterprises in our country. we will still turn around and go up even as they are struggling those forces within our society that are necessary in order for us to succeed as a nation. i remember a few years ago, there was a story about a new

york politician probably a century ago who was giving a speech at city hall who said, the sword is hanging over pandora's box. the bottom line is, there is a sword of damacles hanging over our head. there is a huge threat that's present throughout washington, d.c. and throughout our country. how did we get here and become so vulnerable? let all remember as we look at this, we got there because of bad decisions and bad policies which continue. my colleague dan burton just went through this incredible proposal to institute what they call health care reform, which is really transformation of our

health care system at the expense of billions, if not trillions of dollars, at a time when that expense will drive down our economy even more as we're trying to strengthen the economy, we are going to drain it even more. it's the equivalent of bleeding patients in order to make them feel healthy as what used to be the practice. how did we get in this horrible situation where our country is so weak? to start with, talking about resources from our country, we have sent $1 trillion overseas in order to buy from foreigners energy that we could have produced here. yet, over the last 30 years, we have incredibly limited our own domestic oil and gas production. we've built not one new refinery. we have no hydroelectric dams, no new nuclear power plants.

and even as we speak, the bureau of land management continues to block the construction of solar power facilities in america's deserts. this official obstructionism is aimed at protecting the habitat of some desert list ard. the end result of all of this nonsense of not trying to produce our own energy or try to develop nuclear power or hydroelectric dams, well, the end result of this that to meet america's needs, $1 trillion or more, has been drained from our economy. this has been the policy of our government, a policy pushed forward by radical environmentalists, the same ones who are probably influencing the bureau of land management not even to let us have solar plants in the deserts because they are considered about lizards and insects. these environmentalists who are

delusioned enough to believe they are helping us by did he prifing us of energy, have had a horrible influence that no one is willing to step up and say you're wrong. no one has been willing to confront this force, because it has been politically correct, it's been popular and been promoted in the press as if these people are idealists. well, they are extremists. everyone in their right mind believes trying to set up a plant for the future believes in clean air, clean environment and clean soil. i have three children children at home. they will be six years old within a few months, yet, i want these young people to have a clean environment. of course we all do. we don't want them to be affected in a negative way, or any country or around the world affected in a negative way. but these environmental

extremists who dominate the majority party in this congress are preventing us from developing our own energy resources and developing -- and preventing us from having the economic progress we need to come out of this crisis. at this moment, they're preventing massive amounts of fresh water, runoff from the snow melting in the high sierras, from being channeled in california to the agricultural areas of our state. as we speak, at this moment, millions of gallons of fresh water are flowing into the ocean instead of being permitted to be used in the agricultural part of our state. all of this to protect a little fish at the demand of radical environmentalists, radical environmentalists who obviously have the ear of the majority of the people in this body. this little fish they're

protecting, delta smelt, is not even big enough to be used as bait, a fish that is not indigenous to california. yet the well-being of this little fish has been put by the powers that be in washington, d.c., has been put on a hire priority by these political decision makers than the price of food for the rest of the population, including all of our children. it's been put on a higher priority than the jobs and well-being of farm-related workers throughout california, and yes, throughout the united states. crops are widthering in california. they are withering because water has not been permitted to go to them and being channeled into the ocean. that's the policy. billions of dollars of wealth as we speak are being lost forever.

and one asks why our economy is on the verge of collapse, why we haven't been producing the revenue so we end up with $1.5 trillion in deficit. policies in congress like putting wildlife and their well-being over the well-being of people, actually have brought us to this situation and are actually making things worse and making it more difficult to work our way out of this economic challenge and this economic crisis. and it goes on and on. with higher energy prices, these higher energy prices, which are destroying the family budget, i might add, and pushing our country into an economic crisis, destroying the local people, ordinary people, their personal budgets are just destroyed and they have no faith and losing hope because they can't see their way out of this pileup of

debt because the economy is being t