empymrvices. a few months of eloyment gains, as welcome thehave been recentha not id the problem of long-terunplm. simpannot abann millns oamericans who ve rke, played be rule bs, savgs and no suort.no cnot let a huge seion of the middle clasgo withhing but food s at the enof the art, i entiedarli, cindy said out of l thpeople kow hat t laid offhe samti i did, thk only three hav fod jobs. th rest have ested unemplment or gettinose thend of it. someone h got tdo shing. the ongress isacedh this. the sate daudling. it itime, mrspeakerthat

actnd mov onto the xt level while we deal wit lg-term uneloyment his countr we cannotlose our eyes and believit's t away. it is not going tgo away. we hahelp the process. i yield ck tpeakro tempore: the gelen el bk the bala of his time. ran of kans. for rpose eshe g from gegia ri? . who objection. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, to tis oortutyo congratulate thecal hyellow jackets fefeating coo coun hby acore of8-2 thdeding game to wn the 2010 rge ate sell tournaent. the yell jke clencd th ries igame with exllenpitching and three home uns i u especia to recognize mager chiprson

and he calho coacng staf for leading llow jackets to aemkle -1 reth season. lhoon, grguly had remarkable seas, . speaker. minating the opponents by scor believe this, 376 runs just games t seas. that'savere of over 10 runs r game, mr. saker. im extremel proud t represe grdon unty and lhoon,georgia, in e 1 congressionadiri and i coul't be prouder of t can yellow jackets for capturing their fourth state chaionship e. congratulations, calhoon. best ofto all of the sewho are g ar and wi that, mr.speaker,i'll my ti

thspker pro mpore: the geleelds back. ms kaptur ohio. mrburton onana. mrdefazio ogon. underhepeaker's announced poli ojanuary 6,009,t gentlewoman from ohio, ms fudge, icogned for 60 utess theesignee of the marityder. ms. fue: thank youmr. pe. mr.peaker, i k anims nsent th aembers be gin fi legislative days to revi and extd remarks into the rerd othis t. the speakeprteore: witho ctn. ms. fue: thank you ve mh. mrspeake i appreethe peci order hour on hlt care theongressi bck rrently the congronal blcaucus is chaid the honorle barbara leerom the

ninth congreional distri o cafornia i wouow yield to our air, the honorae barba le ms. e: tha y very mu first let me thank myriend collgue,esswom mara e oo, forchorin tot's ngreiona bck causpecial the immedie fits health careform. also let me jus thanknd salu congrswomudgeor her consistcynd h commitment tlding these peal orders we can br attentn to som the mos presng issues confing ou countroften don't ally ake the headline si would esciallyikto thank cones fudge for leading ton's special order ce againn e immediate benefitsf nd for ctinuing to kp our caucus fus on addres the kssfa our nati. she has many of the me problems and issuesohs i do i california.

alof the mrsf th congressional bla caucus have whether we come fromral trtsrict o an district i wantk u four leeripnd for oe agai soundinghe alarm s chair of the 42ber congsional black caucus, i se tonit to talk about the alth care criinameric and to inform he a people abouour actions and agend worng with pridt obama, speaker pelo, leader t us a althieand stronge nation. sinc teddy roovelt almost nturo, president after esident have sght to deliv eacare for the ameran people but no avail. but this yr, underhe leership of prident obama andpeaker pel the united states coness took ar ep towd deliveng on the promisealth care f all americans in a cprehsive and fiscaydent wa

this ia verympotant investment in the health and well o al amans. for too long qualit and rdable healthare, which i lieve is adame rigwas way out of reachor r ma americans a was ally tprovince wealthy for tho who were fortunenough to ha a job th provided healtcare benefits. it waa ry long anarous suggle but i pleed that we continue tpush to form our healthare system. ito claty of purpe, i took moral authority,t took determination a cmmitmentf prama, therilliant and fed leadershi speak nancy pelosand sena majority lear harry re a he will the mority he collgues -- of my colleagues t hou and the senate, but most importantlyhe will can peo make this rli. tetheout against the

insurae dustry, to say that wwill no loerno lonr, mind you,e heldostage to the of enefit continue to pay the premiums. we won't held stage y ero escalati heacare costs. he 1930's and wi the passage ofedicare and ofthe civil rights d the ng htact 96's, e passe of health ce reform is defininmomentf ou and i am so pleased, congresswoman fudge, as this ppened ou watch. as ias my vote, thinking ofll the people t i see in the emergcy rooms and in e italwhen i'm there withy 86-yoldother or withy sier who has multip sclerosis they lth care. peelt people ti o t dot have -- peop that i se who d't have health ce d are just struggling to surve and wand inhe

emergency rooms cause they don havprary ca. as i ct my vote i was inki oall those who died, mindou because theyid't have prentive care and they couldn't s docr and they died an earlea. i was also thinking abt my hiren and randchildren anfuture generions of amero ll live longer and will now live healt lives because of legislation we pass. i am glath thihaed outch. members of the congresonal black caucus word tirelessly tonsure that thisillds inrance companiesaccountae and incd a numberf cost-saving provis we wereal advocates f provisions in the bill comt hdispities,llnesses and disses tt dirortionafect low inco and commutiesf color. this bill is a win for all americansecauset makes us a ronger and healt nation.

it contains nymmediate benets that amicans will r. in to rzeefore the end in fact, just lasweek ousands of sentizen rapp into eoughnut hole escription drucoragethey ben ceiving a one-ti tax-frechecfor $250 mailed over the next severa nths as siors enter the covage gawithn stated four millioneniors receiving seef benninnext yea seniors will get a 5 discount on prescrtion drugsf ey are in thi doughnut ho. the ages of 5nd 64 and t thkingf ki an earl etirement over t next years and many -- a know -- andan mage group are thinking about this, if your loyer pred extend coveragewe create a temporar nce rap reduce premiums foryou and your

employer. you rrenvevate iurance, eierurcd indidually ohroh ur emoyer, by sepmb of this ye a new pl will b prevd fr denying coverage childr with e-isti nditionsdrop your health e covege if yot ck, ean, this is mind boggling, to thin you pay your premms r health care and then the insurance coaniecan drop it if y get sk. my sh. justor treasonlong, everyshou have voted r this bill. it will begin to place a fetime c on the amou of vera y can recv tes tifetime capaway. soin aition, n pns eive su don'tcover ha to y co-payand e cost of the svice be exempfrom consideration as of your deducble. thiss a deal it willetp anntable

and effectivinte and ternaleals pss to aow you to allengarbitry decisions made by ur health insuranccompany. i owy familymyself, m constituents get jerked around many, ny t by surance com. they t put through so my ges. they hto jump through so their claims he been denied. no morf th. or plans on the individu marketswe also tightly regulatehesef annual covegeits and en move to full probiti osuch lits by 2014. 20 sems like aong time, but 's really not. and so the steps that wre king between nownd thinke going tommte hp those who need this pe o help. within one yr nactnt, by nexmarch, insurance compani will also haveo ensure that

theyspenng at t 80% of he premis, 80% that the llect from the indidua markets, and 85% ofrems collected from large group market pans, octual hea services. that would for thfirst time guantethat iance copani can't raise premiums just to provide huge salaries and bonuseto their c.e.o.. thy acally neeto ensure at they areeing used to provide health re for people. what they're paying for.t's that's th car not to ide these huge c.e.o. salies and soinally we're going beg t the right thing. if youa albusiss owne exce me, t s, with less than 5employees, you wilneveha a obligatn r this ll, you wot be reir to buheth coverage for yo worrs and you wot pay a pelty you don't prove alth ce coverage,

rerdlef at you heard during the debate. this is a ft. ut iyou do provide health care and iou are a small busesou will get a tax crit this ar up to 35% of ance premium.e oe contin tovide heal c to yo emploes, thenby 2014 you will recei a tax creditf up to 50% of yo prm contribution. belieou m as a rmer sml business observer, i know how iortant -owne i know how importt is is. quiremn businesses t 50 ople do not in unti r 2014 thas plentytiget ready for this. at'when we wi actually prode those subsidies to ople thamight not ha coverage andhen the natial anate-based health exchange --xchanges e officially launched. that's in 2014. if you're uninsured right no a young pern, andbe

betwee jobs, ad if you'r young t26 y oage, your- an your pants ve insuranc then you wille, of course, aedo thr insurance plans and if fact your parts n'have to you fro thei and if nk in fact your rents won't have to drop you from thr pl if you're uninsurecause you ve a pre-esting cti, nd mind you we learned dg this victims of domestic vlence -- domestic vien w a you can believet? tion. just being won had been p-existing nditiountil now. hat's shocking. anpret dsting rely. so, once ain, you had a pre-existing condition, nobody, mind you, no company will be ledy you your benefits. but you don'qualify for mere- if you don' qlify for medicare or medicd you atleveich will pri nto a

rate in eacate. age going theemporary hh risk poo will ntinue to offe verage through 2014,ntil the subsidies and exchanges in, so there are immedia benefits. by no mes is is a perct ll. there's no doubt- or perfect law. 're accustomed to sing ll. th is a law. were workinso hard on t egistion. somele ry that it's hardo believe thathi s signed into law buthis is a law now. we ha thaveome kind of a mpe prograha insurae companien ben to

bring theistdo howevthis bl offsvery importanadvance in health care tt we c make. making ceragre affordble anexpandg acce to ch edeservices. it is now a good law that will milons of americans, t it was the foundation, sthe ginnin and ure that any of th fht provisions ther't included, t included it doesot -just have o y is in osing,this law does not disse nature ben republicans who don't ave any insuranc democrats who ha surance or ho pay o much for tir iuran coverage, or tea party activi it doesn't scrine th anyone with any rty affiliation. whether your member of coress voted forhis orotyou will benefit om thill.

ch a every americill soon learn th this isot a government takeover. it's not soclized medicine. andue te hard work an itme omocrats,e will finay bring thuned states ofmerica into the columnf industrialized natio, mind you, icprovide affordable accessible healtharer all. this, my colleague iin is a remaable step inhe rig direction. and so i havto tha all of those who voted for the bl thank prent obama for signing iin lawnd i wan to thank thcossional black cauc and our hh skorce le by congresswoma donna christian sen whfought every day mak we expaed mmuny clics and bto close health disparitie communities of color thaare

mirity medical schools, finally reive eqty ites of thebility ttrai me nority mical pfessionals. and ts s a big de. t's going to kick invethe years, up until , but i think thic peoe ll sewhy this wel worth fighting. on again, it don't maer whether you are a democrat, republican or teaarty activist or tea party, u wl benefit or not. ymeerot for it ankso the congressional ack feingtrong advocates forlth care refor ms. fudg wwould li to k u. thk ther no one in this ccus who fo harder to get thisl passed. our air,seative e, isne of the hst worki memberof this eire body shhaand leadership anshe s coage. and we want to thank y f beinour leader.

we thanyou veryuc mr. speaker, i d now like to yield to my frnd who has joed us and has been constentor the peoe of this uny, the gentl from texas,heila jacksee. msjackson lee: ihanky colleague fromveuc and i'm delighted to be able to oin her and asel my chawoman theonession ack causnd other mbe w know ha a great ntest ithe ea of remding the ican people of the great strides we haveadin the attitude forealth re iing ne me. it's long overdue and a enormous struggle. i can remember at weeke i ma 2010 and the days we

stayed over on saturday, to ga ouresources continue to wond to push workinensuring tt e ate woulbring e ll over we cod cast a ve for what has be a monual ge in american life and willo down as a montalovin americ hisry. st a few miteag i had t ecretary of agricuur eryill sack, d he remie us w vast ameriis. we stood in sice to knowledge e loss of lives in arkansas and the terrib flooding and he expssed the inequity itermof povertyn r rural commities and e need for investmenin th ommunies an would venture to say alon

side of that inveme, this health ce billit'sot a respectiveion orpart u are inyowie acess healtcare. th mns tt many of the whom ericans, some of ed tir svival out the rth,ome whom are farmers, someayavall familyarms and many the ve sacficinvest in ose rms and ha pbl igred thneed for health care beuse of tost, now wea th oppounittonse tt osamericans, hard-worki amerans wht d on table, have the ility to pre tor faes. the fy's commmentto, in essenc samping out obesit particularly inur children, this heah care bill provides for prevente asures and ca a a foc o

nutritionnd emphasis n yhildre, something long ovrue due anitcomplents thrst lady's eor and the secretary of agricture acnowledgi tt we must ve healthy food o scho cafeteria have healthy childr. it is impor to te that athild whoaye obese, have access to some forof health care. now with the psage of this alth care bill, that child wi havth oornity to hava better life, a healthi lif to ha nutrition plan ha like to cl pns fochiren'sets but a nutritn pl than verned by the famildtor, whh eyill ha access througthe nationalxchaor through health ce thatir family can purchase. ju a week or so ago during

morial y weeki had e privege ofnnoug a des 1iion gra that was llow the inner cy hospital, the only rican-american si hpital the nation to servi emploes or service membe, ratherand their faliesactive duty service mbers and eir milies fo ptd, po-tauc stress disorr. that ia prominent and prevnt condition tmanyf ou soldiers e cg ck rom iraq and afgnistan and have been impact by th. what abt ment health and th need for mentalhealth care acro ama that people who havhantal hltconcerns ha literally suffered because we never had par inch ty in ou health care insurance vera

never been rred federally til recently. thlegislation, of course, epard by the late setor ted kennedy d ouiend and collea h son, k kennedy. but foso my s, wdid not have menta healthparity. think if you ignore the service memberwho ve beeimpacte wel many americans el isolatedith mental heal ncernd not bng ablto acce alth care. thisill turncoe mental health care and i wa say to the american hat ical llnessas position to be raised upup over mental health condition and there should should be no stigmand have accesso as good a ca for phsical aient, a broken arm, an upsetoach, iaetes, nesease, but you suld

equay haveccs hlth care. this bl allows at to happen d tht a step forward for it's god to note tt fams o vr raed chdren whoare no enteringork wrld nd oking for work and cong out of colge used toe an us burdehow i c for child wellno we have the oppornity for them to remain e surance until theyare 26. this is importanfor the congss to do and in the slation, tre are several siprovions in the bill. fact ouown congressiona black caus working w congsswoedwards and otrs were very insistent onaking suhat the raising of costs d not inappropriately or unfair burden middle-class

ericans jby taturof o falls on. but the oth aspt of it , thrur is if insurae companiesreequireto keep ildren on until they are26, that uglword of reased costs is goingo rise. weeeto pay attention to the acurel tabe data ba that suggesow many times a 26-ye-o ornr tilizes heth care and t let suranccompanies just willie nily onheir own own basis mak terminat well, t are giving msoing too, i'going to raise the costs. we have to y to the american public, we are ing to be yur tchdog aaksure that est happen. i'm excited about theclinic. i debated this some ars before when we were talking about

trying to put more funding in the legiion to incase th umber ofederally quafied health clinics even before ts healthare ll, becau for a long te, t clicweren't evennown about. thto be le to walk do your block d go to a heth careacility that isn an ergeroom will makee normous difference. preventive car in my commity, iasseng di locations in my congressl districthat a federally quafiedealt inic will be suitable, and petitioners whuld want that be in thr neigrhd. am excited out e martin luther king centeri hed fu many yes o when their orwere about to close. they arnot on open today but haveung two more federall qualified clicsn order to be ab to serve the public. th is go invtment.

asndicated earlier, ou small businesses will able to spel the rd reef andl beble to say i have beeable or wi bable to not only p for the ners, buty ployees lle able to get insurance and that is a gat mechani and weshld not letanyone dump on our para. we suld nolet yone miscalla or mischacteze if youill, how much of an mpact thall busiss tax exempt shon will be for thos -- exemption will be for tho all businesses to be able to provide health surance to employee they nt tovidinsurance r those erand fathers th wk for themryay who haveomed and dicated somimes they are family businessesbut now th wilbe ableo do so. the hnutole atas th

mo horrific te some ye ago, medicare part d, we we on thfloor t houil 6:00 becausour frndson the r side ale couldn't get the v but 's horfic. it means that you pay for yr prescription drugs th a g through e roofntil you, as a senio, falln he ho cause u tarophic illnees. what an atrocity. we are going tose that hole in the next two years anas well,ightow, senis should be reiving a $250 chin ouhands right now. we recognize the undermining of your health care becae of medicare pt d. it s unrealistically exnsive an it was a plan that we democrs ve indicatedt was a ong-headed decisi and we rt of our deficithat has poken so loudlybout was

cased by medicareart d and the large jority of our pt our ucus voted again it, alizg was wng-head diction to take. let mappld is heah care bill for recoizinthat as you expandpptuties -- and here was another gativehath naysaywould y. u can hardly get into doc' offices. ab to sea octor andscaring seniorsith that kind of formati. well, i tnkhen people are incl to serve,here is a gre deaofove and affeion for the medil profeson. one of threasons that we d't have the numbers we have n been able to give peortunity it is eensi trag. and so, we wl be engag providing urs to train nurse nurse practitioners, physia. we'll actually have resources t give to youeoplwho wa t i spoke at the highchl of

heth presonals in my istrict. they have a diverse student body d manythemreot going in t health ofessions, but many are. and more would thehad the sources to do so. w'rexcited about that. . let ring somhing in at yomightot thi is lated tohe health care bl but it is the b.p. oil spill. it is plaguing lfoast but remportantly, ters huan devastion, if will you. there is the vastation of not workingn shrimping and fishing an oyster indtr there areome gy indusy workerwho e now not working as well. all those individual re robabllivi offf thr lary or the revee they brt inayo day, m to mth. and i would imagine at some those inviduals d t have alth insurance. they might haveven been paying a fefor ser because they ney in the business as oppos

to health care. ll, w we he opportunity for these individuals either if thy're at risk to gonto a hih risk poooro into helth exchan, toe able to get the most effeivelco effective hltcare insurce th tey mhte le to t. with that in mind, i'd ke to dict, if you wl, tho states who are refusing to t into the heth ehange progra like my state, which hashe highest number of unnsureds evidenced by dr. oz who came thousn, but also evidenced by the data that says texas needs opportunities for people to be insud and so i uldope that we would have the kd ofneand the health exchge, thattates would not be able to n engage in becse the people woul rise up d say that we wanted it. hospitals, of cours w hav

be facg creasing costs with no compensationowre ospita uerthis bill tha will have the portunittoe paid founcompensated re whope those numbers go do now. becse obvioly if th g don,t means th more people have gten eir n inrance. but jun ca, thes hospitalwill have that. i nt to close onhese last unique to the congssiol re blaccauc and tt eat appuse to t c.b.c. health care task chstsen and e tricaucus healtefforts because out of thaefforte the very important language on disritiesr the ntinuing work odisparitieat we see amongst ounority populatns such as diabetes, suchs kidney falure, su as heart failure, such asevastating breast cancer. these are elements that are clearly a result of dispariti that wernot addrsed and i thinwesemore oppounies for clinical where morities are beg used

so we can find out thcause and beto find the cure for s of thes dvastating impa of certain diseases on the minority unity. andlastlyour rkyet unfinished. i worked very hard on the issue of position-own -- physicownehospitals. many of us thought that the on usoongown to road to rthy make surat we would cure that problem. it is serious pr becae hospitalsre siift ma adversed as hospitals that wer zig -- stigmatized that we re hospitals that were not for profit. ow there were hospitals in the ta of xas that hire or ve at least ,000-plus emoyees. i know for a facthat t hospitals are seg e cotituents with ob-gyn, with full serce care,nef the hospitals in my district was the ly hospil that had win dedicated to h1 when thatas rampanhere in the united ates.

i'm lng forwardo ving an portunity for these hospital leaders to ce back to washington, so sit down with r leadership and talabout making sure that these hospital hoils are not discriminated ait as it relates to mere rmburseent. someanguage allows tha happen in the bill, but its a very peculi formula tat y not match all of the need of the consituents at need to be taken ca of by these hospits. so i t theistiuished ntledy from ohir r constanadership. she has a great mic ommuty icleveland that certainly were ged in this process, puing together this ry, very strong health care reform bill, historic in its own effortsnd i thank h foher adership andinal words are, it inever easy to maked decions ande said that as we debated when we compad this to the 1964 civil rightsct an votiights act.

peleho were here tayho took that votethere wemany inheir home districts who threaten them for taking that voight. where uld amic today we hanot taken thstride t break down t shackle discrination and aow all americans to vote? i hope ani pray and i bieve at we will have the same opportunity to look back on history 2010 an bable to sa how we have changed the lives of thlis aricans. wee ved witthat i y bk to the ntlelady a thank h aga for her leadership. ms. fudge: i thank you. mr. speaker, iust want t agn thank friend and lleague,epresentate jacksonee, for her insi and heknledge obviouly ofhe bl, as well as her ility coecwi the american people. i thank you for joining me ts evning aays pleasure. mrspeaker, again tonig w are gointo focus on the benefi of the health care reform that ericans ar experiencing toy. when it comes to health care reform, at is nocalled the

patient protectionnd affordable ce act, tru believe history will sehow hose of supportedt did e right thing. d werelready seeing eviden that o courageouact isity impaing erans am extreme proud that congrestook t task of osing theought hole for ors. the doh nu he has in many instances d.c. doughnut hole many instans become t black hole because for some enrs the uncover prescription sts never end. fortely thais abouto change. beginning in , seniors the hnut hole wi ceive a drs and by 20 t dougutn ho will be completely ced i kn that many seniors cannot afford to wait to ese the burden medire recipients will automically ree a o-time $250 clect to help them with prescription

costs. somof those checks have already been received. i know thathis is a modest step but it ishe binning of commitmt to imove medicare for our seor and i'm very happy to see it srt hpingome of the 97,000 seors in my congressional district w receededica -who receiv dicare. prescriion s re affordable for snis is only e of t many benefits for seniors included in the rec enacted healtform law other bets for seniors include free prevente care services, so if u need screeninr if you want yr physical examination, a those things bomfree. andllf those ings become free under medicbenng in 2011. extended fding for micare is going to there through 2029. there's gointo be creased accessctorand we will h ended he an community-based services to keep

seniors inheir hmes instead of i rsing homes. i am al pleased tt americans wiout insue anthose who have bn denied insurance due pre-existingconditions can now, nign up for immiate access to health covere. this will be done through a temporarhigh risk until the exchanges areand runng in 2014. this will be a gat relief f amecans. small businees a rving tax credits to sist in providing employees wh health coverage. as a result of the health care reform, the federagovement nowffers tacredits of up to 35he employer premium contributionsor tse small buness tt choose toffe coverage. binning in 2014, those tax credits will inease to up to 50% of employer premium ntbutions. and beginning septemberf

this yea 2010, jt in time for the startf fa sesters for coege, young adults will be ae to remain on their pants' iurance plauntil age 26. the be paris, any yng adu without eployer-provided insurae is able to remain on their parentsinsurance up to age 26. the yellow belts may not be enrolledn colle. he or sheoeven have to live in the same states their parents. pents oy need to contact their health insurance company to enroll their child. finally, our young adul includir foster youth, can pu tir educaon d stt their careersiout th fear o unexpected medical bis hanging ovetheiheads. finally, the young people will have ce to medical car without fear aty will have bills they nnot afford am -- afford.

filly, mr. speaker, in september will also respond to the needs of t younger chdren. ginng on september 23, unfair and discrinatory actice den children healt due te-existing condions will end. no moreilsurance companie termi that children who facinmecal ships don't deserve affordable hh care. more willrivate dustry cide which children serve care and which ones do not. i heldultiple n hllsn health care por to the passage of the bill. and i was moved by the many oriei heard. e in particular me from a father barely able to affd healare for his son suffered with ckle cell anemia. the inuranompany found sickle cello be a pre-isng conditand as such the only insurae hecould find was

tronomical in price and he could not afford it. i am proud that this cuntry redied this situa fors child who only wanted to give his son a stt healthy tu. on september 23, insuran mpanies will be banned fm cappinthe amount omoney they one of my constuents, who ie. wiall mary, especily excited about this particul prision. mary has been payfor heal care insurance as well cattrophic alth care insurance for many yrs. he ds this in she h the lifetimeimit. she saw her owotherwho has brain cancer an noealth surance inundated witical bills well in exces0,00 -- $60,000. she lived in fear that at mig happen to her.

s wanted toe surthat she was prepared just in fear that an unpreventable ounexpec issould for h into financial harhip, sh pres to be safrath than sorry. mary has maintained aolic with a $25,000eductle and, ye i d s $25,000 dedubetble. jt to be sure she doesn't fl into dical baruptcy. for her the countdow to sepmber 23 cat comeoon nough. beginni on octobe 1, there will be increes in fundfor community health centers, to allow for nearldoubling the number of patients served over the nt five yars. for osin ohio, y can find a comnity heah center near you just by cg 211, that is

211. there ll bscholarsps f medical students, there wl be new scholahips and longer paymentrograms ll be lable for ctors, nur and other heth care providers ho work in underrv eas. to those listeng in t 11t dirict at me, find a schorship, visit natnal health seiccorps' website at nhhrsa.gov. again that is nhsc.hrsa.gov. next ar in 2011, a public option fong-te care surae will become avlale. rther in 20 insurance companies will be required t spe 80% to 85% of all premiumsr provide a rebate toustoms.

insurancmpies n no longejust take in oernt su of money and put th i their poetand nothing to show for the care that ty have ven the people whve pa these preums. now they must spend at least 80% to 85% on care. in011 medare patients wi reeive free eventive care. . pag heal care the fst step. it n the challengend our goal i amonored and privilege veoted f health re. we ntoemind rselv why reform waneceary anwhy we fout so hard to ensure all americans. i want to share the story of a constituenwhs diagnod with cancer when he was only 15 years ofge. this you man, weill cal him

steve, should have en worrying aboutettingis drir's license or what he w going to wear to the hecoming danc instead was concern for his very basic survival. evand his family wer told he on had5% chance of iving because head a soball-sized tor, whichad own thrones of his rib cage. luily, he lived t cleveland area. he was ing treated at rainbow babs and children's hospital in clevelandwhic one of eeading pedtric hospitals in the world. rainbobabiess a wrld-cls facily ancares for patients from around wod. the doctors, nurses and suppor staff at rainbow workediracle on is young man. he h intee chemond surgery

h remod the tumor. his boneswhich had beenaten aw by th cancer, were replaced th tit arned how to wa ag, remarkable feawhich few wod have the emotional mental maturity to handle, let alone the physical despite the expe ontinuing radiation d chemo, it was not ou to event the relapse that os. th four months, steve ha to reat the pcess of removing t another tumor. e tumor smoved byainbow babies. thankfuy this particular type ofancer did t retun. ste ulgo on with hi stues and go with h

studs his lifeas starting to get back on track, especially for an 18-year-d, he was stil worryingbot school, but justinto colge life and firing outhat it means to be a young adu. sts ststarted new life, he recd devastating news. w diagnosed with a new and different type of cancer, a.m.l. it iood cancethat required him to he a be marrow transplant. a annonymous dor and doctrs saw him through a scessful peration and thanks to them and the sien of his faly steve is a young adult, physically and mentally ady for the challenges that come to llege udents. th story of steve's resilience

a heroic one that can serve wt makes thistoryosts b notablis that muchf it w done whout the bic protections that should be guaranteed to minors by alth steve had exceeded his lifeme insurance limit and aa full- student, he was ineligie for his pares' urance. aboutltcarereform with l this quote. hsays if you voted for the health reform billthank you, cae for other kidsteens anyoung adults like me, you old two problems this year, oneprent inrae companieving lifetime max mumand children allowed to reinn insurance until 26 even if ty aren't enrolledn

college. hope a story n't have to be ated in chamb. i'm proud o have been ono the persons woted in this hoe to save the lis of s many. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under thepeaker's announc policy of january 6, 09, the geleman from most, m akin is recogniz for 60 minutes as the deignee of the minority lear.

. ak: ank yo m speaker. we'll be getting started when we get the easel set up. ank you. it's a treat toableo join my colleagues this evenings w take a look at oncein some

ofhe fundamental questions thate face as a nation, the questions thacenter arounur budget, defi, the world economy, particularly unemployment in america and the various policies that are volvd in some of tse questions. these are thgshat ha abrbed the attention of our nati nofor so period of time because the econo has been vy tough. there areany americans that e hard rks at are out of rk and the condition of our country overal, even particulavaous states, is tring at best and dire obable proably would be mo accurate. its appropriate to lk back few years to see wher have come from and to develop a little wisdom from the past and the ssons we can learn from the st. i'm chosen to mp ino an interestng point in histor

at a lot of people don't kno this isn'old history, but things mo of us have lived our own day. this waseptember 11, justwo years after the attack on the twin towers, september 200 he suati conicled byhe "new york times," not conservativeeaper, reflecting a proposal, in fact, a ea from presidenbush. this is what the actualtext of tharticle says. the bush administration today recommended the most significan egulatoroverhaul in the housing finance dury since the savings and loan crisis a decade ao this is 2003. this is t 2008 when the housing crisicame craing down upon all of us here destyed the stock market and our econom says re, under t an dis

heang, a new agency would be crted within thereasurey department to assume supervision freddie mac and fannie m. they were quasigovernmental and prive mpanies, but they were cread with the almost implicit assumptiont fg anything goes wrongthged federal government will step in. going back before 2003, youhad federal policies -- this is cleltied up with thecorn several policies that said banks had to give loans tople who were a very poor r coury whe it was hard to getthe mortgages d for invials to buy a house. we felt that home ownership was

a good thing in general. and the banks, the cogrs decidethat the banks should reired to make loans to people whmay t able to pay those loans. so wh you have hes cial engineering. it red its height almost under presidelinton in his last year and he changed the percentage saying the banks had o up theercentage of loans, which by st oth economic standards would condered risky or poor loans. well what happned was the differentankers and oth people who sold the loans too these loans and offed pe money to buy houses evenhough their credit or perhaps thjob th had showed that they could notport tt ra of rtgend the mortgage payments and sohey sold all the things, b guessho picked up the t. it was freddimac a fannie mae. and ty in the he business of underwriting

people's hoortgages and this grew andrew an. well, by 2003,n whilwe were in e height of the al estate boom and it smed like housing prices were dbling ery few years,eddie c and nnie mae lost millions of llars and that reflted e facthat fredde mac and fannie mae in the president's estimation were in trouble. so the president wanted more authori fm coress to regulate fredd mac a fannie who were lgely private and thpresident d no authority to do that. he is requesting authority. the respon of the democrats in this case, particularly the top democrat in thhouset th time, was representative frank. and he said ese two entities, nnie mae and freddima aren't facing any finncial crisis. the re the exaggerate, the ss we will see in rmof

affordable housing. now 20-20 hindsight you lo back and say, this isn't a smart thing to have said because they were in huge trouble. they continued to be in ge trouble. the are ways extended way beyond theve any mns to pay for. they have lots odebt that they houldn'tave, so there is a huge problem. in washington, d.c. because the had lbyists wmany, many thousands, and hundreds o thousands and millions of dollars, which th ge out to political people in washington, d.c. so freddie mac and fannie mae were very popular anit was quite a nuer of people, particularly democts said no, there no real problem with m. as know, freddie mac and fannie mae did have a problem anthey aren a tremdous crisis and as that crisis developed, what happe then is not only does acorn d the

social enneing thre just the housing mket, but it affected noonly just our economy,ut ei world economy andreated is cisis ich stard inoing,u unfortunatelyid not stay contained just te housing market. soe see beginning ofhe econom problems that we're experienci now started with acorn,tarted in housg market now threople o -- theare pple whsay this is evidence he flu of free enter price. rile at thecau this isn't a failure offree enterprise but governmential engineerin the loans thatidn't rk, suppose thathosens made in the name of compassion, although i n't know what's cpassionate about asking someody to take a loan and givinghem a an that they can't afford to pay and slowl

they get farther and farther behind idebtnd get evicd from their house. that i comssiote. but it was the social enneerg at us into trouble. peopleou not afford to make these loans anfor while, you uld gea loan whe you didn't he to make a few paymen for a cple of yrs. sell i jusabout the time you are gng to make this huge big mortgage payment andouble your money that word for a wle until the bubble poed. we std tt into serious economic problems. t affected other parts of the economy as people are aware. we had e big tp, $70 bin, something i did not vote for and many other conservatidid not vote for. belve that problem could have been straightned t by

chanes in the accounting res. ident obama is elected, recognizing that there we some difculties in the ecomy. e had employment that was getting up there, 7% uneloyment. and the president ce in and told us we needed a big smulu bl. many conservatives are skeptil about quoteimulus bills. the emise of the ole idea is fled. the government cannot stimulate the economy. the gornment can only just create aenvironment where th private sector can be productive, n producbs, can create wealth. but the govnment cannotea wealth and cannot really stimulate. it can only simply takeoney and spend it. . is was p out not $700 billion, this was a bigger bailout at about $800iion. this is what we re td fore theill was pass, our

stimulus plthat would likely cree or save ree four million jobs, 90% these job wi beated in the private ctor. the remainin10% are mainly puic secr jobs. and this president-elect obama in juary, 200 and then the roamer report estimated unemploymentithout stimulus is 8. in 20. so in oeror, we told, ifou don't pass this stimus bill, what's going to ppen i you'reoing to unployment thats going to go as high as 8% so need hurand pass this bigulus bill. no, this stimulus bill w t a stimul bill. govement. vestment in big itwas an investment in solism. and never going to work. we stood on the throor, i and i a number of other rublicans,

said it's not going to work. htory sws that this approach is flawed. it doesn't work a. and so nows we take a look, the private secto sos nearly eight million jobs. they claiit was going to cree three millioto four million the posite. we've lost eight million since the goverent has ed 65000 jobs of governme mostly, a lot ofsere temporary census worke and only 5% of job creation was in the priva sector. in fact, the may unemployment rate was at 8.7%, apprching 10%. so thistimulus bil dn't work. now, you cld s, well, hois it that you know it wasn't ing to work? llwe know becae it's bn tried before. it was trie.r. in fact, his secrety of treasury tried the same basi

idea and it's a lite bit -- as a former engineer myself, it's a little bit like the ccept of reacng dn into thepsf your boots lting hard attempting tfly around the by lifting yo own boots. and what they decided to do was that when the economy was hav a hard time, with a ttle bit of coacng from egland, what we wuld do is have the goverent spend a ton of and when the goveme spent th money itouldet the onomy going. itouldtimulate it and get us ba onto a sober ack. of course that's pretty appealing to politians bause you get be the guys to out all othereoples' money in veays. that'what t stimulus bi cluded. a loof handos to various tateovernments so their pensios could proppp whenhe state governments had irresponsiy sppension money th really wasn' there and omising all kinded of retirees that they uld have a

much fatter pension than what the government can ford. so that and a whole sers of other thin. but thibill was not en a classic f.d.r. kind of stimulus bill because that would have be lotofubic yar o concrete hydroelectr dams and also lots of roads and sort opublic works projects. thistimulus ll was much longer in increasingly rt of giveaways.ted pe of giveaways to various states and buttressing and greatly increasing various gernment handouts. ccre those kindsf jobs. be that as it may, we could learn from henry morgthau, if the ading anlirapay in th capit could learnrom ory. t ey dt. th is hemorgenthauoing back to 1939, aft t great depression, and he appears before t congssous andways committee and he says,

we iespending mon. wee spent morehan 've ever spent before and it does not wo now, we've read is he on the floor many timebut people in politics don't want to hear it because th like dishing out oer peoplmoney. i say, after eight yearsf the administration we have st as muchnemployment whewe started a aenormous debt to boot. it sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn't it? we did the stimulubill we created that much more debt, spent $800 billin top of the $700 billion for thealstreet bailout, the one wasailout forig wall streetirmsthe other was a bailoutfor states and otherndividuals whoave spe more money than ty should. so wre supposedo bail them out. ow well diitk? henry morgenthau said, it didn't work. and whadid we fin it doesn't work. our unemoyments hiher now than when we spent the money. swe're saying, ok, is ts a faure of fr enterpse

no. it's a failure of governnt to ble to straighten the governmt out tax -- the economy out byaxg and spendin a lot. does n get the gornment going, umployment, of cose, skyrockes. now, here'e logic of how is thing works and we o to understand it. here's a pictof it graphically. this white line is the privat sector level of employnt. you casee the drop in employment coming do here in tms of the number of jobs in this ahe red line is the increase in goverent employment so, asrivate sectojobs are going down, which means that's where you get tax revue, by people who are making income in their jobs, as the private sector is flat on its back, you see threline heris government endi for hiring l kindofifferent people at work and govnmen in ft,e statiscs c out, the otheday, sayg at people who workor the

government nw on the average re making twicas much as t people working in t private sector. that sounds hauntingllike what's going on in eure. obviously you can'tave a whole lot ofeople workinfothe governmen making more money r person than the people in the private sector because pretty soon there just i't going to be any more moy in e private sector. not only will sloth bunesses down at cree the jobs, you'll kill the busisses dead and then there will real beoing from a recession to more lik a great depression. so here we have the big govement democrat way, we see that this ole plan of imuling e combhe really is a failed scheme. now, y could say, well, you've goyour tories, herb's gt their theori but thet the matterwe just did this 0 biion experiment with your money, the taxpayers' y, and it hasn't worked. and the ecomy has not responded that's not -- shouldn't be anything sing because in a few minutes we'll g into e loof how that works.

why it doesn't even make an sens as wcontinue along afterhe big proposal for e stimulus plan, we have oer mor initiatives that theresident and speaker pelosi and senator id have been prosing. the first was is cap and tax deal. we saw that las spring. and a year ago. and that of course was toea with global warmg d the theory was,f cose, thatco-2 very, very bad gas. it is makinthe plet heat up atterriblylarming rate and that we have toeduce the amunt of co-2 that's beg created because that is actuay going thu a feedbacloop i our weatherystem, the co-2 ha a diroportion amount of leveragend is creati global warming. that'se proposed idea anyway. now, iyou assume that that's truewhich, as an engineero t believe tt at is true,

certainly the dataoes not pport the radicallaims of global warming that we've seen fr that community. in fact, wve seen evence in some of the emails of e cheating at wone where the lab is being fged and the facts were being skewed in order to make it look like glol warming was a bigger problem. but even if you believed tha were true, if yowanted to get ridf co-2ll you'd have t do is close down some al-fired power plants and replace th th nlear plants in ct, in erica ifou just took 20% of r coal-fired plants and chand em no nuclear, it would chge the -- chand them to nucear, iwould ange all the co-2 prouced by evercar in america. th bill was huge amounts o governntureaucracy and it s a huge taxation, a big taxaon scheme, it was a big power grab by the dera vernnt, will it reduce co-2,

probably t. it just ncreases the power o washington, increases the tes, breaking theresint's promise. he id, i willot tax anydy who makes more than $250,000 and yet this is a tax ev time you ip your light switch. is was one of hisnitiativ and he has whole buncmore. and every one of these initiatives are carefly crafted, wther they were done intentionally onot i'm not saying but every sile othes thingshas the eect of further deroying and ruining our economy. i'm joined by a good friend of mine from down in georgia anmy good fri dr. gingrey,and we're going to talk a little bit about some ofhese problems and then as we start concle this evening, we're goio talk about the positive things. thin that can be done to fix this pblem. these problems are not things we haven seen in america. we he not uncontrolled federal spending, this much lac of discipline,

scal slynn -- dcipline in our country, but that doe't mean that there en't solutions and things wcan't do. buwe needo do them rapidly ansoon. i would now recognize my goo friend, medical doctor, and u.s. congresan frogeorgia, a good friend and a very bright fello dr. gingrey. r. gingr: mr. speaker, i apprectehe gentleman fm missouri forognizi mand just okg at some of the slides that he's pnting in regard to the one that' currelyn the easel, mr. speaker, i encourage allf colleaguesn bothides of th aie to pay cle attention to that, the e entiedbam plan tax. and the gentleman from missouri has already plained e bull points of cap and the carbon tation, heah care taes, ployers tax, if th don't fer government-approved plan and medical dece manufturers taxed the sales price of their roducts and en of

course the last two, the death tax, taxn inheritance, and capital gas tax. one that's not on that particular slide, mr. speaker, at is really tublesome, of course, is raising the x on dividendfrom 15% tohatever ons marginal rate might be. and with president obama planninto let the bush tax cuts expire, that mns all the marginal rates willasand the highestatll go up to 39.6. so, individuals ithat income tax bracket wilbe paying not only 39% on theirarned income, but 39% -- 36.9n fact, on capital gains -- 39.6%, i fac on capital gains. what a job kil mr. speak, to lleople, you're going to have to payhis mu to invest. the stock market is already struggling and do we want to deal it death low?

it make noes sensehatsoever. you know, i wanted, ithe genem will allow me, i know 'll engagen a lloq back and forth, but, mr. speaker, i diwa to mention one thing, maybe it's readbeen said this evening, but i don't think it can be said too . and that is that the president ging on his promise to the american people in gard to health care,hat . if you likyour heth care plan,oucaneep it. unl you can't keep it. and i'm referred -- mr. akind't think he added that littlpiece, he? mr. gingrey: no. mrak didn't add, unt you can't keep it mr. ngrey: mr. speaker, the gentleman's absolute right. that was phigingrey's addition to the quote, the predt's quot ut what i mean by at, of urse, is the fact at und th medicaradvantage program in particular a very popular way

receiving health careour medicare population, in that fully 20% of the45,000, 40,000, 4000 people who are on dicare in this country, 20%f them choos medare advantage because the advantage is there. dvange to be ae toet an aual physical examination as part of their medicare benefits, e advante of be age to have a screening ne for a lot of disees, i'm tlking obviously about screenin for breast cancer, screening for colon cancer, without any co-pay requed. the coverage in many instances of prescription drugs forolks so that they don't he to buy supplemental at about $130 a month mr. speaker. the president under obamacare

and the democratic majority,as cut those programs 17% a year and know my colleague from missouri knows this. it adds upver 10-year peri, mr. speaker, of $0 billion t to the medicare advantagerogram. 17a ar. now, whewe startedhis debate it was implied, maybe correctly, that medicare advange nsurance compani that ran the programs for our seniors, got reimbsed on avege 14% more th trational fee for service micare e pendtures on an annualized bas wewhy cut it 17% if they were getting 14%ore? you know, that's -- if your argument is, let's cut the fat out of medicare advantage, you cut the fat and then youe down to theuscle and the grissle and the clage, right down almost to the bone and in the final anysis what it mns, mr. saker, and my colues,

is that medicare advaag cannot survive. there is no way. people, these 20%, 11lion of them, many of them imy 11th congressnal district of georgia, northwest georgia, are on the medicaredvantage program, they're going to lose that cerage. it's as simple as tt d i ield back to my friend and i ank him r allowinge to join m th evening. medical doctor,ou've been looking closely at onof the whe series taxes, the thingsork as taxes. let's take health care out of thquation. the point of thmatter is at this cap and tax is a huge tax th the house passed onse of energy which affects anybody who usesnergy. you don't have to be well-to-do to he a pickup tru and have to dve a long way a job and yospend a lot of money on gaor some type of ergy. s that big tax on energy. 's a big tax on health care.

it's going to be a huge, hu amount taxes. ey tried to me look like is ia $1 tron increase in taxes but the numbers come out it's more than that then e death tax the capital gns dividend tax,hehing that was -- one of e ma things tht helped get the ecomy going before, finay,hen you t done thhe whole thi, you end up with a cartoon th some humort feow put togeth, now give me one reason why're not hiring. see the bulling coming into the china sh, health care form, cap and trade and the vaous taxescoming into the stor. why aryou not hiring? what's happening is we're ing two things, basically, in the conomy. it's very simple. weepending ole lot money and tackg a whole lot.

historically that's eactly the wrong thing for us to be doing. you e how all the taxes, peoe n't even begin to realize how much that cialized medicine program is gog to cost. other nations ha tried it. it's a totabuet buster, even though it rns t quity of health care as well. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman r elding. i love tha if you'eave that cartoon up tre f a second lger, i love that carto. it really rtrays what'been going on thunder adminisation and the currenmajori party inongress. this is th bulln a chi shop approach, as ts rtoon so adequately depicts. it's like rushing into a tuation in a clumsy, haphazard way, when the situation that you're going into is ve fgile.

i wisdnd judgment and mperament and a meaed response so that you don't go innd break all this vuable, fragil china,nd te analogy would be our enomy. when you thi about some of the buat came charging in, wht comes to my mi, mr. speaker, my coeague from issouri, would be somethg like the econoc stimulus package of almost trillion th hrown a lot o governmentobs, most of them census workers, but verw jobs ithe prive market. the charging in there with the tarp ilout, $800 billion, wee going to buy up all tse toxic assets, these creit default swaps and all these things that none of us really understood wn we first started disussing this and how freddie and nn pckaged all

these mortgages and a lot o them with very poor edit, not woh a whole o we were going to y the tarp, it stands for toxic asset relief program. and not one toxic asset to this da and it's been aear and a half since that bill passed, has been t -- what we did is started doling t the money to the largest financial banking - e nine larst in the countr, said, ta these hundreds of billions of dollars, even iyodon't want it, and the poor counit banks in my comty and your community, the gelemafrom missouri, mr. akin and other colleags, all 435 of us, we see strugglingnd yet nothing is done to this day to help them. again, i thought that slide a very appropriate sue for know sw, you know, allhis bull in a china pending,

instd cutting theeficit. mr. akin: i'm ing to get that. one of the things, when youo what you're talking about, that bu in a china shop mentality of spending moy out of control, it's a bailout for big businees, bailout for wall street, bailout for various states, bailout for individuals thadidn't sve money and were going toivthisnd this and this, when the governnt starts getting into t bailo business, it's choosing winns and losers, there are a lot people not getting any l.l.'s. they're expecteto pick up the tab for otr people's finanal eors. what happens is you start spending all ts ney. ifou're running any ki of responsibility opetion, you've g to have somsortf budget say, you know, how are we goi to make this al wrk? because pretty soon y'll start giving away more money than you have. somebody quoted one ti, the probm is socialisms,

eventually you run out of other people's moy. some of the democra on the floor recognize the fact that budgets areecessary. the democrat wp, congressman hoyer, said the mt bac sponsibily of governing is the budt. the most basic responsibility ofoverning. have togree with congressman hoyer. here's congressman spratt, the ad of the house budg committee, says if you can't get, you c govern. those are strong words and theye tr words mr. girey: if the gentleman would yield for a sd what the gentleman isalking about here, these quotes from democratic whip at the time, now democratic majority leadthe honorable and distinguishedmight add, stenyoyer from maryland, and represenve johspratt from my -- i lived 20years ofy life, i was borand raised in

south carolina, i respect john sptt. and steny hoyer. i think members on both sides the aisle. you're talking about not a couple of freshman membe sitting on the back bench. yore talking about the chairman of the budt committee who has be ithis dy and served with distinction probably fo i'm going to ess, johspratt has beehere 25 ars or so. we respect them.ell. they're intelligent. there thoughtful members, without question. we don't agree with them, we republicans, mrspeaker. a lot of times we will be voting opposite, many tis we'll be voti oose. but for these two gentlemen to have those quotes, man this really says someing. the gentman om msouri so right, when th say that and then today,t's like, well we don't have a budget and furtrmore, 're not going to have one. beuse, well, maybe the gentman fr msoi would like to talk about that. but i think it needs to be discussed becausef you can'

udget, i aeeith mr. ye and . spratt, you cannot govern i yieldack. mr. akin: there's a point where,f you spend too much money and try to put audget together, t train is going to come off t track. i thinthat's where we are and i thinkhat's the reas why the democrats say said, yeah, you've gotbudget we've always haa budgethe the republicans were in the majority. we always had a budget he in the use. theyidt always get through the senate, necessaly but we had a bget in the house wee so joined, as you can see, my friend,y another good friend oour, coming from the state ofew jersey, and that's congressman garrett and you know, i hato say tt the ate of new jersey has been refreinin tast ar or so with their new governor showing some fiscal respoibility just givg heartburn to all the big spending people thawant to spend that state into oblivion. and coressman garrett is a good friof ours a good

ol, fiscal thinker, i'm delighted for you to joius in our discuson this evening. i yield. mr. garrett: i wasn't going to sta off on that road but it probably a good oneo talk about for a moment i commend the gentleman for his leadship on this issue, bein do on the floor, bringing the educational point not just to theembers of cgress o are watching but the american public well. i am from the great state of new jersey. we have gone thrgh phomenly bad fiscal time thlast decade oro in our state that brings us to the brinof econoc mo raswe're right now. you mit say new jerseys like a microme of the rest of country that ispendg be s means we hr a lot in the news with regard to the great ate of californ out on the west coast, that's simply because the stats so l and the onomy is so large, t a lot ofhe economifunds and the bt levels- debt level lifments, new jers is in a --

is in a worse state th california on a per capita basis. mr. aki'm not su that's somethingo brag about. mr. garrett: we like to y new jerseys number onen a lot of thin, sometimes theye great, but sometimes they're not so good. per family, which is about four people, it's around $100,000, the debt level, you a the states, counties, and lol levels. .kin: local spending for the age family of four is $100,000 of debt for a family of four mr. garrett: that transtes into, you want to get a mortgage on your house for $100,000, add around 6% that wold translate to arod $600 r month. th's what wee on t hook for f the state onew jersey. the federal gornment goes way beyond that. i don'have to tell you that. but the federal government

needs simply do atew jersey is doing right now, begin a sprose- process of living wiin its means. it's not anasy one by any means. mr. garrett -- mr. akin: what woulbe the first step in living within your mns? would it not be putting a realistic budget together, perhap mr. gaett: it would be. i ser on thbudget committee and chairman spratt is the chairman of tt committee. wead just this past week e ad of e federal rerv chairman bernanke, before the commtee. we puthat queion im. we aed him in a two-step process, what is the financial market looking for in this cotry and why is tre s much unrest in the finci the uncertainty that's out they said, is it a problem that creates uncertaintyf the federal vernment does t make transparent exactlyhat we're going to do, spending, i., present a budget d he said that's one of the elements

of uertainty. mr. akin: i guess he was being gentle, least, trying t give us a nudge in the right directn. mrgaett: he was, he's always being a little gentle in those areas. i put a chart oe screen showing where we've en over the last several years. because you know, the mocrat jority always says that they inherited thisroblem and tat all the problems weaver deing with today are all president bush's fault, put up a chart on the wall going back from, i guess it was 00, 20, and owing what the budget efits were, that he the gray chart, i don't have t chart right here, but it was thisig, then a little small, then a le smaller, en to 2007 it got abo this level, then 2007 and 2008, it goesasically offhe chart. mr. akin: i think i' got that chart. i have one other chart i tnk is interting. we've ard the statements from the democrat leadership saying budgets are crical. as you know, the -- youknow

the punchine is the decision is we're t going to have a udget. here u ha, is is "the hill" a newspaper, that sa, skipping a budget resolution is year would unprecedend. the houss never failed to pass an annualudget resolution sce the current budgetes for put into place in 1974, acrding to a congressional research service report. thaa fairlyeliable port, at least they get the history of whether we passed a budget in the house. they said we've always, sinc 1974, passed a budget, yet we wot pass a budget this year. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman wl yield, wreetngac to the iue of, . speake of noen having an intention to pass a budget. i thank thgentmafrom new jersey for bringing that point ut, this is the first ti since at least 197 and te congressnal researchervice

is ve accurate in the iormation that they frot meers of coness. i was thinking about, it's been in the news so much, mr. speaker, abt the ewe roe zone those countries of the european union, 27 of them, i guess 23 or 24 are members of the euro zone, they have te going on there in regd to, is well thecronym is pi, stands for the countrieof portug, italy, spain and greece. i' forgetting one i, but in anyegard, the -- grce got this masve bailoutf somethingike $1 billion and the euro zone from the internationamotary fund work the pledged, i think, another $750 bilon worth of bailout becausthese counie

that constitute that acm piigs, their debt ratio to e gross domestic product is so high. when u look, look in your own eye, don't curse the speck in someby else's eyewhen off plank in your own, as e bible says. that's essentlly what we are doing, the united states of america, that's whawe're doin our debt so g.d.p. is what, olags, you can tell meit's close to 90% and by 2020, it will be well over 100% ifot 150%, i'll yield back to let y discusshat further. mr. ak: actuallyi you a few dollars for helping me get tough the slide because i have a picture of where greece and itsly and some othe nations -- and ily and some of the other nations are. before you joined us, my good friendrom new jersey mentioned the level of the defici

spending. and i think it's important to take a lk at the bar graph as to what we're looking at here. i kn that prident bush and as a republican i heard this frequely, he was criticized for spendintoo mu money. d i voted against some of ose things and thinkyeah, we d spend too much money because we had a defibut on the oer hd he arguewe had a couple of wars and a b economy kicking this off. asou c seethe amount of defit duri the george bush years her was coming down because of the thgs that they did by reducing taxes. they had the right formula for getting thigoing in the r direction here -- direction. here was presidenbush's spending year, his very worst when speak pelosi wain char of congss. so, he wasn't gettg any help the republicans the hse at that int. this was bush's worst spendi year. en you come to the first year of president obama and he triples the dicit from about $450 llion orso of deficit,

we go to $1.4 trillion of deficit right off t bat in the fit year. mean, this is absolutely skyrocket, smaing, incredible levels of spending. i yield. mr. garrett: if the gentleman ll yield, and you are setting e record saight, but just to sayore the record to the processere in the house, as the gentleman well knows, all appropriation bills, all spends of taxpayer money, originates right here in e house. and who was it that person holding the gavel at that time when those spending bills originated from ren the house? well, it was a gentlem name who was on the last chart, aianpratt. so on the 27 year right down there, that would ha been when the decrs would have been king control of congress and they took controlo they would have been having th proportions

process that ye going forward. realistically, whoas responsible for that immediate uptick in theed chart right after that? well, we didn't havto wait for presidobama to come into office in order to see the control of congress had changed. that was the democrat majority. and so although president bush wastil in the white hous where was the spending coming from athat point? right here in the house. mr.kin: right. that was ts one. but what happe when you put chaian sprt together with psident obama? . garrett: off the charts. mrakin: here we go. $1.4 trillion. now there's different ways to looking at this. we talk about billions and illions of poor little people like me, thoseumbers are very hard understanor makch sense out of, buone way to tae a look at it is this deficit as a percent of grs domestic product. all the goods in made in ama, whais the rtio? th won, the wst, was 3.1% of g.d.p. president oba'sirst year

here, where you have total democrat control, one-party rule, youe got $1.4 trillion whichs which is the hiest since world war ii. so ts stuff is unlik anything we've seen before. and this is part of the reason why you have theemocrat party doesn't want to make a budget because they're really p of those numbers. if thoswere my numbers i'd be scared to death. and i thk the ameran public is conceed about that level of spending. i was goingo jump just to a littlbit -- we've been very critical of the fact that we're doing two thingwrong in this one-parule by t democrats and that is too much spending and toouch taxing. it shows tremendous faith on their paron wt the federa govement can do in terms of solvinproblems. they believe that there isn't any problem that can't be fixed with moreaxing and spending. at's where we seem to go. but let's talk about some stuff

that's just so basic that many, many americans don't understand, rticularly kids in georgia or new jersey or missouri, that have ever run a lemonade stand, just understand a little bit about how businesses go. so iut togetr a list of some of the main things that are job llers because a rest of too much speing, too mh taxe there's unemloyment. so wt is it kills the job? what is the solution to this oblem? i'm an engineer, you're a ctor and, gentlemen, i don't recall -- mr. garrett: i'm a laer. mr. akin: he's almost like one of tho jokes, but anyway, what is it that kis jobs? y businessmen in my district and'vheard this over and over, first thing is excessive taxation. you take a lookthe stimulus bill, huge amounts of federal spendi, you' got the socialized medine bill, y've gothe cap and tax bill l of those massive tax increases, capital gai, vidends, dthaxes, all these, more a more taxaon.

heavy taxation. what does that do? it kills jobs. why would that be the cas ll, if you're a businessman and u're going to get xed a lot, it takes your money away investing back in your own business. and 80% of the jobs in arica are with companies with 500 or fewer employees so if that go that owns the sine, he looks like he's aich guy, maybe he's making more than $2,000 year, wll taxthat guy, if you tax that guy he can't t t money back into pti a wing in theusiness or whatever the new chnology is in creating the js. so this taxation inevitably works to create unemplment. you know, the funny thing is, the democrats can't have it both ways. ey c't have a r on business and say they'reried about unemployment. becauset's businesses tha employ people. and ey act like there isn't a connection between businses and the pele who get hir by the businesses. and so if you tax a businesout of business there won'te any jobs.

he uncomplicated -- it's not complicated. so the solution to these things isn't mplicated. you n't hmer the guys that the busisses with all thes taxes. of urse the other proem that 'vcreated omically is that the regulations and t banks are tight that the small sinesses are hang rouble getting access to capit. treas a liquidity problem and that's part of the regulation of the bks a the finance industry, which they've also managed to mess up and of course the economicncertainty is a faor where people don't know what's going to happen next, at crazy sche arwe going to do next? that means you're going to hunker down, you're not going to hire people. course red tape and government mantates, allf these things kill governme jobs. and we're doing every onof these things. it's like we've declared r not on racal ilam, we haven't created war on iran iraq or north korea, we're creati war on u.s. businesses. . ngy: if the gentleman will yield. this slide, mr. speaker, the one that's currently on the easel,

labelefor my colleagues that can't see that close, job killers in theiffent bullet points, i think, mr. speaker, that the thirdullet int, economic uncertainty, maybe one of the most important reasons why the situation i so bad in r country right now. the gentleman from misi referenced kids in new jersey my state of gegia or his state of missouri cating lemonade stands, making lemonade and certainly the ingenuity of the amican people is such th over the 230-year history of thisountry whave made a lot of lenade despite being hity a lot of lemo. but that, too, has its limits. and enyou have excessiv usficit quidity, when yo have, yes, economic uncertainty like we ave never had in

probably 25 years, when you have red ta and government mandates you can just make so much lenade. and that's the problem. and that esack to the slide earlier of the bull in the china shop approach. nohere in weekend all of a sudden after the president ediates -- meets with our republican lder, leader boehn, and leader hoyer, and they're talkinabout what we can do to cut down on the excessive spending and all these deficitand debt and lo and behold on saturday night, out of the blue, have -- having not diussed that thursday ie presentation of the leaders o isody, preside obama now says, we want $ billionmore, a mini stimulus, if wi, from this cgress, so that we can shovel it to t states on a temporary basis, so we keep

teachers anpublic defende and firefighte and all these folks on the job, for how much longer, so then when yopull away apend allhat $50 billion, who's that onhe backs nce again,tates who have to balance their budgs. it's tolly irresponsibl mr. garrett: if the gentleman will yield. first ofll, isn't it amazing that you have gottento the point where will youay that spending $50 billion is a mi stimulus proposal? inow you're doing that flip antly in the fact that whave $700 billion he and $700 billion therand trillions of d by the federal reserve, but it's amazing that 've gotten to this point. and perhaps there is souch lemonadehat the american blic has basically soured on all spendinthat igog on here. but t to play the punsny longer, this administration has waged war on business and i guess youould extrapolate that and say that really waging war on job creation in this country ani thinkhat's issue number o, job creaon. because by waging wars against

expansion of businesses out there, that meanse're not gong to seize jobs and part of that war is a battle that is going on literally as wspeak right now, started othursday of laswe, itill go ofor the ne two weeks and what i'm talking about, of course, is the conferee committee between the house and the senate on the financial service reform which is definily an attack on your seond bullet point there, insufficient liqdity. the bill thacame othe use and t of the senate under majority party will restrict liquidity and restrict credit in the credit markets across this country and it will do son a whole host of fds whether it's throh the federal reserve activitiesthrough the cfpa, whether it's through regulations of the drisktive markets a i can go down through the lioes that mean to you and fol at me? it means that itill be harder to go ouand get that auto loan. will be hder to go out and get that ho equy loan. it will beharder to go out and get that mortgage so you cay

a new house anit will be hard for that small business who wants touy a truck so he can hire one me peon to drive that truck to do business, hire that small business to get a loan to expand his operation. all thosengs, lack of liquidity, tightenif credit markets, will hu business, will rt j creation anthat is what is goi to be rolling out, unfortunaty,n the next couple of weeks here in congress. mr. akin: gentmen, you unfortutely, for u or maybe fortunately for you are that committee that's dealing with that. just telle if i'm confused about this. i workedore the armed services side of things and national securitand national defense and we've g a lot of bad news over there but'm not going to share that tonight. but the liquidity seems -- ers an irony here that the federal reservhas cread this huge mass ofiquidity an ye 's ke they've choked e nnel off so tight that t iquidity can't grip dounl. the democrats used to talk about

tripledown economi. this is truly a trickledown scheme. you have all this quidity createby the fed b it can't get down to the small buness guy because i assume partf this is the banking regulors and theanking policies that are sang t t local banks, at's not a good enough amount of security on that loan, you've t to go back because that loan's upsidedown. evenhough that busins sens h been there for 100 years, you kw the familyyou know they're going pay o, they always pay on time, not good enough. you t to go get a whole bunch more from them to make your books look right on your bank. mr. garrett: if the nk was standing here with us they would say,ook at bullet point number and they would say, with so much coming out of whington that is unceain, we have no ia, a, what the rulesre goingo be tomorrow, and b, what the economy isoi to be tomorrow. so they would argue that they're yingdo the prenal thing, the safe thing, and say wee not going to loan to that person who under norma circumstances we would loan to. so you're absutely right.

the fed theoretically is trying to provide liquity but the nks are saying, wh, not der this set of playing rules which may change tomorrow and may change again next week. soer the federal government is exacerbating thprobm at ey created in the first place. mr. akin: i appreciate your perspective there, particularly working on that committee, that's very heful. re are a couple of other chartshat were interesting. this gives a little bit of a sense of progress on a 20-year increment. this is 197 the foreign holdings of our debt, 5%. this is who owns o debt. forei holdings were 5% in 1970, jump forward 20 years, 1990, foreign holdings, 19%. 2010, foreioiledings, 47%. so not only are we being asked to pass another stimulus bill to bail out states that hav

been irresponsible in managing their pensions, we're now asing foreign countries to come andnderwrite our silly economic picies. now, after a while, the forei countries are going to say, wait a minute. what going on over the? what are youuys thinking? mr. ggrey: i know that time is short, but this the whole poin once again, mr. speaker, as i taed about the euro zone and greece e untr greece. they had eir credit rating downgraded. so any country that would lend them money by their finaial par is gng to charge gher rate of interest. retty soon, i think the gentleman fm missouri and my colleague from new jersey would probably agree with me that thatery same thing could happen to our country, that our debt is not -- it's not cdit worthy as it's been,

we're going to havto pay a higher rate of interest through borrowed money. r. akin: i promised the gentleman we did have a chart with foreign coutries, we've taken a look at, greece has beenn theews because it's creating shock waves in europe. this is deficit as a percent of g.d.p.ism mentioned where we were in the united states at the $1 trillion we saw last year and another higher this year, we were at about 10.3 deficit as a percent of g.d.p. greece is as 9.4%. our deficit as a percent of .d.pis worse than greece. spain and the united kingdo seeto be worse off than we are. weaver the next worst in thi chart. if you go to debt as a perct of g.d.p the united states is he, greece is ahead of us there, italy is ahead ofs, we're ahead of the other

eopean countrs as well. this isn'txactly a cheery picture that we'rdoing the job we ould. we're coming close time, there's one other chart hering r corporate tax rates, the green one, on the right, second ighe corrate tax of any nation in the country. what's thsoluti? i promed we'd dealit soution. he solution is you've got to cut spendingnd you've t to cut tes. if e democrats could not learn from ronald reagan or bush en tt taxes and restored the economy, they suld learn from j.f.k., who did thvery same thing. here's an example of this, it's lled the laffer curvhis red is the tax rate, as the tax rate comes down, the bar chart shows the photo tall federal savings in receipts system of we get more revenues in -- when you drop taxes, you get more revenue. the lution has been donstrated by j.f.k., by

ronald reagan, by bush. they've tued enomies around. inead of doing what f.d.r. did, what henry mor again thaw told us would t work -- henry morgenthau told us would not work, you've got to drop ending, but the problem with cutting spending is y can do giveaways to everybody or bailouts to everybody. america is inhe cross hairs of the choice,ne u.s. had the idea the government is going to ovide health care and education and jobs and food and housing, and the other.s. said, we believe that the job of government is to provide life andiberty and the pursuit of happs. that's a very narrow description o government, just national defense and a lev playing field. one is the u.s.s.r. and that didn't work. the other is the one th's worked f hundreds of years we

need to geback to that idea of a limbed government doing just what it's supposed to do constitutionally d not trying to be the ilout king of the entire world and e fire country. i thank my good friend congressman giney from georgia for your insight, not only your medical profesonalisbut the way you've run your office d same thing for myood friendrom new jersey, conesan garrett,hank you so much for joining us tonig. good night and g bless all of americ the speaker pro tempore: you should the speak's announced li of januy 6, 2009, t chair rognis the gentlema from iowa,r. king, for0 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr.

speaker. it's a privilege and honor to be recogned to dress you here on the floor of the house tonight and pick up on some subject matter, i think my lleagues who spoke in the previous hour covered th suect matr pret clearly and very well, the matter global finances and the broader picture we're working with. for me, i come here tight with a numbeof things on my mind and things that are fresh on my min mr. speaker, they have to do with iigrati situation he in the united states. andavg had a lo history with the subject matter, when i first came to thisongress i recall listening to congressman tom tancredo on theloor, i was in myffice, watching on c-span, i ought, -- i though ia pie of history in the king. i walked over here, io the pitol chber and sat here to listeto him speak and tom, knong the rthm ofhe pce here, saw me in the chamber d

concluded i came over because i had me things toay. he recognized me to speakn the subject matter of immigration, i was not preparing to do so, tugh i happen toave been prepad because of the issues in mind, and from those days on forward, ve been tive on this issue here in congress. 've had the privilege of sharing a stage th ongressman tancredo saay night in phoeni it was e same good man a paion and great heara man what undersnds america, the need to have a vereign nation, the need to control our bords, the need to have a network ross thicouny of all levels of law enforcement working together to enforce th law, establish the rule of law, i sulsay re-establish the rule of law in the unit statesnd build a greater -- grter country than are day, mr. speaker. it was a refreshing thing for me to hear those wordsome out ofhe moh my good fiend, congressman tom tanc and to

share se ti on that microphone with sheriff joe arpaio o maricopa county of arizona who has a national repatiofor enforcing immigration law, for tablishing and building tent city, when sheriff j asked me if i had been to visit, and actually, i had, and he sent a guide to take me to tent city last year, present me with a ir of his autographed ng underwear, when he found out i have that in myffice in safekeeping, i was his good iend. that city wasuilt because thjue orded more prison space, and the options were to turn people loose, spend millions of dollars to build more fcilities, or build a tencity. ey did what th needed to do to enforce the law, especially in tt climate. i was also able to share a

mrophone of russell pierce who is author of immigration's -- ofrizo's immigration law a tspend urs probing his intellect and patriotism that runs so deep for america and his dedition to the united statesf america and the ru f law and the state of arizona. put those pieces together and looked across at theaces that filledhe park grounds next to thstate capitoln phoenix, arizona, a lot of red, white, and blue a lot of ylow gadsden flags, the don't tread on me, ags, flying in the light breeze there. it was an evento remember with op just clear out to the outside edges of the park, a good, respectable crowd that was there, people that had come fromany states in the union, it's all the states, but many of the stes a lot from florida came to arizona to express their support for s-1070, for the law that was

pushed draftean through intlegislation by state senator russell pierce and he went out to bounc his legislatn off of the best experts could find in america and i do give eat credit to governor jan brewer for signing and supporng izona's immigration law. it ia law th's been misintepted -- misinterpreted, i think willfully, by people the other sidef the aisle. but here'what it is. it's amirror of federal leslation. it doesn't gbeyond the limits of federal legislatio it'sritten within the limits that are there. no isimply says that arizona w enforcent is going to enforce federal immigration law. f you remember, mr. speaker, there seed to have been a grudge match or something going onetween now secretary of homeland securit janet napolitano, form governor of arizona, and eriff joe

arpaio, the shiff of marico county. wh janet napolitano became secretary of the department of homend security, she annoced an initiative to how they were gog to make changes inhe 287-g law, the la that provides federal assistance to tin local law enforcent ficers so ey are well trned andcertified to orce federal immigration law and makes a commitment for i.c.e., immigrations customs enforcement, work with law enforcement that has a memorandum of understanding 287-g, it's an understanding that they've reach and agreement to work together, there were a lot of places in americaed that had 287g ctments. it's for local lawenforcement to support local law enrcement.

you don't have to have this agreement toave local law enforcement enforce immigration law. there was an attorney general's opion written under john ashcroft that makes it clear that local law enforcement can enforce federal immigration law. there are a number of pieces of federal case law out there, one of them a 2001 case, the 10t circuit, it's u.s. versus santana garcia, in case you want to look at up tonight, mr. speaker, in if you're having trouble sleeping. i'll tell you simply what that ays is, the federal court, 10th circuit,oncluded it is imicit thalocal law enforcement has the auority to eorce federal iraugs law -- immigration law, it wasn't contemplated oerwise, i would go furtheto say ifthere was something implicit that lal law enforcement can't enforce deral lawdoes that r-bere-seen a federal officer is assated or

murdered by someone, that local law enforcement can't pick them up, because it a feral law. if a national bank was robbed, cod the unty sheriffs pick up the bank robbers a support the law against robng federal banks? or uld you ve to wait until thf.i. showed up to be able to pick up t robbers of th federal banks? byhe same token, if it's a city ordinance that's being violated, can state highway patrol enfoe city ordinance and i'll suggest that yes,hey should do that. they should do that when that becomes an obtion of their job, when there's a law being broken in front of them, they should enforce the law. ifhe speed limits are written by either the ste or th city, or perhaps the county on county roads, does th mayne the county sheriffs and his

people can only enfor speed limit laws on state highys and county roads butot on ty streets? it borders othe ludicrous at -- to make the argument that immigration law has been federal and the only people who can enforce it arfederal officials, only the ones trned in i.c.e. and border paratext. it's ludicrous to beeve that. there has to be a networkf law enforcement working in conjunctiofrom city police to county sheriffs to departments of criminal investation, all our federal officers working in cooperation with each other with great, profound respect for the nstitution of th unid states, for the laws that a duly paed here in the unitestates congress, and those laws that are pass in the state legislatures, the ordinanceshat come from the cities and tn the list goes on. soit is a cooperative effort. it alys has been a cooperative effort for law enforcemt to work together

and it cannot bsuch a thing as we're going toegrega statutes by the jurisdiction of the entity that passed the law. 23 we do that, then we'll have law officers that wch crimes before their very eyes but don't enfoe the w. that would be, mrspear, the circumstances tt take place in sanctry cits now. sanctuary cities across the place like houston, denver, san fransco, many other cities have established sanctuary city ornances to tell local law enforceme do, not work or cooperate in the federal immigration law. immigration reform act that's passeinto law and mh that work was done by now the ranking member of the judiciary committee, lamar smith of texas who deserves a lot of credit for the langue that's there, there's language in that immigration refm t that prohibits the cities from

establishing sanctuary cities. and i n't ha the language in front me, m speaker, but it's langua tt sa to the effect that you cannot prohibit your officers from eorcing federal immigration law, working in cooperation with and gathering -- but the problem is that thoseities got together, they wt to have had a sanctuary policy and apparent found the same lawr or lawyers, or sentout or whatever ties these larger cies together and they found a way to wri an ordince around thfederal language and they prohibited their officr fr gatheringnformation an because they are prohibited from gathering, they didn't have any information to pass on and she with i.c.e. and other law enforcement officers whe it came to immigration. .

you create a magnet for illegals to go to those cities where they are shelred by the sank tue area city language. we haveassed amendments on appropriations lls that prohibit any of those dollars cog out of those bills going to those cities where they passed language. but it never made throh the senate and never made it into law. we have city after city that protects illegals wiin them becausere is a political ase ready there for illegals. and arizona, what theye done the s. 10770 and in fac invalidates any city that wants o provide asanctuary cityand requires them to enforce law and they fail do so, it allows

the citizen to bring a lawsuit agnst that city or cnty that's not enforcing the immigratiolaw, not inquiring as to the legal status of the ople they encounter in the course of their normal law enforcement duties. then you'll see the sank tue area cities that ppen to exist in arizona, that wl shut down and they will be compelled to enforce the law and be brought into court by the people of but the uoar, thebjection hat been about shutting off sank tue area cities in arizona but whethethere d be a boycott of azona because sore claim that the arizona law will ing about raci discrimination profilin first, let me say, mr. speaker, profiling has always been an impoant component of legitimate law enforcement.

if you can't profile some yo can't use those common sense indicators that are before you very es. i think it's wrong to us racial profiling for the reasons of dcriminating against people, but 's not wrong to use race or other indicators for the se of identifying people who a violating the law. we all geprofiled, . speaker. i had a moment ofrony when i stepped out of the u.s. d.a. ilding do here severa blocks west of thcapitol wearing a suit and i just stepped t to the sidewalk. i hadn't even o for cb and i walked wnhe stree there was a cab goinghe oer direction on the opposite side of the street. tapped his horn, he swunaround and picked me . how did you idenfy me as som who needed a b ri i hadn't indicated i wanted one.

he said, well, you were wearing a suit and you stepped outside the usda a cab. he said i don't stop for people wre wearing shorts an sneakers because they're not looking for a ride. peop coming out of this uilding in suits a. i'm a guy in a suit and a time of day that i would be logical looking for a ride. commonsense thing. law enforcement needs to use the commonsense indicators, from what kind of clothes people wear, my suit, what kind of shoes people wear, accent if they have one, the type of grooming that they might have, there are all kinds of indicators there ansometimes it is a sixth sensand can't put their finger on it. but these law enforcement oficers, if they were going to be dcriminating against people onhe le basis of race, that would be going on already. and we would have already the

bjections th are taking place. but this is about a political argument. it's not abouizona's law being unconstitutional or preempted by federal law or somehow had stretched thbounds that had been set by case l that's out there. it's not about that. they would like to say it is. but what it's about is makina polical argument thawould like to brand republicans as being anti-people because of race. now, uld thisappen? could anyone start an agenda he to try to brand people and scare thamerican people on the subject of race or the bject of immigration and my answer to that is, you bet. i've seen it happen. it started here on this floor rit over here in 2006 when, in the earlyummer, if i remember my dates correctl we passed an immigration reform legislion

out of here headed up chairman of the judiciary comttee, jim sensenbrenner of wiscsin. and it was enforceme of immigrati law. in the oginal bill, it made it a felony to cross into the united stes illegally, to cross into the united states illegally, a felony. congressman sensenbrenner sensed it would be a highly contested issue if it becamlaw. so he offered an amenent to strike language that made it a felony to enter thunid states illegally. now, had mr. sensenbrenner's amendment passed, then it would haveliminated the language that itade it a felony to enter the united states illegally. congressman sensenbnner argued and he underood what was going on. when the vote went up on the

bod, 194 democrats voted no on theensenbrenn amendment whi can be concluded that they wanted it to be a felony to legally.ted ates and it is a cri, but it's not a felony. 194 decrats voted make it a felony when they ted on the sensenbrenneamenen and that sensenenner amendment failed and when it iled, brought down by democrats, the streetsilled up wit prostors protesng that republicans wanted to make it a felony to enter the united esllegally. 194 decrats wanted to a almost of them demagog republicans for the language that was in the bill when they havoted to keep the language in theill. it was completely cynical. they knew it. you l knew it. and there isn't anybody inhis congress that can challee this statement and i would be happy to yield to anybody who has another perspective on this.

i watched the streets fill up with people that were storming inthe streets with mexican flags and white tee-shirts and caying american flags. as they lined up, organize were takinghe mexican flags and saying put on this white tee-shir come out herend protest against these evil republicans that want to make it a felony. i think it ought to be a felony. it doesn't bother me if ere is a turmoil in thstreets. need tighter immigration laws, not less. the very sin sism of voting one way and argng the other way 194 democrats d they turned and poted thfingerat publicans and said you wanted to make it a felony. they brought down the amendment it's a facin the congressional record, mr. speaker. and so here we are w in 2010. the legislation of significance

on immigration haseen passed since then. it didn't happen in 2006 or 2007. thitch boards in the united states senate were shut down and two fferentimes dung tse years because the american people reject the idea of amnesty. and i have watched immiration at theederal level b enforced less with each adminisatn since ronald reagan sign the 1986 amnesty act. but he was straight up and honest enough to declare it an amnesty act. the 1986 amnesty act was the last amst, the last amney to end all amnesties. he believed there wouldn't be anothe amnesty for one million people, but tned out to be three million peoplefterhe system wagamed and three million went tough to receive the amnesty in 1986, three times the number

they anticipated. and we have had six lesser amnesties since then that aren't published very uch. so we have had a continuous series of nesties and going to continue until such time either nobody wts to come to the united states or until such time as we give up on the idea that we can control our boers or until we estabsh that we are going to enforce imgration law and stand by the rule of law and we aren't going to compomise. and tt, mr. speaker, is where stand. i refuse to compromise on the rule of w. i refuse to granamy. and e should talk abt what nesty is,o grant amnestys to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. now, i don't know what their objectives are. it might be a job.o

might want access to the unite states to do philanthropic good things or have aess to the united states so they can travel back and forth into the united states hauling illegal drawings into america and that happens a lot. a couple of nights ago on sean hannity's program, you can see the backpackers cong int the united states with 50 pounds of mariana in a burr lap bundle on their back witwoolen scarfs and might see 10, 15 or 20 or more carrying their 50 pounds of marijuana on their back. and this goes on nightfter night after night, mr. speaker. it goes on every night. and i have gone down and sat o the border in the dark. didn't have night vision equipment and just listen and just lisned as the vehicles came down. they let people off. they would t their pa out on

the ground. hear the packs thump. get out ofhe vehic. they would talk a little bit. they would hush them up, and march through and ce across the border. when you sit by bashed wire fence that has four or five bashes on it, you can listen to the posts and ar e wire streh. you can count the at nig, i never trust my eyes to be able to actually give an accurate cnt. i see the shadows, but sdows aren't clear enough. i can tell you, i have heard the noise and seen the shadows and listen to the same rhythm come over and er again. i have gone up through the stream beds thatre in the dest and there, seen wher they he dropped off ma of their clothes that are unnecessary, empty water jugs en they pty the burr lap

bags. they will be dropped there. food that is opped off. some eaten, some left, partially eaten and some of it left. the desert is full of smugglers' liter. a if one uld go down to the orn pipe cactus national monument where there was one killedy an illegal. a national park ranr. there is a monumento him at organ pipe cactus. that is a national park call a monument that is off limits to americans. and i'm guessing at the are i know it's the uthern side of it and it seems to me as i looked the map, about 40% of organ pipe cactus is off liits because of litter and it is too dangerous for people that are out enjoying the desert and too

full of litter and the mess is cumulating day by day, every night. and the numbers that have bn crossing the rder illegally, we can take the information from secretary napolitano and cept it at face value. they would argue there are interdicks at the border have -- interdictions at the border have gone down and fewer er crossings. that may be true. i don'tnow if that's tr. but tose the data that there are fewer interdictions and conclude there are fewer crossing attempts isn't necessarily a logical or rational apoach. it could be th aren't enforcing the law as aggressively as they were a couple of years ago when the numbers were higher. i don'know the ansr to that question, but when the bush administtion used the same

argumenti had the same questi. just becse you arrest fewer people doesn't mean there are fewer people crossing, it may mean there are fer ople crossing. . they had witnesses, including br patrol officers, that the erf interdictions that turned out to be, they believed they were stopng one out of four, 25% border crossing attempts being stop fsmed you do the math on the stops they had, thateans there w11,000 a night on average, every night,ot just -- not duringhe day so much t at night. 11,000 night that turns out to be $4 -- that turns out to be million illegal crosngs a year. i say to people t the border, yore get 25g% of them? they look at me and laugh. he most consistent number i

get is, mayb 10%. other officers will take the number down to 2% to . i've never ard an officer that wor the border regularly tell me they stopped 25% and i don't bieve i've heard a number higher than 10%. i think it's 10% who get stopped, t 25%. that's still lot who get through. if it's four million attempts we stop 25%, that mean there's million get through to the united states. yes lot of them go back to mexico and flow back and forth. a lot of them arerug smugglers th do that f a living. people workinw enforcement in the desert say th'll catch drug smuggl, maybe they'll ve a young man, 15, 16, 18, they get older, weighing 100 unds, 105 pounds, not very big people, wiry, tough work great big calves on them,

carrying half their bo weight or more in marijuana on their back, through thesert, or 100 miles. stuff people that can cover a lot of territory with a t of ight on them and this goesn night fter night after night, every night. does america know, mr. spear, that in some sectors on the southern border if we catch somebody with less than 500 pounds of marijuana on them we ju simply take the marijuana off their hands and turn them loose? there's not a pcution for the drug possession and many of the sectors on the southern borde because they argue they don't have the jail space they don't have the prosecutorial time and they don't have the judges to deal with it. i'm convinced th this is true, mr. speaker. i hear this is not necessarily testimony before the committee but i hear it come out ofhe pele who have to live

underath . i was down there, watched an interdiction take place, i watched them unload marijuana from under a false bed of a pickup truck, this was down in arizona, iwas roughly 24 pounds of marijuana in there, at would have been underhe amount that they would be precuted for at the time. they've since rais that, i was 250 at the time i was there now the threold in some sectors is 500 pounds. where i come from, if it's an unce or half an ounce or any little particle, thas somethi to prosecute for. that's the rule of law. but the rule of law has been retched to the point of ridiculous on our southern border and the lawlessness is flowing from the bordefrom mexico tthe united states. they're taking on the lives of law enforcement officers, innocent american people who are being murdered, who ar

ingaped, who are being targeted as victims of crime, that makes phoenix, ariza, the nuer two capital kidnapping in the rld. phoenix, arizona, the number two capital of sid napping in the world. does anybody believe if we could enforce our immigration at t border that phoenix would be the number two capal of kidnapping t world? mr. speaker, it's important to note that 90% of te illegal drugs consumed in america come froor thrgh mexico. that meanacro our southern border. 90% of the illegal drugs. i pointed out that we have four million, the number is probably down a little bit from that, but i don'tavany other da, four million illegal border cssing attempts a year. maybe we stop 10%.

that means at we still have a number that is about 3.6 million sucessfuborder crossings a year at a 10% interdicti rate. 3.6 million. i did the math, 11,000 aight eve night. what was the size of santa ana's army? 4,000 to 6,000. we're looking at a number every single night that's at least twice the size of -- i'll say probably twice t size of santa ana'armyveingle nig, pouring across our southern border, bringing in 90% of the illal drugs in america. are importing the violence and death that gos withhe legal drug trade and still this psident'seart is hardened. stillthe president scares the american people by telling us a motr and her daughter can be going out get ice cre and be pulled over and stop and

asked to produce their papers based on a presumption of eir skin color. where is that in therizona l? it specifically prohibits such a thing. specifically prohibits. and th, afterthe president of the uned states had his shot, or two shotsat arizona he ordered the attorney general of the unitedtates to use the resources of the dertment of justice to seek to validate arizona's immigratn law. and so when attorney general eric holder came before the judiciary committee a couple of weeks ago, just before the memorial break, to testify before the committee, he knew that arizona's iigration law would comupefthe committee that would be a subject mter would be questioned about. it was his job to be briefe the subject matter so he could answer in an informed, intelligent way. so as the subject came up ani asked the attorney general if

the president had ordered tha he use the justice departme to seek to invadate arizona's law, i can't quote bk into his thecord his exact quote in the congssional record, i can tell you he didn't dispute that. it was at least assent that twice the attorney general acknowledged the president had directed him. now this is supposed toe a justice department th's independent from politics, a justice department that makes its decisions based upon the law, an objective evaluation o theaw. by the way a justice partment that has an obligation to enforce the w. these are not policy setters. the president ofhe united states, mr. speaker, is not to be a policy sett when it com to areas ere the congress s legislated. that's what we do here. set policy. we set policy her in the united states congress, that's part of the separation of powers. athe risk beingredundt,

everybody in this chamber, mr. speaker, shou know th, i think it's getting harder and harder to teach gornment class iour schools today because of the conduct especially of our ecutive anch of government. th separatioof powers, the judici branch will take care of things that have to do we the courts. the legislative brancof government, the house and senate, we set the policy. we write the laws. the executive branch of governme's job is to see that hose laws are faithfully uphe, enforce the law. carry out the fol policy, the will of the people of the united states of america as expressed througe republic, the constitutional publ, the reprtativeshat are elected by the people. and yet we have members of executive branch of government as high as president himself who seem to not derstand that simple concept. a presidt who taught constitional law at the university o chicago, is still

a president that would tell america that a mother taking h daughter to get some ice cream could have a pbl and have to produce theirars. this is misinforming the amican people. is it willful? in his case, i don't know. i think when he said that, he had not read the bill. a week or soater he uttered a mitigating statement that indicated he had been befed might have read the bill but eric holder, to come before the judicia committee, when i asked him the question, so you have directed the justice department to seek to validate the arizona immigration l and to test it constitutionally or statutorily or bcase law, could you point to me, general hder, a place in the nstution that gives you concern thatrizona's immigration law might be unconstitutional? no, he could not. could you, general holder, point to a fedal statute that

would preempt ariza's immigraon law? he could not. could you then, general, point to some case law that would be controlling and limit arizona's ability to pass th imgraugs enforcent law at the state lel? he could not. the attorney genal of the united states could not point to a -- evea potential constitutional violation or a statute that could preempt arizona's imaugsaw or any caseaw that would control, none of it whatsoever. yet he was still committed and had take then resources of the tax pays of the united states of america seek to invalidate arizona's imgraugs law and bring suiagainst arizona. well, that's what he seems to be doing. there is a -- the a drt mo out there, it's not the exact word for it, it's a draft something, mr. speaker. it's a product of the justice

department now, that apparently lays out e parameters by which the justice department would bring suit against arizoo invalidate their immigration law. here's wh i bieve happened. i don't think it can be proven otherwise. the aclu has brought lawsuit against arizona. nd the aclu, along with the s.e.i.u., just name your leftist organization in america thejoined in common cause, they have made these arguments. this lawsuit filed may 17, 2010 , he's whathe aclu and the muslim oup here in america and the seiu and others have brought suit on, against arizona's imgraugs law 1070. it says that it violates the supremacy clause, that's the pre-emption compent of tt. i don't know where, the suit doesn' say where.

not that i have found. it says that it also vlates the equal protection clause. itrgues that plaintiffs who are racially or national origin minorities, includi those traveling arizona could be targeted. it does make targets out of them. i uld argue e bill says u an't u racial profiling. the targets are breaking the lawhave to enforce the law no matter what tir sn color is, mr. speaker. another arguments violas the first amendment. i don't know what thlogic is on that. i won't trouble this congress with that part. excuse me but this goes on and says it violates the fourth amendme against unreasonable search and seizures. on what basis? i don'think it goes very deep into that. and then due process, prileges and immunies, right to travel, people reaking the law don't have a

right to travel the united stas and it violate 42 u.s.c. 11, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin or race. the bill prohibit -- the law prohibitsuch a thing. here's what i pdict to u, mr. speaker. when we see theigation the departnt of juice is seeking to bring against the -- against arizon we'll s it's been copy and peysed ofthe aclu's lawsuit. excuse me. thank you, mr. eaker. we'll see it been copy and peysed off the aclu's lawsuit. that's the work i believe is being don the outside group the lefting groups, play the tune, the tune's right here in the lawsuit from the aclu, and en the justice department dances

at the direion of the president of the united states, at the direction of the aclu, seiund the rest ofhe left-wingrganizations that filed this lawsuit. this is not a rational approach. if thpresident can't articulate a problem, excuse me. . the president can't articulate a constitutional violation even ough he taut at the university of chicago. the attorney genal, under oath, couldn't articulate a constitutial feder statute or case law violation of arizona 's immigration law 1070. but yet, this radical case that i think that is irrational and

illogical by t aclu andthis is a sumry, about that k, actually, this will make the whole series of arguments and i believe the justi department, if they come forwar and i think they will, will be making thamirrational arguments. so mr. speaker, i'm concerned about an unbiased justice departmt. i lo at this case that's all out effort to focus on arizona's immigrati law and invalidate it without aasis o rationale. when i look at the many faces of the administration that have spoken against it, but haven't read the bill. attorneyeneral holder would be the lead person that admitted he hadn't read theill when judge poe asked hithat question

after my qstions that day. he admitted he hadn't read the ill. 17 pag. hn't read the bill. he clearly had not been briefed by anobjective person that had read the bill. he may haveaken the movon.org or huffington talking pnts and read them. sounded like he had andhe president had as well. then janet napolitano, secretary of the department of homand security, who's charged with heading up the office that enforces immigration law, the former governor ofrizona, who shld have focused on that bill -- well, governor january brewer hould have focus odd that bill re. know she did. enat payers, i know he did. t janet politano, a former governor arizona and now the sretary of homeland surity

had not read the bill but still made public stements that implied,t a minimum, that it wouldring about profiling of people in arizona and disagreed with the law. and when john mccain point blanked hebefore the senate hearing, she had to ait s hadn't read the bill either. the president dn't read the bill eiter that or he misinformed the american people. we know eric holder didn't read theil he admitted to that under oa. we know that janet napolitano didn't read the bill. she admitt to that under the oath. michael posner he was joe oraged that he took the argument to the chinese. we brought iup early and ofte he sa, compare arizona's immigration law with the brutality that goes on in ina. don't think i'm de ye mr.

speaker. let's see, who am i forgetting? assistant secretary wh heads up i.c.e. who makes the public statement he wouldn't commit to that now, john morton doesn't get to set policy, neithedoes janet napolitano or eric holderor michael posner nor the president of the united states. they have to work within the laws they get. there are other polici they do geto set within the framework but don't get tomend the policies. coss sets that. the voice of the american people sets it. and jon morton, head of i.c.e. don't want enforce the law and pick up thlegals that are pckedup b arizona

law eorcement officers, he should find himself aob that his heart was in, to do something thate could do that he believes is right. if he disagre with policy -- you know, a general who thinks wre off on the wrong mission will resigtheir commission if they don't think they are political pple and that has happened a number of times when they get an order they can't carry out, generals have resigned. theyaintain their integry. there's an der out there and it's enforce thlaw. ooperate, by the way, with arizona, who has uttered this scream of frustration that they have to take their resoces and pass an imgration law that i hope and plead goes to every state in the uon. if they can findays to toughen it up and make it more effective, do that. stt with that undation of izona's law. it's rare when a stateakes an

initiative that it begins to state the policy for america. would very happy to see this happen, mr. speaker, whe it com to the state of arizona. so, r federal officials that got this wrong tt artrying to mirror, by the way, t psint of e united states, but the president misinford the american people. he ha't read the bill. janet napolitano misinformed the american peoe, she hadn't read the bill. eric holder had nt read the bill. i don't know if john morton read the bill, but he didn't want to enforce the bill. posner had no business sticking his nose in it whatsoever and carried it all the way to the chinese. i can't stand here on the floor of the house of represtatives without raising anssue of president calderon back behind where i'stanng now spoke to a joi session of congress and

had to lecture us on how he strongly disagrees with arizona's immigration law. if he does, he also disagrees with the federal united states federal government's immigration law. it mirrors the feral immigratn law. and so we are in an era where the administration, the highest raing officials within the administration aren't compelled to check the facts before they misform the amerin people. they might cck a left-wing website, butar ecking the facts. and the amen people, who are they going to trust, shouldn't they tru the voicef the president of the united states? who's briefing him. who is telling him was in the bill? codn't anyone have given him an objective analysis. what kind of a shop is being run at thwhite house? i think were getting an indication.

furthermore, wle i talk about the immigration subject matter, there is another one that causes me aeason to be conrned. it was reported in the news that president obama'aunt was granted asylum and i have to check her name to ke sure that i geit exactly right. present obama's owe -- she les in public housing in boston. she came to the united states in 2000 we don't know necsarily how she got intthe ines whether it was some type of va, tourist orhat it might have been, but she stayed. and alonabout the year 202, she became the focus of the immigration law enforcement personnel. by 2004, she had -- his aunt had been adjudicated fo deportation

by an imgration judge. well, she defied the deimportanttion order, stayed in the united states reportedly on publ benefits and don't ow h she did that that's what thne has reported. but not at long ago, after her nephew becameresident, she received asylum. now, asylum in this case, is the equivalent of amnesty for an individual, mr. speaker. so zatuni, president obama's aunt, if sheonored the deportation order, stuckund here and couldn't be deported and was not forcibly taken out ofhe united stes, she defied the orr and rerded with the objtive of her crime. remember when i said the

deinition of amnesty is to pardon imgracious law brkers and reward them. coming into e united stes illegally. she may have overstayed her vi but if her objective was to be able to stay in the united states, the asylum thatas granted by a judge,ho she argues it's too danger for her to go back to kenya because of g related to e ited states makes it too dangerous for her to go back and live there. f that the case, ithe president's aunt, who lis in kenya can't go back to kenya because there's too much focus her there, i think there is a lot of other relations in kenya and wouldn't they live under the same kind of fear and get the me kind of asylum if they came to the unitedtates? is that something that the presidt is for and with her getting asylum aft the court

h said no, based onthe fact that a nephew was elected president and that would be a reaso as i read that law, i have a lot of questions that come one ofhem is, if his aunt gets asylum, wouldn't all of the obama relation get asylum if they just snuck into the united states and move into the white hoe ounds and none of them can go back to kenya anymore? i don't know. i'm sure there was favoritism involved. a court that would gra asylum than no greater basis than what i readere, then i think is one that should be questioned. if anybody thinks at robert gibbs said, no, there was nothinout the ordinary, no impropriety, no one from the white house had anything to say, and just let e court do what they did. rlly? i wou wonder if the administration would say the same thing about the bankruptcy cot for general motors and

chrysler. es, they have. and i happen to have thought about this to the poinwhere i reached in and i wanted to look at some of the testimony before the judiciary committee on hearings that took place someti back -- i actually don't have this date i my records, and this would be testimony of the indiana state tasurer, treasur murdock, who gave somcompelling testimony before the judiciary committ. and as i listened to aumber of the witnesses testify in a simil theme andhe theme was at the wte house had dictatethe terms of bankruptcy the auto makers. and so i asked the question of treasurer murdock, did any of the testimony that came before the bankruptcy court, did it alter the anticipated result of the hapt 11 for both chrysler angenel motors?

did the evidence presentedo the bankruptcy court change the terms thawere offered to it by the white house? here's whaeasurer murdock said, no, it did not. now that's theuote. i' embellish a little bit and say, his answer was this, and this is how i interpret the answer, the white house dictated the terms of bankrupcy to the bankruptcy court. now when ever in tistory o america has t presint of he united states determined the terms of baruptcy and told th bankruptcy court this is how it wille? d hermore, to go on with treasur murdock's testony and being from indiana he was in the middle of this and speaking of the chrysr bankrucy and i should make it clear and i quote, you had the situation ere one party was negotiating, setting values, determining which creditors would be in, which ones would be out, what

they would be given, what would be liquidated all to be t up foan auction sale for which there wasnly one bidder, the united states government. it s on both sides of the table simultanesly, the impropriety of that in trying to esblish value for a sale goe beyond plausible, closed quote. that ente string comes out of his testimony that says, to me and conclusion is, that he was a wiess of this, that the federal government set the terms ankruptcy. and when the ttimony went before the chapter 11 bankruptcy court, the court had to make a determination. the detertion was already ma and offer to them. he said there was only one party negotiing, only one party determining which creditors got paid, which ones, the winners, theosers, one party offing shares over to t unions that

didn have an interest in, but they walked out with an interest in general motors 17.5% the shares, but this quote is about chrysr, determining what they would be given, all to be seup for an auction sale for whh there was only one bidder, hat means the federal government, the uted states government, on both sides of the table simultaneously, bidding and receiving and dictating the terms to the bankruptcy court. an administration that could do this, we're to believe that we provide amnesty and asylum to the aunt who lives still in the united states and whom i have invited to testify before the judiciary committee. this is not an obscure aunt esident obama's. i have read his book "s. i have read his book "dams fromy father"nd this is the aunt that was his guide when he visited kenya in 1988.

and president obama writes extensively about his trip to kenya. it was a very enlightening experience to him accordi to his book that i take at face value. it was based upon fact. went through the other night and searched to look d i thought maybe he made a lit reference to his aunt in the book. so i went through and counted the references to his aunt who now has received asylum in the united staes after defying the deportation order president obama mentions his aunt 66 times in his book "dreams from my ther." she took him place after place. his impressions ofenya wer delivered to h tgh her. it's conceivable to me that an aubt th is that close to -- aunt that is that close to him

would have come to the united states without his knowledge nor s it conceivable to me that an aunt thalived in pubc housing presumably under public housing and i don't know how those terms were reached and then adjudicated to deportation and escape the awareness of barack obama. it's not conceivable. it's not conceivable to me that if a president can dictate the terms bankruptcy to general motors a chrysl and take the shares away from the secured creditors,he people who ould be first in line to receive th benefits or receive any lick questi dation or purchase or settlement, if he could take those secured creditors and box them out and givth nothing and hand sharesver to the unions who had no investmt in, no collateral hold on those

companies and have that mirror the language out -- exactly out of the democratic socialis of america, t socialists' ite, if all of that can happen and some of that i have read into e record tonight, not conceivable me that this amnesty/asylum for president obama's aunt, it's not conceivable that happed independent from the influen of the white house. perps, show uthe record and open up the case. . by the way, attorney general holder, show us the draft plaint you have against arizona, when that draft complaint is released,i formally requested that as a cument, i'll take it myself and go into the acls lawsuit and shoyou where the attrney gera's office copy and peysed out of theclu's lawsuit into their n. it'll be what comes om that

draft complaint. they're not operating independently. they've been politicize ey've can selled the mos open and shut vote intimidation case in the history of america, the new black panthers case in philadelphia, it's on videotape, ey had a coiction, all they neeed to do was follow through they can selled the case. loretta king did so. she's the one that can selled e will of the people in kingston, north carolina who voted that they wanted no more partisan elections in local lech they wand to te the r and d off the names of the candidates a work a 70% vote, loretta king invalidated th because she saidblack people won't know to vote for another black person unless there's a d beside tir name. that's not equal protection. it's contempt for people's judgment. i hink we need to have equal protection under the law we need to uphold the nstitution a rule of law, the separation

of power i'moing to and with the people in arizona who haveone with a great thing for amera d we're going to eventuay get to the point where establish this rule of law, enforce our immigration laws and when that becomes practice in the united states of america, then we can talk about other solutions. mr. speaker, i appreciate your attention this evening, your dulgence and the opportunity to address you on the floor of the house and i yield ck the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back h time. for what purse doethe gentleman rise? mr. king: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pempore: e question son the motion to adjourn.

live coverage of the u.s. house when members return hear on c- span. >> see what your member of congress said. searched the video library, every word from every appearance on the house and senate floor since 1987. and for a snapshot of the 111th congress, c-span is congressional directory available at our store. >> president obama made his fourth trip to the gulf coast today following the april 20 explosion on the deepwater horizon or read.

he ended the day and florida. he will have meetings and florida before returning tomorrow to washington, d.c. >> good afternoon, everybody. i just had a chance to toward this facility here at theodore along with admiral allen and governor riley. i also want to and knowledge that congressman bill bonner and a number of our elected officials attended a briefing about what is taking place. it is from this staging area and 16 others like it all across the gulf coast that our response to the oil spill is being carried out. many of you had an opportunity to save what is being done to repair and decontaminate booms,

to train volunteers, and to help with the cleanup efforts. the hard work and a sense of purpose on behalf of the people of alabama as well as the gulf coast is inspiring. i had a chance during the discussion with the state and local officials to reiterate to them what i've been saying across the coast, is that we want to coordinate at every level, federal, state, and local, that we're leaving no stone unturned in terms of our ability to respond to this tragedy. what i hear from a number off local officials today is what i have heard from people on each of the four visits that i have made since the explosion happened in april. there's a sense that that the disaster is not only threatening heart fishermen and our

shrimpers and our oystermen, not only marshes and wetlands and estuaries and waters and part of what might -- what makes the gulf coast so special, it can also have an impact that has been passed on for generations. -- a long-term impact on the way of life that has been passed on3 and i understand that fear. the leaders in the officials who are with me understand it. governor riley understands it. he has been a regular presence on our daily coordinating calls, and a relentless advocate for alabama throughout this process. and we're absolutely committed to working with him and all the local officials who are behind us to do everything in our power to protect the gulf way of life so that it is there for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. now everybody here has had experiences dealing with disasters. as we were flying over from this -- from mississippi via

helicopter, you could see the footprints of buildings that had been decimated from katrina. but in some ways, what we're dealing with here is unique because it is not simply one catastrophic event. it is an ongoing assault whose movements are constantly changing. that is what makes this crisis so challenging. it means that it has to be constantly watched. it passed the track. we are constantly having to redeploy resources to make sure that they are having maximum impact. and we also need to make sure that we're constantly helping folks who have been hurt by it, even as we are stopping the oil from spreading into more and more areas. that means that this response effort has to happen -- has to happen on a bunch of different tracks. it means containing as much of the oil as we can as quick as we can. after seeing an initial oil collection plan from bp, we went

back to them and said that they need to mess up -- they need to move faster and more aggressively. they now come back with a plan to accelerate steps to contain over 50,000 barrels a day by the end of june, two weeks earlier than they had originally suggested. the revised plan also includes steps to better prepare against extreme weather events and other force in circumstances in the months ahead, addressing another one of our concern. and we're going to continue to hold bp and any other responsible parties accountable for the disaster that they created. dealing with the aftermath of this bill also means protecting the health and safety of the folks who live and work here in theodore, ere in alabama, and here on the gulf coast. as part of this effort, i am announcing a comprehensive, coordinated, and multi-agency initiative to ensure that seafood from the gulf of mexico is safe to eat. no i have some of that seafood for lunch and it was delicious.

we want to make sure that the food industry down here as much as possible is getting the protect -- the protection and the certification that they need to continue their businesses. this is important for consumers who need to know that their food is safe, but it is also important for the fishermen and processors who need to be able to sell their products with confidence. so let me be clear -- seafood from the gulf today is safe to eat. we need to make sure that it stays that way. and that is why, beyond closing off waters that have been or are likely to be exposed to oil, the fda and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration are increasing inspections of seafood processors, strengthening surveillance programs, and monitoring fish that are caught just outside of restricted areas. and we are also coordinating our efforts with the states which are implementing some former -- similar plans. the safety measures are on top of steps that we have taken to

protect workers who were involved in the cleanup efforts. and part of the training you observed here today involves making sure that workers are sticking to the protocols that are put in place so that when they are out there on the waters or here on land working with potentially toxic materials, that they are taking that seriously and they are not cutting corners are safety -- on safety, because we do not want tragedy on top of tragedy that we're already seeing. officials from the occupational safety and health administration are inspecting all the staging areas like this one. they are making sure that bp is complying with its safety obligations. if they see a problem, they will work with bp to resolve it as quickly as possible. and we are monitoring air and water across the gulf coast for hazardous chemicals and pollutants that could endanger oil spill workers or anybody else, so that we can act swiftly should any health risks arise.

now these health and safety measures are just part of our of our -- of our overall effort to deal with this bill. all in all, we are confronting the largest environmental disaster in our history with the largest environmental response and recovery effort in our history. over 27,000 personnel are working to safeguard our coasts and protect endangered wildlife. more than 5400 skimmers, tugs, barges, and other vessels -- some of which you saw as we came into this facility -- orders currently responding to this bill. over 2 million feet of containment boom and over 3 million of absorbent boom are being used to contain the spill, and millions of more feet are available. in addition, we of authorized the deployment of 17,500 national guardsmen and women to assist in the response effort. so far, only about 1600 had been activated, and this -- and the