others will move off the shores of libya, off the shores of brazil. now, what's wrong with this picture? what's wrong with this picture? the rest of the world, we are all attached to the same oceans. the rest of th world is drilling. and we have had two courts of jurisdictions, they know you can't have a moratorium, why do we have a moratorium? because, i would argue, secretary salazar is ignoring the courts and ignoring the rule of law. and we ought to be concerned about that. . it has nothing to do with protecting british petroleum. they ought to get hammered. they did some very bad business practices, it's going to prove out, i think, they still owe to pay for the tadges they've done

-- damages they've done. which they've agreed to, by the way. let's talk about another issue that in texas at least is on our minds 24/7. and that's the issue of what's going on at our borders. president obama made a speech about 10 days ago that specifically raised this issue of immigration. and he talked about, we needed to do a comprehensive immigration plan and that we were defending our borders better than we have ever defended them ever. that we've improved the situation greatly. in the interest of fairness, i

would argue that maybe he should have mentioned that the day before he made this announcement that there'd never been a better defense of our borders automatic weapon fire hit the city hall of el paso, texas, fired from across the border at city hall. i think at least in the order of fairness we should have known that, well, except for maybe the fact that for the first time sips 1919, the city of el paso's been fired upon from across the border, and by the way, in 1919 when they did fire across the border, the american troops wept across the border and cleaned out -- went across the border and cleaned out juarez and chased upon chao vila and it all came -- panc hsks o vila --

pancho vila. i'm saying, let's paint the picture accurately. . even if it's true and we've got more resources on the border than ever, i think there's something to that, we've also had a massive escalation of what's going on across the border from our southern border state. the cartels that promote and sell various sorts of drugs and being an old judge i have tried more drug cases than 0 times the number of seats there are in this -- 10 times the number of seats there are in this room, but i can tell you that when the cartels move to the mexican border, especially that strip of border between el paso and

brownsville, we've got two, arguably three cartels arguing for who control that area and they form each of the two mainly cartels, they form hit squads, separate organizations for murder, like murder, incorporated, when they used to talk about the italian mafia, and these groups became the murder squads going out, killing not only other cartel members from the opposite cartel but also killing mexican police officers and mexican army and military people, mexican civilians, kidnapping americans, etc. now those hit squads are thinking about becoming cartels themselves. so we have a real wild west shootout going on across the border from where we live. now, i didn't mean that to be humorous.

but the week before the firing on the el paso city hall 21 people were killed in one day in juarez, mexico in gun violence -- mexico, in gun violence. i'm sorry, if you don't check afghanistan and iraq, the number of days that 1 people were killed -- 21 people were killed, very few. in one day. so arguemy we've got a situation drg arguably we've got a situation in a city of almost two million people across from the state of texas that's frightening. it's frightening. and it's said that president obama told him the problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any republican to support comprehensive immigration reform. the white house denies that.

senator kyle sticks with his story. i don't know. but the issue that we really need to be talking about is defending our border and i would say we are refusing to defend our border. arizona enacted a law to actually epforce the immigration laws, the federal government -- laws the federal government has failed to enforce. attorney generic holder and the obama administration have filed a lawsuit against arizona saying it has no right to enforce that law. this is going to be a question that's going to be settled by the courts. how many times did i sit on this floor, i respect the decisions of the court? so we'll certainly see how it

comes out. but, why did the arizona legislature and the arizona governor put this law forward? and why, by the way, did they take this law and track, according to multiple experts, word for word the enforcement provisions set out in the federal law as far as the actions of federal agents and what they can and cannot ask swup? why does it track word for word the federal law? and why is it they pass this with sprisk provisions saying that we will -- specific provisions saying we will not do any kind of profiling of any sort, racial or otherwise, and it can only be done as a result of a lawful stop on other matters, can you ask a question about the immigration status of the person you're talking to, of what country they come from?

so, and you say, why did the legislature pass this? why did they -- is the governor stepping up and doing it? because they have been begging in arizona, pleas, come help us -- pleas -- please, come help us -- please, comhelp us. we had a rancher brutally murdered in his own living room for standing up to these drug lord car vans coming across this border, bringing people and drugs into the united states. and the guy only did, he was out on his land and he told these people, you're not supposed to be here, and they killed the guy. and in texas, which, we have a river between us, they have a barbed wire fence between them and mexico, and we've got a river twean us, and i have friends -- he talked to a good friend of mine, a former committee commissioner in my blingt, -- county, my home county, who told me that his

place down close to the border, that he leaves food and water out for people because he doesn't want them to tear the mace up. he leaves the place unlocked because there used to be mostly economic people looking for jobs coming through there and all they wanted was something to eat and drink but now these thugs are coming across the border, stealing everything that's not nailed down and tearing the place to shreds. these lawless people that come across our border. now, maybe that's why the state of arizona has said, you know what? you fice in the federal government are not doing your -- you guys in the federal government are not doing your job and we're going to help. and, you know, i haven't heard anybody say that if they ask someone, are you an american citizen and they say, no, i'm from guatemala or wherever, and they say, well, then we're going to call the border patrol, at that point, that's where their

participation stops, whether the border patrol's going to do their job, that's going to be a whole different issue. but, it's going to be decided by the courts. really and truly the real solution to the arizona problem is for the federal government to enforce the laws that are on the books. the laws on the books right now. and i was thinking about this coming over here tonight, and i will make a slight presumption but it's not much of a presumption, that possession of cocaine in arizona is against the law. especially large amounts. i would make the presumption the possession of cocaine in -- marijuana in arizona is against the law. i think there's a good presuppings by an old judge from texas that possession of heroin in that state of arizona is against the law.

i do think under those circumstances, if those are written into the code which i presume they are, they are probably felony cases of a series -- serious nation. i think that carrying -- nature. i think that carrying fully automatic weapons is both against the federal and the state law in arizona. i'm pretty sure. i know they are in texas. now, if people are coming across our border armed with ak-47 weapons, backpacks full of drugs, marching in caravan, in many cases dressed in uniforms, paramilitary uniforms, marning -- marching into the public lands of arizona and, i guess, turning over to some motorized operation they walk to, that takes it and spreads that filt all over the country -- filt all over the country, the state -- filth all over the country, the state of arizona has the rights

to enforce the drug laws of arizona. i would argue, if the -- if they don't have the resources to stop this epidemic of violence and drugs that flow across and prostitution and smuggling of individuals from every part of the world into our country, if there's not any -- if there's not enough law enforcement personnel to put on the ground tone force those laws -- ground to enforce those laws which they have absolutely the right to enforce they ought to be able to call up the guard to do it. so, this is just after you've caught the drug dealer with a pack full of heroin and an ak-47 on his shoulder, how bad is that, oh, by the way, are you an

american citizen? i don't know. first off, you don't have to call border patrol, low them in jail and prosecute them for violation of state law. so this thing is kind of out of whack a little bit, in my way of thinking. but it's a real shame to me, suing arizona. finally, we spent almost a year and a half talking about dealing with and behind closed doors writing, the majority party's bill for health care reform. and in that bill we basically mandate that the government will tell people what product they will buy and who they can buy it from. and as a result the individual mandate extends the commerce clause power beyond the economic

activity to economic enactivity. that is unprecedented. in other words, what they're saying, if you don't pie beau -- buy this product for your employees you're going to be punished with a $2,000 fine. and the question comes, is this commerce as the commerce clause of the united states is written? and basically we have done -- we've expanded the federal government probably farther unders commerce clause than any other single clause in the constitution. and now using the commerce clause as an argument, the argument here is that you can make an employer buy a product sold by a company of your choice of companies, to if they don't buy it they get even ifed -- or if they don't buy it they get fined. and the question is, where does

that stop, if that's the law, why can't we make everybody buy chevrolet? i don't know. why can't we? if we can make them buy a blue cross or, i don't know, some other company's policy, or be fined $,000, why can't we say, everybody buys a car in america next year, has to buy a chevrolet or a buick or a ford, don't get any in trouble with the auto manufacturers, i don't care what, have to buy one or they'll pay a $2,000 fine? if they can do it on health care, they ought to be able to do it on an automobile, shouldn't they? where it does it stop? that's the kind of issue we have to ask ourselves as we look at this. never before has the congress used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. regulating the auto industry or paying cash for clunkers is one thing, making everyone buy a

chevy is quite another. this was in "the washington post." but the real question we have to ask ourselves is, how are we marching over human rights in this country, individual rights, the real thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world ? how are we stepping all over people as a government and shouldn't we be concerned about stepping all over people? when -- i've lost count now, but i know it's in the teens, of people have filed lawsuits against the federal government in at least two jurisdictions, maybe three, saying this is unconstitutional, you can't do this. shouldn't we be thinking about all this? shouldn't we wonder if the law

revail -- prevails in other parts of that 2,500 page document we call the obama health care bill? when we wrote that bill, we created some of those laws that are the rule of law and the rule of law has to comply with and be supported by the united states constitution. because that's the rock we built our laws upon. so as we talk to -- finish up talking today about the rule of law, i bring these issues up so that this house and others can ponder them and say, as we continue to march down a corridor which steps all over the rule of law, where does it stop? when do we stand up and say, that's not right. wait a minute, when court tells you something, orders you to do

something, and then you appeal it and the appeals court tells you the same thing, then what is it about no that you don't understand? when governors are trying to save those in favor say aye environment, why are you getting in the middle of their business and not letting them build a berm? why aren't you helping them? we've got issues we've got to talk about as far as theover reaching of this federal government. and i think we will. i think we'll be discussing them this fall, it's a pretty serious manner. madam speaker, i thank you. my time is almost done. i thank you for the time you've yielded me tonight and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. it's a privilege to join my colleagues on the floor this evening to talk about the future of our economy and the direction that we are moving -- the new direction we, as democrats, since we took over the congress, are moving this country. we plan to spend the next 45 minutes to an hour talking about where we've been and where we are at this point and the opportunities that we have to continue to go. my colleagues and i will talk about the progress we've made and the efforts that we've employed to try to create jobs and turn the economy around. we feel really excited about the

accomplishments that we've made thus far. we have only to look back to the months before president obama took office in january of 2009 to see at that point the economy having bled 700,000-plus jobs and you fast forward to june, now july, of 2010, and we are now adding, on average, between 125,000 and 200,000 jobs per month. those are private secor jobs. we also have some -- the addition of public sector jobs through the census but month after month, particularly starting at the beginning of this year, the economy has consistently added private sector jobs. that is incredibly important. we know that the way we're going to continue to turn our economy around, the key to our economic revival is through job creation.

last february we can attribute much of the success and much of the turn around that's occurred thus far to our passage of the american recovery and reinvestment act. we know that the $787 billion stimulus package that we passed injected badly needed resources into the economy but madam speaker, it also injected badly needed capital in the form of tax cuts for the middle class and working families. that's something that doesn't get talked about enough. we do talk about job creation but one of the keys to job creation, we know is stimulating the economy through tax cuts targeted toward the middle class and working families and small businesses. we have really endeavored to make sure that we struck a careful balance and the right balance between stimulating the economy by injecting badly needed resources and also generating the tax cuts that we know are the life blood of so many small businesses and then

having the capital available to make the investments they need and the infrastructure of their businesses so that they can have the wherewithal to add new hires and create more jobs. that's something that if you compare and contrast the priorities of the previous administration to the priorities of the obama administration and our leadership under speaker pelosi and the democratic leadership here in the house of representatives, the priorities back in the bush era were, again, a return to the trickle down theory of economics that if you focus tax cuts and if you focusal all your attentions on the wealthiest americans, on the largest corporations, then somehow that largess will flow downward through the economy and you'll -- rising tides lift all boats. except in this case, we know that that policy sunk the boats and instead we capsized a whole

lot of small businesses in the water and now we have been engaged in a really significant effort to try to right those ships and get the economy back on track. we're excited about the progress we've made but we also recognize that we have a long way to go and there are a number of things that we are going to want to focus on tonight, but let's just look at the weekly economic update just in the last -- in the last week. we -- and in the last month. if you look at employment, the private sector in the month of june created an additional 83,000 jobs and the unemployment rate continues to fall, it fell to 9.5%. that's the sixth straight month of job growth in the private sector and the fall in total employment reflected a decrease in our census jobs. we added 9,000 manufacturing jobs in june and that is the

11th month in a row we have added manufacturing jobs. so the progress that we're making is evident. we need to be able to continue that fro pro gress and not get too timid or gun shy while we balance our priorities and make sure that we can -- that we can focus on getting the jobs done. the june jobs report was another reminder of just how far we've come since last year and how much work remains to be done to stop the free fall, the president and congress took strong and immediate steps in the recovery act and put people back to work after 22 straight months of job loss before president obama took office we now have seen our economy create private sector jobs for the last six months in a row and we need to make sure we can continue that recovery. we're moving in the right direction. we know it's not fast enough. that's why president obama is

fighting for additional steps to speed up the recovery and keep the economy going and he and we have made clear that creating jobs are a top priority. another priority in a state like mine, particularly in south florida is making sure we can get lending kick started again and make sure that folks who are struggling to be able to make their mortgage payments and remain in their homes still have the ability to get do that. we have been very focused and the administration has been focused on creating programs that will help keep people in their homes, give banks and banking institutions the opportunity to work with homeowners so that we don't see masses of individuals out on the street and continue the flood of housing that has become available on the market as a result. so we have a lot of things to think about. i'm joined tonight by several of my colleagues, the first of which is my colleague from houston, texas, who has been a

longtime member, focuses on the needs of her district like a laser beam and has talked quite a bit about the need for job growth is struggling in her community as a fellow gulf coast stater dealing with the aftermath of the b.p. oil spill, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i'm proud to join multiple friends from a number of states in america but more importantly i'm glad pob tart of the team working with the congresswoman, our leadership and the president that focuses on creating jobs for americans. that's an exciting message for all of us. i'm delighted to sort of dash the misstatement that was been going on about what we have accomplished here and if i might just be redundant and cite the fact that the private sector has created 83,000 jobs in june but

i'd like to add something else, congresswoman. i think you've seen this number as well, that this has been one of the best quarter for corporations in terms of profit. it is well known and of course many of us encourage individuals to save money and to invest, but i think it's particularly important for the american public to know that our corporations have money. we've created the right economic atmosphere for them to grow. they decided to not create all of the jobs they could. i would like this evening to congratulate them for the profit they've made but i want them to be inspired to create jobs for the american people because the government has worked very hard to create a banking system for them to feel comfortable with as we pass the wall street reform so that they can create jobs and hire people. 9,000 manufacturing jobs were cree can ated in june. i think that's extremely important with the 136,000 jobs since december. we have good news for the

american public. we have heard you and we believe in buying american and making it in america. therefore, we're going to be looking over the next couple of months to craft an aa general da where you'll see jobs being created by the message of this democratic leadership. we can tell you we mean business because we can show you the facts. for the 11th consecutive month, the manufacturing sector has expanded. they have heard our call. the purchasing managers index registered at 5 % in june. of the 18 industries registered, 13 reported growth. look at the, if you will, gigantic change we've seen in the automobile manufacturing sector where our companies are coming back. many people complained about the approach we utilized but we can look at the bottom line, ford never took the money, g.m. paid the money back but what we want them to do is to manufacture

smartly and to hire people and create jobs. we have created, this democratic leadership this president, has created the atmosphere for these companies to grow and we want them to grow more. let me just add these one or two points, consumers who have been feeling the pinch we know there's unemployment and right now today, we are fighting to extend unemployment for those hard working americans who have seen their jobs go but need to support their families. let me make it clear, unemployment insurance is not a handout. it is a, if you will, it's a gift coming back or it is an acknowledgment of your hard work. we want to keep you over a bidge, we want to give you a bridge until you get another job. disposable personal income grew by 0.5% in may, by .6% in april and by .4% in may. you can see it's steadily going up. it's steadily going up and this

is making a difference. as i clite these last points, congresswoman -- as i cite these last points, congresswoman to emphasize how we on this side of the aisle, as we manufacture product, i'm disappointed that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are thinking differently. one of the things they don't like to say is when president obama first came into office he inherited an economy that was losing an average of 750,000 jobs in one month. i'm not the kind of personality that wants to look back and blame the last administration, but we know for a fact that there were no jobs created in the last eight years. and so let me conclude on remarks that have been made by a good friend, the minority whip, asked the question, stimulus dollars have not produced jobs.

this is what the minority whip said, while hosting a job fair in virginia. and i would only like to say that to help the american people, it would be grand for us to work and march in step, in a bipartisan step, and that is the only thing we're concerned about, no matter what region we come from, is creating jobs. many of you know that we are being hit in the gulf in many different ways by the b.p. oil spill. my food friend is being hit with tourism, i just had one of her mayors before my committee and they said they're not being listened to about tourism. i'm being hit because of fishermen and shrimpers and oysters but also het by the hardworking people who work in the energy industry who are innocent, who may be losing jobs and cannot work offshore. but our good friend, mr. cantor, rather than working together to produce jobs has said this, he hasn't seen any evidence of jobs being created. well, according to a council of economic advisors, the recovery act created or saved more than

4,000 jobs in virginia in 2009. in may the congressional budget office reported that in the first quarter of 2010 the recovery act was responsible for an encrease in the number of people employed by 1.2 million. and 2.8 million. this is stunning. and the job fair that mr. cantor has and i congratulate him for having a job fair, i congratulate the companies for coming, and i am very flad that the companies that were in the room had gotten $5 million in recovery act funds to create jobs, you can imagine? this is not a partisan commitment to america, wherever you are and you need a job, our stimulus dollars have been there. and so, i hope that we can end our criticism of the recovery act, because we know we can opponent out infrastructure projects and jobs created in all of our home districts and we can point to the democratic leadership where their method is jobs, jobs, jobs.

we have nothing to be ashamed of. but we must stay steady, we must stay consistent, we must make sure that the unploim -- unemployment insurance goes out to our insurance, we're going to fight to the end to make sure that this goes where it needs to go and that is to the people who need it and, finally, i'm excited about the manufacturing spurt, surge, that we're going to continue, we take the message of buy america and make it in america, we're creating jobs and this democratic leadership believes that america is standing tall and we will be a country that recovers in a very, very special way. and i'm delied -- delited to be able to joip with mee friends who understand that there is an american economic recovery. we know it, we see it and we're working on it. i yield back. was was thank you. you've really been a stalwart -- ms. wasserman schultz: thank

you. you've really been a stalwart fighter for the middle class and working families, that democrats have always stood for and stood by. and it's absolutely critical that you've come down here tonight to help us fet that message out. thank you so much -- help us get that message out. so thank you so much. it's a wolf transition, the item that -- wonderful transition, making sure we can make things again and focusing on manufacturing and the resurgence of manufacturing in this country is a perfect segue to the priorities and the message that i know my good friend from michigan whose district i was just in this morning and had the privilege of joining him in his district in ann arbor and had an opportunity to meet with his constituents who are very supportive of his efforts to create jobs here and to focus the needs on michigan's economy right here in washington. so my good friend, mark schauer, from the great state of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, congresswoman. i'm proud to be here tonight -- mr. schauer: thank you, congresswoman.

i'm proud to be here tonight to talk about the recovery, about the economic recovery, about jobs, about a manufacturing agenda, and a make it in america agenda. the people that i respect in michigan understand that we have -- represent in michigan understand that we have a fundamental problem with our economic recovery. and that is, unfair trade policies that have cost us -- that is unfair trade policies that have cost us in michigan hundreds of thousands of jobs. i've co-sponsored a bill to repeal nafta. i know there are different views on that. my views are very clear. that we need to support trade policies that put american jobs in understand -- and american workers first. the people at home that i represent have heard me say it and i'm proud to say it on the floor of the house of representatives here today, the time is now to fight for american jobs. the time is now to fight for american jobs.

there's an issue that i'm working on that i think i've gotten some attention of certainly democratic leadership that wants to fight for american jobs and manufacturing and american workers and i think this is an issue where my friends on the other side of the aisle will embrace as well. i've already got one republican co-sponsor on h.r. 5312, and it's a very simple issue. it's about fairness. it's about fair trade rather than trade policies that, again, have cost us millions of jobs in this country. what i learned, as i've been fighting for fair trade and giving our businesses, small businesses and large, an opportunity to make things again , inmy state and in this country, is that we've opinion using our tax thrars to support

and create jobs in china rather than jobs here in the united states of america. as i dug into this issue, quite innocently i was looking through some census promotional materials and i was shocked to find that some of those materials to promote something that i support 110%, the united states census, each of our communities needs to get its fair share of dollars to support education and housing and public safety and so forth, but some of these promotional materials, you guessed it, were made in china. this is a key ring that i carry everywhere i go. and i show small businesses, tool and dye shops, small manufacturers, they tell me that they could tool this little key

chain, and it says, united states census 2010. they could have the tooling done, they could have their manufacturing process ready in one week to make this little metal key chain. now, what you may not be able to see at home, you may not be able to read where it says united states census. i want to remind you that your tax dollars are paying for this. there's a little sticker and you guessed it, it says, made in china. now, we can and we should make this with our tax dollars here. now, china, when they joined the world trade organization in 2001, did not, did not sign the -- ms. wasserman schultz: will the gentleman yield for a question? on the key chain. have you had an opportunity to talk with the census bureau? and -- about why it is that they are getting promotional material that they're using to get

americans to complete the census forms for china? mr. schauer: i have. thank you for asking me that. i heard a couple of interesting answers. they say that, and i also have a hat, people that i represent at home see me with this hat, it's a white, it's a very poor quality hat that says, united states census 2010. you guessed it, made in china. and the united states census says, well, if products are substantially altered, substantially altered, this sounds like bureaucratic speak, can qualify as made in america. so, i guess what they consider substantially altered is this little metal key chain that was made in china apparently had the united states census 2010 printing done in the u.s. and that's substantially altered. the hat that i usually have with me, i don't have it tonight,

same thing, the hat is made in china, but the fact that -- ms. wasserman schultz: if the gentleman would yield for another question. so, essentially the screen precipitationing that was done onto the item, they designed that as substantially altering the actual piece and so it's exempted from -- mr. schauer: it satisfies the by american provision. then there are also -- i met with commerce secretary gary locke about this and by the way i've been appointed to the president's export council and i plan to work on these american jobs issues, is if there are certain orders that have to be done quickly, that there's a loophole. so, you know -- ms. wasserman schultz: can i ask you another question? mr. schauer: yes. ms. wasserman schultz: because, it's not like we don't know that we do the census err 10 years. and that -- every 10 years.

and that we are going to need promotional materials to promote the census. mr. schauer: exactly. ms. wasserman schultz: so what would be the urgent nature or last-minute ordering that would be done for key chains or hats? we know -- i mean, we know in 00 we're going to need that, we know in 2030 we're going to need that. mr. schauer: exactly right. ms. wasserman schultz: stock up. mr. schauer: the point is, there is no good answer. so we as democrats have to look at, we have to scour the law, all of our laws, and look at by american provisions and make sure there are no loopholes like these that allow our tax dollars to create jobs in other countries. it's not just china, there are t-shirts, i think it was made in honduras and so forth. ms. wasserman schultz: -- ms. jackson lee: would the gentleman yield for a quick, quick comment? that very product, t-shirts and hats, just fits right in with small and medium-sized businesses, the very businesses

that make jobs. i yield to the gentleman for a response on that. isn't in the kind of product that fit right into the small businesses of america? mr. schauer: i was in michigan at a small business appreciation dinner and i took the hat, took the key chain, i said, can anyone here make these? hands went up. i mean, we can make these things, we do, and in fact, when i testified before the house ways and means committee on this issue, congressman sandy levin held a hearing on our trading relationship with china, and the other thing that the census bureau says is, well, we don't make these things here. or, we don't put them out, you know, we can't find folks here in the u.s. that make these. i took seven or eight hats from my office representing different groups in my district, one was from a high school, their baseball team cap, they were all made in america.

and of course those items were of a much better quality than the hat that was made in china. my ultimate point is that china has been playing us for fools. china has been maying us for fools. they are eating our lunch, we are letting them do it. and so it's time for us collectively as democrats and i hope our republican colleagues join us in this fight, it's time to fight for our jobs. this is a simple matter of fairness. and i'll sum up this issue, that what my bill does, it's a straight issue of reciprocity. a true fair trade issue. and the way it works is that we will allow chinese companies the same access to our government contracts as china's government

is allowing our companies to have access to their government contracts. so, if that number in china is zearow then you guessed it, no chinese company will have access to our government contracts. if the number's a million, then there will be straight reciprocity. so, it's time for us to decide which jobs we're going to use our tax dollars to support. i think the answer for us as democrats is, those jobs are american jobs. ms. wasserman schultz: absolutely. thank you so much for your leadership on this, congressman schauer. really, this is something that you have been spear heading for a long time and it's finally cracking through, i know that it's a priority that we're going to be taking up in the very near future and i have a hunch that legislation is going to definitely be sent over to the senate and they would be hard pressed not to take it up. mr. schauer: thank you. ms. wasserman schultz: with that i want to turn it over to the very eloquent and hardworking

stalwart for creating jobs and helping us turn the economy around, in his home state of new york, mr. paul tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, representative wasserman schultz. thank you for britain bringing us together to discuss an important aspect -- for bringing us together to discuss the important aspect. creating the dignity of work for individuals and families across the country. it's great to join you, i know we're going to be hearing from representative murphy, but to be with everyone here and put our thoughts into a context that allows people to understand where we're headed with this recovery program, and i think this chart expresses it in a very straight forward, simplistic way, a simple straight forward decline for many months, where we lost $17.5 trillion of household income, where 8.2 million jobs were lost. we were headed for a deep, deep depression.

then a sharp, straight line upward which expresses a recovery. i should point out that many of us believe, all of us here on the floor tonight, believe we're not only recovering the economy but we're restructuring the economy. that's an important aspect of the work we're doing. to create those jobs that will bring strength to the american worker prorkvide economic vitality for the american family so we see this clustering here on six months of recovery in the private sector area of job creation and job retention. this is an important aspect to the investment that's been made, the policy reform that was been initiated and responded to by this administration and the leadership of this house. there's more to come, we're not satisfied with this. but when we hear critics from the other side of the aisle saying, where's that great number of jobs where those new jobs? we can point to these new jobs. they're there.

they're a statistic. where were you to decry the loss of those jobs that were silent about -- there was silence about the job beings lost, there's huge contrast in their approach to jobs. we heard nothing with job loss, now we're hearing complaints, a diminishing of the efforts to create jobs in the private sector which is happening. i think rather than dwell on statistics and all my colleagues have tone this very well, statistically showing we are making progress and there's been a sharp u-turn in the response as a nation for job creation, but i think we need to put it in the big picture framework of trust, of confidence. this party the democrats have come forward with a plan of action, one that has saved a lot of effort of further loss, economic consequences for american families.

and we know who brought us that steep red line of decline. it was the party that continues to espouse privatization of social security. a vouchering of medicare. of supporting tax breaks to ship jobs offshore. to call the response to wall street reform akin to attacking an ant with an atom bomb. what a gross misrepresentation. what a gross unawareness of the issues that brought this country's economy to its knees. and so, i thought that sort of contrast, i think it's with governing, the response today, the positives, the optimism we share, the reforms we're promoting are swinging us upward. the contrast is that continued effort to further push hard on

the middle class, to not allow for medicare, a system that's worked well for our nation's seniors, raise the age effort, the age limit, the threshold for social security. all these efforts coming, all this denouncement of social security, of medicare, that have stabilized people in their retirement years, are what they advance what they promote are you going to trust that thinking that party to continually pull us into the red? are or you going to look -- or are you going to look at democratic action where we resisted this behavior, where we believe we can grow the economy, where we are embratesing the theme that we are going to make it in america again, let american workers know we are standing for that turn around. >> will the gentleman zeeled >> mr. tonko: i will. ms. wastst: the way you are characterizing our colleagues' vuse, i want to bring mr. murphy

into the discussion because he and i in the twakes to 2008, the 110th congress we spent quite a bit of time on the house floor talking about the republicans' efforts to privatize social security and i'm wondering if your characterization of their agenda is one that you -- is this just something you think -- is it your opinion? we have, from what i understand, a number of different third party validators who can document they have consistently supported privatization of social security and vouchering of the medicare system. mr. tonko: absolutely. we know what people want and where they want to take us, i think the contrast needs to be shared because that same thinking is prevalent in terms of economic recovery, economic development policies, of the sort of stopping of the bleeding that we promoted here in the house by inserting a new order of thinking.

even with the energy crisis with the devastation, representative jackson lee, you see it where you sit. representative wasserman schultz you see it from florida's perspective, texas' perspective. the gulf has been impacted. fre -- the chief energy voice in this house demanded an apology from the president for come do you think hard on b.p. and all the devastation to the economy, to the people, 11 lives lost, the ecosystem being devastated, that's a sign of difference. there isn't trust, in my opinion, or confidence. people are going to take a look at this and say, let's continue it. the past out of the damaged zone may not be as quick as we would have liked, but it is happening. it is happening in a positive measurement and it's a growth in the private sector of job creation for six continuous months. so i just think that contrast is

important in the discussion that we have here tonight on the floor of the house. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. tonko. you have hammered home, you're here night after night, week after week too make sure we can talk to the american people and illuminate not just our efforts on turning the economy around and creating jobs, but our successes. and someone who has been really focused on creating jobs, making sure that as a member of the house committee on energy and commerce that we do that through our innovation ayen da, through our passage of the energy and global warming climate change legislation, the leader from the great state of connecticut, congressman chris murphy. mr. murphy: thank you very much, ms. wasserman schultz, representative tonko, representative jackson lee. everybody should look at the chart next to representative tonko. it's not a coincidence that from month to month to month in the last year of the bush administration we lost more and

more and more jobs. and then immediately upon the new president, president obama, taking office we started to lose less and less and less jobs to the point where we are adding jobs to the economy. it's because the stimulus has worked, it is because it is infusing new money into the economy, it is because tax rates are the lowest in this country since 1950. people have more money to spend than ever before. it's because we put money in the hands of teachers and firefighters and police officers and renewable energy companies and solar companies and advanced battery technologies companies, the leading edge of our economy is creating jobs. it's because manufacturing is coming back. in june, 9,000 new manufacturing jobs in this economy. since december, 136,000 new manufacturing jobs. the economy is heading in the

right direction because we're putting new policies into place that are investing in small manufacturers, in small businesses, in main street. and that's the dichotomy here. that's why i ran for congress four years ago, because i watched washington, i watched the bush administration put all of its focus on the haves, on the big multinational companies, on the big oil company the big pharmaceutical company the big defense contractors, and very little emphasis on the small manufacturer with 10 employees around the corner from me. very little emphasis on the small mom and pop businesses struggling to get by, paying for the energy costs and the health care costs that were padding the pockets of the big guys. that's a fundamental shift that's happened here. you see it on issue after issue. you see it on our approach to energy. mr. tonko you said we're we're investing in small renewable energy companies.

the republican leadership on issues of energy are asking for apologies to b.p. you see it on health care reform where we're putting power in the hands of consumers, where the republicans when they tried their stab at health care reform, with medicare prescription drug act but the power in the hands of drug companies. you see it in manufacturing. what we're talking about as democrats is reinvigorating american manufacturing to stop this defeatist notion that we can't make things here in america anymore. that's what sort of drove the house of representatives when the republicans were in charge, manufacturing debt, can't do it any longer woosmgoer to sining a-- sign agreements with any country that comes to us without regard to what's best. democrats and the obama administration refuse to give in

to that notion. i think you're going to see over the next several months on the house floor democrats standing up for american manufacturing saying we can make it here in the united states. mr. schauer's initiative is right on. if we can start standing up to countries like chi ma and saying, listen, if you're going to -- if you want free trade with the united states, you have to allow us to sell to you like you sell to us. i think it starts with the way we buy things for the american goovement number of us are working on legislation that we hope will come before the floor very shorltly that will say simp -- shortly that will say simply, when the united states government buys something, buy it here in the united states. you may be able to find the part for the jet engine 10% cheap for the china, but the job being created in china rather than the machine shop in new york or connecticut is costing our government and our economy way

more than the 10% you save in lost wages, lost taxes and increased social safety net cost like unemployment compensation. i'm looking forward to this summer and fall as we build on the work we've done here. when democrats do what we're good at doing, standing up for small guys, for little guys, for american manufacturing, if we put an end to what has been a decade-long defeatist attitude in this country and in this government to just allow for manufacturing to go to the folks that can do it for the cheapest and who can do it with the lowest and the worst environmental and labor regulations around. i think we'll stand up for american manufacturing and continue this trend of growing manufacturing jobs. i think it's going to be part, ms. wasserman schultz of the story of the recovery and the resurgence of the american economy. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you for helping us share that story

with the american people and our constituents. it's absolutely critical as we turn the corner and go through the summer that we make sure that we talk about our efforts to continue to focus on job creation and particularly on tax cuts for working families and the middle class because it's such a dramatic shift from where we were and as we get closer and closer to the choice that americans will be making in november, it's going to be critical that people understand the choice that they're going to be making. they can back slide toward the bush era, where the focus was exclusively on the wealthiest few in america, exclusively on the largest corporations the trickle down theory of economics that was proven time and again or we can continue to go in the new direction that we have been pursuing, which is focusing on job creation, focusing on making sure that the middle class can thrive and there's no one that knows that effort better than our -- my good friend tom

perriello from the great state of virginia. mr. perriello: thank you for bringing this group together to talk about jobs. the gentleman from connecticut mentioned we can build things, make things and grow things better than anyone else in the world if we give the american people a chance. for too many years, the other side has had a strategy of saying if we just nickel and dime the middle class enough, maybe we can win a race to the bottom with china. if we just cut into our environment enough, maybe we can win a race to the bottom with china. that's been the republican strategy. we will not win a race to the bottom with china. our side wants to win a race to the top with china. we can out-compete china and india as well as europe and japan. if we unleash the innovation and entrepreneurship that comes from our smail businesses. if we understand that instead of bailing out the biggest companies for their failures we give a little bit of support to small business owners, our

entrepreneurs, scientists, innovators. we made a down payment last year on rebuilding america's competitive advantage. we made a down payment on unleashing the technology and innovation in our small businesses and we understand that to win that race to the top against china, we have to have a 21st century work force so we made college more affordable. but it's not just kids that are headed to college. we also want to invest in those who want to learn a trade or career training that can be the difference between minimum wage and $20 an hour. sometimes on this street that difference doesn't seem like a whole lot but to people back home it's a difference between being able to support our family or not, being able to pay the bills or not. we've tried to go after those nickel and diming the middle class in america. the credit card companies and utilities and others bankrupting

our small business owners. we can still build it here. we are already seeing this in the energy sector as many of the people here tonight have talked about. our farmers can be on the frontline of that struggle for america's energy indepefpbles our manufacturing -- energy independence. our manufacturing, in our district we're exporting to china and other places. it's not going to happen by doubting the resolve of the american individual or entrepreneur. it's going to be done by giving that support. right now, we can be doing more to rebuild this nation's infrastructure. the infrastructure of yesterday, our sewage, our water, our roads, and of tomorrow our broadband technology, our electric grid technology, so that we have the most efficient system, that's how we out-compete the world. we can still do this better than anyone else. we must call all of us to that best self right now to

out-compete and we won't do it by taking our foot off the pedal right now. . i talked to business owners who spent a lifetime of building up their business. to sell that business and retire securely. times are tough. that's not where we live right now in terms of main street. but we have to start putting main street ahead of wall street. and i mean the kind of values we have on main street, basic accountability. that's what we need in terms of real wall street reform and need that in terms of transparency. where i come from, if you want to say something, you put your name by it. that is the simple rules of the disclose act. and if you don't have the money, you shouldn't be able to lend out the money. we need to put a hard cap on

these leverage restrictions. we still need the jobs for people that can support a family. the people here tonight are dedicate todd that working and middle-class american to make it easier to get that business started, easier to get through the tough times, a little easier to get that child off to college or to trade school and make sure that you are going to have a secure retirement. i look forward to this month because we are in a an urgent time. this isn't a time for political games by either side and we shouldn't leave until we have launched a manufacturing strategy and agricultural strategy for the 21st century and put our construction crews back to work. we can do these things. i have no doubt that we can. and i believe that we will continue to fight for people here to make sure that happens and we will see that economic growth in recovery back on main street.

and with that, i yield back. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you for your leadership in your district and optimism and hope that you fight for every single day. you know, it really always boggles my mind how the republicans wake up every morning, come to work and decide, i'm going to be an obstructionist today. i think today i'm going to figure out another way to say no. and rather than come to the table and work with us because they need jobs in their districts, too, instead they vote no here and then they do like the minority whip did just in the last week when he was in his district after voting no on the recovery act, he didn't have any problems showing up and taking credit for one of the projects funded by the recovery act. and i think the americans see through that transparent attempt at hypocrisy.

what we are is a party of genuine article and we work hard every day to make sure that we can get it done for the american people and get this economy turned around. and there is no one that works harder than that in rural america than my good friend, lincoln davis, from the state of tennessee. mr. davis: i have listened to the discussion we have had about creating jobs in america. we need to check history. i represent a unique congressional district. the district i represent is fourth most rural congressional district in this country and has the third highest number of blue collar workers. we are hurt idge. and what we have been seeing in the last several years is an administration and those who do not understand, not only rural america, but those who live in usual and and cities as well.

from january 1, 2008 through october 31, 2009, we lost eight million jobs in this country, eight million moms and dads, working sons and daughters. i'm not talking about 2007, but just in that 22-month period alone, eight million jobs. during the bush tration, new jobs, january 1, 2001 through the time that george bush left office on january 20 of 2009. if you take that growth number during that period of eight years and look at how long it would take us to find the jobs to replace the eight million that lost, it would take 64 years at the same growth rate during the bush administration. so for the folks on the other side of the aisle, start using math and make sure it adds up to what you're saying. when we look at eight million jobs we lost in the last 13

months of the bush administration through october 31 of 2009, if we were to create 200,000 jobs a month during the clinton administration, that's what happened, 250,000 jobs during the eight years that clinton was president. if we take those numbers, it would take over three years to just replace the eight million jobs we lost as a result of the trade policies and the policies of the bush administration. if we want to start analyzing, let's get the facts straight and figures right. my district doesn't care who it is whether it's obama, clinton. we want jobs. through the 1980's, the area i represent, the textile industry was a great part of the low wages, quite frankly and some of the low-skilled jobs we had. my brother worked in the garment industry. and as a result of the tax

policy that we had, we reduced taxes on the richest people in america from 70% as it was on january 1, 1981 to 28% was the max. i'm not complaining because we had a tax cut but here's what i disagree with. we told small business folks, but the depreciation schedules are no longer in place. it's going to take you 30-plus years. this is what we told small business folks, you know longer have the tax breaks or incentives to create jobs for folks who live in rural america or inner city or urban areas. we are giving tax breaks to the wealthiest individual wage earners. when the other side talks about helping small business, let's get serious through depreciation schedules that will encourage small business folks that create 70% of our jobs in this country to start revitalizing america. in 1970, one out of four people

worked in manufacturing, today it's one in 10. let me repeat that. one out of four people worked in manufacturing. one in 10 does today. where are those jobs? in 1998 we signed an agreement, this country did, and i have to talk about mr. rubin who was the treasurer at that time, we signed trade bills and we brought two large countries, india and china which has a third of the world's population into the w.t.o. in 1998, you couldn't find an american label in china. it's hard to find it in america today. and when you purchase an item today, it always had an american label, toys or clothes. that american label is stamped on it. look at where it's made. from my standpoint, we have to revisit many things that caused us to lose eight million jobs in 22 months. and if we don't do something, we

won't be able to regain those. we will see our economy and america slide backward when it comes to industrial development and economic development. i proposed a bipartisan effort to revisit the trade bills, the free trade bills and make them resip row call trade bills. each of us trade equally. that hasn't been the case. from this standpoint when we gave fast track to former president to make the bills and send to congress that we can't change those bills, we are hamstrung. the u.s. house of representatives were denied the opportunity to amend any trade agreement. as we engage and my time is running short, we need to realize, eight million jobs, 200,000 jobs created a month. it will take us almost three years to recover the jobs we lost and the last year and the

last year of the budget administration. i don't like to be partisan, but i hear so much rhetoric from the other side no one is pointing out the facts and it's time that the american people listen to facts. it's america, folks. not just about republican or democrat politics. an eyed log looks to the future. they will never have to look to the left or right. time to start worrying about america again. debbie, thanks much. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. davis. it's so incredible. we have nine members join us tonight for this hour and we had the fulfill some of call spectrum from the most conservative member of our caucus to moderates to progressive and that shows not only the big tent, but we are the reflection of america and american values and making sure

we can create jobs in america or the most urban core. mr. davis: there is a chart showing deficits. the first 30 days of his term, he had to renew $1 trillion. if john mccain, he would have had to renew $1 trillion. when he was elected president on january 20, 2009, the next 30 days, we had about $12 trillion in total national debt. that is $1 trillion a month that we have to renew and pay interest. please, america, yeah, we need to reduce the deficits and that is called pay-as-you-go and performance-based programming in our budget. i want to remind you that eight million jobs lost on january 1, 2008, america and the current president, regardless of who it

is, barack obama, whether john mccain had $1 trillion every month to renew and pay the interest on. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you for your leadership. to close our hour, we have the duo from the great state of pennsylvania, both of them are freshmen. the gentlelady from pennsylvania was particularly pleased i know when her colleague from pennsylvania was elected recently in a special election because that made her not the most junior members in the chamber now he holds that title. but the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. dahlkemper. mrs. dahlkemper: i appreciate the gentlewoman from florida's leadership. and i want to reiterate my good friend from tennessee brought up some of the important numbers. i'm from western pennsylvania as is my fellow colleague who is maybe not the junior member. we have a manufacturing baseed economy and the numbers that my friend from tennessee talked

about are the numbers that i have seen not in the past few years, but over the last 12, 15 years, good manufacturing jobs lost in our region. what i find most exciting about this recovery that we are in is that we are making things good again. we are making things in again. for the 11th consecutive month manufacturing sector has expanded in this country. we have got to depend on making things for economic growth, not on the paper industry of wall street. and we have seen the problems with that starting in 2007 and beyond. i wanted to bring up a few highlights and what happened, an article from "the erie daily times" this past day today that talked about erie count, manufacturing employment rose in may for the third month in a row. increased employment from a low of 64 workers to nearly 100.

ge transportation which reduced its payroll by 1,500 workers has called back 200 permanent and temporary workers. economic growth is being seen throughout my district in the manufacturing sector. i visited a small electronics manufacturer in butler, pennsylvania. they are performing well and have increased their clients' base with the help of their local manufacturing extension partnership, a program that we fund through the america competes act, which has recently been passed through the house. there is good news coming out of western pennsylvania. even yesterday, i was at don john shipping, a new manufacturer that is working on barge, making things, permanent product that's going to be helping to improve the wealth of our nation and bring great jobs here. i want to reiterate what my colleagues have said tonight,

there is good news. america is recovering, not as fast as those -- obvious too many people are still unemployed, but when you have lost eight million jobs, eight million jobs, we are on track to create more jobs than were created under the eight years of the bush administration. and i think that's important to remember, that we are moving forward and creating jobs in this country. and i just wanted to tell a little bit about the good news from western pennsylvania. i want to thank everyone for their help tonight for bringing their message to the american people, the message that we are continuing to recover. this summer we will see the summer of stimulus where we are going to see great numbers with highway projects that will increase more than 600% from july of 2009 to this july. .

ms. wasserman schultz: will the gentlewoman y50e8d? -- jeeled? can you talk about what's going on in your difference and -- in your district and the effort to create jobs and the jobs that the recent surge in manufacture hagsfwrowlingt -- has brought to pennsylvania? mrs. dahlkemper: we have a great work eltic in pennsylvania. we have people with -- ethic in pennsylvania. we have people with great skills. we have been a manufacturing economy for a long time. when businesses come there and see the work ethic of the people, they want to stay, expand, and grow. what we're doing is trying to provide the climate that will allow the businesses to grow and provide opportunities for new entrepreneurs that they have an opportunity to take the product that really could do great things in our country and do great things throughout the world because i see more and more of our businesses actually

exporting also and work that was going to mexico and to china actually coming back because we can make anything as well, if not better, than anybody else in the world. we know that so we're working hard and great numbers coming out of our district because there's new products, new clientele, there's expansion and creation going on through many different parts of the economy. whether we're talking about credits and incentives we've been trying to do through the recovery package or other pieces of legislation, we are working hard to get back to that manufacturing base, at least in my part of the world, my part of the country, it's important, not so much in florida but in pennsylvania it's certainly the backbone of our economy along with agriculture. ms. wasserman schultz: mrs. dahlkemper, it's ok. we don't have a strong

manufacturing base but we want to make sure that folks in pennsylvania are able to thrive economically so they can come down and vacation and come down to south florida and across my beautiful home state and spend their hard-earned dollars that they've been able to use and invest in their small business and come down and make sure they can help our economy thrive. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much, madam speaker. we yield back the balance of our time and thank the speaker for our opportunity and look forward to hearing from our colleague from pennsylvania. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 60

minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. one of the great things about our system, we have a chance to speak from both sides. i was surprised to hear i've taken so many positions i've never taken but let me say with regard to republicans being for privatizing social security, that bill did not pass. it didn't even get around here to get passed. because so many republicans were not in favor of it. in fact, you can go back and find this republican saying repeatedly then and still saying that what we should do is what

was not done when social security came into existence, and that is, take social security tax dollars and put them in a social security account. now, until i got here 5 1/2 years ago, i was under the impression that it was some kind of modern creation that social security tax dollars were taken away and never even get to the social security trust fund. but -- they went to general revenue with i.o.u.'s being placed in file cabinets for the social security trust fund. but lo and behold, come to find out, social security tax dollars have never ever gone in to the social security trust fund. not since its inception.

now, in texas, we have the texas employment retirement -- texas employee retirement system. our teachers have an employee retirement system. and those systems have done many times better than social security for one reason. they put dollars into the retirement fund so the fund was able to grow. and because it was able to grow, people can get several times more in the way of retirement payments from those retirement systems than you can from social security. when i first got here in 2005, i had my staff run a check to find out, and i gave them a hypothetical to submit to social security as well as oto texas

employment retirement system and another retirement system and to find out what kind of monthly income you would receive under that hypothetical and it turned out the best social security could tell us under the hypothetical we gave them that the monthly income from social security to this deserving senior would be somewhere between $600 and $900 a month. anybody that is familiar be seniors and the costs that they end up being out of pocket, you know that $600 to $900 does not go far enough. but that's what social security payments would be and as i recall the hypothetical, it was

$30,000 average for 30 years before retirement and that was the best we could get. $600 to $900. however, when that hypothetical was provided to the texas employee retirement system which puts real money in the account, it turns out the monthly payment was somewhere around $2,600 to $2,800 per month. same hypothetical. and the difference was that real money went into the trust fund. but president franklin roosevelt knew, apparently, when this began that there would not be real money going into the trust fund and every president since then has known that. president roosevelt, president truman, president eisenhower, president kennedy, president johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush, clinton, george w.

bush, and obama. they've all known. no money that is pried out of the hands of those that earn it and those that pay those that earn it, none of that money go into social security trust fund. not a dime. that's tragic. i was pushing that back at the time in 2005 and -- true, there were republicans who did not support that. and there were lots of democrats who didn't. because as we've seen, since my friends across the aisle have had such a huge majority in recent years, they've done nothing about social security tax money going in to the social security trust fund. controlled both houses, they could have passed a bill

requiring social security tax money to go into the trust fund in january of 2007 and madam speaker, i can tell you there would have been a lot of us republicans that voted for that. had they decided to bring that to the floor. there was -- if it was brought to the floor this week, next week, i would vote for it. social security tax money must go into the social security trust fund. but there's a reason that they have not wanted that to go from the general revenue into the social security trust fund to shore up social security, and that's because there's so many other pet projects and pet ideas that this money goes to fund. my friends across the aisle were talking repeatedly about how important infrastructure was. isn't that ironic. because after president obama was sworn in, became president,

the democratic party had such big majorities, majority here in the house, and had a veto-proof -- or a supermajority down in the senate, at the time, they didn't do anything about social security being shored up. they didn't do anything about infrastructure, not in the way it was talked. we had so many beautiful, eloquent speeches from friends across the aisle on how this spendulous bill was going to pay for all this wonderful infrastructure. america was led to believe that the whole $787 billion was going end up being for infrastructure and really be good for america.

there was a little bait and switch that went on which is easy to do, my colleagues for whom i have great respect i heard saying that republicans have, quote, hamstrung the deliberative process, unquote. so apparently, as best i can figure, i'm sure -- the deliberative process apparently must mean you bush in -- rush in a with a 2,000-page bill, in the once but repeatedly, say there's no time for anybody to read this too many jobs are being lost every day there's no time for this to go through committee, there's no time for amendments, there's no time for anything, people are losing their jobs as we speak. you've got to -- you've got to vote for it now. to me, this, from a very

practical, pragmatic, growing up that i had, a deliberative process would have meant it had time to be viewed and get some sunshine into those 2,000 pages to figure out where all this pork was going, that that would have been part of the deliberative process. but apparently, as republicans, we hamstrung the process they called deliberative where you rush in with a 2,000-page bill repeatedly, say there's no time to read it, just pass it and then we'll find out what's in it. see, i wouldn't have thought that was deliberative, but apparently, since my colleague said republicans hamstrung the deliberative process that must have been what he's talking about. so rush in with this $787 billion stimulus bill, could

have polled americans after it passed and the majority would have said, you know, this is going to be great for building infrastructure. we need infrastructure. little did they know that less than 7% of the $787 billion was ever even thought to have anything to do with infrastructure. so that's why i say a bait and switch there. america wasn't even sold on it. the few that were thought it was going to be for infrastructure and that didn't happen. just such a tiny, tiny bit of it. we heard our friends during the last hour talk repeatedly about small business and how the stimulus was so good for small business. but they forgot to mention, they may not be aware, but of that

$787 billion, less than 1% was for small business. . it was all about small business and infrastructure and less than 1% geared -- aimed at small business. interesting. so is it any wonder that with people thinking that 6%, 7% of $787 billion will build the infrastructure and less than 1% will help small business more than anybody else and doesn't have the desired effect. i couldn't see my colleagues' chart to see what the last month was when they were talking about the private jobs being created, but forget the charts, let's

look at real numbers and the real numbers for the month of june came out. and i don't have a big pretty chart for it, but the fact is that in the month of june, there was great news and there was really bad news. 9 great news was for the month of june, 431,000 jobs was create the. that is great news. the bad news is that 411,000 of those were temporary census workers. so much for those private sector jobs we were hearing about. and i heard my colleagues talk about republicans just want to nickel and dime the middle class . well, i have an awful lot of republican friends and i don't remember any republicans that i know of wanting to nickel and

dime the middle class. the ones i know of see people in the poorest sector of america, see people in the middle class of america and want them to do even better. but it won't happen when the government is taking over control of everything. i mentioned this before, but it is just such a clear lesson of what happens when the government gets involved and decides it's going to be the one that creates the jobs. and it was 1973, as an exchange student for the summer of soviet union going out to a collect if i have farm 30 miles outside of kiev in ukraine and sitting in the shade when the fields looked

terrible. this was terrible. everyone knows in the middle of the morning is when you want to work hard because you want to get done before the sun gets hottest in the afternoon. and you start when the sun does and finish before it gets to its hottest and that's the best time to be working and they are still sitting in the shade with no movement going to work and i spoke a little russian back then and i asked, when do you work in the fields? and they all laughed and one of them said, i make the same number of rubles if i'm out there or if i'm here in the shade. so i'm here. that's what the government does. it kills incentives when it decides it's going to take over the job market. so -- and i loved hearing the discussion about big

corporations, big pharmaceuticals, big oil, you know. we have heard, wall street, the big buddies of the republicans and yet if you go check, wall street has traditionally given four to one toe democrats over republicans. that is true for goldman sachs. if you just don't look at the officers, but look at their spouses and their children, then you find the four to one average giving to democrats over the republicans and the big pharmaceutical companies that were mentioned, they let greed get the better side of them coming out in support of the obamacare bill for the short-term. they make billions, hundreds of billions they would have without the bill. and they are signing their death

warrant, they sold their souls. short-term, they'll come out good, long run, their professions as we know it, will be changed forever for the worse for american health care. and we are already seeing those things. i get out of my district. i'm in other parts of the country and i'm hearing people say i decided not to hire because this crap and trade bill may get passed. we have had this health care monstrosity wrapped around our next and having to pay more than ever. the president went out there to have a photo op with catter pillar and they are going to lose over $100 million. we know jobs are being lost all over the country because of that health care bill. there's no need to push good jobs out of this country.

when i hear my friends say -- i couldn't believe -- they said the democrats want it manufactured here and republicans don't. that's ridiculous. i went with a bipartisan group to china five years ago, bipartisan because it was both republicans and democrats. and the ones i talked to on both sides of the aisle wanted to see jobs returned to america, manufacturing jobs. and i thought that perhaps as we talked to c.e.o.'s, the number one thing i would hear they left the u.s. and went to china because labor was so much cheaper there. that's not the number one thing i heard. the number one thing i heard is that corporate taxes are 17%, u.s. 35%-plus, states on top of

that and local governments do as well. and so, not only that, but china would cut deals with them. no income tax for five years and gradly go up to 17%. and one of the things i loved hearing was the quality of the work by american workers was greatly exceedings that that could be done in china by the workers there. quality control in the u.s. was so much better. but that huge 35% to 40% hit that they had to take before they ever competed in the global economy was just too much. it was putting them under and they could go to china and with the dramatic cut in corporate tax, they could build state

-of-the art facilities that could allow them to have workers and then their facilities would be paid for many times before the taxes really kicked in at less than half of what they were in the united states. so my friends across the aisle are really serious about bringing manufacturing jobs here. then the solution would be, eliminate the corporate tax. it is one of the insidious governmental things in this country, insidious because everybody gets to talk about these mean, evil corporations, and how we want to sock it to the corporations when the truth is, no matter how much tax you lay onto the corporations, if they don't pass that onto the consumer, they don't stay in business.

and that's why so many have left and gone to other countries. one of the biggest reasons why they've left and gone to other countries. now we've heard some are not building here for refineries or energy businesses because of this looming threat of the crap and trade bill. our president in 2008 had commented that he -- basically said he wasn't going to put coal-fired plants out of business but because of the skyrocketing cost of energy and that's where we are headed. that will drive businesses out of the u.s. the moratorium declared by the president that was struck down as unconstitutional. but this administration did not want to let a little thing like the constitution get in the way, so this week, they came back with another moratorium.

basically foiling the constitution, the judicial sector, throw them away, just as they did with the auto task force, no confirmation from the senate. just appointed people. and they took charge of the automobile business. they came out with a zhrarings as to what -- with a declaration as to what dellerships would close and which ones would have their property taken without due process of law. they came out with a bankruptcy plan that did not go through the requirements of bankruptcy law. they found a judge -- i don't know the judge, but bankruptcy judges have to be confirmed i believe it's every 10 years. not a lifetime appointment. so apparently it was hard to find a judge who would sign off on an illegal, unconstitutional

auto task force plan, nor accountability to anybody. and once the congress let it go without stepping in and being the check and balance on illegality and unconstitutionality, then there's only one branch left to stop such unconstitutional illegal activity and that was the supreme court. to their wonderful credit, ruth bader ginsburg put a hold on it and apparently the administration scared the supreme court into thinking that if they extended the hold any longer than 24 hours, all the automobile industry, all of those related to the auto industry would go under and it would all be on the supreme court's head and supposedly -- the supreme court would never

let such a ridiculous thing, constitutional thing go through then but let it through then. we know this administration is capable of doing end runs on the constitution. and it looks like that's what they're doing again on the moratorium. so with the moratorium being in place, as one person in louisiana said, we stand a chance of losing more jobs from the moratorium than we do from the oil spill. and of course, beat up on big oil, yet as the deepwater horizon rig was sinking, they were still deals being cut with this administration and this majority's dear friend, british petroleum, because they were one

of the few big energy firms that were supportive of the crap and trade bill and so they hated to see their good friend get in trouble. they were hoping it would blow over. they would get in control of this disastrous well in the gulf coast, but they didn't. and eventually, administration had to throw them under the bus. if they ever did get control of the oil well, you would have seen a big photo op with the b.p. executives as they pushed through the crap and trade bill. so hopefully, it will not come back and get passed because it will mean so many jobs will have been lost in america. and you know, i know they meant well. i know the intentions were good, across the aisle when we debated that bill here in the house. and so many people came in here

and said nobody is going to lose their job as a result of this bill. in fact, we are going to create jobs. it's going to be like spain. we are going to create so many green jobs. well, since then, we found out that spain has actually lost two jobs for every one green job they created and now they are trying to abandon the very thing that this administration and this majority is trying to push us toward. it was so ironic that so many people, unintentionally that no one would lose their job, it wasn't intentional because they hadn't written the bill or read the bill, had their talking points. but if you read toward the back of the bill -- i don't remember the page number -- i had it on the floor and was reading from it at the time -- it created a

fund to pay people who lost their job as a result of that crap and trade bill. not only that, it created a fund that would help reimburse them travel expenses to help them move to where the jobs were going as a result of that bill. so whichever left-wing organization wrote that bill, whoever staffer helped them write it they knew people would lose jobs right and left. but my friends across the aisle had not read it, apparently the deliberative process from their standpoint was, ram the stuff through, don't read it, don't read the actual provisions in the bill, push it through and we'll find out what's in it later. apparently that's deliberative. . that's no bill to saddle america

with. that's more lost jobs. we had another job fair last week in east texas, one in nacogdoches, we had 550 people attend, around four or five dozen employers that were there, some people left with jobs that didn't have them, some people have hope for the future through the interview process. normally, when you throw a party, you're thrilled when people show up. but just as i saw at marshall and longview, when we had a job fair there, and lufkin, you're looking at folks who lost their jobs and you can't be pleased that the turnout is big because every one represents hurt, it represents loss of finances,

people struggling, many of them struggling for self-esteem because even though it wasn't their fault, so many get their strength and their pride from the job that they hold. and so, it's very difficult to see so many people out of work. what i keep hearing also from businesses is the same thing, similar thing, they can't get credit, they can't get loans from their bank, banks are telling them they're not going to extend their line of credit because they've got regulators breathing down their throats because regulator, on instructions from this town are out there telling them, micromanaging, telling good community, solid community banks that were not the source of the problems, the source of the biggest problems were those on

wall street that give 4-1 to democrats, that was the big source, the investment banking firms, not the community banking firms but the community banking firms are on instructions from those closest to the investment banking firms, telling regulators to go after them and even hold them to having more in reserve than the law requires. had that admission from regulators themselves. so people don't have capital because this obese monstrosity of a government that keeps growing can't control its appetite. and so it sucks up all the capital and throwing it away on the government's pet projects, that's no way to run a country. that's the way to lose a country.

i didn't intend to spend thatch time on the economy, but having heard so many lies from my friends across the aisle about what i believe and what i support which i do not and have not supported, i had to address that. but there are so many dangers in the world, one of them, of course, is this out of control spending and one thing on the economy, my friends across the aisle keep talking about how bad it's been since 2007, 2008, 2009. and the fact is, they've been controlling everything but the white house since january of 2007. so when they took control and they let spending explode on their watch, they were right. they won the majority.

because republicans did not control spending. too many republicans equated compassion with spending. and so, democrats over and over, over and over came to the floor and said, you know, $100 billion, $200 billion deficit in one year is outrageous it shouldn't be allowed. we need to be in the majority so we'll control the spending, we'll cut the deficit, we'll get back on track and so republicans, appropriately, lost the majority. because they had not controlled spending. and what has happened since? spending has gone through the roof. and thunder administration, once the democrats' have -- once the democrats have the white house and both houses, such huge majorities, spending became

giddyness and that $100 billion or $200 billion deficit in a year is now $1.5 trillion deficit in a year. unbelievable. at the same time, it's been encouraging to see this administration in the past week show some friendliness toward our wonderful ally, israel. because all of the snubbing and pettiness by this administration in the way it's treated israel in conjunction with allies like "the new york times", like the 5,000-page editorial that was written about -- there's just so

much pettiness and snubbing of our friend israel from this administration and its allies that they're hurting this nation. when you hurt israel you hurt a true democracy in the middle of the middle east. you hurt this country. you hurt any democracy when you hurt democracy that exists in the middle east. and i read this weekend an edtorial written by carolyn glick and it's entitled foot for "the new york times." caroline glick is so articulate, i wanted to read verbatim what she had to say about the article in the "new york times." so i read from caroline glick. this is published july 9, 2010.

she says, two important statements this week shed light on the nature of the palestinian conflict with israel. both were barely noted by the media. on saturday, the london-based alliant newspaper reported that palestinian authority chairman mahmoud abbas gave u.s. mediator george mitchell a letter detailing a number of concessions he would make toward israel in a final peace treaty, including a willingtons accept permanent israeli sovereignty over the jewish quarter in jerusalem's old city and over the western wall. the report received enthusiastic support in the israeli media and media outlets throughout the world. what was barely noted was hours after the report hit the airwaves, abbas' chief

negotiator, categorically denied the story. in an interview with israel radio, the spokesman said the story was untrue. abbas has been the recipient of adlaer to press coverage in israel over the past several days. last week he thrilled the hebrew language media when he invited israeli reporters to a sumpts you feast at headquarters. then the story came out. lost in the excitement was the ambassador's eulogy for an arch terrorist who died over the weekend. the terrorist was the mastermind of the p.l.o.'s massacre of 11 israeli athletes in the 1972 munich olympics. abbas himself served as pay master. as palestinian media watch

reported in a condolence telegram quoted in the abbas controlled newspaper, abbas touted the terrorist as, quote, a wonderful brother, companion, tough and stubborn, relentless fighter, unquote, and described him as, quote, one of the leaders of the fattah movement. while the local and international media pounced on the story as proof that palestinians are serious about peace they failed to mention their hope was based on a story the palestinians themselves denied. so, too in their rush to embrace abbas they failed to mention wiz his glorification of an unrepent tant mass murderer who killed israeli athletes. these statements by officials,

the people routinely characterized as moderates, shows how deeply distorlted and largely irrelevant the discourse of the middle east has become. as the moderate palestinians insist, they are not interested in peaceful coexistence and territorial compromise with israel. news coverage in israel and throughout the western world is dominated by other issues, specifically discussion of prospects for peace between israel and the palestinians is dominated by an endless discussion of israel's jewish communities in judiea and sue hera and jewish neighborhoods in eastern, southern, and northern jerusalem. the most egregious recent example of this distortion was a 5,000-word article in tuesday's "new york times" regarding u.s. charitable contributions to these jewish communities titled, quote, tax exempt funds aid settlements in the west bank,"

one quote. it was co-authored by five "times" reporters. they was product of weeks of research. and notably, the "new york times" chose to publish it on its front page, above the fold, on the very day that prime minister benjamin netanyahu visited the white house. the "times" article is a textbook case of the media's ideologically motivated aggression against the middle east reality. any way you look at it, it is a premeditated affront to the very notion that the role of a newspaper is to report facts rather than manufacture news aimed at shaping perceptions and skewing debate. the article goes to great lengths to discredit the american citizens who make charitable tax deductible donations to organizations that provide lawful support to jewish communities in judiea and sue hera and jewish neighborhoods in

southern, northern, and eastern jerusalem. it paints a sinister picture of such contributions and contributors and accuses them of actively undermining u.s. foreign policy. the contributors, we are told in the opening lines of the report, are the left's bookymen, evangelical christians and religious jews. they are unacceptable actors in the middle east because they believe the jewish controlled judiea and sue hera is a precursor to the coming of the messiah. reacting to the "times" report on wednesday, honest reporting noted the article appears to be the product of active co-lution between "the new york times" and -- collusion between "the new york times" and the radical anti-zionist shalom organization as honest reporting relays in july of 2009, the organization

sent a call out to supporters starting for the initiating of a campaign that includes a a combination of legal action and public advocacy aimed at denying tax exempt 501c3 status to organizations supporting this. it bears the marks of a political campaign. first derek spite the valiant efforts of five "times" reporters, it exposes no illegal activity. at best, its investigation of more than 40 organizations that contribute funds to jewish communities in jerusalem, judie yarks and sue hera indicated that dnd sumeria -- and saying the snupe brought up to date, the report is shockingly

hypocritical. by publishing it, "the new york times" is engaging in the precise may havor it argues the organizations its investigated should be punished for purportedly engaging in, to wit, in the service of radical tax deductible organizations, the "times" seeks to undermine u.s. foreign policy for the past four decades, it's been the foreign policy of the united states to maintain a strategic alliance with israel. . the "times" article uses dark language to create the impression that there is something evil about contributions to jewish communities in neighborhoods in

judea and jerusalem. for instance, the article argues, quote, the donations to the settler movements stand out from other charitable contributions that promote u.s. foreign policy goals because of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that washington has consistently refused to allow israel to spend american government aid in the settlements. tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged and unexamined by the american government, jub quote. what they fail to acknowledge is that the reason these donations are quote largely unchallenged and unexamined, unquote, is because it's the constitutional right of american citizens to contribute to charities that promote policy goals even when those goals are against u.s.

policy as determined by the u.s. government. the "new york times" allege that these are illegal and the allege is none other than the palestinian. quote, settlements violate international law, unquote. the truth is that israeli communities beyond the 1949 lines are illegal. if one were to accept the argument that they are unlawful, we would be septembering an argument based on the language based on the fourth geneva agreement which prevents occupying powers from transferring their population to the areas under occupation. there's no possible reading of the convention that would proper hibt the voluntary movement to post-1967 neighborhoods in jerusalem. likewise there is no possible reading that would prohibit the

provision of financial support to israelis who voluntaryly move. yet it is precisely this indisputebly lawful voluntary movement of jews to these areas which "the times" is often done against the wishes of israel's government that "the times" article attacked. it is contending that there is something legally problem matic about these donations and present pros trouse as it relates to u.s. law and international law. from a journalistic perspective, worst the decision to engage in precisely the behavior it seeks to criminalize when carried out on the christian and jewish right and worst than the article's characterization of law is the article's clear attempt to object physician indicate the issue of land

issues. if it does, in the interest of manufacturing a false by idealogically sympathetic picture of the situation on the ground. the "times" gets to alluding to the real problem of land issues in the 58th paragraph of the article. quote, islamic judicial panels have threatened death to palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to jews, unquote. actually, while this may be true, it is not the problem. the problem is the second law promulgated by the palestinian authority just weeks after it was established in 1994 criminalized all arab land sales to jews as a capital crime. since 1994, scores of arabs have

been killed in both judicial and extra judicial executions to selling land to jews. this open move to hide the fact that since 1994, the p.a. has dispatched death squads to murder both palestinians and israeli arabs success sect perfected of selling land to jews is a shocking miscarriage of journalistic standards. as the "new york times" required reporters to work for weeks to come up with exactly nothing illegal in the operations of u.s. charitable groups that support jewish communities, "the times" wishes to destroy and would have needed to invest no resources whatsoever to discover that the p.a. kills any arab who sells land to jews. the p.a. has made no effort to hide this policy. it is in the public's sphere for

anyone to look at reality. the entire new york city times investigation so-called of american charitable groups that support jewish communities in neighborhoods in the three territories is a blatant attempt to hide the real issues prolonging the palestinian conflict with israel. those issues expose the by the praise for a terrorist mass murder, the denial that abbas has any interest in compromising with israel, as loyal by the p.a.'s policy of killing all arabs to sell land to jews do not serve the "times'" purposes of blaming the absence of peace on israel generally and on the israeli right and its supporters in the u.s. in particular. and so it is that 17 years after

the start of the so-called peace process between israel and the p.l.o. and 10 years after the p.l.o. destroyed that process by launching a terror war against israel and 4.5 years after palestinians elected hamas to lead them, we are still stuck in a distorted, irrelevant discourse about the middle east. we are stuck in a rut because politically and idealogically, motivated media organs operate hand in glove with radical groups seeking to undermine israel's national sovreignty and end its alliance with the u.s. together, they manufacture news that bear no relation with reality of the true challenges facing those who seek peace in the middle east. but obviously for the "new york times" that's what makes it fit

to print. that was posted july 9, 2010, 7:27 a.m. by my friend, caroline click. the article speaks for itself. it is a sad day when the "new york times" has become such a political hack of a newspaper that summer of 1973 when i was in the soviet union, it was exciting if you ever got a chance actually going over there to europe and coming back out through europe to see a "new

york times" especially in english, just exciting and it was trusted to be the international resource. so it is a bit heartbreaking that as its sales circulation continue to plummet and lose money, that it continues to proceed with the very things that has brought down its reputation and and hurt it as such an objective resource. growing up as a kid, you could count on anything that you found in the "new york times" and cited as a valuable and accurate resource. not so anymore. not so anymore. israel is a friend. and i'm grateful that will democracy has worked to the

extent that this administration got concerned about its plummetting numbers enough that it realized maybe this time it should treat the prime minister of israel with some respect just as it is and just as it has heads of states of countries that despise us and have said they would be glad to see us fall as a nation. it's nice they can treat mr. netanyahu with the same respect that it treats some of our sworn enemies. very interesting. well, there is just so much to cover, so little time. but i did want to address that issue and the fact that iran is

continuing to let centrifuges spin. it is -- it has been reported by this administration, by the iaea that iran has apparently enough uranium, material at least to manufacture two nuclear weapons. so rhetorical question to be asked, how many nuclear bombs does it take to become a threat to israel or to this nation? i would submit a nuke in new york harbor and coming up the

potomac, houston, new orleans ship channel taking out the majority of our energy resources, los angeles, on a lake right up next to chicago, the effect could be damaging to the u.s. this isn't a game. you can't keep walking roorned -- around blaming the prior administration. yes, i was upset with the bush administration, with tarp. this administration hired the same people that helped pushed that thing through and still pushing it. should have never been passed. it was a huge mistake by the bush administration. and we should not continue to confound it. madam speaker, might i inquire as to time remaining?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. just like we have seen the "new york times" twist and distort. we have seen people distorting our heritage. and so in an effort to create yet another distortion, i want to finish with this book written , small book, lots of resources. he says, everyone agrees that george washington was critical for the formation of america's values. washington was conscious that every act created a precedent for good or for ill as our first president everything he did established precedence. so there is no accident that so many sought to portray georges as a man without faith. if he exerted faith in the

public square, this argues that the christian system still has relevance and vitality in the public square today, with washington's legacy include strong presence of advocating values in the public square in recent authors have declared an emfatic no. randall, writes, quote, washington was not a deeply religious man. quote, he had believed that a god directed his path but he had not been particularly ar dent in his faith. another states, quote, washington avoided as was his custom, the word god, unquote. judging from these writers, washington could hardly be called a godly leader, but are these claims correct? and i could go as i have taken people on tours throughout this building for two, three hours with what washington wrote, said

and did. but continuing from the book, men who gave us did not impose a radical separation of church and state that is advocated by so many today. after congress adopted the words in the first amendment they sent word to president washington to declare a day of washington to show appreciation to god for the opportunity to create america's new national government in peace and tran quilt. on act 3, 1789, president washington made this his proclamation as a national day of thanksgiving and he declared, quote, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty god. i guess he did use the word god, to obey his will and be grateful for his benefits and for his protection and favor and where both houses of congress by their joint committee requested me to recommend to the people of the united states a day of public

thanksgiving and prayer to be observed the many signal favors of almighty god, oops, he used it again, especially by affording them the opportunity peacebly to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness, now therefore, i do recommend and assign thursday, the 26th day of november next to be devoted by the people of the united states to the service of that great and glorious being, who is the ought thor of all the good that was, is or will be. that we may then unite and render on to him thanks for his care and protection of the people of this country previous to their forth becoming a nation, for the signal and mersies and favorable interpositions of his providence which re-experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war for the great disagree of union and plenty which we

have enjoyed for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to constitutions of government for our safety and happiness and the nation where now instituted for the civil and religious liberty which we are blessed and means we have of acquiring and acquiring useful knowledge for the glorious favor which he had been pleased to confer upon us and all that we may then unite in the most humbly offering, our prayers to the great lord and ruler of nations. those words, lord, rule, nation, all capitalized and be siege him, capitalize h in him, to pardon our transgressions and enable us all -- doesn't ask god to do anything, whether in

public or private stations to perform our several duties properly. and i see my time is running out, so i will go straight to the bottom of george washing's words to promote religion and increase science and to grant to all mankind such a degree of prosperity as he, capitalized h, he alone knows to be best given under my hand at the city of new york, 3 of october in the year of our lord, capitalized lord, 17789. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: so therefore, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from

pennsylvania for 60 minutes. . mr. critz: i rise today to address the afwreanl owes actions taken against unemployed americans. members of this body have continued to vote against ex tending benefits to millions of americans who need it the most right now. while these citizens are facing the worst job market that this nation has seen in generations, these members have turned their backs on them. they claim that the restoration of emergency unemployment compensation act is budget busting legislation. madam speaker, any bill whose intention is to assist 14.7 million jobless americans while adding a needed infusion of cash into our still-fragile economy is not budget-busting legislation. it is the right legislation. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell has claimed that the republicans continue to block the extension of unemployment benefits because they are not, and i quote, willing to use wort while programs as an excuse --

worth while programs as an excuse to create bigger national debt than we've already got. where were these same republicans when we began our dissent into disarray? where were these republicans when our national debt nearly doubled when they were in control of the white house and congress? where are were the republicans to stop this taking place? i'd like it to put a chart up that some of my former colleagues use to show this debt and where we were and where we came from. and in western pennsylvania where i'm from, many times i've been taught over years that you have to look back to see where you were, not where you're going -- to know where you're depg. i think this chart shows where we were just a decade ago and where the last administration brought us. republicans have made a political calculation and decide to present this as a debate about our national debt. if we rook back at history, we can see this new mantra of

fiscal responsibility heralded by the republican party of today was not what they lived by a few years ago. our national debt grew to enormous numbers because of actions republicans have taken in the past decade. let us not forget when president bush came into office in 2001 he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, 2.4% of our total g.d.p. this was the first surplus of this magnitude in the history of ourry country. these surpluses were projected to continue for at least the next 10 years. according to a congressional budget office report on the economic outlook for the next decade published in january of 2000, if the policies in place under president clinton were maintained, total surpluses would have accumulated to between $3.2 trillion and $4. trillion over the next 0 years with these surpluses, it was probablied that the treasury would have sufficient cash on

hand sometime between 2007 and 2009 to retire all debt held by the public. let me read that to you again. with these surpluses it was projected that the treasury would have sufficient cash on hand sometime between 2007 and 2009 to retire all debt held by the public. madam speaker, we've come a long way from the days of president clinton. and it's been under the republican leadership that this dissent has taken place. as a country, we were on a path towards true fiscal responsibility and recovery. rather than demand, we used these funds to eradicate our national debt, then republicans dwindled our surplus on unpaid programs that greatly benefited the wealthiest citizens of our nation. the economic growth, and i love the titles, the economic deproth and tax reconciliation act of 2001 passed the republican

congress and was signed by president bush and was an unpaid tax cut for the rich. the c.b.o. revised its economic outlook at the beginning of 2002 to reflect the changes in spending policy that had taken place during president bush's first year. although they still projected surpluses, the total amount had dropped by $4 trillion under the prior year's estimate. $2.4 trillion or 60% of that declipe was attributed to laws enacted in 2001 including the bush tax cuts. when the tax policy was studied for its long-term impact on our national budget, it was determined that the plan with a cost us $1.35 trillion over 10 years. at the end of fiscal year 2002, we reported our first budget deficit since 1997 in the amount of $57.8 billion. even then there were no trumpets sounded by the republicans to reverse our spending habits to pay down the national debt in

fact, they continued to embrace policies that would lead us deeper and deeper into the financial black hole we see ourselves in today. in 2003 there was a second round of mainly tax cuts enacted. the law accelerated previous provisions from the 2001 cuts while enacting new terms. here we go with these great titles. the jobs and growth tax relief reconciliation act of 2003 was projected to increase federal budget deficits by $39.7 billion over the next 10 years. from 2001 to 2008, the republicans added $4.9 trillion to our national debt, bringing it to a total of $10.6 trillion by the time president obama took office. the republican leadership was able to turn a projected $4 trillion surplus into a nearly $5 trillion budget deficit in a matter of eight years. 2008 was a trying year for all americans. we witnessed a dramatic dip in housing prices, a skyrocketing

number of foreclosed homes, the failing of financial institutions, what appeared to be a full collapse of our banking system and the loss of 3.1 million american jobs by the end of the year. it was a catastrophe on a magnitude this nation had not seen in decades. the economic meltdown prompted president bush's treasury secretary paulson and federal he reserve chairman bernanke to visit the speaker's office and deliver information to congressional leaders on our country's economic situation. on our country's dire economic situation. the treasury secretary and the chairman of the fed described how under the bush administration our economy had reached the equivalent of driving a tanker off of algainy mountain. they believed serious government intervention was needed to rescue the system. on saturday, september 20, a near two days after this briefing, the treasury department delivered a three-page proposal to congress

asking for $700 billion and giving the secretary full authority to purchase mortgage-related assets from any financial institution. in a hearing held by the house financial services committee on the financial crisis, secretary paulson stated this major outlay of government money was needed to restore confidence in our financial markets and financial institutions so that they can perform their mission of supporting future prosperity and growth. the c.b.o. estimated that the bill signed by president bush on october 4, 2008 in, in its entirety -- 2008, would increase the national debt by $814 billion. in the eight years that president bush and his administration led this country, they doubled our national debt. not once did republicans stand up to say the bush administration and the republican-controlled congress were responsible for this. but now, when americans are in need of help, the republicans refuse to offer it.

the financial crisis left a lasting affect on our country. not only will wall street and our nation's financial institutions left in disarray, but millions of americans were left without jobs. our unemployment rate jumped to 7.4% at the end of december, 2008, and now stands over 9%. americans are suffering because of this crisis and are in dire need of assistance, yet republicans believe that it is politically astute to deny millions of americans -- american families the aid they need to put food on their tables while searching for a job during this difficult time. when the house took up the restoration of emergency unemployment compensation act on july 1, it passed by a 270-1 53 vote -- 270-153 vote. it was wonderful that 270 members of this body see the needs of this people and are properly providing for them. yet 0% of the republicans in the house opted to continue being the party of no. nearly all republicans in the senate decided to do the same.

they continued to turn their backs on american families in need. republicans believe that this is all in the name of fiscal responsibility. how is denying americans needed funding to support their families fiscally irresponsible? not only do these -- did these funds help american families, they help the american economy. one reason there is not enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. c.b.o. has found that extending unemployment benefits to be one of the most cost effective and fast acting ways to stimulate the economy. every dollar in unemployment benefits creates at least $1.64 in economic activity as opposed to the 29 cents the bush tax cuts would generate if extended, according to a chief economist of moody's -- moodys.com. the c.b.o. projected that the restoration of emergency unemployment compensation act of 2010 would cost $33 billion which works out to be about

$2,200 per unemployed person, of those people. this is roughly 7/1,000th of 1%. yet the republicans now want to claim fiscal responsibility. providing these benefits is fiscally responsible and more than that, it's a moral responsibility. in the month of may, the state of pennsylvania had a 9.1% unemployment rate and in my area in southwest pennsylvania we see many economies that are still hovering arppeds the 10% mark. while i was in the district over this past week, i heard many stories about families and how they're hurting while i was around visiting them. at a senior certainty i talked to a young woman whose husband used to work in one of the factories in johnstown, work there had for 30 years, they paid their taxes, they did everything that they were supposed to do, now his unemployment benefits are running out, but the republican members in this body and senate feel it's not important enough

to pass the emergency unemployment benefits. one unemployed constituent lost her car because she's unable to make her payments once she stopped receiving the benefits in june. she is now left to find a job with no means of transportation. but that's not important enough for the folks in this body. . . i'm writing this message to tell you about the harm that failure to extend unemployment is causing for my family. we lost our jobs through no fault of our own like millions of americans. we have worked hard and paid taxes for a combined total of 71 years including my husband's two years in the military service. we have tried to find work over a year and a half ago. my husband has worked for some of the census, and a few weeks

each of these past two years, but that will end soon. i tried to get work during the past two years but have not found anything. i have read that every job that opens in pennsylvania, there are five workers that were needed. we feel we have been let down. our country has bailed out companies and banks and paid bonuses but feel it is too expensive to help the unemployed. i would like to know what they are and especially whether they are jobs that my husband and i could do. this is western pennsylvania. the people in my district want to work and sometimes there isn't work and they need help that the unemployment benefits offer. and it hurts my feelings and angers me that this body can turn that kind of help down. most of our 71 years of work have been in public libraries which are hurting more than any other service from huge cuts. i don't know how congressmen and senators can take a break when

millions of american lives are on hold. we can't make the rent or mortgage, pay for prescription drugs, feed and cloth our children and put gas in our cars. and just as a side note before i continue the speech that my staff and i put together, in western pennsylvania, we have seen the lost of jobs over many years. it was the hub of steel industry in this country. still left in the late 1970's and early 1980's. and we are fighting to create jobs. we are a very hard-working people and do the best job we can and why i am so angered by the rhetoric that has been thrown around by this extension of unemployment benefits and these are hard-working people. they aren't looking for any kind of handout but sometimes you need help and that's all they're asking for. she says, i would like for you to share this letter with other congressmen and senators. i hope you realize we did not

ask for this situation and would be glad to return to work if only we could. the unemployed need help and we need it fast. please work as hard as you can to get our benefits back. these families like many others need our help. i urge my colleagues in the senate to pass the restoration of the emergency unemployment compensation act. and again, let me reference where we were and then where we went. this is not budget busting but helping men and women who are in need. and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for a motion. mr. critz: i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it

>> the chamber it takes up the plan for federal employees. i live coverage of the u.s. house when members return here on c-span. coming up next on c-span, thad allen, the head of the government's response to the gulf oil spill talks with reporters about plans to stop the oil leak. the commission holds hearings on the economic and environmental impact. then some leaders talk about financial regulations and federal spending. retired coast guard admiral thad allen said that something

significant will happen if bp manages to stop the oil spill in the gulf. he spoke with reporters in houston at this half-hour briefing. >> good morning. it has been consequential hours in this response. this morning, several significant activities are taking place. we just finished a seismic run through the field, about a 2.5 kilometer run from north to south with a boat called the debt go towpath -- the deco

towpath. this sequence of the vince will take place and start some say it -- sometime in the afternoon today. we were going to try to do it yesterday, but we ran at of daylight during once everything is redeployed and back in the area, these things will happen in the following sequence. when we get ready to do the well integrity test, we will do production through that q 4000 and in the helix-producer one. we will move all of the hydrocarbons up through the

stack. the kill lines will be opened and the center board is already open. in sequence, we will attempt to close the stack down and assess the pressure readings as we do that. the first thing we will do is close the remaining rahm. then we will take pressure readings. we will then close the kill line, which is the second remaining outlets and take pressure readings. the most critical will be the choke line. there is a special device. if you look at the video, it is yellow and long and horizontal lee. that joe klein will be controlled by a remote operating

vehicle. -- that choke line will be controlled by a remote operating a vehicle. the goal is to slowly close that down and understand the changes in pressure as we are closing it until bad chip line is closed. at that point, there will be no hydrocarbons exiting from kneecapping stack. then we will start taking pressure readings -- from the capping stack. then we will start taking pressure readings. in this exercise, high pressure is good. we have a considerable amount of pressure down on the floor. we're looking somewhere between 8000 psi and 9000 psi.

if we are down around the 4000 psi, 5000 psi, or 6000 psi range, that would tell us that the hydrocarbons are being pushed out somewhere else. then we have to size of the implications of that. it will have a great deal to do with the pressure readings, with the empirical readings tellus and then the discussions with the technical team that are here will follow. we will try to get to 8000 psi or 9000 psi and tried to sustain that. if we have a very low pressure reading, it will be determined within six hours of pressure

reading. based on the pressure readings that we find, " this could be -- this could be six hours, 24 hours, or 48 hours. it will tell us something about the condition of the well board itself. it will also tell us about the flow rate. to date, it has been based on estimates based on the visual imagery and testing and so forth. it is a consequential they appeared somewhere, in the afternoon, we will start. the technical team is being assembled. we will be discussing how we will resolve issues that will, as we get pressure readings and try to understand what is going on. the range of options that could come out of the testing of the stacking cap, including

knowledge of what the cap can withstand might be an opportunity to have what we call a shed in of the well. anything less than that could bring in to play decision to continue to produce. at that point, we will be able to produce off of four lines. that is intended by the 18th of july to take this to a capacity to 80,000 barrels tous barrels a day. either way, we will have a way to contain the oil. if we are successful in the pressure readings. this is very important.

it will allow us to manage the hydrocarbons. the ultimate success of this entire endeavor will be the relief well. development driller 3 is now at 17,840 feet measured in depth. they have been there for a date for today's. they're measuring for the right angle of attack. the current estimate of how far away they are is 4 feet 4 inches. it is pretty precise as they try to go down another 60 feet or so. they are at the point where they can drill into a seven-inch casing pipe. if we are to go to full production with four different outlets around the 17th or 18th or 19th of july, the rise

should be the riser pipe ready by the 19th of july. skimmer's have been always an issue for us. we have extended the coastline and we are on pace to have approximately 1000 skimmers in the inventory. we have 600 right now. we are continuing to ramp up from a variety of sources. resources have been freed up. we continue to aggressively acquire skimmers. some critical resources are now being used. we are using about 2 million of the lights is that we used to clean up the beaches. we may run into a national supply problem with those sooner

or later. those suits are also used for another -- for their emergency response purposes. -- for other emergency response purposes. this continues to be a very complex and nuanced, and a broadbased response. there are a lot of things going on. we've brought the helix producer last night. we will take it back down for the integrity tests. it was up online and operating before midnight last night and we were able to produce 1,000 barrels. in addition to the q 4000, we actually produced 8,300 barrels yesterday.

it is a complicated operation with a lot of densely compacted ships and ro be's out there -- and rob's out there. everybody will be watching very closely in the next 24 hours. with that, i will take your questions. >> maybe you can take us through some of the back of planning if the well were to rupture while you have it shut. what happens? is there some sort of emergency response plan in place? what happens at that point to? >> we have very low pressure readings. we're going to do this in increments. with very low pressure readings, we cannot sustain that in the long run. there is an acceptable range

while we determine if that is true pressure. the pressure readings of about six hours could be the threshold before we make the decision to move forward. >> can you bottom line is for us if possible? what odds do you give for shedding of the wilell. how long do think that the close fishing areas along the gulf will be able to reopen? what do you say to those people who have been affected by this as far as what is next? when can live go on for the people that have been affected and give us some idea? >> i can tell you this. we're very confident that we can take control of this hydrocarbon stream and slowly close these bows and stop the emission of hydrocarbons. what we cannot tell is the current condition of the sea

floor and the pressure readings. that is why we're doing it well integrity tests. we need to do that for the purpose of manufacturing the hydrocarbons, but we also need to know this because the ability to withstand the pressure will facilitate the actual killing of the well and we tried to pump money into it from below. i cannot attach a percentage to it because we're trying to learn something that we do not know. regarding the fishing areas, this is closely being monitored. we have about 35% of the gulf closed. there are a press leak reviewing daily where the spill trajectories are. when they can open areas that are said to do so, they will carry. -- they will. very closelyng with the fda.

it regarding what comes next, i have said on several occasions that, even if we contain the well and it is kept in mid- august, there is still a significant amount of oil wealth there. -- oil out there. but we will then be moving into the impact assessment phase. >> there have been some confirm the amount of tar balls washing onto shore in texas. in galveston, do you know of any recent test results on the tour that has washed up their backs -- washed up theire?

>> mises understanding is that we have had -- maya understanding is that we have had a number of -- my understanding is that there have been a number of tar balls along that peninsula. we're looking into whether some of the ships working in this area may have inadvertently transmitted oil out there. our commander there has been in touch with the governor's office. right now, there is no presence of oil on the surface over there that would require scamming capability right now. but we are looking -- require capability right now.

but we're looking continuously for what we need. >> the flow at the top of the well, does that mean that there is oil flowing out at other parts of the well? if so, of where? >> that is exactly what we will try to determine from the pressure. i do not think we will really know that until we have the pressure readings and see where that information texas. is unknown what happened to that well bore. that is largely the biggest unknown. ultimately, we will not know until we get the pressure readings. there is some indication that, when we go into a pipe, the ultimate camping of the well, we will get an indication if there is any well in the open area

between the casing pike and the well bore. based on that information, we will be able to determine the first place which are placed along the casing and see if they are still intact. that will give us an idea of how much pressure there was. >> i want to be clear about two things. you are looking at a six-hour threshold. when you reach the six hours, if the pressure is still low, will you ramp up the helix and start ramping up again? also, you said that the riser is under construction and to be ready by july 19. >> i think we will go to production on the 19th. >> so that four-missile system

will be ready by the end of july? >> yes. >> but the of the question? >> the six hours, that is a rule of thumb. we will have to look at what the pressure readings are. as a general window, if they can sustain pressure for six hours, do you think you need to open up an event? i think we would open up an event the hydrocarbons and that will bring the helix producer and the q 4000 back on line. >> when does the six-hour time from start ticking down? >> that is a rule of thumb that we're using to assess the pressures. no one is going to be there with a stopwatch. >> but the six-hour window could start today. >> we will start taking the

pressure readings when we finally complete bad joke a valve. -- complete that choke valve. it will tell us something about the flow, empirical data that we have not had to date. let's not get wrapped up in the six hours. that is a horizon we can look at for the pressure readings. >> could you close down that vent today? >> know, the street -- >> no, all three ways will be closed. it is not just an open or shut issue. we will be a will to slowly close and look at the pressure reading while we're doing it. >> [inaudible] >> this afternoon. >> you mention the 24-hour time frame.

what will happen after the 48 hours? >> these are the technical tons that the team has said. if we are able to sustain a pressure of 9000 psi over 48 hours, we move into a range that we have contained a that flow. then we will talk about whether it is possible to shut off that well or not. we do not know the eight conditions we will encounter. those are the general thresholds we are looking at. >> your first question comes from allison davis. >> [unintelligible]

>> here is the sequence once again. there are basically three ways that hydrocarbons can come up through a blowout. there are five ways that you can potentially really soil. -- release oil. we will stop production on the queue for a thousand and in the huge producer one and -- on the

q 4000 and on the helix producer one. then we will move to three eggs a points. -- then we will go to three exit points. the middle rahm will be closed. that will seal the upper opening. that will leave us the kill and the chill winds. the choke line will then be closed as well. you will be able to see a horizontal yellow piece of equipment where the hydrocarbons would exit. on the other end, there is a place to insert a tool. then you can close the valve as we are taking pressure readings. next question.

>> the next question comes from jim olson paren. >> everything is going ahead with efforts to [unintelligible] >> that is correct. we have been very clear since the middle part of june with the vp, regardless of the stacking cap or the relief will efforts. we want backups and redundancies for all systems. we see several occasions starting now that fell into a linear sequence. we want a little more assurance than that. we said early on that you had to give us redundancy and production capabilities in case there was a mechanical problem. there was a lightning strike that caused a fire on the derek and alarms have gone on and minutes had to be done. you want redundancy and a

production capability. we want redundancy and capacity so that, while we're doing this, we can still stand the entire flow. whether or not the capping staff works, eight would eventually go to four sources of production. the combination of the four platforms will give us 60,000 barrels to 80,000 barrels a day and capacity redundancy of a margin where, if one of those four went down, the other three would take capacity. >>