situation. here we can kill five jobs for the price of one. for every job we destroy on a drilling rig, five jobs that are also directly related to that activity in the gulf, five jobs are lost. so the moratorium in the gulf of mexico in a very real way is going to affect families all up and down the gulf, families that have already been hurt by this spill, already been hurt by the fact that the federal government did not exercise its due diligence and oversight in leasing that well to b.p. in the first place. b.p. a foreign oil company who has one of the worst records as far as safety, to be able to drill a well like this with all kinds of passes and waves on all of the nepa regulations, wasn't required to put out a spill plan before they did this drilling. now the poor people in the gulf, they have lost their shrimping and fishing and tourism and now

they are going to lose of what's left of their economy because of the imposition of this moratorium at a time when we should be tasked with creating jobs, at a time when we should be getting out of the way of the private sector and let the productive sector of american society do what it does best, grow, prosper and create jobs. instead, we are putting additional impediments that are going to make it more difficult for an area of the united states that has been hard hit by hurricanes and now this gulf oil spill and we are grateful that the spill appears to be contained at the present time, but we know this isn't over, the cleanup is not over, the well is not yet shut in. they are facing tough problems down there and we add to the problem by a moratorium. the president's own panel said there is no reason to do this and yet the secretary of interior pushes ahead and would not even provide us today with any of the data that was used,

any of the risk data that was used to say there must be a moratorium or any of the economic data that was available to him and presumably to the president about what the effects of what this moratorium would be. here we are in the worst recession and let's see if we hurt them worse. i yield back. . mr. brady: i don't think this white house or washington has a delue how damaging this drilling moratorium is on workers not just in the gulf but energy production offshore that spreads out, i saw a study the other day, nearly every congressional district with job losses as a result of the drilling moratorium. we're already seeing companies redeploying their rigs to egypt, moving their investment out of the united states, brazil, west africa, the middle east and those rigs won't be

coming back any time soon. typical rig in the gulf, in deep water, has 11,500 workers tied to it, 1,000 more vendors, when they leave the gulf they don't come back for years. we have businesses laying off workers, moving equipment, infrastructure outside the united states, already cutting their capital budget for future investment in the united states, and it doesn't take long before you have our energy infrastructure headquarters leaving the united states as well. there are literally tens of thousands of workers tied directly to the gulf, more than 170,000 at immediate risk of this. yet two thoughts, one, monday, the president was in front of the white house talking about playing politics with people's jobs. playing politics with people's jobs. that's exactly what his drilling moratorium is doing along the gulf of mexico. i find it frustrating, today --

i went online and read the "houston chronicle" and there it said the president is come do you think to texas, to houston, august 9, to raise money for his party. and i read that, realizing that we've had a standing invitation, by letter, to the president, asking him to come down to houston to meet face to face with these energy workers, the ones whose jobs he is kill right now and explain to them his reasoning, listen to these american workers, democrat, republican, independent, doesn't matter, all ages, all ethnic categories, all income categories, they just want to work and his moratorium is destroying their livelihood. we are waiting for an answer to that invitation. apparently, he doesn't have time to talk to all work -- to our workers or sit down face to face with them because he's got to raise campaign cash. so we said today, mr.

president, can you give us an hour to meet with these workers? can you give us 15 minutes? do you have time at all for workers in texas and along the gulf who now see their hopes of their small business, of putting their kids through college, of keeping their home, dashed because of a poorly thought out drilling moratorium that is taking an environmental disaster in the gulf and creating an economic disaster for a lot of innocent families who had nothing to do with that spill. i know you sense that in dallas-forth. one business in dallas told me what small business can survive without six months of revenue? it's a great question because the answer is, not many. not many at all. maybe the big guys can but they'd be laying people off, not buying from vendors. with that, i know you feel that pain in dallas-forth and --

fort worth and i guess we're frustrated that the president won't listen to reason, come down and face our energy workers, just have the courage to sit down with them, give us an hour out of your busy campaign fundraising and tell them your reasoning. i yield to you, dr. burgess. mr. burgess: it does get to your point of playing politics with people's jobs. i want to say about the predominant democratic agenda items pushed through this house of representatives, largely on -- in fact, almost entirely on party line votes. the only thing that's been bipartisan about these bills has been the opposition, the health care bill, financial regulatory bill, cap and trade, probably more democratic votes against and made it a truly bipartisan opposition and very little -- very few republican votes in favor. but vice president biden, over the weekend, in talking on an

interview on one of the sunday shows, said look, these are gigantic packages to deal with the problem we inherited. a lot of people really involved don't even know what's inside the packages. i assume he's talking about people involved in conference committees. the people involved in congressional committees, who wrote this legislation. going back to quote then. people don't know a lot of what's going on in the recovery act, understandably, because this has been so much stuff flowing our way. mr. vice president, with all due respect are, this is the problem. because people don't know what's in this stuff, because no one bothered to take the time to bring along even public opinion while this stuff was done, as a consequence, you've got people who are fearful of what is contained within this health care bill. we're now three months into it. the rules and regulations are being written in secret by the

department of health and human services and this new c.m.s., center for medicare and medicaid service director that nobody knows, the most important man in the country no one ever heard of, donald burrwick. it is no wonder that people are concerned, they are concerned for their own survival because they don't know what the implications are for these things we already passed. people are confused by the stimulus bill because as mr. brady pointed out, there's so much stuff in there that was absolutely unnecessary, had nothing to do with stimulating the economy, i remember in our joint economic committee it was revealed there were so many job crease ated in arizona's ninth congressional district. that was news to everyone because arizona's ninth congressional district hasn't even been created yet. it may in the reapportionment after the census. but right now it stops at eight.

is it any wonder people have lost faith with the government's ability to do the things necessary to help the economy recover. it has been educational to sit on the joint economic committee, to hear the testimony like we heard last week, all the happy talk coming from the administration that things are great, it's the recovery, summer, i don't think so. have you been out beyond the confines of washington, d.c. to look what's happening to real people and real people's lives? i know the gentleman has a number of facts and charts he wants to share with us so i'll leave it to him at this point but i did -- i did want to come and share with you some of the thoughts i had on this very important topic that i'm so grateful you brought up tonight. mr. brady: thank you, congressman burgess, for joining us tonight and for your work trying to get the economy going. you are so right this economy is -- recovery is so subpar, most americans don't realize it. i talked earlier, americans are predisposed, excited about

bouncing out of recessions as fast as we can. but not this time. we took a look at the recessions the country has gone through since the great depression. the one closest to it that had the most damage happened in the early 1980's. if you compare how president obama's performance was, is today, versus president reagan's in 1982 and 1983, it's pretty stunning. the reagan recovery, which had a higher unemployment rate to begin with, it is -- if you look at three key areas in the first three quarters of the recession ended under president reagan, his economy grew twice as fast as the obama recovery. if you look at the number of jobs created, it isn't even close. the first year of the reagan recovery, the united states added three million jobs. we've actually lost them under president obama. and look at this chart.

you can see what the jobs numbers are. reagan continues to increase, even under the best scenario right now, it is a very slow, subpar, very stagnant type of economic recovery. then similarly, the unemployment rate fell by more than two points under reagan. president reagan. while it's increased under president obama. you asked what is the difference? what is the difference? it's what congressman burgess talked about, two things. president obama decided washington would create jobs, washington knew best. they didn't put an economic stimulus together they put a political stimulus together. what it's produced is government jobs. no economic recovery. it's also balanced with higher -- offset with higher tax increases and higher energy costs, the fear of new health care costs, regulations, taxes everywhere. job creators aren't adding jobs. the reagan recovery is just the

opposite he created certainty for this country. they lowered taxes, they spurred investment they told businesses if you create johns, you can keep them, you won't be punished, you'll be ere-warded. what did the private sector do? it created jobs. now, we have 15 million workers, almost 15 million workers looking for jobs, many of them who almost half have been out of work for six months the longest since they started keeping numbers. those with high school education struggle with, it's almost 16% or 17% unemployment. certain ethnic categories have much, much higher unemployment than others. it's because this president and the congress, when faced with the choice between lowering taxes and creating small business jobs, or spending, raising taxes and creating

government job they chose the latter system of america's recovery has staaled. it is subpar. offers little hope to most people. certainly hasn't, as the president claimed, jump started the economy or restored consumer confidence. just the opposite. we talk about taxes, we talked earlier about families still worried about this debt that this country has gone just staggering amount of debt under president obama. in fact, when republicans lost control of congress, the annual debt that year was about 160 million -- was about $160 million, too high in my view and too high in most americans' view. now, within three years, that debt is almost eight times, almost nine times higher at $1.4 trillion. the republicans' debts of a year are now the democrat debts of a month.

of a month. each and every month we're adding that equivalent. debt has exploded. the cost -- a great example, right now, america's debt is more than 60% for the size of our economy. that's in the yellow warning category. if we continue to move this direction, we'll be at 100% of the economy by the end of this decade. it will skyrocket to an incredible, almost 10 times the size of our entire economy, everything we make and produce in america by the year 2084, if we stay on this path, and that debt has real cost. it means we have a bigger government for families and workers to drag around on their back. younger people will pay more out of their paycheck to haul, drag this economy around. it creates an anchor on america's prosperity. in fact, most economists tell us that when a country's debt gets to about 90% of the sides

of their economy, of everything they produce and create, when the debt gets to 90%, it drags down your economy substantially, by about one percentage point. what that means -- it doesn't sound like a lot but it means instead of america growing at 3% a year, a steady 3% a year we grow at an anemic 2% a year. you lose a third of your economic prosperity. it puts you in the category of europe, which has had this big government mentality and this anchor around their economy and it cost them. i looked at the five most troubled countries in europe. we've all been following greece's problem with their debt but also the -- what they call the pigs, portugal, italy, ireland, greece and spain, the five most troubled european countries, you look at their gross debt, the united states is right in the middle of them.

if you look at our budget deficit as a percent of our economy, the united states ranks third worst as well. third worst in gross debt, third worst in budget deficit and we are on a bullet headed their direction. now, we're not necessarily in the same shape as greece today but we're on the trajectory, we're on the path, we need to focus on education in america, make sure people can say these things, we're on the path to a calamity financially unless we change our ways and one thing i want to point to that congressman burgess talked about, about people knowing taxing are coming. what's frightened a lot of job creators and a lot of average families in america, certainly in texas, in southeast texas in east texas think a represent, families tell me, spending's out of control.

small business look at all these programs that house democrats try to pass each week and they say, look, that won't create jobs or customers that just frightens people more. and they know, they know they're going end to up being taxed for it. and you look at, there's taxes, proposed increased taxes on health care, cadillac health care plans, on income for americans, on capital gains, on dividends, on death taxes, there's all the private health insurance plans, pharmaceutical, medical device, the taxes, the cap and trade legislation which is just a tax on all the energy used at your home and in your vehicle, they're talking now about a tax, a value added tax which would come on top of what we have today. the value add tax, which has worked in european countries, added on top of everything we have, it's the politicians' perfect tax, it's an ideal tax.

it's hidden from the public, it sounds small and people pay for it in everything they buy. it's hidden. it's a hidden tax, politicians can play with it any way they choose and the public rarely knows. and people look at that and they think, the bush tax cuts, which was so helpful for our economy and our middle class, for the average texas family would have to pay $3,000 more a year if those tax cuts go away. $3,000 more every year. i know in washington that doesn't sound like a big deal. but for most families across america that's a lot of money. especially right now. that's all their utility bills for the year, probably throw in the cable bill as well, i took a look at a study i saw the other day about how out-of-control spending burdens our youth. we all know how much our debt

has increased over the last three years since democrats took control of congress, but just look at two things. just look at the impact of the 2008 and 2009 bailouts and stimulus. according to economist dr. ed string of trinity college, just the cost from those two events will cost the average 22-year-old coming out of college this year $145,000 over their working lives. that's $280 a month equivalent of second car -- month, equivalent of a second car payment. that's the impact spending has on people. that's just two spending bills, that's not the trillion and a half dollars of debt from last year and the year before that continued to pile up and again we're $13 trillion of spending and getting higher. i point out to people like to, i know -- i point out, people

like, to i know in washington everything's bush's fault. america's not going all the way in the world cup was bush's fault, i think some people believed in washington. but if you look at where the jobs were traded in america, you see here is when republicans fully controlled congress and added during their tenure 6.6 million jobs. since speaker pelosi took the gavel, what week of seen is a loss of over six million jobs, so almost every job republicans created democrats have destroyed. and the reason that's going to get even worse is because we -- this white house and this congress is the most job-killing, antibusiness, andy growth congress perhaps in the history of the -- antigrowth congress perhaps in the history of the united states. we see this not just in tax increases and health care costs but wild provisions coming out of the house and now of course the drilling moratorium that is

beginning to destroy jobs and lives and small businesses in the gulf of mexico. and what's, i guess, perhaps most saddening is that along the gulf coast many families in louisiana and arkansas and miss p mississippi who are bearing the brunt of b.p.'s oil spill and bearing the brunt of this administration's failure to contain the spill, they're the ones who are begging this president not to continue this drilling moratorium, allow our workers to go back to work because they know, as bad as the environmental damage has been, the drilling moratorium's damage on their jobs and livelihood will add even more misery to their lives. we can't allow that to happen. mr. president, i'd ask you again, come down to houston, meet with our energy workers, see whose lives and jobs you're destroying, meet with our independent businesses, meet with our midsized businesses, meet with the companies that are

out there in the gulf today wanting to go back to work, who don't want their rigs to go to other countries, who don't want the jobs to go to other countries, the equipment to go to other countries, our capital to go to other countries and eventually our energy infrastructure to go around the rest of the world to the detriment of u.s. energy workers in america. mr. president, while you're funds raising in houston, give us an hour to meet with -- fundraising in houston, give us an hour to meet with our workers. just sit down with them, you won't have press there, you pick the workers if you choose, although if i were you i would ask the average american who are facing their jobs so you can listen outside the beltway, so you don't -- no teleprompters, no big speeches, just listen to our energy workers and perhaps you'll see just how damaging

this drilling moratorium is and will be for america. what you'll hear is that they're already suffering and people are being laid off, businesses are contemplating not being able to survive and filing bankruptcy. what you'll see is that energy prices will go up as a result of your moratorium because the gulf of mexico produced so much of the energy we use in america. what you'll hear is that we are giving more power and more energy strength to countries outside the united states, some of quhom can't stand anything the -- whom can't stand anything that america standes for and we'll face an energy shortage in 2011, 2012 if this drilling moratorium continues. you'll hear from shallow well operaters who drilled, gosh, in the gulf of mexico, i think 50,000 wells, without an incident, but now they find they can't find a permit to continue

working so they're facing lay jaufs of their workers and their financial -- layoffs of their workers and their financial struggles and they've drilled safely except for the b.p. incident, you'll see that one rig is already leaving and others are planning to leave and won't be back any time soon. years perhaps, one year, two years, three years. in the meantime, what do those workers and small businesses and people who do manufacturing quhorks do oil field services and supplies throughout the country, who reach literally into every state and almost every congressional district in america, what do these businesses do? mr. president, we're not asking much. we're asking you to help get this economy back on track, take off the table the drilling moratorium, end it today. take off the table cap and trade and the energy prices, high energy prices that it will create, take off the table the

new regulations, the new taxes, agree to extend the bush tax cuts. don't raise taxes on capital and dividend investments, lower them to get this economy going. reassure consumers that we have a path to a balanced budget. reassure businesses they won't be punished for hiring that new worker, bringing back that old worker or hiring that new one, buying that new piece of equipment. listen to the businesses around you who are telling you that you are the problem. this washington congress is the problem because of the uncertainty, because of the taxes, because of the extreme ideological agenda that is holding our economy back. mr. president, if you want to turn this chart around, if you want -- and we'll help democrats in congress, we'll help you lower taxes, we'll help you take

these items off the table. if you'll listen to our small businesses, listen to our energy workers, listen to our families. because right now most people in america believe this washington is so arrogant this congress isn't listening that they seem to know what's best for them, that they'd go any route, don't read any bills, rush massive measures through without any knowledge of what their impact is. we learn months later that they're nothing like they're promised. and so average families are listening tonight, workers are desperate for jobs yet they see a congress off on cap and trade and all sorts of schemes instead of encouraging the job creators to create more jobs. america cannot survive this job-killing agenda much longer. as strong as we are, as

resilient as we are, as quick as we are to bounce back from recessions, it's not happening this time. and washington is the obstacle. look in the mirror, congressional democrats, president obama, respectfully look in the mirror and if you're serious about changing this economy, if you really want to answer the question, where are the jobs, we'll help you create those jobs where they belong, not in the government, but along main street in every state, in every community in america. and by the way, it isn't enough anymore, the world has changed, it's not enough to just buy american, we have to sell american, we have to sell our products and services all throughout the world. but when we try to do that, what we find is a lot of countries have america need not apply sign. mr. president, you're not doing anything, you're not doing enough to tear down those signs, give us a chance to sell american goods and services. when we get the chance to compete, we win. we create jobs, we sell american

successfully. but unfortunately this congress for three years has taken off the table any opportunity to go out and compete. and while we voluntarily benched ourselves, the democrats and congress have stopped trade while the president took a time-out, now starting to step back a little more so, but while we voluntarily benched ourselves, other country, china, europe, canada and others, are stepping right around us, cutting agreements to create jobs and sell their products and so u.s. farmers, u.s. businesses, u.s. manufacturers, u.s. service companies, u.s. workers find themselves at a disadvantage because this white house this congress is more interested in special interests than in the interests of our workers, of our economy, of our jobs. so, tonight i would say respectfully to our speaker of the house, to the majority leader of the senate, to president obama, if you want an

answer and a partner in creating jobs, republicans are here. we have solutions, we're ready to fight for jobs, we've got to tackle the debt, we've got to create incentives to create jobs, we've got to stop frightening consumers, frightening workers and if we do that, america's capable of bouncing back and getting this economy on the right path again. mr. president, work with us to get america strong again. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from michigan, mr. schauer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. schauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to be here to address the house of representatives, address the people of america, especially to address the people of michigan. no state has suffered more under the failed policies of the previous administration than the people of michigan. we're very resilient people and i will say for my colleagues to understand, and for everyone watching, the people of michigan and michigan's economy never came out of the last economic recession. this -- as a -- as a first-term

member of congress, i remember being sworn in just about a year and a half ago and it was at that time, this was january of 2009, that we learned that our economy had been in recession for a full year. for a full year. so my freshman colleagues and i, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from, all walk in a year into the deepest economic recession since the great depression. closest thing i can remember was when i was in college in the early 1980's, not being able to find a job. and it was very, very difficult at that time. but that's the story of many in michigan. it's hit my family just like practically every family in america.

so what i'm here to talk about this evening, and i'll be joined by some of my democratic colleagues is really where are we in america with our economy, what is the policy direction that we should be going in, what is the choice for america? this is a body, this is the people's house where we discuss and debate these choices and the american people hear what my republican colleagues say and there isn't necessarily a complete partisan difference. i don't want my constituents to feel that because i always look for that common ground. but i think the choice is very clear. does america and our economy, our fragile economy that is recovering, continue to move forward and dig out of this economic hole, this economic mess that we're in, or do we go

backwards? i would like to share a quote, and i'm hoping that people can see it, this is a statement that one of my republican colleagues made, one of the republican leaders, he was on one of the sunday morning talk shows, i don't get to watch these very often, i guess some of my constituents and the american people do, but this is one of the national shows, "meet the press," this sunday, july 18, and the host of the show said, i think what a lot of the people want to know is if republicans do get back in power, what are they going to do? and i think the american people deserve to know that. because we have a new president that has helped us move in a new direction.

we have a congress that i'm a part of that the democrats control that is working to move us in a new direction. but congressman pete sessions of texas said, here's his quote. we need to go back to the exact same agenda. well, that is the choice. do we as a house of representatives, as a congress, go back to those exact same policies that created this economic catastrophe, or do we move in a new direction? do we continue in the direction we're going in? i want to be clear that as a member from michigan, where our unemployment rate is still slightly over 13% in my district in south central michigan, it's slightly under the state average, but you know, we are gradually digging out of this hole.

or do we want to go back to the policies that created this economic catastrophe? these are very, very important questions. what i have been working on, my democratic colleagues and i have been working on, is addressing the problems that created this economic catastrophe. it's a catastrophe. i'll tell you pearnl story. my son-in-law, a journeyman electrician, a trade that should guarantee you employability for sure for life, with intermittent, unemployment, i understand, that's the nature of that business, he was unemployed for the better part of a year. married to our oldest daughter, who is a nurse. they had a baby. she was on maternity leave and our son-in-law, paul, living in

ypsilanti, just outside of my district, was laid off from a steel mill where he'd been employed for some time for the better part of a year. that's the story, that's the result of economic policies that this congress inherited. but why did this happen? unfortunately, there was an ideology under the former administration, that said, you know we need to let the marketplace regulate itself. well, i remember about a month or so before the last election, even alan greenspan, the former federal reserve chairman, said, i was wrong. i thought wall street, i thought the markets could regulate themselves. and we saw the meltdown that resulted from that.

a gambling mentality on wall street that played a cruel game that affected millions of families. and it was a game of heads i win, tails you lose. gambling irresponsibly with retirement savings of the american people. so this week, this week, the president will sign a landmark wall street reform bill that will crack down on the big banks that will protect consumers, and this is perhaps the biggest consumer protection legislation in decades, and it will bring greater economic security to families and small businesses across our country. economic security to families and small businesses across our country. and my wife and i own a small business.

she runs the business, it's her business, she employs three people. she's thinking about employing another person, probably part-time. that's the story of america. it's businesses that went bankrupt during this wall street meltdown and families that lost their homes, but this wall street reform bill puts in place the strongest consume brother texts in history with an independent watchdog who -- whose sole purpose is to enforce those laws and look out for the american consumer. let's go back to what alan greenspan said. he said, i thought the markets, i thought wall street could regulate itself. i was wrong. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle somehow are trying to convince the american people that, you know, this

legislation is somehow, to use their words, another bailout. well we saw the bailout that resulted from the republican philosophy of deregulation. we saw the complete, almost complete meltdown of our economy, and we saw the result of that. this mentality. it's a similar approach to protecting the environment that has resulted in this catastrophic oil spill, the b.p. oil spill in the gulf of mexico. but the reforms in this wall street reform bill will protect consumers when they take out a mortgage or sign up for a credit card. it will prevent the kind of shadowy deals that led that -- led to this crisis and will never again put taxpayers on the hook for wall street's

mistakes. now, let's talk about this bailout. i want to be clear to my constituents at home, i said, when i was running for office, i never would have supported that bailout and when i had a vote in a number of -- and a number of us took this position, voted against the second part of this bailout, but you know, the problem with the bailout was that it put more money in the hands of the big banks and actually caused economic collapse in the first place, those big wall street banks refused to lend to small manufacturers, tool and dye shops, machine shops, auto suppliers, those businesses that i work with every day in my district that are diversifying into renewable energy technology, life sciences technology, defense technology, and so many ways to

create johns but these big banks even that were bailed out wouldn't lend to them. so under this wall street reform legislation, the american people, the taxpayer, will never be stuck with the tab again. never under this democratic legislation. that finally passed the senate and i will commend some of my republican colleagues in the senate that saw that that was the right thing to do for the american people. despite the benefits, the american people will enjoy from these reforms the republican leader in the house is already calling for its repeal. so even before the president has signed this bill, which he will do this week, the republican leader in the house of representatives has called for its repeal. but let's be clear.

america cannot afford to go backward to the days when our financial laws were written by the corporate lobbyists. and the fact of the matter is that corporate lobbyists the wall street banks and their lobbyists were huddling with republican leadership as the house was taking up this legislation. actually, trying to kill this legislation. devising a plan, coming up with language, trying to fool the american people that this historic wall street reform legislation was another bailout when it couldn't be anything further from the truth. failure to act would doom us to repeat the same kind of economic catastrophe that the failed policies of the bush administration created in the first place. so to move forward, we not only need to demand greater

accountability from wall street we need to help those people who are struggling on main street. those folks who are facing the loss of their home, the loss of their business, looking for capital for basic loans to expand their businesses, that's why the president is -- and democrats in the house of representatives are fighting to provide emergency relief to american workers who have been laid off in this recession due to no fault of their own. it is tragic that millions of workers and 23,000 in my district alone in south central michigan were facing losing their unemployment benefits by the end of this year and talk about a failed ideology. even john mccain's own economist told us, us collectively, the american

people, members of congress, that for every dollar of unemployment insurance, and it is insurance, it is a form of insurance, unemployment insurance, for every dollar of unemployment insurance that is provided to a family of a laid off worker, there is a dollar -- there is $1.61 in economic impact. so not only were the republicans holding hostage families who are losing their unemployment benefits in a tough economy, in a recession caused by the failed policies of the bush administration, but they were also holding our economy hostage. where these unemployment benefits of about -- it's less than wages that people were earning. but those dollars were actually

being put into local grocery stores, local gas stations, local businesses, and for every dollar of unemployment benefits, there was $1.61 of economic impact. but those emergency benefits for american workers are in jeopardy because those same republicans who didn't have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle class families who really need help. so, we have an economic storm, an economic storm. and the choice is a very clear one. do we rebuild our economic foundation for a stronger future or do we return to the failed policies of the previous administration? let's have a little history lesson here. when i came to office a year and a half ago, when barack obama came to office a year and a half

ago, our economy was losing an average of 750,000 jobs each month, 750,000 jobs each month were being lost in this economy. during the last five months of the bush administration our economy lost an average of almost 640,000 jobs. in the last five months we have added an average of 174,000 jobs. so let's do the comparison. now, i don't want to give anyone in my district or in my state in michigan that we are anywhere where we need to be. from an economic standpoint. nationally the unemployment rate is still 9.5%. we are digging out of this hole,

we've got a long way to go. but if you look at -- during the last five months of the bush administration, ow economy lost an average of almost 6 -- our economy lost an average of almost 640,000 jobs. in the last five months our nation's economy has added an average of almost 174,000 jobs. so, if my math is right, that's a swing of almost 800,000 jobs, almost 800,000 jobs a month net increase. let's talk about our nation's economic health as a whole. during the last quarter of the bush administration the economy shrunk by over 5%, almost 5.5%, almost 5.5%. our economy was shrinking. hello. i think we really need to take

stock and i heard it earlier today on the house of representatives, my republican colleagues, their mantra is, where are the jobs? well, i don't know if they were asking that question in january of 2009 or a year prior to that when the recession began or when the economy collapsed because of wall street's behavior. so, where -- where was the cry when our economy was shrinking by almost 5.5%? and we were losing on average 640,000 jobs a month? now, during the last three quarters, so the last nine months, there's been economic growth, the most recent economic growth is 2.7%.

it's not enough. it's not nearly enough. but we are seeing the economy gradually beginning to rebound. but the question is, which path do we take? and the choice is very clear to me. what i have seen in my own district in south central michigan and we've seen it all over the state is a transformation of our economy. now, what i have told the president of the united states personally, some of his chief economic advisors, is that our recovery has one hands tied behind our back. one of the biggest reasons is that the big wall street banks have refused to lend to businesses, manufacturers, a lot of these are small automotive suppliers, suppliers in the aviation aerospace industry,

defense industry. i talked to -- i told a story on the house floor about a bank in my district, citizens bank, i'll mention it again, that had a relationship with a company in my district, r.t.d. manufacturing, for many years. this company won an army contract, won an army contract to build a bracket to go on a mine-resistant vehicle, an mrap, in afghanistan, to protect our war fighters. and this bank would not make the loan. their loan officer said that they would be fired if they made a loan to a michigan manufacturer. this was a bank that was bailed out by the taxpayers and so we

-- our recovery would be much further along if these banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer due to failed economic policies would actually use that money and invest it in businesses that were hanging on and had the potential to grow. but what i am seeing in my district are businesses just like r.t.d. manufacturing that are working hard, they're diversifying from, in this case they were 100% automotive and had begun doing work for the department of defense to protect our war fighters. the american recovery and reinvestment act is having an impact in my district and all around our state. the american people may know that president obama was in hol

land, michigan, about -- hol and, michigan, about -- holland, michigan, about an hour and half from where i live, at the groundbreaking for a new battery plant, for the automotive industry. 400 new jobs in addition to all of the construction jobs that are being created for this new technology. now, that's not the only battery plant in michigan that has been jump started by american recovery and reinvestment act dollars. there's a company in my district in battle creak, it's called tota america, that received $35 billion in american recovery and reinvestment act fundses to attract the private investment, to locate this battery facility there. it could have gone anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world and because of a proactive policy to invest in clean and

renewable energy technology, in this case for the automobile industry, and i think the question that we have to ask is, you know, are we going to continue to manufacture here in america or are we going to be, you know, buying everything from south korea from china, from japan, you know, from all of our global competitors? we have put a stake in the ground that in michigan, and there are stories like this all over the country that we will make things here and in this case as a result of the american recovery and reinvestment act we are making batteries for vehicles of the future, we are making technology for our war fighters. i want to tell you another great story about a winds energy clust that are didn't just happen by accident.

it happened in part because of oils -- policies that the michigan legislature adopted, some of which were put in place when i was still in the legislature there, but investment through the department of energy for -- to help winds energy companies. and there is a new company in eaten rapidded, -- rapids, michigan -- eaton rapids, michigan, that is creating the best technology in the world to develop winds mill blades and wind mill turbine components and they have actually attracted -- this is a great story and we often don't hear this from colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they don't want to acknowledge some of the successes of the american recovery and reinvestment act -- but there is a company based in finland that has a u.s. subsidiary, it's called urvusa,

that is a foundry, we used to have foundries all over my state and all over the country. and this company, urvusa, its parent company is in finland, is locating a foundry in eaton rapids, michigan, to manufacture some of the heavy components for winds mill turbines. so we have a cluster of winds energy companies locating in this town of about 2,500 people, south of lansing. that will be the home for thousands of jobs. thousands of renewable energy jobs. and these companies there are positioning themselves to

actually export this technology, so it's not just about beating the competition from china but it is about being able to build it faster, more cheaply and to be able to export that technology. so, the choice is, when my republican colleagues say, where are the jobs, is what policies do we put forward here? and do we continue the policies that are creating jobs, they're transforming our economy, or do we go backwards to what congressman sessions says, we need to go back to the compact same agenda. this is the agenda -- exact same agenda. this is the agenda that nearly bankrupted the united states of america, that drained the

retirement fundses of millions of senior citizens, saw many -- saw the dream of retirement slip away for many americans and really left us with an economy completely on its knees. the industrial sector, we talked about that, it's very much a part of michigan's past and part of michigan's present and i hope part of michigan's future, total industrial production in america has increased 8.2% during the past year. that is the largest 12-month gain since 1998. i need to repeat that because i -- you know, what you hear from folks on the other side of the

aisle would make you think that the economic challenges we face magically began in january of 2009. but total industrial production, making things, making things in america has increased 8.2% during the past year. the largest 12-month gain since 1998. in june industrial production increased .1%, it grew at a 7% annual rate in the first quarter, 6.6% rate in the second quarter and this rapid industrial expansion is consistent with solid growth for our nation's economy. that's according to the federal research. don't take my word for it. that's according to the federal reserve. trade, which is an issue that's very important to me, i was recently named to the president's export council, so i

look forward to fighting for american companies to sell their goods abroad and to tear down trade barriers like i'm working won china to make sure that american companies can compete. but nominal exports are up 21% from a year ago. in may, nominal exports grew rapidly by 3.-- $3.5 billion or 2.4%. year to date exports are up 18% for the first five months of the last year. so, we have got a big hole to dig out of. remember, the last five months of the bush administration, our economy, our country lost an average of almost 640,000 jobs just in the last five months -- jobs. just in the last five months we've added an average of 174,000 jobs.

there is a swing. we have a long way to go. initial unemployment insurance claims fell by 29,000 in the week that ended july 10. too many people are unemployed. and that's -- i will not be satisfied until everyone's looking for a job has a job. spending in core retail sales rose by .2% in june. . the largest three-month increase since last july. so, there are signs of progress. i think the question again is do we move forward or do we go back

to the exact same agenda? that is the choice. i'm not willing to go back. too many people in my district are hurting. and too many families are hurting. and candidly, many people have lost hope. but we must continue to move forward and we must put the american people over any political agenda. you know, this is not the time to put the next election before the american people. the american people must come first. their ability to have opportunities for jobs and in new economic sectors is what the democrats stand for. and we will continue fighting for.

i also want to mention and talk a little bit more about manufacturing and particularly about buy american provisions. i am looking forward to having a very vigorous debate in the house of representatives candidly about whose side we're on and we must be on the side of the american people. i have been pushing in every way possible that we expand and strengthen buy american provisions. i just received a letter from the vice president of the united states in response to a very real situation that a company in my district faces, full spectrum solutions. they make high-tech energy-efficient lighting. and they have been more and more making their light fixtures in america from suppliers all over my state and all over the

midwest. and they have been bidding on energy-efficient lighting contracts with municipalities. they received american recovery and reinvestment funds. unfortunately, some of their competitors were -- and there are buy american provisions. and i was asked by a reporter today why are buy american provisions important? here's the point. american recovery and reinvestment act dollars are your tax dollars. so, i think the american people expect a little common sense out of their government, which unfortunately, there is not enough of. but they expect that their tax dollars are used to create jobs here in america and not jobs in china. and so, there is a buy american provision in the american recovery and reinvestment act.

what full spectrum solutions found was some of their competitors were taking light fixtures made in china and putting a label on these light fixtures that says made in the u.s.a. to defraud the government, defraud the taxpayers. and hurt american companies. and cost us american jobs. so, i worked with the c.e.o. of full spectrum solutions and went down every path to find relief for this company. went to the department of energy, department of commerce, customs and border protection, the u.s. attorney's office. no relief. no mechanism for relief for complaints of competitors cheating and mislabeling their products as made in america.

so i wrote the vice president about three weeks ago and i received a very, very specific response that will -- that is creating a new hotline in the department of energy for complaints of companies that are mislabeling their products as made in the u.s.a. a means to investigate these complaints. and a notice to all recipients, grant recipients of these american recovery and reinvestment funds to be aware that there are some companies, unfortunately some american companies that are defrauding the american taxpayers and cheating and using our tax dollars to buy goods made in china rather than goods made in america. i received this very specific response and it underscored just what we should be fighting for. we need to be fighting for american workers, american

companies and strengthen these buy american provisions. i look forward to taking up legislation, democratic-sponsored, hopefully bipartisan, but democratic bills that i co-sponsored as a part of the house bipartisan trade working group that will strengthen buy american provisions. i talked about a week ago about another fair trade bill with china. we are letting china eat the lunches of american workers. we are letting them do it. china, when they join the world trade organization in 2001 never signed the government procurement agreement. this is the agreement that sets the terms for companies in one country to bid on and compete for government contracts with other countries. well, china, they know what they're doing, just like they

know what they're doing when they manipulate their currency. just like they know what they're doing when they steal our patents, our intellectual property, just like they know what they are doing when subsidizing the companies and playing field in their favor. so what they have done in the last nine years has blocked our companies from doing business with their government while for some reason -- i haven't been able to figure out yet -- we are allowing chinese companies to bid on and win contracts with our federal government paid for by your tax dollars. i don't think the american people have in mind we use their tax dollars to create jobs in china rather than jobs in america. my bill, h.r. 5312 is very simple. feas a -- it's a resip row call

trade bill. it -- resip ro call trade bill. it says to china that their companies can do the same dollar amount of business with our government as our companies can do with our government. now, when i came to washington from my home in battle creek, michigan, yesterday, there was a ford motor company engineer on the plain and we talked about this issue. i talk about this issue everywhere i go. a and i said do you manufacture in china? he says, yeah we, we manufacture in china. and i said, you're not able to do business with government in china, right, for any of their vehicle purchases, motor pools or whatever it might be? he said, no, we're not able to

do that. so i said, well, you know, china can do business with our government even though they are blocking our companies doing business with their government. even when they're making -- even when they are manufacturing in china. our companies are investing there. they are making their products there. even with that, china's policy -- they know what they're doing. they didn't sign this government procurement agreement nine years ago when they joined the world trade organization. and they are playing us for fools. you know, according to the economic policy institute in michigan, we have lost $68,000 jobs due to china's un-- 68,000 jobs due to china's unfair trade

policy. in my district -- i represent seven counties in south central michigan, 2,700 jobs. that's the size of a medium-sized village within my district -- wiped out, completely, because of china's unfair trade. so i want to stop in a moment and i want to yield an outstanding leader, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz from florida, to talk about our economy. i have been talking about the choice. i have been talking about the choice. we move forward and dig out of this economic hole that was caused by the failed economic policies of the bush administration and one of our republican colleagues on a national press show on sunday,

when asked -- they don't like to talk about policy. they don't like to talk about that when they were asked to talk about medicare, their solution was voucherize medicare and even though they don't like the term that is really true about their position on social security. they don't like to talk about policy ideas. when they were asked if republicans get back into power, what are they going to do. pete sessions said we need to go back to the exact same agenda a we must continue to fight for american workers and continue to fight for manufacturing for making things in this country. and i talked earlier about great progress that's being made in renewable energy, wind energy technology, life sciences technology, the chevy volt, the

chevy volt will be first battery electric car will roll off the assembly line in october in michigan. we are making things. and if we don't have the kind of policy foresight that democrats and this house of representatives have been putting forward and will continue to put forward aggressively, we will go backwards. so we've got a long way to go. i am not satisfied. i said i will not be satisfied until every unemployed worker in my district that's looking for a job has a job, until seniors again feel secure with the promise of social security, that these are the basic values that i hold and this is the fight that i signed up for. so it's been a pleasure to talk

a little bit about michigan, a little bit about my home, a little bit about what's going on. i even talked a little about my family and son-in-law that has been unemployed for a better part of the year. good news is he is still in michigan. moved to the upper peninsula, where my wife christine is from, from the upper peninsula, and got a job there and they bought a house. but too many families can't tell that story. and we are fighting for the american people. and it is my pleasure to yield to my colleague, debbie wasserman schultz from south florida, to talk about this choice. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you so much. and my colleague from michigan, mark schauer, who cares so

passionately and so deeply about his district, about the people he represents in michigan. you have fought so hard to make sure that they have a voice because americans are struggling. and you know that americans are struggling. you are in the midst of an economic crisis in michigan, as we all have been coming out of. and you are absolutely right when you talk about the fact that we have a choice. americans in november are going to have a choice. we can go back to the agenda of the republicans, which now is right there in blue and white and where they clearly have said, making no bones about it, that they would take us back to the exact same agenda that they pursued before, which included focusing on tax cuts exclusively for the wealthiest americans, not caring in the least about

working families or middle class or having an agenda that did anything for anyone for working families or the middle class, focusing on making sure that we could only spend time worrying about the well-being of major corporations and leaving working families to twist in the wind or we can choose to continue to move in a new direction that democrats have taken the country under president obama's leadership, under the leadership of the democrats here in the house and the senate, when we took the majority back in 2006 and end the the culture of corruption that hung over this capitol under republican leadership. we ended the focus exclusively on the wealthy and tried to turn things around. president obama, on his first day in office, inherited an economy where we were bleeding

700,000-plus jobs a month, a month. and i'm not sure if mr. schauer talked about this, but we have fast-forwarded a year and a half later and the economy is adding about 100,000 to 125,000 jobs a month. and if you look at manufacturing and that is a particularly important area for michigan, american workers are so proud and have always been so proud of the fact that we, in america, make things. we are the ones that make sure that machines run that the manufacturing that is the proud tradition of the united states of america, should continue. we have had 11 straight months of growth in the manufacturing sector under president obama's leadership, under the policies, the economic decision making that we've made since he took office. and that's incredibly important

for americans to understand, because even though we have a long way to go, we have begun to turn the corner, we have begun to turn things around and we need to continue to push hard to make sure we can invest in infrastructure and balance those investments with tax cuts targeted to middle class and working families. . last year, the economic stimulus that has been talked about so much in the last year, we invested $787 billion to make sure that we could create those jobs and invest in projects that were ready to go so we could get people back to work who literally were left twisting in the wind after the bush administration drove us into a ditch. and now you have the same people, the same people who got -- drove us into the ditch in the first place, are asking to get the keys back so they can return to the exact same agenda that they pursued during the

time that they were in charge. why we would -- why americans would give them back the keys when they got use in this mess in the first place is beyond me -- us into this mess in the first place is beyond me but that's what they're aggressively pursuing nonetheless. this morning, a number of us on the house floor had an opportunity to talk about the approach of social security's birthday. we're approaching the 65th anniversary of social security, 65 years of making sure that -- excuse me, 75 years, 75 years of making sure that social security provides the safety net to americans who are in their retirement years, making sure that they have something to fall back on and make sure that they have the ability to make ends meet each and every day. and as mr. schauer so rightfully

put it, under the exact same agenda that the republicans pursued then we would return to an effort and they readily admit this we'll return to their effort which was first proposed by president bush to privatize social security. what privatizing social security means is allowing people to invest their social security in the stock market. now, if you watched the volatility of the stock market over the last number of years, i shoulder to think about how the seniors in my district, my seniors in south florida, i shoulder to think how they would be able to make ends meet. over the last got -- ends meet over the last two years if their ocean suret -- social security investments evaporated after the stock markets downturned. we had stock markets downturned, then it went back up and then it went back down again. the stock market is not the

place for funds that are there and designed to be a safety net. in my home state 53% of seniors without social security would be living in poverty. poverty. and that's just simply unacceptable. if that's the agenda that the republicans want to take us back to then americans need to know that that's the direction that they would go. i want to focus on some other comments because we should make sure the people know exactly what's being said on the other side, so that when they make a decision on which direction they want to go, when they make a decision on which candidate for congress, which member they choose to have represent them, they should know what some of the republican leadership on the other side has been saying. if you recall mr. schauer, --

recall, mr. schauer, we had a lot of commentary on the other side about the stimulus, about the economic recovery act. i remember that mr. cantor, their republican whip, i remember he actually has consistently said that the stimulus has not produced jobs. now, i'm not sure what planet he's been licking on, but one thing has been very clear, the economic recovery act, the stimulus bill created millions of jobs. we wouldn't have been able to go from bleeding 700,000-plus jobs a month to adding about 100,000 private sector jobs a month without the investments that was made under the democratic leadership. now, in spite of the fact that mr. cantor has consistently said that the stimulus produced no jobs, that didn't prevent him from hosting a jobs fare with companies that received $52 million in his community to create jobs from the stimulus.

he actually held a jobs fair at a virginia high school with a number of private companies that were seeking to hire and who benefited from the funds in the american recovery and reinvestment act. so he's not the only one that has essentially tried to have it both ways, be opposed to the stimulus, vote against the stimulus, say that it didn't do anything, but then pay credit in their community when the checks are being handed out and the celebrations are being had for the jobs that are created in their districts by the economic recovery act. and i don't know, i don't want to directly call any of our colleagues hypocrites, but that type of action seems pretty hypocritical to me, mr. tonko. i'm really pleased that we're joined this evening by my good friend, mr. tonko from new york, who joins us every week, week after week, to make sure that we can help america understand and

talk to the american people about how this economy has turned around and how we have been able to create jobs, balance investments with tax cutting policies and i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman for his comments. mr. tonko: thank you, representative. it's so encouraging to have people see the difference in how we approach reform here in washington. there are those who will suggest that the 8.2 million jobs lost during the bush recession were a tremendous blow to this nation's economy, to working families, to households across this country. there are those who would suggest that the $17.5 trillion worth of household wealth lost in the last 18 months of president bush's final stage of his presidency, some of that's been recaptured, recovered, some $6 trillion.

but that painful outcome is sometimes lost, people forget that there were these there wills of dollars lost to house -- that there were these trillions of dollars lost to household incomes. why would people want to go back to those failed policies? and today we just do a test based on other dynamics. medicare. the republicans suggest we should voucher the system. a -- allow people to go in and invest in a private insurance plan. there are those in the republican ranks, the leadership, talking about reforming social security, raising the age limit, providing savings so they can pay for the war, wanting to adjust a system that's very much part of the security for our nation's retirees, to balance a budget on the backs of our hardworking retirees, people who have invested in the system, is telling us what their philosophy is all about. they're not supporting wall street reform, attacking it,

demeaning it, that it was an adam bomb used on an ant. totally misrepresents the situation. the fact that they wanted our president to apologize for coming down hard on b.p. for the oil spill and the failures of the gulf. -- in the failures in the gulf. so we see this thinking that caused, that same thinking that brought about the failure of our economy, that brought this nation's economy to its knees, they want us to go back to those standards? i think what we have here are improvements. there's a road to recovery. it's painfully slow but it's moving in the right direction. it's a sweep upward. after several months of a sweep downward, the deformation, that constant dip down south, southward, with the economy, now transitioned upward, has told the story, has told the story. and i see it in my district. i see the capital region of new york respondsing to an innovation economy -- responding to an innovation economy,

respondsing to innovation -- respondsing to innovation -- responding to innovation. it will be able to store intermittent power, it will be able to generate electricity and also be used for heavy fleets. this is the way we create jobs, this is the investment of the recovery act that invested in advanced battery manufacturing, -- merchandizing, invested in smart grid -- manufacturing, invest in smart grids. these are the opportunities that really transitioned our economy and create a new day for america because we become more self-sufficient in our energy policy. with our energy policy. we allow for generation to be done here by embracing the american intellect. these are the dynamics of reform that were long overdue. they're creating american jobs to produce american power.

a tour with the veterans of our country about american power, about how we can create jobs here and not send hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign nations' treasuries and those nations are unfriendsly to the u.s. that's the change -- unfriendly to the u.s. that's the changed thinking, not the failure of the past that drained, that lost eight million jobs do. we go back to those failed policies or do we transition over to what has been the road to recovery, albeit not as fast as we would like, but it's progress, it's movement in the right direction and its innovation and -- it's innovation and it's embracing the american intellect. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much, mr. tonko. i want to add a couple more thing things and then i know mr. schauer will close us out. one of the things that i think it's important to note that we also have done, because deficit spending is -- deficits are really an issue and deficit spend something an issue, we -- when we took the majority back, we re-established the pay-go rules and then enshrined them in

statutes in this congress to make sure that legislation that we passed is paid for, that we don't, like most families have to do every single -- every family i know, can't spend more than they take in. the republicans let those rules, which were originally adopted under the clinton administration and resulted in a record surplus that president bush inherited, they let thousand rules lapse. we re-established them -- let those rules lapse. we re-established them. when they let those rules lapse, that's when we ended up in a huge deficit situation. because of that we're able toworks the budget that we've adopted, cut the deficit in half over the next number of years and focus on deficit reduction while also making sure that we balance that with investments so we can get our economy back on track. that's the difference between us and them and i hate to say it like that, but really there won't ever be a more -- there hasn't been a more stark contrast in the choice that americans have to make in this

election and i look forward to spending some more time on the floor talking with my colleagues about it. i yield to the gentleman. mr. schauer: i'd like to thank my colleagues. our time is about up. but i'll give you two numbers that summarize the bush policies . eight million lost jobs, 14 $$14 -- $14 trillion in wealth lost to american households. 8,000 jobs, $14 trillion, trillion. now, americans can do it. we've been through tough times before but we have always pulled together as a nation to overcome our challenges. after challenges americans return stronger, more determined and more united. democrats came together and faced the challenges that we were handed by mismanagement by the bush republicans.

and together we are pulling our economy back from the brink of economic ruin. as americans i know we can do it. that's why we're here tonight. i received a couple of texts from folks at home, they are watching. americans know we can do it. we can turn our economy around and get our economy back on track. and i will yield back. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: 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, mr. speaker. now as always, it's a great honor to speak on this floor. where so many have given so much trying to get the country in the right direction. i do need to address some things that have come up. for one thing, i would like to read an article in from the "washington examiner", june 9, 2010. as b.p.'s deepwater horizon oil rig was sinking on april 22, senator john kerry, democrat of massachusetts was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling him that he would soon lay out the senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies,

including b.p., according to the "washington post." kerry never got to have his photo op with b.p. chief and other other corpt friendly chief tains. senator gralm repudiated the bill and democrats went back to the drawing board. the alliance included a cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of president obama and his allies in the media that b.p.'s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. lobby records show that b.p. is no market crusader, but instead, a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company's

bottom line. it goes on to point out that british petroleum has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, for the stimulus bill, the wall street bailout and for subsidies for things like oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels. now that b.p.'s oil rig -- in the article written," has caused the biggest environmental disaster in american history, the left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with enron and a.i.g. whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market. as democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics that they used in their

health care and finance efforts posing as the scurges of the special interests and stooges of big business. expect b.p. to be public enemy number one in the climate debate. and again this is a article by timothy carney. he goes, quote, there's a problem. b.p. was a founding member of the u.s. climate action partnership, a lobby dedicated to passing a cap and trade bill. as the nation's largest producer of natural gas, b.p. saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired plants that switched to gas. it goes on and talks -- it

mentions that b.p. signed off on kerry's senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. one provision that b.p. ex plightly backed according to "congressesally quarterly," a higher gas tax. the money would be ear marked for building more hey ways and inducing more driving and gasoline consumption. elsewhere in the green arena, b.p. has lobbied for and profited from subsidies from solar energy, two products that can't break even without government support. lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research.

a federal agency is finsing a b.p. project in -- financing a b.p. project in argentina. the u.s. import-export bank has put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094 mile pipeline carrying oil from the caspian to turkey and again profitting b.p. lobbying records also show b.p. lobbying. you can guess the oil giant wasn't in league with the cato institute or ron paul. b.p. has more democratic

loppyists than republicans. it imemploys the podesta group, obama's confidencee. it includes walter mondale, steven cham lane, former executive director of the house democratic caucus and one from bill clinton's interior department and whose father was a democratic congressman. two patterns have emerged from president obama's administration. big business increasingly seeks profits through government and number two, obama nonetheless pains opponents to his intervention as industry shields. b.p. is just the latest example of this taundry slight of hand.

once a government pet, b.p. is now a capitalist tool from "washington examiner" editor timothy p. carney. my friends make it sound like the republicans and b.p. are really tight. look at the lobbying records for b.p., you look at the contribution records for the wall street firms that benefited so dramatically from the ridiculous bailout, yes. it was a republican president. should have known better. you don't set aside free market principles to save the free market because if only socialism works in a crisis, we got no business going back to free market in the good times. but the trouble is, there was no

free market. in this world which people are not perfect and you have some greedy people and people that lust for power, you have to have government intervention to make sure that everyone is playing fairly, not that everyone has equal assets, but that people have an equal opportunity. that's what a free market is supposed to be about in this world. and the next, you won't need a government. god will reign. but in this one, we need a government. it needs not to be a player on the field and also the riveree. we have enough of that. got that -- referee. we have enough of that. we have that in the flood insurance program. we have been told in this last year and a half, gee, we need the federal government playing in the health care field just to give an option. that's what we heard in the

flood insurance program and now the government is the only flood insurance program because no one can compete with a government that gets to return run in the red all the time. so i appreciate my friends trying to lay b.p. at the feet of the republicans, but the fact is that the reason apparently that it took so long for this administration to finally turn on b.p. was -- they didn't have to turn on them because they were working together on the crap and trade bill, because b.p. was right with them supporting that crap and trade bill. and then you had senator kerry, the administration, i mean, b.p. was their buddy and helping them on the stimulus package of all things. most of the true free-market people that don't want the government taking over

everything were not supportive of the stimulus bill because they knew exactly what would have happened, what has happened, would happen. that's what people knew. that when the government starts sucking all the capital out of the country for its own uses and its own devices, then the great job creator, small business, private business across the country cannot get loans and i so agree with my friend, mr. schauer, when he talks about how difficult it is for people to get loans in this country. it is just so difficult. we got regulators breathing down their throats requiring them to hold more in reserve than the law requires, requiring them not to loan money to people that

have been with them for 20, 30 years as great banking clients, threatening the full vengence of the federal government if they were to make loans that some regulators told them not to make, some people can't get capital. the federal government sucking it up. and it is a terrible, terrible shame. and i appreciated my friends across the aisle pointing out that, mr. schauer said 600,000, 700,000 jobs were lost during the last months of the bush administration and he pointed out that over the last five months the average has been 1770,000 jobs a month that -- 170,000 jobs a month have been added. my colleague from florida said

120,000 jobs per month. but we won't haggle over 50,000 jobs per month. we would love to have those jobs. but unfortunately, to get to an average, whether it's 125,000 or 170,000, you have to have things like we did in june, 430,000 jobs created in the month of june. great news, 431,000 actually. unfortunately, 411,000 of those were temporary census workers. oh, yeah. economy's just booming, isn't it? it gets tiresome hearing my friends across the aisle talk about that last year that bush was in office and the damage he did to the economy.

it's deeply troublesome, because the fact is in november of 2006, our democratic friends took the majority by promising america that republicans would not control spending, but they would . they promised that we will get rid of this ridiculous $100 billion deficit for one year of spending by the republicans who control congress because as anybody who has had any decent education in this country knows, the president and the executive branch can only spend money that is appropriated by the congress. so, we also know then for the last two years of the bush

presidency, every stinking bill that passed only did so because the majority wanted it to pass. there was nothing republicans could do in 2007 and 2008 to stop any bill in congress that our friends across the aisle wanted to have passed. we tried. we made points of order objections when we could see that the rules were not being followed. and then would be ruled down from the chair in order for us to appeal the ruling, which was voted down every single time that we appealed the ruling of the chair because they had the votes to do so, not because it

was not a violation of the rule. . so we come to the point of fair analysis has to indicate that if the spending was out of control in 2007 and 2008, obviously it wasn't because the bush administration, they can't appropriate anything to themselves. and if the policies of spending caused this great loss of jobs in the fall of 2008 then it was either the responsibility of the majority party in here, the majority party either caused the massive problems in 2008 to our

economy or the majority party was the most incompetent ever to be in the majority in this house. i don't think they were that incompetent. i think they passed exactly what was intended. we heard talk about the wonderful health care bill. it got pretty tiresome over the last year and a half hearing friends across the aisle accuse me, others of misrepresenting the real facts. how could we not understand what the bill was about? well, the truth is, for those of us that read the ridiculous bills that were brought forth, that were not about health care but were about the g.r.e.,

government running everything, we knew problems that were going to be forth coming. some of us came to this very podium, the other podiums here, and talked about what was in the bill because we were reading these provisions that deeply troubled us. and i know general electric, as a big backer of this administration, was so excited about the health care bill because they were going to get to have the contract for bringing together all of the health care records in the country. but the federal government was going to be the repository, the depository for every health care record in america. the personal, private,

biological situations of every person in america would be within the control of the federal government. you know, there are people who have made incredible deals happen, have made the economy purr, though they knew they were dying, others didn't know, the federal government didn't know and so they made things happen because their biological lives were their own lives. it was their own business. but as a result of the obamacare bill that needs desperately to be repealed, if it's not every american's most private, most

personal lives will be under the electronic control of the federal government. we've noticed that when someone stands up against this administration, private information seems to surface from outside of -- out of nowhere about that person. so anyone who stands up against them is liable to have the full power of the democratic government come down on them. we know that in the days preceding the impeachment vote or the vote to remove president clinton from office the white house was found to have over 1,000 f.b.i. files in the white house, possession of every one of those files was a felony, meaning years in prison to anyone who possessed them, to

anyone who was complicit in having them brought over from the f.b.i., because they had to be physically brought into the white house. and they were. and you had to know there were a lot of people involved and yet not one person was prosecuted. because -- could certainly have made the case against the person who had them, i believe it's two years in prison, could have been four, and i'm sure there's different ways to charge it so you could lump on different federal charges. but at least 2,000 years in prison, minimum, for having those files. any good prosecutor knows how you work that. you go to the guy that had the files and you say, um, you're looking at 2,000 years in prison.

you'll never get out. but you know what? if you'll help us successfully prosecute those who caused you to get those thousand f.b.i. files, because we know you can't do it on your own, you help us know who it was that told you to get these files, who went through these private f.b.i. files, you help us with all of that and we can work a deal, maybe you do four years. that's the way prosecutions normally work. and you work up the food chain until you find the highest person who was involved in bringing those files to the white house. none of that happened. none of it. for most prosecutors they would see that as lay down cases that are just so easy, you know, you got them dead to rights, now it's just a question of how far up the food chain you get. didn't happen. and that was with physical

possession of f.b.i. files. now we're talking about a private company overseeing this operation. we're talking about the federal government having control over all of these records. i know i've heard people say, well, what makes you think that anybody could ever get access to these private medical records of each individual in america? how could anybody be so naive when you see the kind of things that have already happened in this country? and the disclosure of secret information? do you think that if this federal government cannot keep secret the identity of our most secret agents that they'll be able to keep secret the medical

records of someone who has become an enemy of the reigning party in the white house or in the congress? there are always leaks these days, it seems. always leaks. and now we find out in the past few days that the government apparently is going to require everybody in america to have a body mass index because the federal government wants to know how fat everybody in america is and it doesn't take an einstein to figure out that once the federal government knows what your body mass index is, then they'll be able to make decisions based on that information.

now, i have been belittled, i have had blogs take all kinds of shots at me, i've had people on the other side of the aisle belittle this comment i'm about to make that i've made over the last year and a half, but, boy, is it turning out that i was right and the nay sayers simply -- naysay -- naysayers simply hasn't read the bill and they couldn't see -- hadn't read the bill and they couldn't see what was going to be allowed unto the federal government. here's what i would say. think about it. the federal government has all of your personal medical records , week of been told that the federal government has the capability of monitoring every credit card purchase, every debit card purchase that anyone in america makes.

we're also told it doesn't do that but it has the capability. but once the federal government through tax dollars is paying for people's health care, then it will proclaim the right to know what you're spending your money on because, for example, if you have too high of a cholesterol rate you have too -- rate, you have too high of a body mass index, then it's quite conceivable at some point you get an email, a letter from your federal government saying we noticed your cholesterol is 160 and we noticed that yur you bought bacon at the grows -- that you bought bacon at the grocery store this weekend. accordingly, since you were on a federal program, we are going to have so increase the amount that

you pay to participate in the federal obamacare program. which -- program in which you're found. well, now as we hear these things come out, now that we're a few months past the bill's becoming law, things for which i was belittled are now appearing to be quite accurate in their projection. i heard my friends across the aisle talking about social security and if people are going to represent what i believe and what i have pushed for my 5 1/2 years here in congress, i would wish that they would get it right. because it wasn't. what i pushed with my republican colleagues the year i got here in 2005, what i continue to push

today and what i will continue to push next year, whether or not republicans are in the majority or not, is this -- social security tax dollars should go into the social security trust fund. statements i made back in 2005 are easy to find. i pointed out back then that i had my staff do an experiment and that is to contact the texas employment retirement system, the galveston employment retirement system and the social security system and pose this hypothetical. suppose somebody had worked for 30 years averaging $30,000 a year, what would be their retirement income for a month? i talked about this in 2005.

in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, this year, spoke of it recently back home in east texas. well, what we got from social security was, well, you say average. that will depend on how many years, at what level, how you ended all these other factors, so the best we can give you is somewhere between $600 a month and $900 a month. tragic. $600 to $900 a month after someone has spent a lifetime paying into social security. that's all you get? my goodness, the prescription drugs can eat that up in a heart beat. and if you haven't already had your home paid for, you're in trouble. $600 a month in your senior

years when you ought to be a glory to your family? no. you become a drag because this government did not do what it said it would do, put that money in a social security trust fund. you look at some societies throughout history and they point out that when you pay tribute to your seniors, because of their wisdom, because of what they've learned through the years and society made of any gathering the oldest person the center of attention. it gave people a reason to continue to live longer, so people there did live longer. . it's not what we do here and it's tragic. we real gait our seniors with

experience and knowledge to $600 a month for social security? well, on the other hand, checking with the texas employment retirement system, they came back and said, well, because the hypothetical and we don't have the exact years and how much was at the end and all that, the best we can say, 2,700 to $2,800 per month. wow, several times the amount you get from social security in the same scenario. what's the difference? the main difference is social security, since its inception in the 1930's has never had a dime go into social security trust fund. i thought it had until i got here. come to find out, this has been going on from the beginning. i thought it was a more recent development, maybe since the

great society. not true. since the 1930's, never a dime of social security tax money going into the trust fund. how about that for a start. that's what i have been advocating, i have been advocating for 5.5 years, put social security money into the trust fund. we have people on our side of the aisle, a tiny minority that say if you were to do that, it would make the government own too much in the way of bonds but some of them also voted for the wall street bailout but they got beyond that concern in the three intervening years since they opposed my proposal. but there isn't a lot of people in the majority who appear to put social security tax dollars in the social security trust fund so we can ensure that it

will be there for years to come and it will draw interest. and we could do so much better by the seniors who are the greatest generation, the seniors who have laid the groundwork, the foundation for this greatest advancement in human history and now we're treating them some poorly by giving them $600 a month after all they've done. because we won't put money in a trust fund so it can grow and they could get more in their senior years so they don't have to worry whether they'll have to eat or get their drugs. we owe them so much better. and if my friends in the majority would want to do that,

we could do it like that. and the president wouldn't have a choice because he would have to sign it and you would have more than 2/3 in both houses that would vote for that. what a great day for seniors that would be. what a great day that would be for people moving towards their senior finally money going into the trust fund that would start growing first time in american history. that's the kind of thing we need to be doing. we keep hearing about a this financial reform bill but it's a financial deform bill. it continues the systemic risk panel so the government gets to pick and choose which companies will live and which will die. because the way it's set up, that's what's going to happen. we already saw that with goldman

sachs and a.i.g., two companies that historically have given contributions to four to one to democrats over republicans, but boy, didn't george bush do them a favor. he let hank pull sen talk him into bailing out these big buddies, democratic donors to the tune of billions of dollars when they got their own cart in the ditch. some of us realized it's nice when you help somebody get their cart out of the ditch, but you sure shouldn't let them run over you. goldman sachs had their biggest profitting year in history, so you can bet they will donate lots and lots of money to keep their friends who have done them

the most good in office and it won't be republicans. another problem in this financial deform act is that it creates a system of bailouts as far into the future as anybody living today can see. when anyone says that a company or a bank is too big to fail, then it is absolutely essential that they be allowed to go through bankruptcy, be declared a failure, re-organize, sell off some of their attractive assets so never again will they be so big that they will pose a risk to our economy. that's not what happened with the wall street bailout. it's not what has continued to

happen. and one of the things that has grieved so many of us that we could not believe that any white house, republican or democrat, could appoint ar task force, a bunch of czars and they make decisions about who lives and who dies in the auto industry. they pick the winners and losers. they take property from people without due process of law. they force dealers who owe money to the banks for buying the dealerships into losing their deeperships, take it away from them without any due process of law, without a chance to go to the bankruptcy court and say, we

have an alternative plan, without a chance to come to the courts and say, you know what? you're not going to sell more cars by having so many less dealers. they didn't have a chance to come to the bankruptcy court or to the courts of america and say why in the world would you have some idiot who claimed that in a terrible recession, we're going to close down tens of thousands of jobs and put them out of business, put them out of their jobs, put their families out wanting and begging because we felt like it. we wanted our friends to be in business, didn't want our enemies to be in business. well, the founders were scared to death that the government might have that power so they

took pains that they fought and died for, the chance to have a government with not just one house in congress, but two. so if one got too far afield, the other could rein them in prevent them from doing something stupid. if both of them did something stupid, then the executive branch, the president could stop them with a simple veto. and if both of them got out of hand, the judicial branch. and they could cancel what the others did. and if the executive branch gets too far afield and appoints an auto task force that's going to violate the constitution by taking property without due process of law and they're going to just run rauf showed over the laws passed by the congress saying this is the way bankruptcy proceedings go, that you don't run over that.

if they run rough showed then the congress would be upset and they would say the congress passed those bankruptcy laws, we don't care if you got a bankruptcy judge who wants to be reafffirmed as a judge in a few years or be a district judge down the road, we don't care if you got them to sign that bill. we're going to cut off funding for all of these czars, all of these task forces you've appointed who have no accountability to us. we're going to cut off your money and cut off your task force at the knees and cut off your czars at the needs because we are going to defund them. that power was given to congress to make sure you don't let the executive branch appoint a bunch of czars without the consent of the senate and then make rules and decide who loses their

property without any accountability to anybody. the founders knew that with people in congress in numbers in the house and senate, they would never let the laws they passed be run over in such a fashion. they would stop the executive branch from doing that. but unfortunately, it didn't happen. congress let the executive branch through the auto task force disregard the constitution, disregard the law, disregard creditors' rights in the law, disregard the rights of secured creditors, promote unsecured creditors and make them owners, put secured creditors down to getting pennies and telling the secured creditors, if you say anything

about it, you'll have the full force of the federal government, executive branch, come on you and you will be done in business for good. don't you ever stand in our way. there were threats that we heard were made. and so they couldn't fight. their only hope was the congress would protect the power that was entrusted with to keep the executive branch frr running over the con -- from running over the constitution. congress let it happen. but the founders were so clever. they knew they didn't trust government, so they had this third branch, the court. and the supreme court is the only court actually created in the constitution. every other court owes its existence to this body. but the supreme court, thank

goodness the founders had the thought to create that third branch. even though congress -- they will and god bless ruth bader ginsburg put a 24-hour hold on that whole deal. but the executive branch scared the supreme court sufficiently into thinking that if they extended that 24-hour hold any further, then apparently they made the supreme court believe that they would be responsible for the loss of every job related to the auto industry and all those lost jobs would be on the supreme court's head. and why else would they let the

constitution be trampled on in such a fashion? why else would they allow the laws to be trampled on in such a fashion. and under the safeguards worked and people lost their businesses. and then we get this article, july 19 from bloomberg, of all sources, and i'll read. the obama administration has pushed to accelerate general motors company and chrysler group deepership closings aimed at helping the companies compete may not be necessary and added to unemployment a u.s. washdog said. the treasury department should have considered whether speeding up the closings should have resulted in tens of losses of jobs according to a report released yesterday by the

special inspector general of the troubled asset relief program, tarp, of course. the u.s. had rejected re-organization plans from the car makers in march, 2009, in part, citing a slow pace for g.m. to scale back its dealer network. such dramatic and accelerated dealership closings may not have been necessary and underscores the need for treasury to tread very carefully when considering such decisions in the future, unquote, he concluded. i should have pointed out, the begin quote with such dramatic -- continuing on with the article. the report made prompt congressional criticism of the administration's handling of the auto maker bailouts. lawmakers have already complained about the job losses in their districts from dealership closings and the

process by which retailers were selected for shutdowns. quote, this sobering report should serve as a wake-up call as to the orchestrations of federal bailouts. republican issa -- republican issa said yesterday in a statement. the government has spend billions on auto assistance under the tarp program, criticized the inspector's audit and said without government aid, both companies faced failure and possible liquidation. the department's auto task force in early 2009 found detroit-based g.m.'s plan for closing dealers by 2015 too

slow. instead, they found 14rks00 to be shut down by october. chrysler, which planned to shut 400 dealerships by 2014 decided to immediately close 789 in bankruptcy after treasury's urgings, according to the report. the treasury department using advice received from industry experts encouraged smaller dealership networks to help boost sales and better compete witha pan's toyota motor company and honda motor company according to the report. g.m. which moved to trim the closures by about half said in the statement that events described in the report have since been overtaken by a new g.m. and stronger dealer network to match, unquote. the statement added the new g.m. is moving forward to improve dealer relations and has already reinstated several

hundred. reinstated several hundred? after the executive branch forced these people to lose their property without due process of law? continuing on with the article. general motors company was formed last year out of bankruptcy from the best performing assets of general motors corporation. while a group led by fiat s.p.a. purchased most of the bankrupt chrysler l.l.c. assets forming chrysler group l.l.c. taxpayer aid made the reorganizations possible. not bad enough to put tens of thousands of people out of business, and take millions and millions of dollars without due process, we also took taxpayer money. this administration and this majority let it happen.

dealer complaints about closure prompted lawmakers, including senator jay rockefeller a west virginia democrat to ask barofsky to investigate. quote, there is substantial confusion, even among dealers themselves, as to how g.m. and chrysler selected dealerships for closure, said jay rock fell for the a letter to barofsky. the report found that chrysler followed the criteria for targeting dealers for termination. g.m. was inconsistent and retained more than 1,300 dealers that would have been shut based on sales, consumer satisfaction and profitability, according to the report. the fact that treasury was acting in part as an investor to g.m. and chrysler does not insulate them from the broader responsibility.

treasury should have taken greater care given that it had the ability to contribute to job losses. the assistant secretary of treasury for financial stability -- wasn't that a misnomer? anyway he said the restrucking -- restructuring process was painful and required sacrifices from all parties. quote we strongly disagree with many of your statements, conclusions, and lessons learned, unquote, alison told barofsky. president obama forced the companies to have dealers sign a clause before they were closed who is going to pay them back for the property stolen from them by this administration? but i have to add, stolen

legally, because congress didn't stop them, the supreme court didn't stop them, so accordingly, it must have been legal. they weren't stopped by people that could have. going back to the article, chrysler said that same month it was offering new franchises to 50 dealers who aplide for arbitration, in addition to 36 previous offers or new agreements. chrysler terminated 789 dealers last year and said in january that 409 had applied for arbitration. i tell you what, we've heard from dealers who were some of the most profitable, who were doing well, and this administration took them away from them. and got a bankruptcy judge to sign off to his shame. should be a total shame the damage that judge and those auto task force people caused. shameless. and yet when the house and

senate asked for information, notice from the meetings, they said, we're not accountable to you. we're a rogue government, is basically what they in essence were saying. we're rogue government. we're czars. we do what we want you can't touch us. le on the president who put us in these positions, can get rid of us and he likes what we've done. that's the message in essence. when i hear my friends across the aisle talk about the prns of pay-go, i was a republican that voted for that in previous term. because i supported that. then i come to find out, it was a joke. they didn't mean what they were talking about because every time there's a big bill, including extending unemployment benefits, they have no intention of taiing -- paying that, they suspend the

rule. what good was it passing it in the first place sni thought i could believe my friends across the aisle we need to vote for pay-go, people on this side of the aisle said, don't believe them. i said, no, they're pushing this pay-go bill, i'm going to vote for it. boy did i learn. there was no seriousness about following through on that. and it still blows my mind to hear people say, over and over, that tax breaks for the wealthiest americans are wrong. they're right. if you do nothing but have tax breakers in wealthiest americans, it is wrong. should not happen. but how about when off tax break for the people paying taxes, that's fair, when it's

an across the board tax cut, evenly cut across the board, that's fair. unfortunately, we are quickly approaching the point where 50% or more of americans will not pay income tax. historians have warned about this point that it is the point of no return. it is the line of demarcation, once you pass it, you can't get back. only with a miracle from god can a nation be saved once a representative government has more than 50% of its voters not paying the taxes that run the government. when you get past that point, you're done. that's one of the reasons i came here, it's one of the reasons i don't sleep much.

keep working away. trying to figure out ways to hold this place together until we can have a fair deal for everybody. heck, i'm the guy who came up with the tax holiday idea, when the bush administration and the obama administration were coming -- were talking about really trillions of dollars to get the economy going, heck, i found out, you're talking about trillions? federal reserve, trillions to get the economy going? $1.21 trillion was all that was expected to be paid in income tax, personal income tax, for the year 2008, that's when it hit me. but, we'd be better off if we just said, no income tax for 2008. be a lot cheaper than all these bailout programs. and the american public would get their own money and they would get to decide what car to buy. they would get out of trouble on their mortgages. but now, this administration,

and they can only do it with this congress getting it done, because congress passes the money bills, this administration, this majority, has spent trillions and trillions of dollars and we are so obligated, there's no way to have a tax holiday right now. we've got -- gotten so deeply in debt we can't do that now. it would have spurred the economy a whole lot more cheaply than what we've done. i want to finish tonight by taking, mr. speaker, going back to 1755, we know that there are those, including the president who said this is not a christian nature. i will not debate that point, whether we are or not now. but i know where we came from.

1755, george washington was in his early 20's, 6'3", at least that's what he was measured when he died. some books say 6'2", 6'4". big, strapping guy. full of emotion. powerful man. athletic man. he was riding a horse, leading 100 american militiamen, accompanying 1,300 british red coats in the french and indian war, they were heading up to fort duquesne in pennsylvania, the british generals, there were 82 officers, including washington, on horseback. the british yens decided to go take the path of less resistance, through the woods, through this low area, sort of a ravine, passing thru that area. washington got concerned, they could be walking into an ambush he asked the general, let me

send some of the men ahead who know the area, make sure we're not walking into a trap. he was belittled by the general. you think you know more than i do? he described himself as self-taught. they didn't send the men to ahead to check. they walked into an ambush. the french and indians opened up, for two hours, fire fight. after two hours, there were -- 1,300 british soldiers were dead. the americans had immediately taken cover. washington at the end of two hours was the only officer still on horseback. still fighting. he had one shot out from other -- under him. at least one. he's still on horseback fighting. brave. he's fighting, he's calling out orders. incredible man. all his men were amazed.

at this gallant, brave, courageous 20,-something-year-old. after two hours, he could see the rest of the british would be wiped out if they didn't retreat. they retreated. two days later he wrote to his mother and brother he hadn't met martha yet, he said, i took off my cap, shook out my hair, bullet fragments flew everywhere, not a scratch anywhere. took off my jacket, lots of bullet fragments, truly god protected me. he became a hero out of that. word spread from the americans about how courageous and brave this young man was. big, tall, strapping guy, how brave he was. what a fighter he was. he never lost his head, kept his cool, kept fighting, calling out orders a leader of

leaders, a man quoted as saying, men unused to restraint must be led, they won't be drove. 15 years later, he was going with dr. craig through the same area, he was going to show him the area that was so famous. they got up there, there was indians there, wanted to sit down and meet with him. the lead chief said, we were in this woods together 15 years ago. you and i were here, i ordered my men to fire at you before they fired at anyone else they did that we came all this way to meet the man that god would not let die. used to be in history books, in every american history book until 1910. i won't debate whether we're a christian nation now, but washington knew what we were. i realize my time has expired so at this time, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: is there a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i move that we do now adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to ad journ. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. >> coming up tonight, president obama holds a press conference at the white house with british prime minister david cameron. the nominee for the director of national intelligence comes before the senate select committee. and mary shapiro testifies about wall street regulation.

british prime minister david cameron called the release of the lockerbie bomber a mistake at a news conference with president obama. scottish authority released megrahi after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. this was prime minister cameron's first white house visit since taking office in may. this is a half an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. please have a seat. it is my great pleasure to welcome prime minister cameron on his first visit to the white house as prime minister. we have just concluded some excellent discussions -- including whether the beers from our hometowns that we exchanged are best served warm or cold.

my understanding is, is that the prime minister enjoyed our 312 beer and we may send him some more. i thought the beer we got was excellent -- but i did drink it cold. mr. prime minister, we can never say it enough. the united states and the united kingdom enjoy a truly special relationship. we celebrate a common heritage. we cherish common values. and we speak a common language - most of the time. we honor the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform who have served together, bled together, and even lay at rest together. above all, our alliance thrives because it advances our common interests. whether it's preventing the spread of nuclear weapons or securing vulnerable nuclear materials, thwarting terrorist attacks, or confronting climate change, or promoting global

economic growth and development, when the united states and the united kingdom stand together, our people - and people around the world -- are more secure and they are more prosperous. in short, the united states has no closer ally and no stronger partner than great britain. and i appreciate the opportunity to renew our relationship with my partner, prime minister cameron. in his campaign, david was known for his extensive town halls discussions with voters - "cameron direct." and that's the same spirit that we had here today. i appreciate david's steady leadership and his pragmatic approach. and just as he's off to an energetic start at home, i think we've had a brilliant start as partners who see eye- to-eye on virtually every challenge before us. great britain is one of our largest trading partners, and we're committed to long-term sustainable growth that keeps the global economy growing and puts our people to work. i told david that my

administration is working hard with the senate to move forward as soon as possible with our defense trade treaty with the u.k., which will be good for our workers and our troops in both our countries. we reaffirmed our commitment to fiscal responsibility and reform. david's government is making some courageous decisions, and i've set a goal of cutting our deficit in half by 2013. tomorrow, i'll sign into law the toughest financial reforms since the aftermath of the great depression. and i commend david for his leadership in europe to rebuild confidence in the financial sector. together, we're determined to make sure the financial catastrophe that we are emerging from never happens again. we discussed the middle east, where both our governments are working to encourage israelis and palestinians to move to direct talks as soon as possible. we discussed the continuing threat posed by iran's nuclear program. on this we are united -- the iranian government must fulfill its international obligations. the new sanctions imposed by the u.n. security council, the

united states, and other countries are putting unprecedented pressure on the iranian government. and i thanked david for great britain's efforts to ensure strong european union sanctions in the coming days. along with our p5-plus-1 partners, we remain committed to a diplomatic solution. but the iranian government must understand that the path of defiance will only bring more pressure and more isolation. finally, much of our discussion focused on afghanistan. after the united states, great britain is the largest contributor of combat forces in afghanistan, and british troops and civilians have served and sacrificed in some of the most dangerous parts of the country. this is not an easy fight. but it is a necessary one. terrorists trained in afghanistan and the tribal regions along the pakistani border have killed innocent civilians in both of our countries. and an even wider insurgency in

afghanistan would mean an even larger safe haven for al >>aeda and its terrorist affiliates to plan their next attack. and we are not going to let that happen. we have the right strategy. we're going to break the taliban's momentum. we're going to build afghan capacity so afghans can take responsibility for their future. and we're going to deepen regional cooperation, including with pakistan. today's historic kabul conference is another major step forward. the afghan government presented - and its international partners unanimously endorsed - concrete plans to implement president karzai's commitments to improve security, economic growth, governance, and the delivery of basic services. the afghan government presented its peace and reconciliation plan - which the united states firmly supports. agreement was reached on a plan in which responsibility for security in afghan provinces will transition to afghan security forces. in addition, afghanistan and pakistan reached a historic

agreement to increase economic opportunity for people on both sides of the border. so these are all important achievements, and they go a long way toward helping create the conditions needed for afghans to assume greater responsibility for their country. indeed, over the coming year, afghans will begin to take the lead in security, and in july of next year will begin to transfer -- we will begin the transfer some of our forces out of afghanistan. and the kabul conference shows that the afghan -- that afghanistan has the support of the international community, including the united states, which will remain a long-term partner for the security and progress of the afghan people. as we go forward, we want to honor our fallen warriors with the respect and gratitude that they deserve - whether it's here at dover, or in the small

british town of wootton bassett, where people line the streets in a solemn tribute that represents the best of the british character. with pride in their service and determination to carry on their work for a safer world, i am confident that we can be worthy of their sacrifice. and i am confident that with my partner and friend, david cameron, the special relationship between our countries will only grow stronger in the years to come. mr. prime minister. >> well, first of all, can i thank you, mr. president, for welcoming me so warmly to the white house today. thank you for the meeting, for the lunch that we had, and also for the tour of part of your home. i have to say, i was most impressed by how tidy your children's bedrooms were. and i think if the president of the united states can get his children to tidy their bedrooms, then the british prime minister, it's about time -- >> you can do it. >> -- he did exactly the same thing. >> you have to give them some notice, that's the only thing. >> right. well, they've got notice -- >> tell them the prime minister is coming. >> they should be in bed by now,

but if they're not they have notice. i think we did have a very valuable opportunity today to discuss in real depth a strong and a shared agenda on afghanistan, on global economic recovery, and on the middle east. and this relationship isn't just, as you put it, an extraordinary special relationship. to me, it is also an absolutely essential relationship if we are going to deliver the security and the prosperity that our people need. and i thought again today in our discussions just how closely aligned our interests are on all of the issues that we discussed. first, on afghanistan, there is no clearer, no more tangible illustration of britain and america standing shoulder to shoulder in our national interest than this mission that we are engaged in together. we have british troops working to an american commander in helmand, and we have american troops working to a british commander in kandahar. today, president obama and i took stock of progress in this

vital year. we reaffirmed our commitment to the overall strategy. a key part of that is training the afghan national army and police so they can provide security for their country and our troops can come home. we also agreed on the need to reinvigorate the political strategy for afghanistan. insurgencies tend not to be defeated by military means alone. there must also be political settlement. and to those people currently fighting, if they give up violence, if they cut themselves off from al >>aeda, if they accept the basic tenets of the afghan constitution, they can have a future in a peaceful afghanistan. there is real progress. last weekend, the first afghan- led military operation took place successfully in helmand, afghans defending themselves. and today, as barack has just said, for the first time in decades, the government of afghanistan has hosted an international conference on its own soil. over 40 foreign ministers and 80 delegations assembled in kabul to monitor progress and

drive forward the international strategy. that is a real achievement, and we should congratulate president karzai on it. president obama and i also discussed the economy. we're both taking action that our countries need. our destination is a strong and stable growth, a sustained economic recovery, and a reformed financial system that will never again be open to the abuses of the past. we are confident that the right steps were taken at the toronto g-20 summit to help achieve that. the middle east was the third area that we focused on today. we both want a secure, peaceful and stable middle east. and that means two things -- first, as barack has just said, iran must give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. we urge the iranian regime to resume negotiations with the international community without delay. it's not too late for it to do so. america and britain, with our partners, stand ready to negotiate, and to do so in good

faith. but in the absence of a willing partner, we will implement with vigor the sanctions package agreed by the united nations security council, and in europe we will be taking further steps as well. second, we desperately need a two-state solution between israel and the palestinians that provides security, justice and hope. as we were discussing over lunch, it is time for direct talks, not least because it is time for each, israel and palestine, to test the seriousness of the other. on bp, which we discussed at some length, i completely understand the anger that exists right across america. the oil spill in the gulf of mexico is a catastrophe -- for the environment, for the fishing industry, for tourism. i've been absolutely clear about that. and like president obama, i've also been clear that it is bp's role to cap the leak, to clean up the mess, and to pay appropriate compensation.

i'm in regular touch with senior management at bp, and the president is, too, to make sure that happens. and the progress that's been made to cap the leak is a step in the right direction. equally, of course, bp is an important company to both the british and the american economies. thousands of jobs on both sides of the atlantic depend on it. so it's in the interest of both our countries, as we agreed, that it remains a strong and stable company for the future. and that's something we discussed today. and let us not confuse the oil spill with the libyan bomber. i've been absolutely clear about this right from the start, and in our meeting we had what we call a "violent agreement," which is that releasing the lockerbie bomber, a mass murderer of 270 people, the largest act of terrorism ever committed in the united kingdom, was completely wrong. he showed his victims no compassion. they were not allowed to die in

their beds at home, surrounded by their families. so in my view, neither should that callous killer have been given that luxury. that wasn't a decision taken by bp, it was a decision taken by the scottish government. we have to accept that under the laws of my country, where power on certain issues is devolved to scotland, this was a decision for the scottish executive, a decision that they took. i know that senator kerry's committee is looking into these issues. my government will engage constructively with those hearings. and, indeed, my foreign secretary has already set out the government's position. so let me thank you again, barack, for hosting me today. while at the world cup, our teams could only manage a score draw. i believe our relationship can be a win-win. and, yes, i did enjoy drinking the 312 beer -- cold -- during the world cup. i enjoyed it so much that when i watched germany beat argentina, i actually cheered for germany. that's something that's a big admission for a british person to make, so the beer is obviously very effective. but what you -- what you said, barack, though, about british and america soldiers fighting together, sometimes dying together, serving together, is absolutely right. and we should never forget that

-- whether it's on the beaches of normandy, whether it's in korea, whether in iraq, or whether now in afghanistan. our relationship is on that has an incredibly rich history. it is based on ties of culture and history and, yes, emotion, too. but for all those things, i think it has also an incredibly strong future that is based on results -- results of a positive partnership of working together, agreeing where we agree, when we have disagreements, working through them and coming to a fair conclusion. it's a partnership that i profoundly want to make work as well as it possibly can in the years that i'm prime minister of britain and with you as president of the united states. so thank you again for welcoming me here today. >> thank you, david. with that, we're going to take a few questions. and i'm going to start with mimi hall of "usa today." >> thank you, mr. president and

mr. prime minister. i wanted to ask you a little bit more about bp. you mentioned, mr. prime minister, your decision to cooperate, et cetera, but you said we shouldn't confuse the two. have you flatly ruled out opening a government investigation into the events around the release of the bomber? and, president obama, how do you feel about a congressional investigation into this? would you like to see that happen, or do you think that confuses the two events? >> well, why don't i start off and i'll throw it over to david. i think all of us here in the united states were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the lockerbie bomber. and my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made. so we welcome any additional information that will give us

insights and a better understanding of why the decision was made. but i think that the key thing to understand here is that we've got a british prime minister who shares our anger over the decision, who also objects to how it played out. and so i'm fully supportive of prime minister cameron's efforts to gain a better understanding of it, to clarify it. but the bottom line is, is that we all disagreed with it. it was a bad decision. and going forward, that has to inform how we approach our relationship with respect to counterterrorism generally. now, one of the things that i want to emphasize that i think may get lost in this current debate is the extraordinarily strong ties between our two countries when it comes to

fighting terrorism. we probably have the best coordination and cooperation of any two countries in the world. and those relationships are vital and they keep people safe on both sides of the atlantic. and i want to make sure that even as we may express concern about what happened with respect to the release of this particular individual, that we stay focused on the cooperation that currently exists and build on that cooperation, to make sure that there is no diminution of our joint efforts to make sure that the kinds of attacks that happened over lockerbie do not happen again. >> well, i agree with actually what's been said about the importance of the security cooperation -- something we discussed today. on megrahi, look, i'm not standing here today and saying it was a bad decision to release megrahi because i'm here.

i said this a year ago, at the time, that it was a bad decision. it shouldn't have been made. the british government, as well, should have been clear that it was a bad decision, rather than going along with it. i took that very clear view. this was the biggest mass murderer in british history and there was no business in letting him out of prison. in terms of an inquiry, there has been an inquiry by the scottish parliament into the way the decision was made. the british government -- the last british government -- released a whole heap of information about this decision. but i've asked the cabinet secretary today to go back through all of the paperwork and see if more needs to be published about the background to this decision. but in terms of an inquiry, i'm not currently minded that we need to have a u.k.-based inquiry on this -- partly for this reason -- i don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision. it was a bad decision. and if you like, the big fact that's changed over the year that makes it an even worse decision is the fact that, of course, megrahi is still free, at liberty, in libya, rather

than serving the prison sentence in scotland, as he should be doing. so that's what we're going to do, is go back over this information, see if more needs to be published, and of course, in terms of the congressional hearing, make sure that proper cooperation is extended to it. james landale. >> just to stay on that subject, if we may. mr. prime minister, first of all, would you be prepared to talk to your predecessors, tony blair and gordon brown, to get there agreements to release any documents if they are relevant to the paper search that the cabinet secretary will undergo? and, mr. president, can i ask you -- the prime minister says he opposes an inquiry. hillary clinton has demanded an inquiry. where do you stand? >> well, first of all, on the documents, the proper process here is that the cabinet secretary should look back over

this decision and the circumstances surrounding it, should identify those documents that should be published. it should be right that ministers in the previous government should be consulted about the publication of those documents. and, of course, we will consult with them over that. but in my view, there is absolutely no harm to be done in giving the fullest possible explanation of the circumstances surrounding this decision. i think the key thing, though, to remember is that in the end it was a decision by the scottish executive. on the issue of an inquiry, as i said, i'm not currently minded to hold an inquiry because i think publishing this information, combined with the inquiry that has already been, will give people the certainty that they need about the circumstances surrounding this decision. but the key thing is to get the information out there so people can see. but i don't think there's any great mystery here. there was a decision taken by the scottish executive -- in my view, a wholly wrong and misguided decision, a bad

decision, but the decision nonetheless. that's what happened. and i don't think we need an extra inquiry to tell us that that's what happened. but the information, as i said, will be gone over and published, as appropriate. and of course, i'll be consulting with previous ministers and prime ministers, as you should do in the normal way. >> i think the simple answer is we should have all the facts, they should be laid out there. and i have confidence that prime minister cameron's government will be cooperative in making sure that the facts are there. that will not negate the fact that, as the prime minister indicated, it was a very poor decision and one that not only ran contrary to, i think, how we should be treating terrorists, but also didn't reflect the incredible pain that the families who were affected still suffer to this day. and my administration is in regular contact with these

families, and this was a heartbreaking decision for them that reopened a whole host of new wounds. so my expectation is, is that the facts will be out there and, as david indicated, with all the facts out, i think we're going to be back to where we are right now, which it was a decision that should not have been made and one that we should learn from going forward. laura meckler. >> thank you. mr. president, in your opening statement you referred to the fact that the british government has been taking some very tough steps towards -- to get their budget in order, and you said you had committed to cut the deficit in half. could you talk about whether you think that those decisions are going to be -- the decisions that they're making there are going to be needed to be made here on a similar level beyond pledges? and, mr. prime minister,

specifically could you address the matter of what role bp had in lobbying for the release of this man, and whether an inquiry or the review that you're planning is going to look at that specific question? thank you. >> when i came into office in january of 2009, i was very clear at the time, even before we knew the severity of the recession that we would experience, that we have a structural deficit that is unsustainable, and that for our long-term growth and prosperity we are going to have to get a handle on that. i talked about that during my campaign. i talked about it in the days after i was elected. i talked about it after i had been sworn in. we had an emergency situation on our hands, and so the entire

world, working through the g20, coordinated in making sure that we filled this huge drop-off in demand. we got the economy growing again. and we had to take a number of steps, some of which were unpopular and that, yes, added to the short-term deficit. what i also said at the time was we are then going to make sure, number one, that we pay down whatever additional deficit had been added as a consequence of the recovery act and other steps that we had to take last year. but then we're still going to have to go back and deal with these long-term structural deficits. and, in fact, in the first g20 visit that i made, in april to england, i was very clear to the rest of the world that what they cannot rely on is an economic model in which the united states borrows -- consumers in the united states

borrow, we take out home equity loans, we run up credit cards to purchase goods from all around the world. we cannot alone be the economic engine for the rest of the world's growth. so that rebalancing ended up being a central part of our long-term strategy working with the g-20. now, what we've done is we've initiated a freeze on our domestic discretionary budget. we are on the path to cutting our deficits in half. we have put forward a fiscal commission that is then going to examine how do we deal with these broader structural deficits. so this isn't just an empty promise. we've already started taking steps to deal with it, and we're going to be very aggressive in how we deal with it. now, our two countries are in slightly different situations. their financial situation is slightly different, their levels of debt relative to gdp are somewhat higher.

and as david and i discussed when we saw each other in toronto, the goal here is the same, and we're all moving in the same direction. but there's going to be differentiation based on the different circumstances of different countries in terms of how they approach it tactically and at what pace. but i can assure you this, that my administration is squarely committed not just to dealing with the short-term deficit and debt -- which in some ways is the least troubling aspect of this problem -- what we're going to have to tackle are some big structural reforms that are going to be tough. and they're going to be that much tougher because we're coming out of a recession as we do it. but i think that as we continue to see economic growth, as we continue to see the economy heal from last year, that the american people are going to want to approach this problem in a serious, realistic way.

we owe it for the next generation. and my hope is, is that we're going to end up getting a bipartisan solution to this thing that is realistic. and one concern that i have obviously is the politics of deficits and debt. when i announced that i was in favor of this fiscal commission, at the time i had a number of republicans who were cosponsors of the legislation who suddenly reversed themselves because -- i suppose -- i supported it. and, fortunately, what i've seen so far, all the reports from the fiscal commission is that people are serious about this. both republicans and democrats on the commission are taking their task seriously. i think it's going to be a good report, but is still going to require some tough choices, and we're committing to pursuing those tough choices after we get that report. >> thank you. you asked about the role of bp. i mean, the role of bp and