having a second term. not public policy, not jobs for people, not health care for people, but political games. and that's what this is all about. the experts agree, two out of every three people who get unemployment benefits are in the middle class. we are not talking about people who weren't trying or weren't working or doing their part as americans. while the republicans were bankrupting the country to help the rich with one hand, giving tax breaks all over the place, the republicans were using the other hand to push the unemployed middle class of america out of their homes and never dealt with the foreclosure issue to prevent them from having food on the table and keep their children from being properly clothed. . on the campaign trail republicans called the unemployed lazy.

you have never met an unemployed person or you would never say that a second time to them. they say unemployment benefits spoil out of work americans. they get lazy and sit around the house and wait for their unemployment checks. those checks aren't that big in the first place and secondly, people don't like to be unemployed in this country. people look for work and they're looking for work and they're now being told, you've been out of work for two years, we don't want you, we want somebody who already has a job over here. some republicans question the constitutionality of the unemployment insurance program. the health and welfare of the american people is unconstitutional, according to some people. fortunately, the american people don't feel the same way. a recent poll showed that 86% of americans believe the unblowed really want to work. that's what the people think.

that's not the political rhetoric of people running for election. but that's what the people really think. the election is over now and americans are have said, we want both parties to work together to get things done and do it by listening to the american people. americans don't want to push american families whose breadwinners lost their jobs through no fault of their own into poverty during the holidays. i think we should end these debates and extend benefits longer and allow benefits to be scaled back on the economy as the economy improves. the reason we've had all these votes out here is because the senate is unable to do anything. we've tried to extend this for extended periods of time and over in the senate they can think, let's extend it for a month. see if we can starve them for a month. they let this program lapse for three months over there. and you're telling me that we're going to work together.

i think we ought to work together. the short-term extension is an effort to see if our republican colleagues will support any kind of help for the unemployed. i'm told by the other side that there's no plans in the senate to take up this bill. well, they're waiting to see if we can get it out of here. if you don't help, maybe it won't get out of here. but the message to four million americans will be, the republican party doesn't care whether you have a christmas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the first three months of the next year. i hope my republican colleagues will join the american people in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. >> madam speaker, we're hearing oversimplifications from the other side.

mr. boustany: this is not one of those either you pass it or you don't types of issues here. we could pay for this. and the sad thing is, all i'm hearing on the other side is a great deal of cynicism. furthermore, look the american people have spoken about this. they are saying, we've got oget a handle on national debt if we're going to get the economy going again and create jobs because the american people want paychecks. they want good-paying jobs they want an end to this uncertainty. we have information from the mcarthur foundation, a very respected organization, they released a poll showing that 70% of voters in month's leches say it's important to reduce the national debt. overwhelmingly, voters want us to reduce the debt by cutting spending. instead of doing this, fiscally responsible thing and paying for this new spending which we could very easily do, the bill before us today does exactly the opposite.

it adds $12 billion to our nation's debt in a program that's already added $135 billion to the national debt. the sad thing is, madam speaker, we could extend these unemployment benefits and we could pay for them. look, the bill reflects, i think, a very cynical political maneuver by the democratic leadership because they know that the senate has no plans to pass this unpaid for bill. we've been down this path before. in fact, the liberal "huffington post" has broke then code on what's going on here. there was a recent headlines, jobless benefits about to lapse as senate democrats mull strategy. that was the headline on tuesday. and, quote, no plans in senate for a vote on unemployment benefits, read the headline yesterday. the quote senator -- to quote senator reid from rhode island, a democratic leader on the legislation, i quote, at this point it's not been scheduled. i can't point a specific time

it will come up for a vote this week. end quote. the american people are tired of the cynicism and they want answers. the sad thing is, there's a simple answer on this one. unlike many of the other problems our country is facing, which are much more complex. we could extend unemployment benefits and we could pay for it. but our friends on the other side of the aisle currently control the house, control the senate, kohl the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. -- control the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. especially since there are republicans who one willing to do this extension if it were paid for. there is a way to pay for it, yet our friends across the aisle refuse to see this. i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i use 30 additional seconds. my friend on the other side clearly understands, i'm sure,

the legislative process. we put a bill over to the senate, they can make a change. if they want to pay for it, they can pay for it. they are safe. they're comfortable. because they know you're going to stop the bill. or try to stop the bill. they know that the house republicans are determined that they're not going to let this bill through here. so they say, all right, we can say we have -- we won't do anything with it. my opinion is if we put a bill over there, they'll pass a bill. i yield two minutes to mr. davis. mr. davis: spaung, mr. chairman. i believe the american people want to work. those who are unemployed want jobs. those who are out of work want employment benefits. i don't think that there is any excuse that could be given. there's no reason that one can

conjure up. i would say to a person who is unemployed, out of work, have no -- has no food, can't pay their mortgage, can't enjoy the holidays, that there is a reason, especially since they have worked, that they can't have benefits to get them through this season on an emergency basis. i'm amazed. i'm dumbfounded, i can't believe that i'm hearing what i'm hearing. that somehow or another, the democrats, in a technical sense, are keeping individuals from getting unemployment benefits. i would hope that we could change our minds, change our positions, and know that when we do this for the least of these, then we're doing the work that we ought to be doing.

let's pass this measure to provide benefits to the unemployed and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will take this opportunity to remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i want to remind our friends on the other side that in the past when they did bring the bill up on suspension, it failed and yet when you did on one occasn bring it up on regular order, it did pass. we all have to work hard to listen to the will of the american people. yesterday, speaker pelosi herself said, i quote, our consensus is we go out there listening to the american people, it's about jobs -- it's about jobs, it's about reducing the deficits, end quote. yet here we are again today being asked to increase the deficit by another $12 billion, another $160 million in debt

for every family of four in the united states, just for three months of benefits under one program. all of the -- all on top of the $.8 million of debt we wracked up since president obama took office. the question, madam speaker, is , is the speaker really listening to the american people? what we heard earlier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but not add a mountain of debt that we are currently leaving to our children and grandchildren. the sad thing again, i are repeat, the sad thing is, we can achieve both goals today. we could have. the congressional budget office has informed us there's enough unspent stimulus spending that we can cut to cover the additional spending in this bill. it's unconscionable that the other side has not heard the american people about the concerns about unfettered debt

passed on to our children and grandchildren. again, mr. hoyer this past summer suggested we do just that, in june, he said, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, they should be applied to new spending like this. in july, 59 democrats signed a letter saying, and i quote, extending critical economic investments is no more important than paying for them. america is facing a debt crisis that is threatening to undermine our economic and national security. we can no longer afford to exacerbate the problem because the decisions about how to pay for what we spend are getting harder, unquote. this one is so easy, we have a way to pay for it. yet the majority chose to bring this to the floor unpaid for and without an opportunity to even offer an amendment. so i ask our colleagues on the other side are you listening to

the american people? madam speaker, are they even listening to each other? and do they agree with the speaker that it's about debt? all we're hearing are mixed signals. if so, join us in voting down this unpaid for bill and working together on a new bill which we could do very quickly that does right by the unemployed as well as our children andrandchildren. that's what the american people expect of us today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: can you tell us how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has seven minutes remain, the gentleman from louisiana has nine and a half minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the joint economic committee, which i chair, released a

report today that finds that if congress fails to extend the federal unemployment insurance benefits program, the unintended consequences could be extremely serious. serious, not just for the two million americans who would see their benefits expire in december, but extremely serious for the larger economy as well. prematurely ending the program would drain our economy of some $80 billion in purchasing power. just as our fragile economy is beginning to recover. this would result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year. even now, there are five americans looking for work for every job opening in the land. and more than 40% of those unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. including over 159,000 in new

york state with some 95,000 in my home of new york city. choosing to vote against an extension and thus add a million americans to the ranks of the unemployed cannot possibly be considered as a wise economic policy choice. the nonpartisan congressional budget office ranks the stimlative effects of unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies to reduce growth that they have studied. and the president's council soft economic advisors estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60. economists predict that without extended benefits, the economy will suffer, consumer spending will fall by .5%, and economic growth will be reduced by

almost a half of a percent. the facts and the numbers in the -- i request five seconds. mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: the facts and numbers in the new report make it clear that extending this program benefits those who need our help most, benefits the larger economy, and thus benefits us all. so i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i, again, say there was a way to pay for this. we have to be frank with the american people on this. jobless benefits have cost so far $319 billion, and yet unemployment is still at 9.6%

and we've seen really nothing coming from the other side who controlled the majority of the house, controlled the senate, controlled the white house. we've seen nothing to help small businesses get going again. we've seen nothing to promote competitivi -- competitiveness in the economy. it is unpaid for. nothing -- there was an agreement. we're saying let's do it in a responsible way and pay for it. you know, it wasn't always this way. this is the ninth attempt to extend this program, and when democrats passed their only paid for unemployment insurance extender bill in november of 2009, the only one that was paid for, the administration, the obama administration hailed that fiscally -- i quote, fiscally responsible approach to extending unemployment insurance, end quote, add,

again, quote, fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs, end quote. that was from the administration's statement of policy about the democrats' one paid for u.i. extension bill, which was h.r. 3548. 156 republicans supported that november, 2009, bill. but the administration's only logic, democrats had an irresponsible bill which increases the deficit by an estimated $12 billion undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the sad thing, madam speaker, is this -- we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it. this is not a hard one. there are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty. republicans are ready to move forward and get this country going in and to restore american competitiveness, but i

see our friends on the other side of the aisle are up to their old ways. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i have no further speakers, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam speaker, i believe we concluded debate on our side of the aisle, and i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. boustany: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington to close. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i found that the other side is very adroit at finding some reason not to help the middle class. now, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the people in this country are not interested

in cutting off food and housing and medical coverage for people who are unemployed in this country. and do use these arguments, well, we're going to get the money from the stimulus money, i defy anybody on this floor at this moment to stand up and tell me where that stimulus money is and what the impact would be if you cut it. because that money was allocated to various agencies, some to purchase -- pay salaries for school teachers, some to pay salaries for policemen and firemen and local government, some to pay the states for medicaid. all this money is out there. maybe some of it hasn't yet been spent, but it's allocated. some of it is for construction projects. i suppose you, like that governor in new jersey, who really think it's politically

smart to stop a public works project on the hudson river because then he can use that money to pave potholes in new jersey and he puts the construction workers out all over the place, out of work. those infrastructure projects, you can't spend all the money on the first day. it does take a little while to build it and you pay it out as you build it. now, you know that. you're -- republicans aren't -- they're not -- they're just being deceptive. they think because it still is there in the treasury it can be used for something else. it might have been committed for somhing else, but not my republican friends. this emergency that these 4.5 million people have over here who have no benefits coming by the end of march, you folks understand that you shouldn't worry about this. i mean, the speaker -- the speaker will explain it to you that they -- you just have to

wait until we find where that money is in the budget. this is an emergency for people who have no check coming. now, we would all like this thing to be all over. there isn't anybody on this floor, republican or democrat, who wouldn't like the mess that was created by the bush administration to be over with. it isn't. and the problem is a guy in my district is, jim, i can tell you what the problem with america is, and your republican side has a bad dose of this. he says it's the belief in the microwave. if they have a problem they come down to the refrigerator, they open the refrigerator, pull something out, open the microwave, throw it in, push two buttons and then they have lunch. they think everything can be solved like that.

it took eight years for mr. bush to create the mess that we are dealing with, and it's not going to be over in 30 seconds like the microwave dinner is. and the fact is that you got people who contradict you directly, the real budget. no one's ever going to accuse me of being a big budget warrior or deficit warrior. but the president of the concord coalition, the organization dedicated to eliminating federal budget deficits said, and i close, as a deficit hawk, i wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. it's not going to add to the long-term structural debt, deficit and it does address a serious need. i just feel like unemployment benefits wandered into the wrong street corner at the wrong time and now they're getting mugged. and he's absolutely right. for us to pick on the unemployment benefits as the problem for this deficit, wait until we have the debate on

taxes on this floor, and i hear people whining around here about people making more than half a million dollars and we have to give them a tax cut. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 6419. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6419 azzammed. -- as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. boustany: we would like a recorded vote, the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. boustany: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, proceedings will resume on the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1722. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1722, an act to require the head of each executive agency to establish and implement a policy under which employees shall be authorized to telework and for other purposes. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1721, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. boustany: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana objects to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not

present and makes a point of order that a quorum is not present. a quorum is not present. under the rule, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on concurring in the senate amendment to h.r. 1722 will be followed by five-minute votes on suspending the rules with regard to h.r. 6419, s. 3774, h.con.res 329, h.res. 1677. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 254. the nays are 152. without objection, the motion is adopted, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6419 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6419, a bill to amend the supplemental appropriations act of 2008 to provide for the further extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote .

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 258. the nays are 154. 2/3 not being in the affirmative the rules are not suspended and the bill is not passed. the speaker: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the

speaker, houches, madam. i have the honor to transmit herewith a faction simply copy from a letter received from mr. todd valentine and robert breen co-executive directors of the new york state board of elections indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held november 2, 2010, the honorable tom reed was elected representative to congress for the 29th congressional district, state of new york. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. crowley: madam speaker, -- mr. king: madam speaker, it's been a long time since we have done this on this side of the aisle. i ask tom reed be permitted to take the office 6 today. the certificate of election has not arrived and there is no contest and no questions has been raised with regard to his election.

the speaker: without objection. will representative-elect reed and the members of theew york delegation present themselves in the well. members, please rise. will representative-elect reed please raise his right happened. do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you'll take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purposes of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god. mr. reed: i do. the speaker: congratulations,

you are now a member of the 111th congress. without objection, the gentleman from new york, mr. king, is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i can't imagine any more delicate moment to be sworn in to congress when 434 members are looking to leave, but if anyone is prepared for it it's tom reed. tom reed is well prepared to be in the house of representatives. he was raised with 11 other children. he knows what turbulence is all about and he's extremely, treatmently well qualified. he's a businessman, a mayor, and absolutely dedicated man in his community. he's a good friend, friend of all of ours, amo houghton, and his wife, and children, beautiful children and family.

and without any further ado i'm proud and privileged to present to you the newest congressman from the state of new york, mayor tom reed. mr. reed: thank you. thank you. thank you. the speaker: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you. i thank you, madam speaker. for welcoming me to this chamber. and thank you, congressman king, for introducing me to the house. i would like to thank my wife, jean, my children, autumn and will -- thank you.

thank you. and my family and friends. without them i would not be here. i would also like to look to heaven and hope my mother and father are proud and will guide me and us in this new endeavor. as we begin this journey, the time for talk has come and gone. the campaigns are over and the american people have spoken. now is the time for service. and though we may have our differences, let us invoke the spirit of those who stood in this very chamber to solve the perils of our nation's past and through our vigorous debate complete our work so our nation will rise to a greatness not yet seen on the face of the earth. our debate should always be dynamic, and while we may disagree at times we shall at all times conduct ourselves with humility and civility toward all. though we may appear on occasion

to be rivals in this chamber, i pledge to you and let us always remember and pledge to each other that we are forever countrymen who proudly swear allegiance to our flag and will forever stand against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us god. finally, it is with great pride that i join this institution. thanks to the people of the new york 29th congressional district, over the last two years i have heard your concerns and i will represent you with all my heart, all my mind, and all my soul. i promise to serve with dignity and dedication as we restore the opportunity for success that every american deservers. thank you. i am so proud to call each and every one of you friend and colleague.

the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20 the chair announces to the house in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentleman from new york, the whole number of the house is now 435. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, to suspend the rules and pass s. 3774, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3774, an act to extend the deadline for social services block grant expenditures of supplemental funds appropriated following disasters occurring in 2008. the speaker pro tempore: the

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 366, the nays 40. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated with respect to the motion to suspend the rules and adopt house concurrent resolution 329 to the end that the motion be considered as adopted in the form considered by the house on tuesday, november 16, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection from the request -- to the request from the gentleman from florida? without objection, so ordered. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated with respect to the motion to suspend the rules and adopt house resolution 1677 to the end that the motion be considered as adopted in the form considered by the house on wednesday, november 17, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request

of the gentleman from florida? without objection, so ordered. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: members are asked to clear the floor and clear the aisles so that business may proceed. if members would take their conversations from the well so that business may proceed. the chair announces the following appointment.

the clerk: pursuant to section 1238-b-3 of the floyd d. spence national authorization act for fiscal year 2010 as amended and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's reappointment of the following member on the part of the house to the united states china economic and security review commission effective january 1, 2011 -- mr. michael wessel of falls church, virginia. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the house will be in order. members are requested to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from pennsylvania

may proceed. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the small business administration's chief counsel for advocacy testified today in the senate that form 10999 requirement of the health care bill should be repealed. as co-sponsor of a bill by congressman dan lungren to repeal that section this was music to my ears. in his testimony before the senate small business and entrepreneurship committee, sergeant said, quote, the form 1099 requirement will greatly increase the reporting and record keepings on small businesses, end quote. as part of the health care bill, this section requires small businesses to issue an internal revenue service form 109 the 9 to any individual -- 1099 to any individual or corporation in which a purchase is made beyond $600 in goods of services. he indicated a firm with fewer employees pay $10,500 per employee on average to comply with federal regulations.

and we wonder why small businesses aren't hiring. it's time to repeal this additional burden and to work to get government regulations off the backs of our job creators. the true economic stimulus is the small businesses of this nation and they need our help and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the speaker pro tempore: for what puose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their

remarks, include therein extraneous material, mr. mccotter today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. hoyer, maryland. mr. frank, massachusetts. mr. schiff, california. mr. sherman, california. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. defazio, oregon. ms. woolsey, california. mr. grayson, florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. burton of indiana.

hoyer of maryland. the house will be in order. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank you for recognizing me, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise for a sad occasion but appropriate occasion. i rise to pay tribute to two proud natives of maryland who lost their lives in afghanistan this fall. navy lieutenant brendan looney of owens and terry hunica. i attended both of their burr yals at arlington -- burials at arlington cemetery.

it was sad to lose these two patriotic americans. to be with their families. to learn what committed young men they were. at the same time, to be filled with pride that america has people like these two brave souls willing to give their lives in the defense of freedom and justice and democracy and the safety and security of our people. i know that the grief their family feels is still fresh and that nothing can replace the loss they have suffered. but i want them to know the honor and awe in which we hold their son's sacrifices. now, it is our responsibility to keep their names, their families and their examples alive. lieutenant looney, a 29-year-old navy seal, died

with nine other service members in a helicopter crash in southern afghanistan. most of you read about that incident. he was a star lacrosse player at the naval academy and chose to complete the grueling training to complete the navy seal. lieutenant looney was recognizeds the honorman or top member of a seal class. just 48 hours after marryg his wife, amy, he deployed to iraq. he served four deployments, four deployments in iraq and afghanistan and tragically died just two weeks before he was to return home from that fourth deployment. he is buried next to his naval academy roommate and best friend, first lieutenant travis manual who died in iraq in 2007.

mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will please come to order. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. lance corporal huneycutt, the other young man to whom i referred, died at the age of 19 in the blast of an improvised explosive device in afghanistan. as long as his parents could remember, their son wanted to be a marine. he stood out for his commitment in his high school junior rotc program and on graduating he met his goal. sadly his life was cut far too short. but all those who remember lance corporal honeycutt ske of a man who lived to serve his country and who embodied the

marines' deepest ideals of honor, sacrifice. in the words of his mother, who i talked to this week, we have so much honor and pride and joy knowing that he was the person that he was, and i can't describe, she went on, how proud we are of him. we knew him as the type of person that was ready, willing and waiting to do ything for anybody. he did that for his country. . for all of us who serve in this chamber. for every one of our fellow citizens. these two irreplaceable lives are among the latest cost of a war that has lasted more than nine years. this is not the time or place to speak about what wars future or its end. but i ask my colleagues only this, we must remember that its

cost are measured in lives like brendan's and terry's and treat every debate and every decision about this war with a graphity that honors -- gravity that honors those two souls and the souls who have also been lost and currently serve. in closing, mr. speaker,i want to offer my deep sympathy to the families who have lost so much. to lieutenant loony's wife, amy. to his parents, kevin and maureen, to his brothers, bill and steve, and to his sisters, erin, kelly, and bridget. and to lance corporate huneycutt's parents, his sister, dawn, and to hiscies -- sister's husband who currently serves as a member of the united states marine. and to all the grandparents,

great grandparents, aunts, and uncles whom we join in mourning the loss of these two brave patriotic extraordinary americans. may god rest their soul and give strength and peace to their families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. poe of texas. mr. frank of massachusetts. mr. garrett of new jersey. mr. schiff of california. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, the 111th congress has been an astounding success, but throughout the last two years when we have failed to pass good

laws it's usually because our colleagues on the oher side of the capitol have stood in the way of our progress. proudly engaging in stubborn obstructionism. the senate is where good legislation goes to die. i guess it shouldn't b surprised it remains so right down to the finalays of our session. it appears now there may not be enough republican votes to ratify the new start treaty which would make huge strides towards reducing the threat of nuclear destruction. this is distressing news, mr. speaker. after years of negligence on nuclear issues, the new start could finally put us on a course toward the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. it would drastically reduce the size of nuclear arsenals here in the united states and in russia. it would improve our access to russian nuclear facilities which we have been unable to inspect since the expiration of the

original start treaty nearly a year ago. and would put our relationship wi russia on more solid footing, enhancing bilateral cooperation on a host of issues. in the words of the chair of the senate foreign relations committeemr. kerry, he said, and i quote him, ratiing new start is not a political choice. it's a national security imperative, unquote. but apparently, mr. speaker, some over in the other chamber aren't moved by national security imperative. for them 1,550 strategic warheads, the level mandated by new start, isn't a sufficient arsenal. even though 1,550 strategic warheads is enough to blow up the world several times over. the only way they know to deal with national security it appes is to send thousands of american troops to die in failed

wars that carry a combined price tag of over $1 trillion. new start isn't perfect. i wish it were less incremental and more ambitious. i wish it embraced more of the principles contained in my resolution which is called nonproliferation options for nuclear understanding to keep everyone safe, or no nukes for short. no nukes would move more aggressively toward complete nuclear global disarmament which is exactly the long-term goal we committed to as a nation when we signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty 40 years ago. but new start is most definitely contiss -- consistent with the smart security i laid out from this podium so many times, mr. speaker. specifilly it advances the idea make the world safer not through violence, acts of war, but through diplomacy,

cooperation, and conflict resolution. new start is good enough as a first step. it's good enough for the top military brass, past and present, who have endorsed it. it's good enough for leading foreign policy dignitaries from across the political spectrum. the only holuts are a minority of senators who seem more interested in embarrassing the president on the international stage than they are in a major international security break through. cocessions have been made to these lawmakers. their opinis have been heard, their concerns addressed. now it's time for action for the safety of the american people and possibly for the futur of human civilization, it is time to pass new start. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. paul of texas. mr. sherman of california.

mr. moran of kansas. ms. kaptur of ohio. m jones of north carolina. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. thompson of pennsylvania. mr. mccotter of michigan. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor the extraordinary life of consequence contin tino delsinore and more on his sudden passing at the age of 47. born on december 2, 196 , he graduated from detroit catholic central high school in 1980. he immersed himself in the family's businesses, a restaurant and the manor. tino dedicated his life to

serving our community through many philanthropic efforts. he was founder of c.d.s. foundation, co-founder of the fallen wounded soldiers foundation, as well as being an advocate for many other local, national, and international humanitarian causes. tino committed its considerable efforts to hospice, the barbara ann cancer st. mary mercy hospital, our lady of hope cancer center, the mccarty foundation, hunters feeding the homeless, la vonea italian american club, hockey has heart, and numerous veterans organizations and rotarian organizations. tino gave with an open heart and like the entire family was always willing to help. regrettably on october 26, 2010, tebow passed from this earthly

world to his eternal reward. his survived by his son and parent. a devoted brother, he leaves a legacy and his nieces and nephews, if in the end a person's wealth can be measured by the lives he's touched, tino went home to god a wealthy man. courageous and honoble tino will be sorely missed. . speaker, he is remembered as a compassionate father, a dedicated son, a trshshured brother, a caring leader, and a true friend. tino was a man who deeply treasured his family, freppeds, community, and country. -- friends, community, and country. today as we bid him farewell, i ask my colleagues to join me in mourningis passing and honoring his unwavering patriotism and legislative endary -- legendary service to our country and community.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. grayson of florida. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. grayson: i ask to address the chamber for five minutes out of order in lieu of whoever is next. the speaker pro tempore: it's your turn, mr. grayson. the chair recognizes mr. grayson for five minutes.

mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chairman. i' running to a subject-i'm returning to a subject that i began yesterday. what the rich are going to do with the tax cuts the republicans want to give to them through extending the bush tax cuts for the rich in lieu of the obama tax cuts for the middle class. as i said yesterday with regard to the 1% top income group in this country, the high and mighty who earn more than $1.3 million a year in taxable income, according to the republican plan, each one of them will receive a tax cut every single year of $83,347 each year. now, i have given a lot of thought to what they are going to do with that money. i made some suggestions yesterday. and here are some more suggestions about what they could possibly do with this windfall that the republicans want to hand to them at a me when this country has 9.5% unemployment, 40 million people

who cannot see a doctor when they are sick, and so many people who are in danger of losing their homes. for instance, the rich, the idle rich, the high and mighty, the ruling class they can buy three tickets to the most expensive suite at the super bowl. that costs only $75,000. they'll have $12,000 leftover in pocket change. here's something else that they might do with the windfall that the republicans want to give them. they can go to the top of mount everest. that costs only $65,000. a luxury climb to top everest with somebody holding your bag for you the whole way up. just one thing, make sure you don't fall down. here's something else that they can do with the republican tax plan to give $87,000 a year to the rich. they can take a beautiful 110

day cruise around the world. that costs only $80,000. and it's up to them what they do with the other 250 days a year. think about that. think about people in the middle class who struggle, save for a vacation here after year and sometimes occasionally get to go on a three, four, or five day cruise. with the republican tax cut for the rich, the millionaires can go on a 110-day luxury cruise not just one year but every single year. here's something else that they can do. they can enjoy two nights at the hugh hefner sky villa at the palms casino resort in las vegas. that costs only $80,000. they'll have $7,000 left over for tipping the bell man. remember, what happens in vegas

stays in vegas. as i pointed out yesterday, the republicans want to stuff so much money into the pockets of rich people in this country, the millionaires, the people who make an average of $1.3 million a year, that every single one of them, every single one of them, every year for the next 10 years will be able to enjoy a luxury cigar in the morning and a luxury cigar in the evening as well and they can light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. now, i don't know about you, but i'm not sure that's the best use of $100 billion a year of tax money. i have some other ideas what i would like t see happen. i would like to see jobs, jobs, and more jobs. you'll find the $100 billion a

ar that the republicans want to hand over to the rich o so that they can further comfort the comfortable, that could be used instead to provide a decent job, a job with a living wage, a decent day's pay for a decent day's work to three million americans. . and in a single stroke reduce unemployment frf 9% to 7%. take that $100 billion to make sure it circulates in the economy. the rich will send it abroad buying luxury goods like we discussed yesterday or they'll take a cruise around the world that adds nothing to the american economy. but if you actually did take that money and you created three milln jobs at $30,000 a year for the american people, then you would see our economy revive overnight.

now, when it comes down to my vote tax cuts for the rich or jobs, i am going to vote for jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, roger ales, the president of fox news, decided there was nazis running around a competitive organization. mr. engel: he called the people at national public radio nazis. he said, quote, of course they are nazis, they have a left wing of nazism. these guys don't want any other point of view. he also said after a talk against of president obama and jon stewart of comedy central, he said, there are left-wing

rabbis who don't think that anybody can use the word holocaust on the air. mr. speaker, i find those words to be very offensive. and inappropriate. relatives of mine were among the jews who died at the holocaust. at the hands of the nazis, mass murder were carried out, the likes of which the world has never seen. if he's the -- if mr. ailes is the president of fox news and appears to be fair and balanced, he should keep his comments to himself. if he wants to be a commentator then he should do so, but if he wants to be a so-called fair and balanced president of a major news organization, he ought to know better than to utter such hateful words. you know, to use the word holocaust in the same sentence

that he uses the word rabbi, although he clearly meant rabbi with another conowe take is doubly -- connotation is doubly offensive and to use the word holocaust in which somebody or some group feels agrieved is offensive again. mr. ailes should apologize for these depictable statements of total insensitivity and should not be connected to a president of a major news organization. later today i will send him a letter demanding that he retract and apologize for these despicable statements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana -- without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes.

mr. burton: mr. speaker, there was an article -- i guess it's on foxnews.com today, and it's called america's third word, texas strikes back. and the head of the texas department of captain stacy holland with the texas department of public safety said, quote, i never thought that we'd be in this paramilitary type of engagement. it's a war on the border. it's a war on the border. that border's 1,980 miles long and the president sent 1,200 national guard people down there. now, i don't know how many that is per mile but it ain't much. and now i understand from inrmation i got today that they're going to withdraw some of those because of the costs. now, they sent 17,000 national guard troops down when they had the oil spill in the gulf. grant it, that was a real problem. but the border between us and

mexico is a war zone, a war zone according to the department of -- texas department of public safety. i want to read to you, mr. speaker, some of the things he said. he said they, the terrorists, drug dealers, people who are kidnapping people, he said, they cross the border with ak-47's on their backs wearing military camouflage. they recruit in prisons and schools on the american side. spotters, people from mexico, spotters sit in duck blinds along the rio grande and call out the positions of the u.s. border patrol and they do that on the american side to combat the cartels, the texas department of public safety is launching a counterinsurgency. tactical strike team sent field intelligence. they gathered in austin to a joint operations center or

joic, in military terminology. it's certainly is war in doing what we can to protect texans and threst of the nation from a threat that's emerged over the last several years, said former f.b.i. prosecutor, steve mcgall, who runs the undeclared war. and now that there's added pressure on the cartels, they're using splash down. when the heat's down they attempt to return to mexico with the drugs. oftentimes in broad daylht. because the texas law enforcement authority ends at the border, in this case the river, they even have time to put on their life jackets. i mean, i don't understand why this white house doesn't understand that this is a war on our border, our front yard. and in arizona th have signs that says, 80 miles into the united states in arizona, they say, don't go south of here because it's not safe, in the united states. and the president sent 1,200 national guard troops down

there and they're withdrawing some of them. i understand we have to deal with afghanistan and iraq and other places around the world but this is our front yard and they're withdrawing, they sent 17,000 down to the gulf oil spill and they sent 1,200 down here to the border which is nothing. and now they're withdrawing some of them. the f.b. ant -- former f.b.i. agent goes on to say the cartels may be ruthless, they may be vicious, they may be cowardly but they're not stupid. they'll adapt their tactics and recently they have aadopted their tactics to have smallen roads. president barack obama and homeland securitsecretary janet napolitano said the mexico border is more secure now than in 20 years. that is bull. that is just bull. i can't say that the president of the united states is misleading the people, but,

boy, that sure ain't the truth. and if you don't believe that talk to congressman poe from texas and some of the others from arizona. instead of doing what they can to protect american citizens and stop this flood of drugs coming in as well as illegal aliens and others, they're -- they're suing thetate of -- what is the state down there? arizona. excuse me. they're suing arizona because they say they're trampling on federal statutes. i tell you, i just can't understand this administration. wre talking about the safety of the united states and in particular all the people who live on the texas border, the arizona border, the new mexico border. this is something that's unforgiveable. and if i were talking to the president i'd say, mr. president, wake up. this is the american citizens you're supposed to protect. let's get on with the job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: i ask unanimous consent when thehouse adjourns today on a motion pursuant to this order it adjourn to meet on noon, november 22, 2010, unless it has sooner -- in house concurrent resolution 332 in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. it is so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i just want to note -- we just caught that on our side of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve the right to object? mr. burton: i do object. if the gentleman will yield. now, i understood you said we're coming back noon on monday, a week from monday? >> --

mr. engel: yes. mr. burton: and votes will be held until 6:00? mr. engel: i believe. mr. burton: if is going to be a pro forma session on monday. i thank -- i have the answer to the question. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman withdraw his objection to the unanimous consent? without objection, it is so ordered. pursuant to 10 u.s.c., the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces to the speaker's appointment of the following member to the board of visitors to the united states air force academy. the clerk: mr. alfredo sandoval of indian wells, california. the speaker pro tempore: and announces to the house her approval thereof.

-- under the speaker's announced policy of january 9, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the minity leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am honored to be recognized here on the floor of the house of representatives. i have long appreciated the honor to serve the people of western iowa here in the united states congress. and each one of us carries this duty with us in a heavy way and also sometimes in a juvenile

way depending on the cycles of the day and cycles of the election. as i sit here on the floor tonight and i listened to the presentation of the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, and he talks about the situation on the border between texas and mexico, arizona and mexico and perhaps new mexico and mexico and california and mexico, there are a whole lot of data points he rolled out here. and i believe that there's a misunderstanding on the part of the american people on the magnitude of the border problem that we have. i make a number of trips down to that border. i think it's my obligation to do that. i served on the immigration subcommittee of the house judiciary committee now for eight years, and if all goes well i will be able to serve on that committee for another cycle. in that period of time you pick up a significant amount of knowledge about the circumstances that have to do with immigration. as the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, talks about how,

you know, illegal mexican drug smuggler gang controlling vast areas of the border, some might argue the majority of the border or perhaps all of the border except some ports of entry and controlling the vast parts of the united states itself. i have been down to visit oregon five cactus national monument. it's a national monument along the border and a large percentage has been set aside and americans have been locked out and kept out because the illegal border crossers and the drug smugglers command some of that park. a large share of it, mile after mile of it that's under the control of mexic drug smugglers and people smugglers. and we that i that a sovereign nation should have no border incursions. if we have a border incursion and if it's someone who is lined up next to someone else, lined up to someone else that's

called an invasion. whether they're wearing uniforms or carrying weapons or coming across in orderly ranks or coming across as many as 11,000 a night -- and that's some data that came before the house immigration committee under sworn testimony, you take the annual illegal border crossings and divide it by 365 and some of that data under oath calculates out to be 11,000 illegal border crossings in a 24-hour period. a lot of that taking place at night. when you think of 11,000 a night -- so i ask the question, what was the size of santa anna's army? it was half of that. and the price that we have to pay in the form of social services, law enforcement, education, health services is in the billions of dollars in costs to the american taayer

and the price and loss because of the result of crimes that could otherwise be prevented is awesome behind our comprehension. i do have some numbers on that. i'm hopeful that i'll be able to produce some fresh report very soon that would better illustrate the numbers of americans who have lost their lives at the hands of those who came into the united states illegally. that is the real measure to american society. every life is precious, every life is sacred and everyone that we can save should be saved, and you do so with an orderly society and the rule of law. you don't do so by allowing for vast areas of the 2,000 mile border to become lawless. i are recall approaching a port of entry in arizona, as i approached the port of entry and introduced myself to the

agents that were there and leaving aside much of that narrative, i was informed that yes, there's illegal crossing at that point of entry, a fairly remote location in arizona but on orte side of that, are are the -- there's a legal crossing at that point of entry a fairly roe re-mote location in arizona, but on the other side of that, there's illegal crossing. if there's an entity that controls an illegal bord crossing, that means our side of that borders not under control. immediately if they dede who crosses and who doesn't, they're also deciding not to allow illegals into the united states and illegal contraband to come into the united states. i was in fact there on location when there was an illegal drug smuggler that was picked up, he had a white pick-up with a false bed in the box, a nice piece of body work, had to have a practiced eye to see it, but

a false floor underneath that, perhaps seven or eight inches and underneath that false floor was packed full of marijuana. some would call it bails. they were wrapped up in packages about the size of a cement package, though not as heavy. some place over 200 pounds, some place under 250 pounds of marijuana underneath the false bed of the pickup. we took the vaw jaws of life and cut it open and i personally unloaded over 200 pounds of marijuana out from under the false bed in that pickup. the circumstances at that time and i suspect this individual was prosecuted, partly because i was there, but he aspeared to be an ms-13 gang member, he had a 13 tattooeds on his arm right here, tattoos, all the look of the ms-13 fwang members the

practice down there has been that if someone is caught withless than 250 pounds of marijuana their not prosecuted by the federal government. when the loads got higher and more frequent, then the number went up to 500 pounds as the threshold for prosecution. and where i come from, if you have any illegal drugs in your possession, generally you'll be prosecuted. there are law enforcement officers who may not but it's not a practice. we think the law is the law. if the law is not enforced on the southern border for those who come across the border illegally with illegal drugs in their possession to the tune of hundreds of pounds, and in fact thousands of pounds, what do we have left of the law enforcement fabricn our southern border whatsoever. how can this be a practice, let alone a policy, i saw with my own eyes on that day and handled with my own hands and as i talked to the border

patrol officers and the other law enforcement officers along the border they confirmed that in some sectors, that's the practice. they set the threshold, because they didn't have enough prosecutors, didn't have enough judges and didn't have enough prison beds to prosecute all the drug smugglers they're picking up across the border, let alone 11,000 a night on average, a lot of them, some miggete say, just illegal ail generals, committing the crime of unlawful entry into the united states but among them are drug smugglers and among the drug smugglers of course are violent criminals of other stripes. part of that gos with the package. but to think that they could come into the unitestates illegally with a load of 235 pounds of marijuana and weigh it up and put it underneath the bed of the picup and think, i'm not going to prison for this if they catch me, they'llust impound the pickup, which kely is stolen anyy, and impound the marijuana which i

saw warehouses full, and i say warehouses, more the size of garages, not the size of something you'd see down at boeing, to put it correct system of vast amounts, more than a semioad of marijuana confiscated all together in one area. but to think we're not prsecuting at with the full vig of the law with the load of marijuana that's 200, 300, 400 pounds of marijuana. that's the america we have on our southern border and the people who don't live thered on go, like i do, down to visit and get informed, just accept the idea that their america is the same america in, let's say, south dakota, or northern iowa that happens to be on the southern border. and it's not true. we have seen the numbers of casualties and drug wars in mexico mount. i remember sitting in mexico

city with some of the members of the cabinet and some of the membs of the mexican congress who would tell me, kind of off on the side, that they had had 2,000 federal officers, agents, troops that were killed in the drug wars trying to bring order and trying to bring the drug cartels underneath the enforcement of law to break them up. this would be three to four years ago, they would say, we've had -- we've lost ,000 federal officers. now what numbers do we hear? 28,000. 28,000 mtly civilian, but not all civilian casualties in the drug wars in mexico. 28,000. can you imagine the carnage? that's the size of one of the larger cities in my state. the number like 28,000 system of here we are, what border patr officers sending the national ard down there, thankfully, there are some

guard troops showing up, it does help, every pair of boots on the ground helps and every bit of equipment we can put down there helps and every bit of barrier pe we build on the border helps. i do want to build a wall, i don't suggest we build 2,000 miles next week, finish it by the end of next year. we could do that. we're a great nation, we can do that without breaking a sweat, if we had the will. but i do suggest we build a fence or wall where they are cross, and just keep extending the fence, the wall and the fence until they stop going around the ends. if it take 2s,000 miles of fence, wall, and fence, then so be it. if we can do it with 100 miles or 200 miles, also so be that. but let's have enforcement at our border. let's take our nation back. let's take our national parks and our nional monuments back, like oregon pike cactus national monument, put that

back in the hands ofhe american people. the america i envision is the america i grew up in that said you can walk anywhere in america, pick up newspaper and read it in english and you don't have to carry a gun you don't that everywhere in america today. the law enforcement, the rule of law is not so establishes that -- established that you can go anywhere in america and travel, you can't go down to oregon pike cackties, c't take the jet ski on the lake in texas, mexicans are controlling too much of that and the rhett arery bution/restitution is almost nonexistent. so i would add also, there's another factor that i didn't hear the gentleman from indiana mention, a that's the factor called the spotters locations on top of the mountains, primarily in arizona. as i travel down there, i began to learn about the spotters' locations from some of our law enforcement officers and that would include the shadow wolves

on the reservation. shadow wolves are are one of the unique aspects of our border enforcement, the native americans who serb together and train down there and enforce the law on the reservation and that area that expands to the border. actually tahona odom is on both sides, to mention -- in mexico to some degree. they said there's a spotter on that mountain watching us now. i would look up there, i didn't see him. he was too far ay, i didn't know where to look. i didn't have the glasses. then we'd travel a little further down, they said, there's a spotter on that mountain top watching us. when we put this together and went to other locations along the border and talked to officer they began to tell you, yes, we know where a lot of

these locations are. i had -- they -- i had a map and said, put an x where you knowhere they are. along the way, we came up with a map that showed the location of at least 100 mountatops that are controlled by mexican drug smugglers that are -- that sit up on top of the mountain andtail -- they'll take the stones up there and stack them up like sandbags around a gun emplacement and it is that, it's a spot where they spot the travel of our law enforcement officers, primarily ho border patrol, along the highways. if you go anywhere om phoenix south to the mexican border, especially where you see an intersection with a highway going north and south and another one east and west, look up on one of those corners and you'll see a small mountain there in a perfect location to be able to watch the traffic

coming from all four directions and you can presume that that mountaintop is manned, it's a lookout mountaintop, it's a spotter mountaintop and they're using that so that they can tell their people that are moving their illegal loads across from mexico into the united states when our law enforcement is coming up, when they're approaching, it'll cause them to divert, go the other way, perhaps take a side road, and there aren't many, but give them that sense of warning. now those that might think that i'm catching this second hand, mr. speaker, those that might think that this is anecdotal, i can tell you it's not anecdotal, it's real. i went down and climbed to the top of a number of mouains and i sad sat in those locations and observed the traffic. in those locations with the stones stacked like sandbags on top of one of the smaller mountains, found a broken piece of some fairly high quality

binoculars, excuse me. and you can see clothes that have been left there. and so you can see from those locations that they have been spotting and tipping off for the law enforcement is moving along. its an essential component for them. if they're going to smuggle drugs and they don't know where law enforcement is, they c't drive blind with a truckload of marijuana up into arizona. they have to know when the coast is clear. these are the coast is clear spotter locations in arizona. i climbed to the top, observed, saw -- took pictures from there, you can see the pattern and get a pretty ty good idea of what their diet is and what they're doing up there. then we got in a blackhawk and flew to the top of other locations, spotter lookout mountains and we settled down close to that, we brought in law enforcement officers from

the ground with the headphones on and listening to the scanner, you could hear the scrambler of the frequency that they are using when they communicate each other. high quality optics, high quality communications equipment with scramblers and descramblers. you could hear flying from mountaintop to mountaintop you could hear the intensity of the chatter go up and up and up when we're tuned on the frequency they were using and it's that chipmunk language that has been scrambled into something that's completely unintelligible even though it was coming in, it was spanish that was scrambled and it gets descrambled on the other end. what i could hear was the intensity going up and up and up d about a minute from the time we arrived at think next lookout mountain top, that frequency and that transmission would immediately stop and be hushed. we would get to the mountaintop in about a minute and the location that had been manned

moments before, minutes before, was empty. it was empty every time because they came down off the mountain and got out into the desert and hid, when they get out into the desert and get aaand hide they don't have to get very far away, half a mile or so, you can't identify them as being the person sitting on top of the mauntain plus we don't have a law against sitting on top of a mountain in arizona. it's hard to prosecute, hard to bring them to justice but they exist -- but they exist. these are strategic locations, these are people armed with high quality optics and high quality communications devices, set up to smuggle drug into the united states and we so far have not been very successful in snapping those spotters off those mountain tops and taking that tool away from the drug smugglers. that's another piece that i think mr. burton is well aware of that i add to the dialogue that he delivered here.

what do we see instead? instead of the administration using the resources that are at their disposal to go down and enrce the law in a place like arizona, texas, new mexico, and california, instead they're use regular sources to sue the state of arizona. i've read through that complaint. it's a bit astonishing to me that to the think that the department of justice could contri such an argument. an argument that even though it didn't mirror the aclu's lawsuit and other lawsuits, the american muslim society's lawsuit, i thought it would. but instead, they wrote up a whole new lal theory. this is the justice department whom eric holder essentially admitted that the president had ordered him to sue arizona or their immigration law. and five minutes later under oath he admitted that he had not read the bill.

and so here we have the attorney general bringing a law enforcement against the state of arizona determined to give the lawsuit, came before the judiciary committee and under oath testified that he hadn't read the bill, conceded under oath that the president had ordered him to sue arizona. it was clear from listening to the presidt that the president hadn't read arizona's law, s.b. 1070, so it's clear that if the president, and is concluded under oath, the president ordered eric holder to sue arizona. the president hadn't read the bill. eric holder hadn't read the bill and therm determined to go forward anyway. so they made the commitment, and it was announced by the secrery of state when she was in ecuador, perhaps colombia, so it's interesting to read the complaint and say, what did they have to sue about? you know, it's like throwing a

tantrum and people say, what are you mad about? oh, let me see. i have to come up with something. i'm sure i have to come up with something. i guess i can't be mad about this whole list that's obvious but i'll make up a new reason to be mad. this is a new reason to sue. and here's what it is. they argued in their complaint -- the department of justice's complaint against arizona that congress has entrusted the various branches -- excuse me -- the various agencies in the executive branch of government with establishing and maintaining a, quote, careful balance, a careful balance between the various immigration laws that this country has. careful balance. huh. well, congress did no such thing. there is no record of congress passing legislation and saying, keep a careful balance, mr. president, between the various immigration laws so that the department of justice thinks this is all right and the department of homeland security does and the state department.

surely don't enforce an immigration law that might cause a diplomatic arm of the state department any heartburn with president calderon. that's their argument. they may not enforce immigration laws because it might upset our neighbors in one direction or another. this is an astonishing legal position to think that -- to argue that they have been entrusted with establishing a, quote, careful balance, and then maintaining that careful balance and, therefore, because arizona is compelled to defend themselves that somehow that careful balance has been upset by arizona helping to enforce the laws that has been passed here on this floor where we gave no direction, no direction to the executive branch to have the discretion to enforce some laws and not others and there is no discussion, there is no history, there's no congressional record in here, lit' lone in the statutes

themselves -- let alone in the statutes themselves that declares a careful balance of standard. it was created by the imagination of the lawyers in the department of justice and now we've got to go all the way to the supreme court to fix a problem created that was motivated by a political decision to sue arizona that came directly out of the white house and ordered eric holder to file that lawsuit. that, mr. speaker, is what i think of what's going on here in the immigration situation. a bit of a sequel to the gentleman from indiana's statements on immigration, mr. burton. i want to make sure i support that initiative that he talked about here tonight. we have to stop the bleeding at the border. we have to re-establish the rule of law. we have to raise the expectation that the law will be enforced in all of its aspects and we need to do a careful inventory of all the resources that were deploying

on -- especially the southern border -- and make sure when a border patrol officer puts his life on the line and pulls over a straight truck that's got more than a ton of marijuana in it that border patrol officer should never have to get on the phone and plead with a county prosecutor to pick up the open and shut case and prosecute him because if not we don't have the federal prosecutors enough to prosecute and incarcerate someone who is smuggling a ton or so of marijuana into the united states of america. we must take a look at the deployment of our resources. if our border patrol officers are in adequate number, that means we needs to have an adequate number of prosecutors, judges and prison beds so we can enforce the law so that there's an expectation that this nation -- one of the essential pillars of american

exceptionalism is the rule of law and we must stand for it. we cannot and i will not stand for its erosion any longer, mr. speaker. but i came here -- i came here tonight to talk about a number of other things as well aside from the immigration issue and it was mr. burton that got me wound up when i listened to him talk. without a very smooth segue, i want to take us back to the election results a couple of weeks ago and the message that was sent by the american people and reflect a little bit about my experience here and what i've seen happen politically. that works out this way. as i came here, i came here in the majority and we had the votes to pass legislation that was reasonable, that the american people could accept and we did so. and as i engaged in the debate here and i watched as the level of intensity of that debate diminished from our side and

the level of rebuttal increased from over on this side of the aisle, on the democrats' side of the aisle, i don't know that i realized i could feel it here internally but i don't know that i realized it clearly enough at the time but there was a shift going on in the minds of the american people. i thought we were doing the right thing for the most part in he two, 2004, 2005 and 2006. but we weren't articulating this to the american people in a way that was useful or as accurate as it should have been. and i say this example because my great respect for the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states and put their lives on the line on a regular basis, in a selfless and noble commitment, but what i saw happened in the state of iowa in 2003 when we had democratic presidential candidates coming into iowa on a regular basis moving through the states, stopping over and over again and as i listened to

this dialogue and i remember the day. it was october 5, 2003, i'm watching the news and listening to the debate of the presidential candidate and i opened up "the des moines register," newspaper, inside, page 3, headline at the top of the page, "candidate howard dean repeatedly calls president bush a liar." and i was appalled. i thought, how can anyone call the president of the united states a liar? how can this be in this article? what must have the president have said? and so i read that article october 5, 2003, and looking for the statement that would be identified that would make our commander in chief a liar. and i read the article and i missed it apparently and i went back and read it a second time for the language that would be in this article that would confirm the truth of the headline that our president, our commander in chief, was a liar. it it wasn't there, mr.

speaker. there wasn't an allegation in the article about what the president had said. it was just a story about howard dean calling george bush a liar repeatedly calling george bush a liar. well, it turns out it was 16 words in the state of the union address that had taken place just a few months, six months or so before that when the president of the united states said we recently learned from the british that the iraqis were seeking uranium in the continent of africa. that's the 16 words, roughly speaking, that was delivered by howard dean. well, it turns out the statement was unequivocally true, and i actually have the evidence of that in the briefcase i carry with me wherever i go. but it wasn't so much the point of that because i remember when charlton heston ran commercials during the presidential elections of 1996 when he looked into the camera and he

said, mr. president -- he was speaking of president clinton -- mr. president, when what you say is wrong and you don't know that it's wrong, that's called a mistake. but what you say is wrong and you know it's wrong, that's a lie. well, i think that's an accurate definition of the difference between a lie and a mistake. i don't think that president bush made a mistake. what he said in that state of the union address was spot on accurate, absolutely profble. they disagreed with it -- proveable. they disagreed with it because of one ambassador wilson. i'll give him a pass tonight, mr. speaker, because the clock is ticking. however, i turned to my wife appalled that a presidential candidate could declare our commander in chief to be a liar, and i said, marilyn, i am going to iraq. and so a few days later by the 17th of october, 5th to the 17th, i was in iraq.

i traveled through there. made a lot of stops. met with a lot of our officers that were there and enlisted men and women and came back with a different story of what was going on in that country. but the assault on president bush and the undermining of his position and our men and women under arms when i heard people on this side of the aisle say, well, i support the troops but not their mission. mr. speaker, that cannot be allowed to stand to concede a point such as that. my point is if you support the troops you support their mission. you cannot ask them to put their lives on the line for americans if you don't believe in their mission too. can't ask them to go on that kind of a mission. and so what we saw happen was the assault -- the verbal assault on the operations in a time of war in iraq being constantly pounded by the presidential candidates and by

many of the people over on this side of the aisle in an effort to erode public opinion for the war in iraq because doing so, in my estimation, and i understand their motives may well have been pure in my estimation their desire to win the presidency and win back the majority, to characterize the war in iraq undermined public support for a mission that's turned out to be on the balance of it a pretty good ending considering what we were in the middle of during that period of time. my point is, the president of the united states and the executive branch of government did not bring out a full throat of defense nor did they articulate their reason of being in iraq in a good way. that left the door open so the criticism that came against the war in iraq nearly cost what's

now considered to be by many a victory in iraq. public opinion should hold together on facts. and republicans need to stand together and stand up for truth and principle when we're right. we cannot allow -- we cannot allow a debate to go the other way just because we think we have the votes. we must stand and win the debate and hold the votes together. that, mr. speaker, is an essential principle, and as we go forward and we see these election results, we also need to understand that there will be a time coming into the 112th congress, gaveled in, sworn in january 4 of 2011 that we'll sit here and think we'll have the votes so we have to wait democrats out until they have their say. i agree with the incoming speaker of the house, mr. boehner, that we need to have sunlight on this place and need to run the place with the kind of function that allows for --

he says open rules -- i'll shorten it up saying all open rules, but more open rules so there's legit mate debate here and if democrats have an idea, bring your amendment. we'll vote them up or down. if the republicans have an idea, bring your amendments and we'll vote them up or down. you get busy and you go to work in the subcommittee and you hold hearings and you gather facts and the staff does the research work, crunches it in a way that the under oath testimony and the information submitted is meaningful and that it can be catalogged and rationalized in a way we can move forward is a good piece of policy. once that meeting is satisfied, then you can go to a subcommittee and mark the bill up. and you have to accept amendments from each side. and whatever the product is of the subcommittee needs to go to the full committee. and when it goes to the full committee there needs to be a full committee markup. and there we need -- we need to allow for an open and

legitimate debate because the process is taking an idea, present it to the hearing if it can sustain itself in open public dialogue, then it can actually become the bill that moves through the process, subjected to amendments that are designed to perfect the legislation on through the full committee and to the floor for the same kind of process. that's what's envisioned by our founding frrs. it was never envisioned that there would be a speaker of the house that would run this congress, the house of representatives, out of her office with her staff and disallow -- disallow amendments, disallow debate, disallow an opportunity to even vote on a -- with a level of clarity so that the american people can see what's going on. so their level of discuss rose up and 58 democrats were voted out of office and there were a number of open seats that increased that number substantially from there. so i think the message should have been clear. it doesn't seem to be clear.

it is clear to me. the american people are filled up with a process that does not reach out to draw the wisdom from the american people through this republican form of government which is guaranteed to us in the constitution of the united states. they've had it with the nationalization, the takeover of the banks, a.i.g., the insurance company, fannie mae, freddie mac and all the liabilities that go with that, they're fed up with the takeover of general motors and chrysler, now it looks like the white house will concede and share general motors share off into the marketplace. they'll take a little loss, maybe a big los, i think that's a good step. i encourage more of it. i'm hoping by the time the 112th congress gavels out roughly two years from now that the federal government will have have di vested itself from all those private sector entities that have been taken over and i'm hopeful that the first act of the 113th congress

a little more than two years from now, will be to finally pass the final version of the repeal of obamacare so that that can then go to the desk of the next president of the united states for his signature to finally repeal obamacare. as we sit here in this congress and we're watching the importance of jobs, the american people said they had it up to here with debt and deficit. it's about jobs and the economy and freedom and liberty and being able to order our own lives instead of being within our lives by a nanity state. obamacare is the flagship of socialism that's been delivered to us. over the objections of the american people by the tens of thousands who poured into this city multiple times to peacefully petition the

government for redress of grievances. they held hands and say keep your hands off my health care. it wasn't just one set of people with long arms holding hands ringing the capitol, they were six or eight deep all the way around the capitol and clusters in the corners by the thousands who just didn't bother to get in the line. they said, keep your hands off our health care. and speaker pelosi marched through the middle of all of that with her oversized gavel to come do what she believed needed to be done for the american people who couldn't, pay parently, think for themselves and said we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it osm because ma care that passed could not -- obama care that passed could not have passed here in the house with a strong democrat majority if it were not for legislative maneuvering in an unparalleled way, including a promise that there would be a

reconciliation bill that would circumvent the filibuster in the senate that would be passed over there and come over here to amend the obamacare bill that hadn't even passed? so why not make it say what you want it to say and send it back to the senate? the senate wouldn't pass the bill either, they elected scott brown in massachusetts, they were so appalled at socialized medicine coming to america that the people in the bay state sent scott brown to the senate to put the brakes on obamacare and he put the message out pretty strong and pretty loud and the people in massachusetts clearly did. but the senate could not have passed the legislation that passed in the house on that day, or any day sense. -- or any day since. the house could not have passed it either if it were not for the promise that reconciliation would come from the senate and even then it couldn't pass the house unless there was a fig leaf that was brought up by the

president to give pro-life group of democrats the fig leaf protection as if an executive order could amend a statute of the united states of america. so here's the situation. we have the 2001 and 2003 tax brackets that need to be extended or we will be seeing a huge tax increase. perhaps the largest tax increase of our lifetimes. poied to -- poised to hit us at midnight, december 31, if this lame duck congress doesn't act. the negotiations on that are are taking place. i do believe that there's more leverage in the senate on this issue than in the house. if we don't get that resolved, mr. speaker, then our job is going to be, first job, h.r. 1, bill number one to make those tax brackets permanent so that no one faces anything but a

temporary tax increase and i mean that, i'd love to see this done in the lame duck if it's not done, it must be the first order of business in the new congress in january, the estate tax is a painful thing to think about that kicking in in a diabolical way. second thing, let's just presume we get it negotiated and this congress in lame duck resolves the issue of the 2001 and 2003 tax bracket, so we do not -- we are not faced with a tax increase. then, mr. speaker, that's resolved. my sense of this is, and i think i have a vast amount of support, including 173 signatures on a discharge petition, we must use, we must then use as a first order of business, the repeal of obamacare. h.r. 1, are repeal of obamacare, the new congress will pass that in a heartbeat to pull obamacare out by the roots so there's not one vestige of it left behind and

then we start down the path of shutting off funding that would be used to implement or enforce obamacare. we owe it to the american people, to the constitutional conservatives that rose up across the land and rallied together to fight obamacare. that's the biggest reason why you have this vast change, the biggest change in majorities here in 72 years has taken place because obamacare was the crown jewel of the agenda that was driven that the american people have rejected. so i'm encouraging that we move forward with that, i have no appetite for tying together repeal and replace, those are two separate subjects, we didn't have obamacare as the law of the land until late march of this year. we got along fine without it, having it is worse than having nothing, but we need to win the debate on the repeal of obamacare and then move down the line with the pieces we would pass that would improve

health care for the american people to hold together the doctor-patient relationship and the free market component and let people have their choices, let people have their choices, that's the only way america works. we are not a dependent nation, not a nation that can submit to a nanny state or onerous regulation. we are a proud, free, independent people, totally unsuitable for the european style of socialized democracy, we have freedom, we have vigor, we have rights that come from god, we're a unique race of people and the vigor of america's history attests to that and the destiny of america's future attests to that. mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas to -- mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: stirring words and accurate at that. this being a time when we're are recessing today through the thanksgiving holiday. -- through the thanksgiving holiday, it is that time we

have so much to be thankful for, one is, we have a newspaper article, we've heard in the last week or so that it looks like the obama administration was going to put off yet again the trials of the five charged in the 9/11 attacks as planning them but the article from the new york times says that the five guantanamo detainees charged with coordinating the september 11 attacks told a military judge on monday they want to confess in full. and that was a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death. at the start of what had been listed as routine pr proceedings on monday, the judge said he had received a written statement from the five men dated november 4, saying they planned to stop filing legal motions and to announce our confessions to plea in full. and let's see, we had khalid chic mohammed say, quote, we don't want to waste our time with motions. you had one detainee tell the

judge, quote, we the brothers, all of us, would like to submit our confession. he's charged with being the primary contact between the operations' organizers and september 11 hijackers. in one outburst he said he wanted to congratulate osama bin laden adding, quote, we ask him to attack the american enemy with all his power. so that's the good news. they're going to plead guilty we can be delighted with that, the tragic thing was that was the announcement according to the new york times back in december of 2008. december of 2008. but no, this administration wanted to play games with this couldn't arery's safety and with justice. and so now, two years later, they're going to put it off for another couple of years, wait until after the next election,

that he doesn't have to deal with it. these guys were ready for justice, ready to plead guilty until this administration played games and even in the pleading that was declassified, written apparently by khalid shake moment, they have -- khalid sheikh mohammed said, if our fighting with you cause fear and terror, many thanks to god because it is him who threw fear into your hearts which resulted in your infidelity, paganism and your state thament god had a son and your trinity beliefs. another statement he made was, we will make all of our materials available to defend and deter and egress you and the filthy jews from our country. god has ordered us to defend the cause, this is evidence in many koranic verses. the jihad is god's cause and a

great duty in our are religion. we ask god to accept our cricks to the attack on america and place our martyred brother on the highest peaks in paradise. this administration wants to play games with these guys who were read dwroy plead guilty, file no more motions until this administration offered them a big show trial system of we have a lot to be thankful for in that regard. they're in prison. where they should be. and justice should have already come swiftly. but at least they're behind bars. i want to finish the time the gentleman has yielded to me, william j. frederick does such a great job of putting together much of american history and proclamations and prayers, really a great job of our godly heritage, this book "prayers

and presidents: inspiring faith from leaders of the past" among so many other things has proclamations of thanksgiving. i thought it would be appropriate, though this will not be the last hour of today, today is the last hour before tfling, so people know that this is our heritage. this president says we're not a christian nation, i will not debate that with him but the president's -- presidents of the past before this president knew that it was, perhaps it's not now. george washington, october 3, 1789, these are washington's words. where is the -- it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty god, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly implore his protection and favor, we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great lord and rule over

nations and beseech him to pardon don our national and other transgressions to enable us all to render our national government a blessing to all the people to promote the knowledge and practice of true relion and virtue. james madison who has given -- who is given so much credit for writing the constitution, you would think the guy would know what was constitutional and what wasn't. march 4, 1815. no people ought to feel greater obligation to celebrate the good thovepbs great disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the united states to the same divine author of every good and perfect gift, we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land. i now recommend a day on which the people of every religious denomination may in their solemn assemblies unite their hearts and voices in a free will offering to their heavenly

benefactor of their homage of thanksgiving and their songs of praise. now, we have these for virtual i -- virtually every year, every president so i'm being very selective here because time is so short. abraham lincoln, july 15, 1863. it is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence of the almighty father and the power ohis hand equally in these triumphs and sorrows. i invite the people of the united states, lincoln says to assemble on that occasion in their customary places of worship in the forms approved by their consciences, render homage to the divine majesty for the wonderful things he's done on the nation's behalf and invoke the influence of the holy spirit to subdue the anger which has produced and long sustained a needless and cruel rebellion. andrew johnson, 1865, october 28, whereas it is pleased

almightily god during the year which is now come to an end to relieve our beloved country from the fearful scourge of civil war and to permit us to secure the blessings of peace, unity and harmony with great enlargement of civil liberty and whereas our heavenly father has also during the year graciously averted from us the calamities of foreign war, pestilence and famine while our granaries are full of the fruits of an abun dan seasonened sn and whereas righteousness exalted the nation whereas sin is is a reproach to any people i recommend therefore to the people thereof that they set apart and observe the first thursday of december next as a day of national television to the creator of the universe for these great deliverances and blessings. ulice is s. grant, october 5, 1865. it becomes a people thus

favored to make acknowledgment to the supreme author from whom such blessings flow of their gratitude and their dependence to render praise and thanksgiving for the same and devoutly to implore a continuance of god's mercy. i, ullyses s. grant, president of the united states, do recommend that thursday, the 18th day of november, next, be a day of thanksgiving and a prayer to the almighty god, the ruler and creator of the universe. and i do further recommend that the people of the united states to assemble on that day in their accustomed places of public worship and to unite in the homage due praise of the father and a federal reservent prayer to the man fold blessings as a people. rutherford b. hayes, october of 1877. he says the completed circle of summer and winters seek time

and harvest has brought to us the accustomed season at which a religious people celebrat with praise and thanksgiving the enduring almighty god. let us with one spirit and with one voice lift up praise and thanksgiving to god for his man fold goodness to our land, his manifest care for our nation. i earnestly recommend that withdrawing themselves from secular cares and labors the people of the united states do meet together on that day in their respective places of worship there to give thanks and praise to almighty god for his mercies to devoutly beseach their continuance. and paraphernalia theyically here inhe midst of these presidential proclamations were it not for the teachings of jesus and the fact that this nation is based on biblical principle you would not have a nation in which people, whether muslim or any religion, would be able to so freely worship,

but it's because of that caring that we're able to do that here because as we know and so many nations that are non-christian, including muslim nations, they do not have a lot of sympathy for those who practice christianity. chester a. arthur, november 4, 1881. it has long been the past custom of our people with the closing of the year to look back upon the blessings brought to them in the changing course of the season and to return solemn thanks to the algiving source from whom they flow. the countless benefits which have showered upon us during the past 12-month call for our federal reservent gratitude and make -- fer trent gratitude and to -- fervren gratitude. there's just so many wonderful tributes before thanksgiving.

let me go to benjamin harris. most of them is not the entire proclamation. but it is a very glad incident of the marvelous prosperity which has crowned the year now drawing to a close that it's helpful in reassuring touch has been felt by all our people. it has been as wide as our country and so special that every homes that felt its comforting influence. it is too great to be the work of man's power and too particular to be the device of his mind to god who makes the labors of men to be fruitful, redeems their losses by his grace and the measure of whose giving is as much beyond the thoughts of man as it is beyond his desserts. the praise and gratitude of the people of this favored nation are justly due. so many great proclamations.

over to william mckinley, 1897. in remembrance of god's goodness to us during the past year, which has been so abundant, and then he quotes from scripture, let us offer onto him our thanksgiving and to pay the value of the most high, unquote, during his watchful industry, the conditions of labor have been improved. the rewards of the husband have been increased and the comforts of our home multiplied. his mighty hand has preserved peace and protected the nation. respect for law and order has been strengthened. love of free institutions cherished and all sections of our beloved country brought into closer bonds of fraternal regard and generous cooperation. for these great benefits it is our duty to praise the lord in a spirit of humidity and gratitude to -- humility and

gratitude to him that we may acknowledge our obligation as a people to him. and he capitalized him, which has so graciously granted us the blessings of free government and material prosperity. theodore roosevelt, october of 1903. the season is at hand when according to the custom of our people it fails upon -- it falls upon the president to appoint a day of praise and thanksgiving to god during the last year of the lord has dealt bountifully with us giving us peace at home and abroad and a chance for our citizens to work for their welfare unhindered by war, famine and plague. therefore, in thanking god for the mercies extended to us in the past, we beseach him that he may not withhold them in the future. william howard taft, the only other president to be elected to congress and to have been on the supreme court actually as chief justice, he says, a

god-fearing nation like ours owes it to its inborn and sincere sense of moral duty to testify its devout gratitude to the all-giver for the countless benefits it has enjoyed. for many years it has been customary at the close of the year for the national executive to call upon izz fellow countrymen to offer praise and thanks to god for the manifold blessings safe to them. woodrow wilson says in part, 1913, the season is at hand in which -- it has long been our respected custom as a people to turn and praise the thanksgiving to the almighty god for his blessings throughout the nation. the year that has just been passed has been marked by manifestations. john f. kennedy, october of 1961. the pilgrims after a year of

hardship and peril humbly set aside a special day upon which to give thanks to god, and i ask the head of each family to recount to his children the story of the first new england thanksgiving thus to impress upon future generations the heritage of this nation born in tylenol, in danger, in purpose and in the conviction that right and justice and freedom can through man's efforts persevere and come to fruition with the blessing of god. i yield back to my friend from iowa. mr. king: and i thank you. i thank the gentleman -- reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman from texas in setting the tone right for thanksgiving as we are departing this city and go back spending time with our families. again, we're a grateful nation. i know we have a lot to be thankful here in the king household as america has a lot to be thankful for.

mr. speaker, i appreciate your attention, being recognized and all of our service here to the american people and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i will claim the time on behalf of the progressive caucus. i just need a moment to set up some boards.

mr. speaker, my name is keith ellison and i'm proud to come before the house today to address you and the american people regarding our nation, regarding the state of affairs facing our people. this is an hour i claim on behalf of the progressive caucus, the congressional progressive caucus is that group of members of congress who believe that, yes, it's true. we must all be included in the great american dream. the progressive caucus is that group of congresspeople who believe that peace and diplomacy and development are far, far away away from war and of strife. the progressive caucus, we are the ones said, yes, we should have child nutrition, food stamps for those in need, yes,

we should have real, real commitment to small businesses, small farmers, not big business and the farming agricultural industry. the progressive caucus is that body of members in this congress who come together around peace, around economic justice, around the issue of civil rights. we're the ones who say don't ask, don't tell must be repealed. we're the ones who say as a congress that the american people are one people and need to be included in this great american dream, that the arms of america are broad enough for all of us. this is what the progressive caucus is. this is what we believe. we're not the ones who say that some americans are not ok based on who they love or what their religion is. we are not the ones to say that economic prosperity should only be for the wealthiest among us. and we're not the ones who urge war. we're the ones who urge peace. we're the ones who urge

economic greatness. we think that the poor must be in our thoughts, particularly at this time of the year. we're the ones who argue that we must extend unemployment benefits, which sadly went down on the floor of this house today. this hour we talk to americans about the importance of having a progressive vision for america. even in this time after the elections were so difficult for so many, the fact is that we remain vigilant. we remain on the job projecting a progressive vision for this great nation. and this hour brought -- we speak on behalf of the progressive caucus, and this is the progressive message. and three progressive messages today for people, three messages we want to hit. the first message is the unemployment extension. i want to talk about that. the other one is the bush tax cuts extension. and the third point is the

absolute deluge of dirty money which totally swept through this last election cycle, corrupted our politics all to the tune of about $75 million, some of it from sources no one knows where they came from and the absolute urgent need for transparency and to get corporate money out of america politics. so those are my three topics tonight. let me start by talking about unemployment benefits. today we held a vote to extend unemployment benefits which will expire at the end of this month in november. this comes at a time when americans are looking forward to what their thanksgiving dinner is going to be like. this comes at a time many americans are looking at christmas, hanukkah, holidays, time to be together. but two million americans, if we don't find a way to somehow

get unemployment ben bit insurance extended, which failed on the floor of the house today because of republican opposition, will have a very grim holiday. this is a national shame. this is a travesty. this is something that is too bad. today on the house floor unemployment extension benefits were up on the house floor and we had to pass them by 2/3 vote because they were on the suspension calendar. it's necessary to put things on the suspension calendar because if we go through regular order we can bet there will be a republican motion to recommit which will cause all kinds of damage and mischief. . damage and mischief. the unemployment extension benefits was put up that is expiring in a few days and you would think like extending unemployment insurance benefits would be easy, because we have 9.6 unemployment and so many

people facing no opportunity to have any income if these benefits are allowed to expire at the end of this month. you wonder why we wouldn't get 100% of all of these members to vote for extension of unemployment benefits. but 150 of our colleagues on the republican side voted no to the extension of the unemployment insurance benefits and because of that, we didn't pass it. now many of us who stay up at night worrying about what americans are going to do, put food on the table for their families, have some more nights to worry because the truth is we aren't able to pass the extension of unemployment. overwhelming number of democrats voted for it and a number of republicans voted for it, but we didn't get enough of the republican caucus. the unemployme extension is hitting snags in the senate. if which could have passed it

here, it would have sent an important signal to the senate that they must take this measure and pass it through for the sake of the people of the americans, two mill ofion of them who are seeing their benefits expire by the end of this year. two million americans need to know that there are people there are people in this house of representatives though care desperately about them and their children. we put the measure on the floor and voted for it and needed 2/3 vote and couldn't get the support of our colleagues and it didn't go. and sadly, i want to say that i hope those 150 members who voted no think about you in the weeks to come. it is difficult and desperate and i think americans, mr. speaker, need to raise their voices and look at the vote count to see who voted with them and who didn't. nearly two million americans

will lose unemployment benefits by the end of the holidays if congress doesn't find a way to act. at this point, we may well have to act even under a best case scenario after the extension of the benefit -- after the benefits lapsed. we did it before and may need to do it again. but that is the situation. according to the department of labor, 1.98 million workers, nearly two million workers nationwide will lose benefits by the first of this year. by the end of february, 2011, in only a few months, 4.4 million workers will lose benefits. now it has devastating effects for individual families, no doubt about it. mom, dad, perhaps both, perhaps single-parent families not having any unemployment in this

tough economy, not able to find a job, but it also has a devastating effect for our whole economy, because when people have unemployment insurance benefits to buy groceries and pay rent, they can pay their landlord and pay the grocery store. and if you can pay the grocery store then it has made a sale. if it has made a sale of groceries, then they can keep those folks who work for the grocery store. and if the folks who work for the grocery store can keep their job, they can buy groceries. if they can buy some groceries, and maybe they can pay their rent and that will mean the landlords who perhaps rent to them will be able to maintain their building and be able to pay the utilities associated with running that apartment building they might live in. if they can't, then, the person doesn't get their unemployment

benefits, they aren't shopping as much and their shopping goes down and the people who work there lose their jobs and can't pay their rent and the landlord isn't getting the rents and the landlord is looking at the building going into foreclosure. let's talk about housing, and we have seen about 2.8 million foreclosureses in 2009, similar number this year on pace to that, if not more. those people who are counting on that unemployment check are counting on using that money to pay that mortgage, more foreclosures. this was incredibly irresponsible to not pass unemployment insurance benefits. i hope people demand that congress passes unemployment insurance benefits. this is good economics. it will cost our country more than it will to -- than to

extend these benefits. it will cost more in terms of lost jobs, lost revenue to state, local and federal government because of people who are not working anymore who may now become an expense. it will cost more money. it is incredibly shortsighted and bad economics and when it comes to the individual effect on the family, it's just heartless. and i have sympathy for people i think you should be more compassionate than that, mr. speaker. february, 2011, it's -- we are halfway through november. we have december, january, february, 2011, 4.4 million workers will lose their benefits with a devastating effect to their family and our entire economy.

economists agree that ending emergency unemployment insurance benefits programs now hurts the economy. even economists say, this is not to -- keith ellison on the floor saying this, economists say, you know what? the effect of ending these programs is going to hurt our recovery and economy. the department of labor analysis -- the department of labor installs by an economist, well-trained economist found unemployment insurance benefits boost economic activity by $2 for every dollar spent in 2009. so, if you give unemployment -- if we extend unemployment insurance benefits in the year 2009, that would mean there would be $2 in economic activity. that's a pretty good deal. that is what you call a multiplier effect, which is very beneficial. reducing -- reducing unemployment insurance benefits

will reduce our gross domestic product. it will hurt our economy in the same way i just plained a moment ago. just for people just tuning in a moment ago, i want to say, what will happen is if people don't get the unemployment insurance benefits, they cannot spend and the local railers cannot maintain their staff who then will end up laying people off. this will extend and increase unemployment. it is already 9.6%. how much more for the people who voted no want it to go? goldman sachs estimated that if the extension were allowed to expire, it would reduce economic growth by half a percentage point. now half a percentage point of economic growth. now that sounds like some statistic. but what that means is, fewer refrigerators bought, fewer cars

bought, fewer eggs bought, fewer people hired. fewer people who are going to be able to run the risk to start the small business they have been thinking about. this is a bad thing for our economy. it means real pain to real people. that's what it means to see gross domestic product fall and economic growth slip by half a percentage point. another noted economic organization that does economic analysis has estimated that allowing the extension to expire would reduce gross domestic product by about 14.1 billion. again, almost half a percentage point. this is the consensus of people who are economic experts. now let me just tell you this. some people who voted no are operating under very false belief systems.

they think unemployment insurance benefits are somehow living high and you have all kinds of money and you have so much money you don't even want to look for a job. they said paying unemployment insurance benefits, a little help from your fellow americans when you are in a bind somehow stifles people to work. they never argue against those companies who get tax breaks to do offshore drilling. they never vote against a disincentive for people who are high and mighty and well to do. anything the government gives us, according to them, might want to make us work less. absurd. the average weekly unemployment insurance benefits, $303, are barely 70% of the poverty line. and on average replace less than

50% of a worker's prior earnings. i'm going to repeat that because there are numbers in there and i don't want anybody to not get it. the average weekly unemployment insurance benefit, $303, is barely 70% of the poverty line for a family of four. if you have mom, dad and two kids and getting unemployment insurance benefits, you're not making the poverty line by about 30%. that's about 70% of the poverty line for a family of four. and on average, less than half of the worker's prior earnings. people on unemployment insurance are not getting over on anyone. these are people who pay in while they're working. this is a benefit they work for. this is a benefit all of us come together, all of us put in a pot and say you know what? if any one of us loses our job,

we will help this to maintain while you are in this situation. this is a good program. this is something that every industrialized, civilized country unless you are an impoverished nation and here we are saying no to these people. some folks say if we cut them off, maybe they'll look for a job. they are looking for a job. you can't get unemployment insurance benefits unless you are looking for a job. that's one of the rules of the program. but with every five job seekers for one opening, with every five job seekers for every one opening, workers are unemployed because there isn't enough jobs yet. even though in the last several months we have been adding private sector jobs, about one million jobs we have created. there are still not enough jobs.

you see during the bush era, they did that much damage to the economy. they lost about 800,000 jobs in the very month that barack obama took office as the president of the united states. we are just climbing out of this very deep hole that the republican congress and george bush put us in. but even though jobs are increasing, there are still about five people looking for every one opening. in other words, even if every job opening were filled by an unemployed worker, over 11 million workers would still be looking for a job, because even though we have been doing a good job, the damage is so severe, that we have a long way to go. now, it's important to understand, you know, that even nonpartisan organizations who look at these questions have a lot to tell us about it. the independent congressional budget office, doesn't work for the republicans, doesn't work

for the democrats, they just work for you the american people to give us the best information they can. the independent congressional budget office found that research suggests that the effect of recent extensions in unemployment insurance benefits on the duration of unemployment for recipients was rather small, meaning the people don't stay on unemployment long. they use it while they need it and get another job. the duration for unemployment, they just need it to get by. sometimes it goes longer than expected, particularly in an economy like this, where we have so much foreclosure crisis and so many hits to our economy. but you know what? people are looking for work. they are trying to do everything they can. they are doing the best that they can and this government of ours, which represents our people of, by and for the people should be there to extend unemployment benefits on an emergency basis when we have a

job crisis like the one we have right now. and it's a shame and a national disgrace that this congress could not get 2/3 of the vote of this congress to pass unemployment insurance benefits. 150 people voted no. 150 members of congress voted no. and because they refused to step up to the plate and do what was right for the american people, two million of our fellow americans by january 1 are going to be going without and going to have a very grim set of holidays and my heart aches for them. but by february 4.4 million will be in dire states are. and so i just want -- dire states are. and so i want people to know, mr. speaker, that the people don't have to take it, you know they can call, they can write, mr. speaker, as you know we live in a democracy, it's free and open society and people can let their voices be heard to their

government that this kind of behavior in congress is not ok. mr. speaker, they can do that and if they did i think it would be a good thing. mr. speaker, congress has never termined federally funded jobless benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is today. let me say that again. congress has never terminated federally funded jobless benefit when is the unemployment rate was as high as it is now, 9.6%. since unemployment insurance system was founded 75 years ago, mr. speaker, congress has never terminated an emergency unemployment program when the unemployment rate was even above 7.5%. let alone 9.6%. because it's irresponsible to the individual family and because it's devastating to our economy at large. even following 2001 bush

recession, the republican-controlled congress maintained temporary federal underemployment insurance programs until the unemployment rate went down to 5.8%. what is the difference between our republicans of today and those of even just a few years ago? maybe some people think, mr. speaker, i don't know, maybe they think their political chances are better the more pain poor people have to face. if the current temporary program would be allowed to expire, by the end of november, which it's set for, it would be -- it would be shorter than temporary programs enacted in numerous years of recession. this would be -- this year, if we let this program expire, we will have cut the emergency program shorter than we did in 1990, in 2000, in 1973

recession. why are we so stingy now, mr. speaker? i don't know. i don't know, but i bet you if the american people exercised their first amendment rights some people would listen. because sometimes politicians can't see the light until they feel the heat. unemployment insurance benefits have dramatically decreased poverty, mr. speaker, and we're at a time where we have record poverty but because of unemployment insurance benefits, we fought back that poverty. and provided economic security to millions of middle income american families. unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million americans out of poverty in 2009. let me repeat that, mr. speaker, because that's another one people really need to be focusing on. unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million americans out of poverty in 2009. this is a good thing. and now we're looking at ending

a program by the end of this month, that's wrong. without these benefits, the increase in poverty from 2008 to 2009 would have been nearly 6.9 million rather than 3.6 million. so poverty would have been twice what it was without our acting in the earlier times than we did. because we acted already we were able to cut unemployment -- poverty in half the rate that it would have been but now we're letting it expire. i also want to say, almost a million children were kept out of poverty in 2009 because of unemployment insurance benefits. almost a million children. we're talking about little ones who are trying to go to school, trying to learn, developing brains. and because they were able to get the basic decency from their government in unemployment insurance benefits they were able to stay out of poverty. but a million children, a

million little ones going into winter, going into the cold months, going into the holidays are going to have to face that poverty because our congress would not act. and i just want to say that that's wrong. and, mr. speaker, american children deserve better from their government than they got today on this house floor. you know, i want to move on to tax cuts, mr. speaker. but before i do i just want to repeat some of the more salient points because maybe some folks just got on c-span. i just want to say, two million americans stand to lose benefits during the holiday season. because congress failed to extend unemployment insurance benefits. two million. i want, mr. speaker, two million americans stand to lose unemployment insurance benefits this holiday season, two million more could lose them by february, 2011.

these americans buy goods and services which stimulates our economy, which keeps people employed, which keeps rent being paid which keeps mortgages being paid -- rent being paid, which keeps mortgages being paid and keeps our economy moving forward. because we're not acting the way we should, we're putting this recovery in jeopardy. and our successes in two years is so important that you're willing to put two million more people in poverty? it's a shame. now, mr. speaker, i want to talk -- i just to -- i want to juxtapose this question, i want to jucks juxtapose that, compare it -- juxtapose that, compare it right next to it with the thing that herb seems to want to talk about in washington and that's whether or not we're going to extend tax cuts, tax breaks for the richest americans. right now the debate is, shall

we extend the bush tax cuts up to $250,000? which means that people who make more than that will be able to get -- have their tax break extended for the amount below that or will we just extend them for all to the top 2% which would mean extending them for everyone? if we extend them for everyone that would cost us an extra $700 billion, mr. speaker. the people who are most adamant and scream the loudest about deficits and debt and spending are the first ones who want to make sure that the richest mericans get their tax cuts. to the tune of $700 billion. mr. speaker, we don't have the $700 billion, so, mr. speaker, where are we going to get the $700 billion? we're going to borrow it. so our republican colleagues want us to borrow $700 billion

to give to the richest americans and we are going to buy it probably from the chinese, i don't know we don't have it. but according to their pledge to america, they want to us cut education by 20%. is this a recipe for a competitive america? those people who said, oh, we want america to be competitive, they say they want america to compete. so we're going to go buy, we're going to add to the debt, to the tune of $700 billion, we're going to borrow the money and we're going to cut education. also the richest americans -- all so the richest americans consideration i don't know, buy more boats, stay in more luxury hotels, buy big fat cigars, buy bottles of crystal. i don't know. i'm not one of them. but the point of the matter is it's wrong. and we ought to be embarrassed to talk about it.

some of my friends who say, yeah, we have to give the top 2% tax breaks too, they'll say, well, because it's going to help boost jobs. wait a minute. didn't we have these tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003? don't we have a massive unemployment? their program has failed. evidence is on the wall. it's there. their program has failed. why is it if tax cuts are so great, why did we lose 800,000 jobs in the last month that george bush was the president of the united states? forgive me, 841,000 jobs. can't leave out that 41,000 jobs because those are 41,000 people in those jobs. why did we lose about six million jobs during the last -- no, excuse me, four million jobs during the last six months of the bush presidency? if cutting taxes is such a great

idea? but i'm going to say, mr. speaker, cutting taxes is not a bad thing at all. it depends on who you cut them for. cutting middle income tax cuts might actually help people. cutting taxes for the richest americans is damaging to this economy, it's unfair to all the rest of us and there's a lot of wealthy people who agree with me. because you know what? they know that the economic ladder has got to stay in place. you can't make all that money, you can't live in this great country and make all the money that living here has given you the opportunity to make and then pull that ladder up behind you once you've made it all. it's wrong to do. we democrats, progressives, we don't have a problem with people coming up with a great idea, marketing it, people like it so they buy, it they make a lot of money. ok. that's fine. but the question is, once you have used our roads to move your products around, once you have used our public schools to

educate your work force, once you have relied on our military to protect you, once you have used our police force to protect your firms and all your as i ets and property, once -- assets and property, once you have used our medical services to make sure that you need that service, once you use all these government services, once you drink the water with some government worker has inspected to make sure it's safe, once you eat the meat which some government worker has inspected to make sure it's safe, and you benefit from all that, then you say, oh, i don't want to pay taxes. i don't want to pay any taxes, i want to keep it all just for me. there is a word for that and it is greed. and there is no other word for it. and i shoulder when greed has been elevated to a political philosophy. we're not talking about a complete government takeover which some people are so happy to try to accuse us of. we're talking about a mixed

economy where the public and the private sector are in reasonable balance. that is all we're talking about. and we cannot get, we cannot borrow $700 billion to give to the richest 2% of americans and cut our educational system and say that we are that balanced, reasonable, mixed public-private sector economy. we can't do it. so i say that this middle income tax cut, again, if you do make lots of money, if you are -- if you are the top 2%, your tax cut will be extended from zero to $250,000. that's the thing, everybody's going to still have an extension. but you won't get it for above that. so that's -- you won't get it above. that that's what we mean by a middle class or middle income tax cut. very important to understand this. this was not something to be against the rich folks. hey, look, you know, there's a

lot of goodrich people and the fact is, many of them understand that the ladder of opportunity must be there for everybody else. but there are some who figure, i got mine, skip you. and that's wrong. we need people who understand that this great country has allowed them to make the money that they made and that the ladder of opportunity needs to stay where it was -- it is. i was talking to one fellow who said, oh, we should have a tax cut for everybody, not just the 98% and down. and said, well, you know, -- he said, well, us well to do people, we do so much for the economy. i said, well, wait a minute. didn't the rest of us do so much for you? didn't you brag to me about how you went to college on the g.i. bill? w did that for you? that was the public. that was the american people. didn't you go to state

university of whatever? didn't you tell me you were a member of the state patrol for a while before you went into your business? these are -- this is a real conversation i had with somebody who benefited so much from the public but then didn't want to hand anything back. right now i'm joined by one of my very favorite members of congress, congressman from the great state of california, congressman, what do you say to tonight? mr. garamendi: mr. ellison, i was in my office and of course this floor is constantly on the tv screen, so i looked up and said, hey, there's my man. there's the guy that's from the great upper midwest, who's seen the incredible downturn of the american economy and i know that you've worked hard for your district, to try to bring those jobs, to try to create the legislation that would bring the jobs into that district. and as you were talking i said,

i'm going to go over and say just a couple of things in support of the message that you're giving today. a message that over the last two years it has been a consistent effort by the democratic house to stabilize the american economy, did that with the wall street bank bailout which a lot of people didn't like, and i had problems with it too. i think those wall street barons should have paid a heveny price. but the price that they could not -- heavy price. but the price they could not and should not pay is the total collapse of the world. we would wind up, mom and pop at home, whether you have a 401-k which unfortunately became a 201-k, whatever, you did that and it worked. kkk k, you did and it came to the house and three millions out of that.

stabilizing once again the situation where the jobs were in freefall the last month, the last month actually of the bush administration in 2008, 800,000 jobs lost, but that began to turn around. throughout 2009, we began to see a turnaround, a lessening of the lost jobs. they continued to lose jobs, but each month that went by, there were fewer and fewer jobs lost and in 2010, we have actually seen the growth of jobs in america once again, not only as a result of those two tease pieces of legislation but dozens of other bills that i was fortunate to work on when i came here just over a year ago in a special election. it's been hard work. we have not had much help and this is one of the things i have found so disappointed that on all of those bills, the american recovery act, the stimulus bill, the hire act that gave incentives to employers to hire

people, the saving of the american automobile industry, the republicans voted against these bills, on unemployment insurance. the republicans voted against it. it's easy enough i suppose if you have a job not to worry about the uninsured, but if you don't have a job, what are you going to do? how do you keep a roof over your family's head and provide the food? you do it by getting an unemployment insurance check which workers and employers have paid into an insurance program year after year after year and that uninsurance program provides the insurance when a person loses their job. today on the floor, i couldn't believe it today on the floor. we have more than two million americans whose unemployment check is going to run out during these holidays, between the end of the thanksgiving and new year's, two million americans

will lose their unemployment check. the economy is not running the way we want it to run. hopefully we'll have a chance to make it in america. but today, on this floor, not more than three hours ago, we were unable to muster 2/3 vote to pass an uninsurance check extension. so that people would have food, shelter, clothing, maybe even a small gift for their children at christmas time. what are we doing here? if we are such -- not we, the democrats voted for this, but 143 republicans, more than 1/3 to vote, blocked this. we are talking about the ultimate scrooge, this would make charles dickens right up there on christmas, the holiday

season, when we ought to be generous, 143 republicans this day voted to deny two million americans enough money to buy a gift for their child, to put a holiday meal on the table. ok, fine, i understand where they're coming from -- i don't understand it. i don't get it. but we need to move forward. i know you have been talking about that. but we can do it. we can rebuild the american manufacturing industry. it's there for us to do it if we use wide public policy. i know you have been talking about this and i would love to engage in a dialogue with you and maybe we can share some thoughts here. mr. ellison: i thank you for joining me down here for the progressive message and it's always a joy to be with you. i was spending a little bit of time talking about how this

denial of unemployment insurance benefits extension absolutely has a devastating effect to the individual families and a devastating effect to the economy, because consumer demand is bolstered by people having some income, even when they're unemployed. mr. garamendi: if you have no money, you aren't going to do one thing for this economy except be an additional burden to it. and so if you have an unemployment check and let's keep in mind that's something that the workers and employers have paid into so that when you lose your job you have a continuation of income and you use that money to buy some clothing for your kids, stimulate the economy, give the retailer, buy bread, buy food, pay your rent and not have that foreclosure and drive down the prices in your neighborhood. it's all there, makes so much

sense on the economic level. but on the human, moral level about where we are as americans, it's not the fault of that worker out there that lost his job that he doesn't have a job. many, many reasons for it. wall street, greed on wall street, all of those things. we can talk about that later. but it's not that worker's fault or his kids' fault. can't we just muster enough compassion to give those families an opportunity during this holiday season and on into the new year enough money to stay in their home. what are they going to do, live in their car? they could become homeless. 143 republicans said this day, go homeless, live in your car, don't worry about the holiday gifts or your children, because they will have no food or place to live. what are they thinking in this house? 143 republicans said no. they blocked on the week --

seven days before thanksgiving, they blocked an opportunity for two million american families to have enough money to put a holiday meal on their table, to put shelter over their family. mr. ellison: congressman, thank you for pointing those things out. one of the things that is on my mind is how some of the rationale for this no position that was taken by so many of our colleagues in the republican caucus was, well, if you give people uninsurance benefits, maybe they won't look for a job. do you have any views on that particular thinking? mr. garamendi: apparently those people that say that haven't been looking for a job. mr. ellison: easy to say when it's not you. mr. garamendi: easy enough to say, but when you are out hunting for a job, we know these

are difficult times. we talked about that already. but the jobs are not there. we need to move this economy forward. and then as we do so, those jobs will come back. let's understand this is not a bunch of welfare. we understand that. but these are middle-class americans, who had a good paying job two years ago, year and-a-half ago, six months ago, these are men and women who over the years have been the backbone of this nature, middle-class america. and yet, 143 of our colleagues on the republican side didn't see it that way. i guess they thought, well if they don't have any money, they will go to work. i would ask those 143 who leave here today and find a job. if i was an employer and had that amount of compassion, i would send them out the door and

good-bye. mr. ellison: you aren't talking about a lobbyist job but a real job that makes you put your back into it that so many americans have to turn to to be able to meet their daily needs. mr. garamendi: go out and see if you can paint a building and run a back hoe or dig a ditch or operate a bus or train. no. no. no. when they lose their job here, they should for this vote alone lose their job and they'll go down to k street and get one of those jobs and come back and lobby us and try to tell us what they should do. they shod take a hike out of this building because they are the super scrooges for this session. mr. ellison: thank you for making those points. as we are talking about denying benefits right before

thanksgiving, christmas, so many other american holidays, we are also really talking about whether we should extend tax cuts to the top 2%, which we don't have and will have to borrow. do you have any thoughts? mr. garamendi: this is another issue that is going to be before the congress in the next couple of weeks. and that is, what are we going to do about the 2001, 2003 tax reductions that expire on december 31. those tax reductions were pushed forward by president bush and the republicans who controlled both the house and the senate and they wrote the tax laws so that the middle income got a little bit. it was worth while. it was a good reduction. but the real reduction went to those with the big bucks, those who had more than $250,000, $500,000, $1 mill won, $1

billion annual incomes. they got the big bucks and we saw the widening of the gap between the working men and women in the middle class and the high and mighty, the top 1% of this nation now control 70%, 80% of all the wealth of the nation. they have the big salaries and do they need a tax break at the expense of an unemployed worker from a factory in you your district, an unemployed worker from a factory or school in my district? i don't think so. let's talk about what it is. for those making $1 million a year, the tax cut is worth $83,000 a year. you tell me how many out there in middle america are making $83,000 a year. we know there is two million that are unemployed that serm aren't.

if you took that $83,000 for all those millionaires, you could create three million jobs that would pay $30,000 a year. not a great deal, but a living wage for americans. three million americans, so we have choices here. we have choices. you are going to give the wealthy even more, $83,000 a year and that's just for millionaires and billionaires make even more out of this tax cut. what are they going to do with it? they could buy a mere seed yeesbens, e-class which cost $83,000. i like to think of them as the next big fat cigar. they could buy 2,000 of those cigars, eefer year for the -- every year for the next decade and light each one of those

cigars with $100 bill. or would you rather have three million americans earning $30,000 a year or in this case even an unemployment insurance check. one of the things, mr. ellison, that i -- i don't know, some days i want to say and scream and say, what are you thinking about here. deficit reduction. we finished an election and deficit reduction was on every advertisement. have to deal with the deficit. got to deal with the deficit. well, what the republicans are proposing is a tax break for those who earn more than $250,000 a year. let me back up here. every american taxpayer, every american taxpayer will receive a tax reduction up to $250,000. if they're making more than that, the tax break that they

have had for the last decade would end. now, my republican colleagues want to extend that tax cut for the wealthy. what it means is an additional $700 billion of deficit over the next decade, $700 billion. you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth here. either you are a deficit hawk and you vote against a tax cut for the wealthy, or you are a hypocrite and you vote for a tax cut for the wealthy and increase the deficit by $700 billion. mr. ellison: another thought i want to get your views on here, because it has been puzzling me. you know, these folks who say it, say it with such conviction that they must believe it, but they say, if we cut these taxes, this will lead to an economic boom. but that is the trouble, because why did we end up in an economic

problem because we had these tax cuts in place since 2001 and 2003 and this decade has been the decade of slowest economic growth since world war ii. so tax cuts are the answer for everything, why doesn't -- why didn't we have great economic growth and why do we have such an economic recession? >> tax cuts, particularly at the upper income levels don't equate to economic growth. you are quite correct. the george w. bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped create the extraordinary deficit that we currently have. there are a couple of other things. two wars, iraq and afghanistan. that were paid for by borrowed chinese money. and the tax cuts and the ultimate collapse or near collapse of the economy in 2007 and 2008. those all added to the huge deficit. but it's also, just as you

pointed out, clear by the statistics, the employment statistics, that following the tax cut in 2001 and 2003 that the number of people employed actually reduced by nearly 600,000 people. over that period of -- in the next five years. it doesn't equate. now we need to provide the current tax cuts for those in the middle class that are earning less than $250,000 and really for every american earning $250,000 and less. if they make more they're going to pay a little more. it's very, very clear that if we continue to provide the tax cuts for the very wealthy it's not going to create more jobs. for those who need the money, they're going to pay their mortgage, they're going to make that car payment, they're going to buy food, they're going to buy clothing, they're going to

invest that tax money into the economy, stimulating the economy. for those that are wealthy, i guess they'll go buy another mercedes-benz which i think is manufactured overseas. mr. ellison: i think you're right. congressman, let's now turn to our good friend from the great state of tennessee, congratulation on a re-election, my friend, congressman, we've been talking about economic justice, the denial of unemployment insurance extension, the bush tax cuts, what are your thoughts tonight? mr. cohen: i thank you for having this hour and let meg join you. these are the issues that are important to the american people. and i tried to address some of them in a one-minute. you can't discuss them in one minute. one of the issues we heard about was the deficit. the deficit was created by the congress that was begun at the beginning of this century. the congress in 1994 when president clinton was president, a democratic congress with all democratic votes, passed a

balance budget amendment, a bill that balanced the budget by the year 2000 and that balanced budget was a -- with a surplus was squandered with bush tax cuts that cost tremendous amounts of money and a trillion-dollar war in iraq without weapons of mass destruction and without a well-defined purpose and without the truth behind the purposes, i believe, of that war. and then an additional war in afghanistan that was made the secondary war. this has created the great deficit that we have now. and you've got to correct that through income or through cuts. what has been recommended by the bipartisan panel the president set up bears looking at as a beginning. it's going to take some tough decisions. but we also need revenue and the revenue can't be across the board extensions of the bush tax cuts and the upper 2%, they don't spend that money. my friends all drive chryslers. i must make amends. dear lord, get me a mercedes-benz.

that's an old 1960's song. or maybe something else which doesn't really stimulate the economy. it might tickle the fancy of somebody but doesn't stimulate the economy. we've got to make some difficult decisions and earmarks isn't the issue. earmarks don't take away from the deficit. it just means that rather than your congress person from your district who knows your needs, it will be somebody in washington spending that money. and the earmarks need to be done in a transparent manner in this -- and this congress has seen that they're published, the people have to say that they're thrares -- theirs and they can't be for property companies. earmarks in and of themselves are not bad. they just need to be cleaned up and congress has cleaned them up. ut the fact is, we need to make some difficult decisions. i'm prepared to make those difficult decisions on some long-term economic policies that will help clean up the deficit which we need to do. i don't agree with much what have was put in the bipartisan proposal that was just recently

announced. but it's a starting point and it should not be dismissed as it was by some from my party. on the other hand, the issue of earmarks is the subterfuge or just an issue to be thrown out there which has nothing to do with the deficit. it's going to take some duff decisions and the department of defense can't be off the table. some say, oh, you can't deal with the department of defense. there's a lot of money in the defense budget that's there because of who manufactures the weapons and that's the purpose of the weapons and there's a lot of waste in thdepartment of defense and we need to look there as well and we have to make some large cuts. i join with you, i appreciate mr. ellison your work, i appreciate mr. stein's quoting you in "time" magazine where you cited me as part of your team and i'm going to be part of your team and i appreciate what you've done from california and you're leading these discussions and i just want to be a part of the ending of this congress that does some economic justice and that we try to see that economic justice is not forgotten in the

112th. mr. ellison: i'm going to leave the last word to congressman garamendi but i want to say before we close up, because we are getting close to the end of the hour, this democratic caucus is resolute. in this last election, ok, we got our nose bloodied a little bit. but, you know what? we are focused on the best benefits and the welfare of the american people. we will not bend, we will now bow, we will stay here, talking about making it in america, talking about it jobs, talking about renewable energy, talking manufacturer -- talking about manufacturing, talking about infrastructure, fighting back these unjust economic policies which skew our economy so that we pull up the ladder of economic opportunity, we're not going to allow it, i'm going to let congressman garamendi give the last word and i want to thank you, congressman cohen, you are a joy to work with, a pleasure and your knowledge is

always a benefit. mr. garamendi: mr. ellison, thank you so very, very much. i want to congratulate you on the success of your re-election and i know why you were re-elected. because you have the heart. you got a moral cenr that's focused clearly upon the needs of the men and women in your district who struggle every day to put food on their table, to take care of their children, make sure they have a good upbringing, the clothes, the education, and a roof over their head. that's really where we ought to be doing, we ought to be going. that ought to be our moral compass and it is yours and yours, mr. cohen. because of that you're back here. but there's some real serious issues that divide us here in this congress. we saw one today, the issue of the unemployment insurance. 143 of our republican colleagues blocked that payment that would get the men and women an opportunity to have enough money to take care of the holidays

that are ahead of us. put food on the table. maybe buy a few gifts. there's another thing that we need to do and we've been working at that for more than two years, in almost every case without any help whatsoever from our republican colleagues and that is to get america back to work. the recovery act, three million jobs, no republican votes. the higher act -- hire act, another couple hundred thousand jobs, no republican votes, even when it came down to putting teachers in schools, to keep them there in my own district, my own state, 16,600 teachers are in the classroom because we put some more money on the table to help the states and local communities. police and firemen the same. not one republican vote. talk about the deficit forever, yeah, you can talk about the deficit but it comes down a point, are you willing to take action, to deal with the deficit in and our republican colleagues have said a resounding no thus far. they want a $700 billion increase in the deficit, to finance a tax break for the

wealthiest part of america's society. this is hypocritical, this is wrong and it's time for us to go, mr. ellison. thank you so very much, mr. cohen. delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you about these fundamental american issues. mr. cohen. mr. cohen: i would like to make one statement, if you'd permit. if you remember the 1960's you weren't part of the 1960's. when you get into the 60's you forget things. it was janis jop lynn and it's my friends all have mercedes-benz. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher booker, for 60 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. today i would like to address my colleagues about the greatest threat over the horizon, made in china. mr. speaker, while focused on the deadly threat posed to our

immediate safety by the forces of radical islam, many meshes -- americans seem oblivious to the storm clouds just over the horizon. i come to the floor with a grave warning to the american people. we face a threat to our national security with complexity and global scope such as we have never experienced in this nation's history. this threat is pervasive, it challenges our economic, political and financial structure as well as the security of our homeland. i have come to the floor to plead, we can no longer look at the dynamic shift in power that is taking place and con sole ourselves with wishful thinking. we must quit fooling ourselves that there are offsetting elements at play, that the glass can be viewed as half full or half empty. it is clear that a powerful adversary is unabashedly out to grab that glass and drain it, consume it at the expense of the

american people and leave americans of the future in first of the -- thirst of the prosperity and security which we now take for granted. and it is not only our children's future at stake. what we do as a people, as was the case with americans before us, will determine which die metrically opposed system of governance, freedom or tyranny, will shape the world and human events for generations to come. today radical islam can be, must be and will be thwarted. yes, it is a threat that is now upon us. radical islamists, however, are not only butchering christians and jews, but a multitude of muslims as well. and, yes, forces of modernity within the muslim world who are themselves threatened with extermination will help us defeat this evil plague of radical islam. today if we remain vigilant and

if we remain engaged, we can be confident of this outcome. yet as i say, a greater threat is just over the horizon. i am referring to china. a dragon of immense power and insatiable appetite. this challenge will far outshadow the current bat well radical islam. china is already -- battle with islam. china is already manipulating and doing daniel, already making serious moves to catapult itself into a position of preeminent power on the earth. to them that would simply be moving the center of the earth back to china where it once was and rightfully should be from their eth know sent rick perception. my intention is not to be a china basher. surprise, surprise. because i am not a china basher. china is not the regime that controls that territory. but the people who reside there.

they are a people with a magnificent history and culture. today over one billion chinese men, women and children survive in abject poverty. they are in servitude to a small clique, a small heavyhanded clique, yes, a, you might say, a band of cronies which represents only about 2%f the chinese population. that clique is kept in power by the brutality of their hacks and thugs and the deployment of technology which all too often can be traced back to western ben factors. with modern western develop technologies they have created a high-tech police state that mirrors the imagination of george or well in his novel "1984." the chinese regime that holds power in beijing is a hostile

force to the freedom of its own people and a threat to us. the hardworking, long-suffering yet dignyified and proud people of china, they are our allies in waiting. our sympathy and loyalty should focus on them. the chinese people. their greatest hope is our greatest hope, that they will someday demand and win their own freedom and thus shift china into the family of free nations and free people. this should not only be their goal, but our goal as well. but for now the aggressively murderous regime in beijing holded to -- holds power with an iron-fisted home and makes alliances with gangsters and tyrants the world around. the growing power of china is obvious in the confidence and bullishness of its antidemocratic regime, in its leverage as a formidable