choice to say there is science here and manufacturers here. the two are interlinked and more so every day. we are not going to compete, even if we wanted to, we will not be able to compete on non- technology, non manufacturing. there are too many countries that can do that. where we can compete is on the high end. how automobiles and medical devices and computers and all of these things. -- with automobiles and medical devices and computers and all of these things. we can and should have a strong manufacturing base, but to somehow say that does not include innovation is not on the market. .ost: -- not on the marke host: aranda and atkinson, president of the itif, thanks

for being with us. that is all for "washington journal" today. if thanks for being with us. a couple programming notes, the senate hearing on don't ask, don't tell is live right now on c-span3. and later today on c-span will be taking coverage on the censure vote for representative charles rangel. now let's go to the house floor. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [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: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend doug tanner, faith and politics institute, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, we ask your blessing this day on the work of this house and on the hearts and minds of its members. at this time of year when nights grow long and temperatures fall, guard us, we pray, against seeing those with whom we agree as barriers of

light and warmth and those with whom we disagree as harbingers of darkness and cold. dark places of ego and arrogance reside in each of us as do light places of compassion and come rodry. save us from -- cam radry. save us from shallowness. remind us there are better angels in our nature to carry us toward the land of liberty and justice for all if we will but open ourselves to their wisdom. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from

texas, congressman johnson. mr. johnson: please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 3998, an act to extend the child safety pilot program in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker: thank you. the chair will entertain up to 10 one moins on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection.

mr. schiff: madam speaker, i rise to honor and pay tribute to raymond gutierrez, a wonderful man, a husband, a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather who saved his country bravely during world war ii. mr. gutierrez was born december 22, 1926, and was 18 years old when he left his family to answer the call of duty to his country. he served as seaman first class on the u.s.s. richard. raymond gutierrez passed away on october 28 at the age of 83. his memory will live on through his wife, his son david and daughter. he was also blessed with five grandchildren and a great grandson. he's fondly remembered by his family as a man of personal conviction, always putting his family first and cheating everyone with great respect. a man of great humor, raymond

would never directly disclose his age but would instead pay it out in change. at age 83 he would say i am three quarters, one nickel and three pennies. he's affectionately remembered in a poem written by his granddaughter which i submit for the record. we are indebted to mr. gutierrez for his life of service and for the fine family and extraordinary example he leaves behind. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek permission? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to address the house for one minute. mr. wilson: there is a great debate over the january 1 tax increases of over $2,000 annually per family. i strongly believe we need to extend tax relief for all americans to create jobs and i hope that the bipartisan issue of the adoption tax credit is also quickly extended. while extremely rewarding, the

adoption process may be extremely expensive. often pricing out hardworking individuals and couples. to help keep the dream of parenting alive, congress originally passed and president clinton signed a $5,000 tax credit per adopted family. a great success. this credit was later increased to $10,000. today, however, we are facing a looming deadline that threatens this financial incentive and compromises the ability of average american families to adopt. i urge speaker pelosi to immediately schedule a vote on h.r. 213, the adoption tax relief guarantee act of 2009 before the adjournment of the 111th congress. when it comes to the adoption process, lawmakers should work to advance the dream of a family. in conclusion, god bless our troops. we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition?

mr. kline: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: i rise today to talk about road safety and infrastructure and the role it plays in saving lives. every year approximately 34,000 men, women, and children die on our nation's roadways. all those in number has increased dramatically, we still have a long way to go. one of the major factors in the decrease was a program this body created called the highway safety improvement program. this commonsense program reduces traffic fatalities and injuries by making improvements to infrastructure such as road signs, guardrails, rumble strips, and other safety measures. according to a study commissioned by the american traffic safety services association, for every $1 million invested in road safety we save seven lives, taking away the tragedy of all those loves lives that number in terms of economic benefit is $42 million saved by saving these lives. 42-1 return on our money is darn

good. our applaud chairman oberstar and ranking member mica for improving the highway safety improvement program in their current re-authorization draft. this program saves lives, puts people to work, and strengthens our transportation system. i urge my colleagues to work diligently to pass a new multiyear transportation bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized to address the house for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know it's just a few days until all tax paying americans will be hit with the largest tax height in history in the wake of the -- tax hike in history in the wake of the longest recession since the great depression. given this country's economic condition a huge tax hike is what we don't need. we ought to be creating jobs, boosting the economy. apparently the democrats think a

$3.8 trillion tax hike is the answer. i say make the tax rates permanent, let's get this economy moving again with new jobs and investment. empower small businesses to grow, hire and expand. they can add more employees, buy more equipment, and rent bigger spaces. we ought to support them by stopping the largest tax hike in history. if we want americans to prosper, they want, need, and deserve better than the democrat massive tax increases. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the the gentleman is recognized for -- is recognized to address the house. mr. perlmutter: today we have the opportunity to provide tax cuts for 98% for all americans on earnings up to $250,000. but as you just heard, and as you're going to hear throughout the day, the republicans don't want to have that tax cut for

98% of the people saving them some $2,000. they want them for millionaires and billionaires. those guys who don't need it. that's where they are going to focus their efforts, to block tax cuts for those in the middle income ranges. that's their whole purpose from this point on is to block any action in this house or in the senate. the republicans want to take care of those people who can already take care of themselves. take care of themselves very well by giving tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. democrats are going to look out for middle income earners and we are going to fight hard today to make sure there are tax cuts for those earning up to $250,000. now, those tax cuts are for everybody. even the supergiant wealthy, but only up to their first $250,000 in earnings. we will work hard today to make sure the middle income earners are protected w that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, chief of police garcia is the latest victim in the land of lawless days in mexico. chief garcia was at her job 51 days when she was brutally murdered by drug cartel assassins. in a brazen ambush they shot her seven times when she was headed to work. so many police chiefs have been murdered in mexico no one wants the job. trained officers are refusing promotions. leaving untrained citizens to run the police department. and the border town two housewives are the top cops in town. in chihuahua a new police chief is a 20-year-old student. there is a border war going on and the violence will only get worse on both sides of the line of lawlessness. the rule of law is being stolen by the hand of the gun. and we must help our neighbors in mexico and also secure our border with armed national guard

troops. otherwise this wind brewing from the south will bring america the whirlwind. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: today the house will vote to provide permanent tax cuts to middle class american families. that means no more marriage penalty, lower taxes on incomes, tax cuts to make college more affordable and expand small businesses and creating jobs. all the middle class families who earn $250,000 or less. but the republicans are expected to vote no. why? because they say we need to provide tax cuts to the richest 1% in america. that's right. the republican party will add another $700 billion to the deficit to assist the richest 1%

like trouble. leona helmsley dog who inherited $12 million. under the republican plan if trouble doesn't get a tax break no one else should. no tax cuts for hardworking families. no tax cuts for those living day by day trying to make ends meet. my colleagues, ending another $7 00 billion to our deficit that's trouble. trouble for missing class families. trouble to taxpayers. and trouble to our children and grandchildren who will be saddled with that debt. it's clear to me, mr. speaker, under republican rule tax policy will go to the dogs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized to address the house for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as our national debt climbs to $14 million, on its way to $20 trillion, i commend the president to take on this new debt commission. but the bottom line for the last 50 years we balanced the budget

five times out of 50. if you look at what 49 out of 50 governors, they have to balance the budget. if i look at what happens in florida, they had a $70 billion budget four years ago, they got a $60 billion budget today. but they have to balance the budget. mr. buchanan: they have to make the tough choices. that's kwl my first week here i introduced the constitutional balanced budget amendment that says simply we don't spend more we take in. small businesses, families, they've got to make the tough choices every day. we don't need to. why? because we have the capacity to borrow. that's got to change. otherwise we are going to bankrupt america. we need a constitutional balanced budget amendment today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. polis: i rise today in sport of the dream act, the lives of hundreds of thousands of de

facto americans hang in the balance. the dream act would provide a route for young people who were brought here who know no other country to take on the full rights and responsibilities as americans. the dream act is not only a human rights issue it's an economic issue and it's a competitiveness issue. these young people are some of our very best americans. and it's not an american value to force the sins of the father upon the son. these young people are brought here when they were two years old, 3 years old, it can't be argued they violated their law of no volition. they no know other country. to deport them to a country they don't know anybody and frequently don't speak the language would deprive america of the fruits of our labors and the investments we made in these young people through our public education system. i call upon the house and the senate to immediately move to pass the dream act and help make these young people proper americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. our country continues fighting a deadly and determined terrorist enemy. agencies such as homeland security and the t.s.a. work hard to keep us safe and protect us. stiller american citizens are concerned with the newly implemented security measures that are both revealing and personal. concerned passengers and even t.s.a. workers feel violated, confused, and uncomfortable. no one is sure what to expect. the american public rightfully wants answers from questions like what is the training, accountability, and selection process for the t.s.a.? two, what can we learn from other countries' security measures? three, can we prevent body scan photos from public release? four, how do we identify who actually is at risk and isn't there another more accurate way to do this rather than treating everyone as a suspect? people do not have after dense in the federal government's ability to protect their privacy

and t.s.a. must explore other screening alternatives because national security and the liberty it aims to protect both matter. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized to address the house for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today for fairness, for equality, and to simply stand up for what is right. i support a tax cut for our nation's working families and middle income communities. in my district that includes 98% of taxpayers, over 342,000 individuals. what i do not support and what our nation simply cannot afford is a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. in fact, republicans are holding hostage the extension of unemployment benefits at the expense of tax cuts. 6,800 individuals in my district make over $250,000 a year. conversely, 6,400 individuals in my district will lose their unemployment benefits at the end

of this month. the choice? 6,800 billionaires and millionaires or 6,400 hardworking families that will not be able to pay their bills, put food on their table, or heat their homes on a cold winter's night. i stand with the middle income and working families of my district. and what happens to the local economy? if we do not extend unemployment benefits my district alone could see the loss of tens of millions of dollars in economic benefits, including small business losses, each and every month. mr. speaker, the moral and economic choice is clear, i stand with our working families and our middle income communities. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from nebraska is recognized to address the house for one minute. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, on august 26, 2010, the world began the year-long celebration of the

centenary of the birth of mother teresa, the blessed theresa of calcutta. mother teresa's enduring legacy of humility and sacrifice has been heralded across cultures and in many languages throughout the world and just earlier this year the united states postal service created this stamp in commemoration of mother teresa's life's work. she worked among the poor in conditions that would weaken the hardest, yet she stood with strength before presidents, kings, and queens. she saved lives and gave countless of thousands hope. hope for the leper, hope for the expectant mother who had been abandoned by family and community. hope for the orphanned child who only wanted a helping heart and home. hope for the indigent poor who sought a meal and belonging. the united states congress honored mother teresa with a u.s. congressional gold medal in 1997. and as we commemorate the 100th

anniversary of her birth, i urge my colleagues to join me and again uplifting mother teresa's life's work, especially during this time when the world is yearning for meaning. . i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 249. house resolution 1745. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 4853, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend

title 49, united states code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, with the senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. section 2, it shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of december 3, 2010, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the

designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only i am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pingree: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, house resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the senate amendment to h.r. 4853. the rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying the

resolution. the rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. the rule provides that the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. finally, the rule allows the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of december 3, 2010. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. mr. speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put american workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. this should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. today we can focus on economic growth to help those that are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent equitable tax relief for the

middle class. these should not be controversial positions. they aren't and they shouldn't be. the economic growth that all americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight. after the last administration and the previous congress spent billions of dollars, starting two foreign wars, shouldn't we do more to help those struggling to find work and making ends meet? today we are going to vote to make sure that working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. nothing more, nothing less. this is not politically showmanship or a partisan game. we are doing the work the american people asked us to do. we are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. we are only voting on extending

tax cuts to the middle class and i believe this sh something we should all agree on. one of the misinformation pieces is that it would hurt small businesses which is simply not true. the bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. that covers 97% of all small businesses in the united states. and let's be clear about another thing. all small businesses -- for all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit. if we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers. i'm glad many business owners in my state, the state of maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. jim welihan, who owns one of the largest shoe stores in the

state, recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. it will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem. jim hits on a critical point. over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and the -- richer compared to everyone else. in 1980 the average income of a country's top .01% of earners was 100%. today that number is 1,000 times. today it has gone down dramatically. so as the wealthier have gotten more they have given less back to our communities and to those who helped create that prosperity. the truth about the tax breaks

for the ultrarich is that they are very, very expensive. cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years loan. that's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists combre it would very little to still -- agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy. the government accountability office analyzed 11 policy profse and ranked them how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery. number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. if only that was the bill we were voting on today. what was number 11? number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. the benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal because that money would be mostly saved, not spent.

that's just not right. i hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i first want to express my appreciation to my very good friend, my rules committee colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listened to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and rules committee colleague, i'm reminded of -- and as i looked at news reports this morning, i guess i should say, listened to her statement and then look at the reports that we had this morning, i'm reminded of the 1992 presidential campaign. i'd like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992

presidential campaign. first, in the general election you recall that bill clinton, george herbert walker bush and ross perot all ran against each other. i know the speaker pro tempore understands very well coming from texas that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago and there was a very famous vice-presidential debate. and in that debate the great highly decorated admiral james stockdale who i was happy before passing as a good friend famously began the debate by saying, who am i and why am i here? now, mr. speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a two-year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any americans over the next two years. and in light of that we're now

resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, we've all come together and agreed we don't want to increase taxes on middle-income americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when in fact we're arguing we should not increase taxes on any americans. now, my second quote from the 1992 presidential campaign, senator paul tsongas, whose widow, nicky, serves very well here in the house, the representative from massachusetts, she corrected the quote when i told her i quoted him. i quoted him as follows -- senator tsongas in the 1992 presidential campaign when he was challenging bill clinton in the primaries said the problem with my democratic party is that they -- they love employees but they hate employers. and mrs. tsongas said you can't

love employees without ploffing employers. well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are it gets back to that famous lincoln line. you can't -- you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. and so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenge that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something we should do. and i believe that every democrat and every republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. they want to see us grow. they want to see us emerge. no one wants to see the united states of america diminish to the level that was predicted by dave coate, a member of the debt commission, the owner of honeywell who said yesterday, at the rate we're going the

united states will become in fact a second-rate nation. no one, no democrat or republican, wants to have that happen. so why don't we use impurecal evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track? now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. if we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion is what is claimed. in fact, if you talk to economists after economist as i have, that is in fact not the case. just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do -- if you do, mr. speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an

increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. and i point to that again as i have time and time again here, i believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan, the bipartisan model put forward first by a great democratic president whose election, whose inaugural address will mark the 50th anniversary of his inaugural address, was elected 50 years ago, john f. kennedy. on january 20 there will be a great celebration in this capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech which many of us have been quoting since we were children of john f. kennedy's. and the model put forward by ronald reagan who on february 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. and that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the

federal treasury. . as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even the left who will say, even keynesian economists that the notion in a down economy, we all know we have a 9.5% unemployment rate, we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning. we all know that in a down economy keen the -- even the keynesian economist will say that increases taxes is a prescription for failure. it actually undermines the potential for economic growth. by had quite -- we had quite a meeting in the rules committee last night, mr. speaker, when we brought this measure up. and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from houston, mr. brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. i said that i believed that to

be very generous. this is sleight of hand, a political ploy, and there are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process we have here. we have a closed rule as my friend said, and i argued that i'm for -- not for an open rule which i'm often arguing for and we hope we'll be able to have in the 112th congress as often as possible, but i argued for a modified closed rule. a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure. what would that mean, mr. speaker? if we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this house to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 democrats and all republicans. mr. speaker, i believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this house to extend -- to ensure we don't

increase taxes on any americans at this time. and this rule would allow that. i offered an amendment that would simply say, ok, let's just provide the ranking member, mr. camp of the ways and means committee, a chance to o ever one substitute -- to offer one substitute which would mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses or any americans. i offered that amendment and on a party-line vote it was rejected. it was fascinating, mr. speaker, to hear the chairman of the ways and means subcommittee, my very good friend, sandy levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income americans is something we can all agree on. and yes, mr. speaker, we can agree on that. but i think it's very evident that this house could, with a

majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times. so i would argue that i think it's very important for us as an institution to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us tragically, during a time when the american people are hurting, i have an unemployment rate in part of the area i'm privileged to represent in southern california, mr. speaker, that is in excess of 15%. we have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest state in the union, largest most important state in the union, state of california, we have a 12.5% unemployment rate. people are hurting. so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.

so, mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and allow us to let the house work its will and have what i'm totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any americans. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. before i turn the time over to one of my colleagues, i just wanted to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from california mentioned. soon his party will be in power and i'm confident he will be the chair of the rules committee and the rules committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. so i look forward to, as a sophomore member, learning how a different process would be conducted by the other side of the aisle. i do want to remind him that

under 12 years when his party was in control there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. so i don't know that that process will change in the future. it certainly wasn't that way in the past. but let me comment -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? i will tell you about the 12 years we were in the majority. we did often provide substitutes. all we are asking for, as i said, all i asked for on this measure was not an open rule, a modified closed rule which would have provided simply one bite at the apple, one attorney, which is out of respect to the democrats in the -- one open rule, which is out of respect for the democrats in the house. mr. pingree: i think it's slightly different of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. i look forward to the modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we'll be working with in the future. that isn't what we have before us today. and i do want to comment that

while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, i also recall that you asked for a three hours of debate on this. if it's truly political theater that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for three hours if in fact you do not consider it serious debate n my opinion you and i just have a strong disagreement. our two parties and many of our members, disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts are. we are having this bill on the floor today because we believe it's important to extend tax cuts for the middle class. that has the greatest benefit to our economy. as the o.m.b. and other studies have shown us, the tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country just do not stimulate the economy. the money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs. it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion which is what this will cost us over the next decade. in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the

deficit. i find it unfathomable there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. for me this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. i'm pleased we have this opportunity here. and i'm a little frustrated every time i hear this try to be portrayed as the real argument is really about small businessings. 2% of the small businesses -- small businesses. 2% of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this. i disagree with your statement that democrats love employ kwlees and dislike employers. many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. i am an employer i have a small business. i feel pretty good about myself. i'm not going to yield. sorry. mr. dreier: it wasn't my quote. mr. pingree: i do appreciate that. i'm glad to know that dear senator tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate

way to use that quote. either way it was something you brought to the floor to make the point that you think somehow this bill is put forward so that democrats can show their disapproval of employers. and i can speak personally that i work closely with employers in my district, i am an employer, and think that there are employers who will benefit under this as well. that's why i quoted in my own remarks jim wellahan who owns a chain of shoe stores in my state that says i am not in favor of the bill to give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. and that in fact is what he's concerned about. employers need customers which are those employees. that's why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing. just one other comment that i had in my notes here today from a small business observer in lincoln, nebraska. people talk about the $250,000

without talking that that is net profit. here's how he describes it. a lot of people don't understand how small business works. we reinvest in our business. we try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. i went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. i did it so i could reduce my taxes. the only people i can think of who could honestly call themselves small business that is this would affect would be stockbrokers and lawyers. that's what rick poor, owner of lincoln, nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this. if the 2% we are trying to help today are stockbrokers and lawyers, i don't think the american public is clamoring for them to have another tax break. i think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding how business works. this is about net profit for small businesses which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this. now, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for three minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentlewoman from maine for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the rule and the bill we are voting on today, the middle class tax relief act. this bill will help millions of americans who are trying to make ends meet by providing them with sorely needed tax relief. the middle class tax relief act permanently extends the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers so that individuals who make less than $200,000 a year, under $250,000 for joint filers will get the tax relief they need. this legislation would help about 323,000 lower and middle income families in my congressional district alone. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they won't vote for this bill because it doesn't meet their highest priority, continuing the status quo of providing tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of americans. on the one hand they claim to be concerned about reducing the

$13.8 trillion national debt, opposing an extension of unemployment benefits for the nearly two million americans who desperately need the assistance, including more than 4,000 in hawaii. not only is this reprehensible in my view, it is bad math. a recent labor department report shows that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, $2 are reinvested into the economy. on the other hand, continuing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires the richest 2% of americans would add a whopping $700 billion to our deficit over 10 years. these tax breaks would not trickle down to create more jobs or help our economic recovery. in fact, they would add to our deficit. and by the way, these richest taxpayers will also get the benefit of the tax relief in this bill. for their first $200,000 of income. why should this group of taxpayers then get an additional benefit that 98% of americans

will not? mr. speaker, this is about fairness. we need to fight for working families and let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire. so that they can start to pay their fair share of taxes. today's vote on this bill will let the american people, the 98% who don't make $200,000 a year, including 323,000 families in hawaii know who is on their side fighting for them. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii yield back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i would say to both of my colleagues who are both good friends of mine that as i listen to the arguments that have been put forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus poor is an argument which has failed for years and years and years. and i think that all we need to do is look at the last november

2 election. there was a rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here. the haves and have-nots, the fact of the matter is any member of this house who votes in favor of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax increase. they are voting in favor of increasing taxes on american investors and small businesses in this country. there's all kinds of dispute about this how many are small businesses? 2%. i mean we have evidence that it's substantially higher than that. if there are any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs, and this policy of increasing taxes undermines them, and inhibits their ability to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity that they can't have it because of this burden that's being inflicted, this is clearly wrong.

now, again on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, the cost and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is proprosper trust. if we can get -- preprosper russ, if we can get people with a 9.6% unemployment rate in my state, 1.5% unemployment rate. if we can get people from the unemployment rolls on to the working rolls, that in and of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. why? we'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits and we will have people who are working as productive members of society paying taxes. . and so the $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one. so, mr. speaker, i will say again, any member of this house who votes in favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to increase

taxes on working americans and is just plain wrong. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to reserve the balance of my time right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: so i assume the gentlewoman has no further speakers? thank you very much. mr. speaker, let me just close, again, by saying that when i use the term political theater i was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member of the trade subcommittee of ways and means, mr. brady, who came before us in the rules committee and said this is political theater. why? there are reports today that the negotiators from the white house and both houses of congress have come to an agreement that we are going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any americans for at

least two years. those are the reports that we have that have come out. so we're here on the house floor denying this institution an opportunity to vote on a proposal like that. we in the rules committee, mr. speaker, simply said, gosh, since 31 democrats have signed a letter saying that they believe it would be a mistake to increase taxes on any americans, that the house should have a chance to vote on that. now, i offered that proposal upstairs last night in the rules committee. party line vote, democrats oh, no, we're not going to allow what would clearly be a majority of the house, i believe if we were to actually have a house, to work its will. we're going to resort to ledger domain, not allowing a motion to recommit. we're actually bringing up this bill before us, mr. speaker, happens to be the airport and airway bill. it's basically the f.a.a. bill. and they did that to deny even

an opportunity for a motion to recommit. now, i know that's all inside baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the american people to cast the votes that they did on november 2. because it was a year ago last june when this read the bill measure came forward when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on our laps at 3:00 in the morning. and the american people started looking at what takes place in this institution and on november 2 they rejected it. well, what we're given here today is obviously an indication that this majority that's now in charge is tone deaf. they don't understand the message that the american people sent because they have spent time looking at what's going on. so that's why we voted on disclosure, accountability. and so as they have done that they've said, don't do the kind of things that you're contemplating doing right now. the bottom line is by resorting

to ledger domain we are going to end up increasing taxes on working americans. and so i say in closing, mr. speaker, that any member of this house who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing and working to create jobs for our fellow americans and it is just plain wrong. so i vote a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from california for his remarks. i would just say again before i close, i think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here. you want to argue that if we don't continue tax cuts, tax

breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. and i would say it's time we let those tax breaks that went on for too long, that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy, it's time we let those end. and i also just want to add my own comment. you know, there's a lot of interpretation about november 2. the voters cast their votes, things changed dramatically. many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes during -- you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority, sometimes your ideas come on top and sometimes they don't. interpreting my own district where voters heard me say every day, i pledge to continue the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- let me start that again. i pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but i will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. i debated my opponent, it was

written in the newspaper, there were endless interviews where my opinion was important. i am a small business owner. i said to people, you know, this isn't a small business issue. this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country. and i just have to say when i go back and look at the november 2 election oddly enough i'm still here and i intend to be here on november -- january 5 and and be sworn in again. somehow the voters in my district said, go for it. we don't want to see more tax breaks for the wealthy. we want to see tax cuts for the middle class. so i am interpreting november 2 to say we're doing the right thing on the floor today. we're putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts from the wealthiest from the tax cuts from the middle class. that's what we're doing here today. let me just close, mr. speaker. 10 years ago congress passed a package of tax cuts with the

lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. the intent was to grow and secure our economy. today, millions of families across this country are struggling. they're worrying about finding work. they're barely covering their monthly expenses. i have to ask my colleagues, do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago? since these cuts took place, we've gone from a balanced federal budget to troubling deficits. we've seen the middle class weaken and we've experienced the worst economic downturn since the great depression. the billions we've given in handouts to the superrich have been major contributors to all of those realities. today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real americans that we as members of congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. we can stand up today and say we are going to help the vast majority of americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class,

and for once congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class. i strongly stand behind h.r. 4853 and extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. they need a break, and we should be doing even more for them, but it's simply outrageous to suggest we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that's weakened our economy, placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. i urge all of my colleagues to support -- all of my colleagues to support the middle class americans and to vote for the underlying bill. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine yields back the balance of her time. members, the question is now on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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 ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 1745 if ordered and suspending the rules with regard to house resolution 1638, house resolution 5098 and house resolution 1575, if ordered. members, this is a 15-minute vote. 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 224. the nays are 186. the previous question is ordered. the question is on acorporation of the -- adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 213. the nays are 203. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1638 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1638, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national gear up day. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- a

recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 405 the nays are zero -- 405 the nays are zero. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1598 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1598, resolution expressing support for the designation of the month of october as national work and family month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. as many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, on this matter i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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.]

s

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution

1576 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1576 , resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives that a national day of recognition for parents of children with special needs should be established. the speaker pro tempore: the vote on house resolution 1576 as amended. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. a recorded vote is 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, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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: the yeas are 413. nays, zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 6473, the airport and airway extension act of 2010, part 4. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6473, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49 united states code to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. costello, and the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 6473.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. will the gentleman suspend for a minute. the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costello: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 6473, the airport and airway extension act of 2010 part 4. i want to thank chairman oberstar of the committee on transportation for bringing this bill to the floor today. at the end of september we passed the f.a.a. extension that will expire on december 31. h.r. 6473 is a clean three-month extension that runs through the end of march. however i am hopeful we still can pass a long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill before the 111th congress adjourns. there are many important provisions in the f.a.a. re-authorization bill such as

binding arbitration for the air traffic controllers, addressing the consolidation and realignment of f.a.a. facilities, and making investments to accelerate next again. in addition the bill will create thousands of jobs at a time when our economy continues to struggle and too many americans are out of work. our aviation system plays a significant role in our national economy and i will continue to push for a comprehensive long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, as was pointed out in may the house passed h.r. 915, the re-authorization act of 2009, and in march of this year the senate passed its own re-authorization bill. the house took that up, amended it, and passed it back to the senate. since then we have been in formal discussions to reconcile the two bills and these discussions have led to tentative agreement on nearly

all of the provisions, a few controversial issues have prevented the house and senate from reaching a final agreement. therefore with the f.a.a.'s authority set to expire at the end of the calendar year, we again find it necessary to consider another extension. like the 16 earlier extensions over the past three years, the bill before us would provide a short-term extension of the taxes, programs, and funding of the f.a.a. this time through the end of march, 2011. it's unfortunate that this congress has not been able to reach final agreement on the comprehensive f.a.a. re-authorization bill. we recognize the importance of a multiyear re-authorization and i look forward to working with mr. costello and my other colleagues in the next congress to that end. but in order to ensure the safe operation of the national aerospace system while congress continues to debate a full re-authorization package, i certainly support passage of today's extension, urge my colleagues to do the same, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: at this time i yield for such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full transportation and infrastructure committee, chairman oberstar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. oberstar: i thank the chairman for yielding me time. i thank mr. mica for his partnership in bringing yet another transportation bill to the house floor. in these waning hours of the session. i wish with all my heart we didn't have to be here. that the other body had acted on this measure in the 110th congress and earlier in this congress. but that's not the case. unfortunately and without going into any detail or further reviewing the action, the inscrutable actions of the other body, i will just say that we are here again doing our part in

public service, carrying out our trust to the people of this country and to the cause of aviation in assuring that we continue the programs of aviation until such time and hope continues in my heart and that of mr. costello, mr. petri, mr. mica and i think of the whole aviation committee that we will be able to accomplish passage of the full authorization bill. we are headed for a billion passengers in the airspace of the united states. last year a billion people traveled by air worldwide, 3/4 of them traveled in the u.s. airspace. we account for more air travel than all the rest of the world combined.

to continue to provide the level of service needed for this engine of economic growth, aviation, which accounts for 9% of our gross domestic product, we need to prepare for the future. this legislation will provide the authorization for the next generation air traffic control technology to be implemented in time with the effectiveness that the f.a.a. has always pursued and for the good purposes of aviation. it's important for us to persist until the very last hours of this congress to assure that the goals of aviation will be met. that safety in aviation will be provided at the highest possible level as stated in the opening paragraphs of the f.a.a. act of 1958. that we meet our trust to the

flying public to assure that the separation of aircraft at altitude will be conducted by the most robust, efficient, available technology that we prepare the groundwork for future growth in aviation, and this legislation does it. it's a tribute to mr. costello and to mr. petri. they worked together and particularly mr. costello's chair of the subcommittee has bent himself to the effort. he has persisted rigorously in hearings, in meetings, in markup to fashion the the best possible future for aviation. this bill is a monument to his service as chair of the aviation subcommittee. for that reason alone it ought to be enacted by the congress. for myself, nostalgic moment, i

think unless we are here again on aviation, likely to be my last measure on which i'll speak in this body and i thank my colleagues for their support, i thank our diligent and dedicated and gifted committee staff, especially david, ward our full committee chief of staff and counsel for their many, many years we have spent together. stacey who came on the committee to become one of the most outstanding aviation professionals in this whole country, and many others that i will -- whose names i will submit for the record i'm

grateful for their friendships, the partnerships, and to the people of my district for this opportunity to serve the great public good in this greatest legislative body in the world. i yield back the balance of my time. . i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i just want to take a minute to acknowledge and express my admiration for the service of the chairman of our committee, mr. oberstar. mr. peterson: the public works and -- mr. petri: the public works and transportation committee has a long and honorable record here in our congress and i think mr. oberstar has been a contributor member of that committee, both as a leading staff member working his way up and then as a member of the committee representing northern iron range

in northern minnesota and working his way up to the chairmanship for a significant percentage of the life of the committee. i think a 200-year-old-more-plus country and you've been on the committee for a quarter of that time. so it's really been a joy for me to be able to learn about the background and history and context of a lot of the different decisions that the committee has faced over the years from mr. oberstar who in some cases read about them and in other cases experienced firsthand the history that we were discussing and the background of the decisions that we were making. like any other two members of a body like this, we've never agreed on everything but i think we've always tried to be

agreeable. and i certainly have appreciated that and i think that there's no question that the people of the iron range in northern minnesota are going to lose a great and dedicated champion with deep roots in the history of that mining region of our country. and i would just like to yield for a brief moment to my chairman on the education and labor committee, george miller. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate taking a moment to recognize jim oberstar's service to our country and to the congress and as one who came to the congress with congressman oberstar, he had such a wealth of knowledge before he was elected as a member of congress because of his service in the congress. but to just see him every year

become such a remarkable spokesperson for infrastructure and public works and needs of this country and almost every conceivable form and maintaining this country and its economy and to see him become such an authority both in the congress and across the nation and around the world on the demands of our economy on the infrastructure and the interrelatedness of those two things, you can't really have one without the other. if you're not growing the infrastructure you can't grow the economy. you can't grow the economy if you're not growing the infrastructure. and it's a lesson i think that we have maybe painfully learned over the last few months. and he was a spokesperson for doing much more on behalf of the infrastructure but also on behalf of the men and women who are employed in that effort and the people who would be employed in the future with modern airports and modern ports and

modern rail systems and smart highway systems and integrated transportation systems. so it's been very proud to serve with you all of this time, all of our time together in the congress and thank you for your knowledge and for your service. mr. petri: just before i wrap up, one last point, and that is that i think one thing i've learned watching mr. oberstar is the way he has expressed appreciation for and treated the people he works with on the staff of the committee and in the house and i think the fact that he spent many years as a staffer himself -- sometimes you get angry about things, but he always, always recognized the contribution and the importance of the work that was being done by people who devoted their lives often not in the public

spotlight, but even in more important endeavors as they worked out the details of legislation that we were working with. for these and many other reasons, you, sir, shall be missed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. petri: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, a member of the committee and also a subcommittee chairman, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will be recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and i support the legislation but i wanted to take a moment to express my thankfulness to mr. oberstar, chairman oberstar. so often we look at our lives and we question how they will intersect with other people's lives. and we hope that when those

intersections come about, that we're made a better person because of them. and i can say that when my life, eclipsed with that of jim oberstar's, my life became a better life. as the chairman of the coast guard subcommittee, mr. oberstar was consistently there, guiding, showing me the ropes and giving me an opportunity to be all that i could be. it's not every chairman that does that. that says, you know, i'm going to allow you to be all that you can be and then give you the guidance to get there and then support you throughout. and so i've learned a lot in all my years and it's been about 15 years on that committee from our chairman. but there's also the thing that a number of people have already said. i've been just amazed with his

leadership and his compassion and passion with regard to the issues of aviation, the coast guard, water, the rail. i mean, and all of our other subjects, not only is he a walking encyclopedia, but he's also one who brings a strong history to those issues and has been truly a professor and a guide and a true leader. they say that leaders -- people want to follow people who have integrity. who have commitment. who will go the extra mile. may i have one more minute? mr. costello: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. cummings: true leaders. and so jim oberstar is one who

we knew that even in those moments as the great theologian said, when he was unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated and unapplauded, he still did the right thing. that's what leadership is all about. and so we -- generations will be better off because chairman oberstar touched our lives. and i wish him well. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: mr. speaker, thank you. let me also say to chairman oberstar, he -- i want to thank him for his kind words about this legislation and the work that both myself and mr. petri has done. but actually every team has to have a captain, a leader, and he has been the leader. he's the person that drove every transportation bill in the last several years coming out of the transportation committee on the

floor of this house. i've said many times to -- both here in washington and back in illinois, that no one in the congress of the united states or in my opinion in the entire country knows more about transportation issues than jim oberstar. he's given all of his adult life to serve his country, his entire time here, both as a staff person and as a member and as chairman of the transportation committee. he has left us with the legacy that we can be very proud of. and i am very certain that as we end this congress and move on to the 112th, as we are taking up our business, we will all turn to him and continue to ask him for his advice and to help us guide our way into the future as to how we can improve the quality of life for the people of this country by improving our transportation system. i thank him for not only his

service, but personally for his guidance to me. he has been a mentor. everything that i have learned about aviation i learned from jim oberstar. and i wish him well and look forward to having him take my phone cause many times in the future as -- calls many times in the future as i turn to him for advice. mr. speaker, with that i would ask the gentleman, he's yielded back the balance of his time, i would yield back the balance of our time and i ask for a strong support for this legislation -- for strong support for this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6473. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, and the bill is passed. the gentleman from -- oh. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 6469. spoipt clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6469, a bill to amend section 17 of the richard b. russell national school lunch act, to include a condition of

receipt of funds until the child and adult care food program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. miller, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: the gentleman from california is getting his act together here. mr. speaker, i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on the bill into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house, today we take up a suspension that requires all

participating child care feeding situations to run background checks on people participating in those settings. and we do so in support of children across this country who are hungry and who don't have access to nutritious meals and who couldn't vote in november and in support of this legislation will allow us to pass a clean child nutrition bill. they are the ones who don't have a voice but need our help. yesterday we postponed final consideration of the child nutrition legislation so we could fully address the issues of protecting our children and also ensuring the passage of the child nutrition legislation. our children cannot afford any longer delays. time is running out in this congress. this bill before us today ensures that along with state and federal laws, that all children will be protected in child care and i support this bill and hope that it will pass.

in an effort to prevent passage of the child nutrition bill, the republicans decided yesterday to offer a motion to kill the bill and unfortunately to play politics with two important issues. our children's safety and our children's health. make no mistake about it, we must accept the motion to recommit or we will kill this child nutrition bill. we must accept -- if we accept the motion to recommit, we will kill the child nutrition bill. today this house can take action that will both keep children safe and keep them healthy by voting for the swex and -- suspension and against the killer motion to recommit and for the child nutrition bill. h.r. 6469 is identical to the background check provisions offered by the minority and will help ensure that our nation's children are protected from individuals with a history of criminal or abusive behavior. this legislation helps parents by giving them assurance that any child care provider participating in the child care -- child and adult care food programs has undergone criminal background checks.

today's federal law requires all participants that participate in the child and adult care feeding programs to be licensed and approved to provide care by state or local agencies. there's more to be done to keep children safe and in childcare, and i hope the republicans will join me in working to make this happen when we take up the re-authorization of the childcare and development block grant. in the area of background checks, most states have acted already. for example in all two states require criminal background checks for childcare center employees. furthermore, all but seven states require screening for child abuse and neglect. this legislation goes a step further by ensuring the comprehensive back grouped checks that have been done for providers that all childcare programs participate in child and adult care feeding programs. this legislation is an important opportunity to vote in favor of protecting our nation's children from harm and i urge our colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and

later today to vote against the motion to recommit and for passage of the child nutrition bill, the healthy, hungry free kids act. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: members on the other side of the aisle have talked a great deal yesterday and even again today about playing politics and gotchas here on the house floor. so i feel compelled to take a moment to set the record straight. yesterday the house was supposed to debate and vote on a bill to re-authorization federal child nutrition programs. rather than allowing members to offer amendments and fully engage in the legislative process, the majority decided the u.s. house of representatives should have no say in these programs that affect childhood health and wellness. members of the house would have no involvement in writing initiatives to spend an additional $4.5 billion in

hard-earned taxpayer dollars on legislation that imposes significant operational and financial cost on our local school districts. they brought this massive child nutrition bill, $4.5 billion in new spending and 17 new or expanded federal programs to the floor under a closed rule. for the record it was the 97th closed rule in the four years democrats have controlled the people's house. 97 closed rule. apparently it's easier to dictate the outcome when you prevent legislators from legislating. talk about a gotcha. that's why i offered a motion to recommit, the one and only chance we had to remove some of the bill's most harmful provisions and insert stronger protections for our children. my modest amendment included a pair of noncontroversial changes to the underlying bill that should have passed the house overwhelmingly. but that did not fit in the majority's plan. you see, as i said less than 24 hours ago the clock is winding down on the 111th congress and

there is a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as this majority, this outgoing majority can manage. as we witnessed yesterday, the sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of a deliberative process. i don't know about anybody else, but this seems familiar. perhaps because it was just this year the democrats passed a government takeover the health care under a closed process. they promise add country a fiscally responsible plan while cutting backroom deals to hide the true cost of the legislation. all this was done in an effort to pass a partisan bill the american people have rejected. instead of letting lawmakers do our job and pass the best bill we can, the majority shut down the legislative process to defeat improvements to legislation while pretending to support them. talk about playing politics. members will come to the floor shortly to support this bill and why shouldn't they? this proposal taken from my

motion to recommit, the child nutrition legislation, protects children by requiring background checks for childcare providers participating in federal meal programs. it's a good proposal. which is why it belongs to the child nutrition legislation. instead we understand the majority party plans to execute a stunning same-day flip-flop voting for these background checks now only to oppose them when they really count. as an improvement in the broader bill. they will be for it before they are against it. this procedural gimmick may fix one problem but leaves the policy broken. for anyone still wondering why the american people hold their elected representatives in such low regard, i believe this is it. notably absent from this so-called cover vote is the other piece of our motion to recommit. the republican plan would eliminate the middle class tax hidden in the child nutrition legislation. the democrats' bill imposes an unpress didn'ted federal price mandate for paid school meals. as a result, many schools may

have to increase the prices they charge children who pay for their meals. the national governors association and leading school groups oppose this provision because it will drive up for families and punish schools that have worked hard to hold down costs while providing higher quality meals. our proposal would have blocked this harmful tax on working families. we proposed during the one and only opportunity we had to do so a modest pair of correction that is would have made the bill better, our children safer, all while protecting working families. the majority party wants to defeat those corrections but they cannot do so without political cover. so here we stand. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman from minnesota for yielding the time. mr. speaker, thank you very much for the recognition. i know full well from my experience in the state legislature as well as working on the transition team here that when one speaks of procedural issues, usually people's eyes glaze over. they are boring issues. however good procedures does create good policy. poor procedures creates what we are doing here today. as was said by the gentleman from minnesota, had the motion to recommit, an amendment, been approved by this body, it would be attached in its entirety to the entire bill. this bill, if it goes to the president's desk, would have all that language in it. by changing the procedure,

pulling the bill from the floor before the vote and now stripping out part of the motion to recommit and doing it as an extension, it allows us once again to have political coverage that won't take place in reality of making changes in what happens to this bill or in the real world. for we all know the suspension we pass here has a very high likelihood of dying in this session. so we can come down here and say, yeah, we want to protect our kids from predators and vote for a suspension knowing full well that probably will never go into effect. it will die over in the senate if it gets that far and then we'll vote for a bill that no longer has that concept that the house seemed or at least appeared that it wanted to add to this provision part of that. and one of the rationales for doing that is because, well, most of the states already have those types of procedures. i hate to say this, but that argument can be used for almost all of this bill. see, one of the things that would not be included if indeed

the extension passes and the motion to recommit failed is the deal with section 205 which as mentioned earlier deals with the amount of money people will pay not for reduced lunches but people will pay just because they don't qualify for reduced lunches. i hate to use a personal example but i got to. as many of you know i was a school teacher before i joined this august body and this is not something great to note, but as a school teacher i qualified under the standards for reduced lunches for my five kids. and as a school teacher who qualified for those reduced lunches, i refused to take advantage of that opportunity. i figured that no one had a gun to my head when i had the kids, it was my responsibility now to take care of my kids. i don't think i'm unusual in that respect. i think there are hundreds of thousands of people who have the same attitude they want to take the responsibility for their progeny and the responsibility for what takes place and unfortunately if this provision, section 205, is allowed to stay

in the bill it means the federal government, not local school districts, not boards where you have a chance to talk to people and they understand the demographics and the reasons, they will make the decision of what people who are paying the full price will pay for that price. it can go up whether someone wants it and has been mentioned it becomes a disincentive for people to be responsible to not ask the government to bail them out, to take responsibility and pay for at least school lumps for their own kids or school breakfasts or whatever the process has. it becomes a counterintuitive argument that harms the process. why? it's because the decision on what level that payment will be will no longer be paid on the local school district level or at least at the state level. it will be made here where a one-size-fits-all program does indeed fail the pros -- process. this is simply -- i don't want to call it political gamesmanship but it is poor procedure.

that will result in two votes, one vote that is totally meaningless, and another vote that misses the mark and does not improve what we are trying to do or what we should do in schools and that is allow people who really understand the process to have the final say at the local level where kids are, where the parents are, and where reality should hit. not here. once again this is not a school board. how often we try to act like one, we still are not. i thank you for your patience and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman. frankly i think it's important for my colleagues to recognize that we have been there, done that. and i don't know how the minority consistently managed to trample on a need that americans had and that this congress and this leadership and this

president is trying to cure. robert f. kennedy was one of the first elected officials to draw our attention to the extensive poverty in america. going into the appalachian mountains he showed the world how children woke up hungry and went to bed hungry. it is well that the president commitment and the first lady's charge have been to put our children on the front pages of america. so i rise to support the underlying healthy hunger free kids act, recognizing we are discussing a suspension that involves all manner of confusion. but i want america to understand what is really being addressed which i hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support. it is to complement the deficiencies of food stamps.

it is to recognize that some children get their healthiest meals at breakfast and lunch and possibly because of this program through the weekend. it connects learning ability with being well nourished. and it speaks not to yesterday but it speaks to tomorrow. the future of america. now, many of us were concerned as to how this was paid for, but if you look closely at it it's an outlay and there's a question of food stamps have been addressed by discussion that is we have had and no cuts in food stamps will occur at this time. but what will occur is that we will bring out of the drain of poverty those children that are our responsibility. i believe it is crucial that we support this legislation now and that we address all manner of information and representation that our friends have --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: that we deal with the question of sexual predators. as the chair of the children's caucus i worked on extensively. we deal with questions of potential fraud which i don't know where our colleagues are documenting that, but what we need to address is a 21 million meals provided through this provision that will offer more incentives for a more competitive school program and allow our children to learn and live. if america doesn't accept that as a challenge that it must connect with, then i don't know who we are as a people. i'm gratified that we have finally recognized that poverty must be extinguished. i ask my colleagues to vote for the bill going forward for children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. can i ask you're the last speaker? i'm prepared to close.

i willie