that we give every tool to law enforcement to protect our children. but in the instance of this legislation, this is in fact a very important statement, if you will, about our commitment to protecting our children. i congratulate senator schumer and to all the organizations that every day encounter adults that work with children this gives you an added extra tool that i know that you will use to be able to ensure that our children have a full and complete quality of life, enjoy the activities that you provide for them and yet have the opportunity to volunteer themselves and work with adults who they know are concerned about their best interests and not those who may have a record that would undermine the purpose and goals of the organization in which they work. so in conclusion let me thank those who have supported this legislation and ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support s. 3998, criminal history background checks pilot extension act, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i reiterate my support for this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yield it's back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: u.a.b. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 3998. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. scott: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, 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: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3353. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3353, a bill to

provide for american samoa and the commonwealth of the northern marianas to be treated as states for certain criminal justice programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, h.r. 3353 will allow the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands and american samoa to be treated as two separate entities for the purpose of the toward byrne memorial assistance justice program. currently, these two areas are treated as one state for the distribution of federal byrne grants. the byrne justice assistant grants fund local jurisdictions. the program provides states,

tribes, local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas, including law enforcement, prosecution, courts, prevention, education, corrections and crime witness initiatives. although the bill does not change the grant formula, particularly the statutory minimum amount of the .25% of each state or territory is entitled, it does change how the northern mariana islands and american commow c.i.a. will be given funding under -- samoa will be given under the grant program. byrne grant funding increases if the state has larger populations and higher crime rates. the three other territories, puerto rico, guam and the united states virgin islands are presently entitled to the minimal funded as well as all 50 state. the objective this resolution is to allow the northern mariana islands and the american samoa to the

entitlement. i ask my colleagues to support the legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: today, mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3353, which does provide for american samoa and the commone wealth of the northern mariana islands to be treated as states for certain criminal justice programs. this is sponsored by mr. sablan from the northern mariana islands. we thank him for bringing this forward to us, as the gentleman from virginia said, this will allow these two territories to be treated individually for the byrne grant program. this will assist both of them in dealing with some of the law enforcement challenges that they have. this increase in formula grant funding will provide additional resources to territorial law enforcement officials to help them combat crime. for example, this additional

funding will help officials cover the cost of purchasing and maintaining police vehicles and other equipment have has to be shipped to the island. h.r. 3353 will also help the territorial government to provide much-needed service to the victims of the crime. because the remoteness of the northern mariana islands and american samoa, resources are limited. the three inhabited islands in american samoa but only one shelter that provides shelter for those of victims of domestic violence. it will build capacity to serve crime victims. as there are limited number of crime victim specialists and advocates in the territories, this will hire those on the mainland. this is important legislation that will help law enforcement officials in the northern mariana islands and american samoa to accomplish their missions. so i support this bill. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized for five minutes. sabby piscitelli thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- mr. sablan will be thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3353. i want to thank chairman john conyers and chairman bobby scott and their staff for their help in getting and bringing this bill to the house floor. i also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support for my bill to bring this under suspension of the rules. approval of h.r. 3353 will further national policy to support a broad range of activities carried out by state of territory governments to prevent and control crime as well as to improve the criminal justice systems. program funds are allocated

using a formula that provides a minimum amount of jurisdiction to accomplish these goals. the exceptions are the northern mariana islands and american samoa which is funded under single jurisdiction despite that these two are separate jurisdictions with entirely separate local governments. and each of the governments have their responsibility for the same basic criminal justice system as well as any other state or territory. in the northern mariana islands, this includes the system of districts, superior and supreme courts, a provision system, a prison for long-term incars nation, juvenile facility. this is the same range of activity that's fallen in any other jurisdiction in america. yet, as currently structured, the j.a.g. program provides only a portion of the funding levels. h.r. 3353 rectifies that difference. since its inception in 1988,

the byrne j.a.g. program has provided crime victim initiatives in all states and territories but not to the same degree. h.r. 3353 will finally bridge that gap for the northern mariana islands and for american samoa to help create safer and justice for communities for all. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 3353. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands yields back the balance of his time. mr. scott: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, as representative of the district of 28,000 american smowans, i rise in support of h.r. 3353, which will provide for american

samoa and the northern mariana islands to be treated as states for criminal justice funding. this legislation will protect the people of these islands by securing the resources necessary to employ criminal justice programs that are most capable of addressing the specific needs in their area. it's kind of like asking why i wouldn't think that the city of long beach and the city of los angeles wouldn't garner equal funding appropriately. i thank chairman conyers and mr. scott, chairman scott as well for their leadership in bringing forth this bill. i also applaud congressman sablan for the sponsor of this legislation for his dedicated leadership on this issue and many others that have been promoting the interest and safety of the people of the northern mariana islands and the american samoa which is represented by eni faleomavaega. when we amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets acts of 1968 to treat american samoa and the northern mariana islands as separate states, we will allow the appropriation funding for vital important

criminal justice programs that will keep these communities safe and they deserve them. there are over 60,000 -- 66,000 people living in american samoa and there are over 48,000 people living in the northern mariana islands. each of these islands has their own unique culture, history and their own way of dealing with things, including their challenges. the people of these islands deserve separate funding under this legislation that will allow them to appropriately and innovatively address their specific criminal justice issues. protecting communities and fighting crime requires not just a fair share of funding but it also requires flexibility to apply for the funding in the way that suits that specific community. i've traveled to american samoa. i had an opportunity to go there this year, and we worked on the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. many people in my district helped to bring tons and tons of items, over 90 tons to help

people in their community. i am certain that passing this bill is the right thing and the fair thing to do. again, as representative of this district, i stand in full support of the efforts today. it's imperative that we pass this legislation now without delay and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 3353. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i, again, reiterate my support for h.r. 3353. 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 gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3353. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, 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: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6412. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6412, a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to require the attorney general to share criminal records with state sentencing commissions, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, h.r. 6412 is a short but very important piece of legislation. the bill will allow state sentencing commissions to obtain direct access to national criminal history record information maintained by the department of justice. these commissions, the state

commissions perform critical functions. they shape state policies, they promote fair, more consistent sentencing practices, they protect public safety and address the impacts of crime on victims and the community. they develop tools to assist the seriousness and risk of defenders so that high-risk dangerous offenders will be handled appropriately and low-level offenders will be placed in evidence-based programs. they protect the state -- they project the state legislation regulation and policies on correctional populations, personnel needs and fiscal requirements. they require -- they evaluate the effectiveness of the sentencing and corrections programs, particularly in terms of outcomes of offender recidivism and cost benefit analysis. the state commissions are only able to receive out-of-state and criminal history information through third

parties, if at all. the effectiveness of the work of these commissions is consequently undermined by missing or incomplete information, particularly with respect to research relating to recidivism and injuries -- in jurisdictions with large populations near state borders. allowed state commissions to get accurate and complete information will approve the administration of justice of enhancing program placements. access to this information will also improve research concerning sentencing outcomes and recidivism. this bill will simply put state commissions in the same position as the federal sentencing commission in terms of access to this information. the united states sentencing commission is already afforded access to this information, subject to a transfer agreement with the department of justice which protects confidentiality of these records. i would expect the department of justice to treat state commissions the same way once the legislation is enacted. i appreciate the assistance of chairman conyers and ranking

member smith for their bipartisan support of this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 6412, the access to criminal history records for state sentencing commissions act of 2010. this amends the federal law to direct the attorney general to share criminal history records with state sentencing commissions. i'm proud to say that although it's not as rare as the chances i have to agree with the senator from new york, i do agree with my friend from virginia more often than that, and it is good to be able to be here in support -- and support legislation that he brings to the floor. over a dozen states operate sentencing commissions. that similar to the u.s. sentencing commission promulgate

guidelines. many state sentencing commissions also collect and report statistics on the types of crimes, the lengths of sentences, the rates of recidivism and other important public safety data. federal law has required the attorney general to collect criminal history records and share such records with state and local governments, indian tribes, penal institutions and the u.s. sentencing commission. however, interestingly enough, state sentencing commissions are not currently eligible to participate in this exchange. h.r. 6412 corrects this submission by amending the federal law to add state sentencing commissions to the list of entities authorized to obtain criminal history records. there's an old adage that all crime is local and in many respects that's true today. a lot of crimes may be local but often times the criminal is not. today more than ever criminals move from one state to the next or across the country, leaving a trail of criminal records behind them. public safety officials rely upon shared criminal history records to apprehend fugetifics

and to identify dangerous criminals. prosecutors in the courts depend on these records to assess penalties and sentencing commissions need this da to accurately report sentencing data and to ensure that their sentencing guidelines provide fair and appropriate punishment. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill brought to us by mr. scott of virginia and if he has no more speakers, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: to thank the gentleman from california for supporting bills introduced by this side of the aisle in light of the change in leadership next year, i hope he continues in that great tradition. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6412.

those those -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -- for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, 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: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed ogs on this question will be postponed -- proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair now declares the house in recess until approximately 6:00 p.m. today.

twill twelltwell and because of this agreement middle class americans won't see their taxes go up on january 1. which is what i promised. a promise i made during the campaign. a promise i made as president. because of this agreement, two million americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on the table. and in exchange for a temporary extension of the high income tax breaks, not a permanent but a temporary extension, a policy that i opposed but that republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that i fought for and that republicans opposed two years ago.

i'll cite three of them. number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay college tuition you will continue to see tax breaks next year. second, if you're a small business looking to invest and grow you'll have a tax cut next year. third, as a result of this agreement we will cut payroll taxes in 2011 which will add about $1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family. so this isn't an abstract debate. this is real money. for real people. it will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here, who make a real different in -- it will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. in other words, it's a good deal for the american people. now, i know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight. even if it had meant higher taxes for all americans, even

if it had manhattan an end to unemployment insurance for those who are desperately looking for work. and i understand the desire for a fight, i'm sympathetic to that. i'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as i've been for years. in the long run we can't afford them. and when they expire in two years i will fight to end them. just as i suspect the republican party may fight end to the middle class tax cuts that i have championed and that they've opposed. we're going to keep having this debate. we're going to keep on having this battle. but in the meantime i'm not here to play games with the american people or the health of our economy. my job is to do whatever i can to get this economy moving. my job is to do whatever i can to spur job creation. my job is to look out for middle class families who are struckling right now to get by -- strucking -- struggling right now to get by and americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. a long political fight that

carried over into next year might be have been good politics but it would be a bad deal for the economy and for the american people. and my re-- responsibility as president is to do what's right for the american people. that's a responsibility i intend to uphold as long as i'm in this office. so, with that, let me take a couple of questions. ben. >> thank you, mr. president. you've been telling the american people aye all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier americans. you said that again today. but what you never said was that you opposed a tax cut but you'd be willing to go ahead and ex tend them for a couple of years if the politics at the moment demand it. when you take a stand like you had, why should the american people believe that you're going to stick with it? why should the american people believe that you're not going to flip on them? hold on this isn't the politics of the moment. this is what can we get done right now? so, the issue -- here's the choice, it's very stark. we can't get my preferred

option through the senate right now. as a consequence, if we don't get my option through the senate right now and we do nothing then on january 1 of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. number two, at the end of this month, two million people will lose their unemployment insurance. now, i have an option which is to say, you know what? i'm going to keep fighting a political fight which i can't win in the senate and by the way there are going to be more republican senators in the senate next year, sworn in than there are currently, so the likelihood that the dynamics are going to improved will be diminished. i've got an option of just holding fast to my position and as a consequence two million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of

millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller, or alternative liffle -- alternativetively what i can say is that i'm going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance and i will continue to fight before the american people to make the point that the republican position is wrong. now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the american people to my side, then i would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the american people already agree with me. there are polls showing right now that the american people for the most part think it's a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. but the issue is not me persuading the american people, they're already there. the issue is how do i persuade the republicans in the senate who are currently blocking that

position? i have not been able too -- to budge them. i don't think there's anybody in this room that thinks i can budge them right now and in the meantime there's a lot of people getting hurt and the economy would be damaged. my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we're creating jobs out there and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. if i have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand but those folks being hurt, or helping those folks and continuing to fight this battle, i will choose the latter. >> are you describing a situation you're in right now, what about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? was that there a failure on the part of the democratic leadership on the hill or here that you couldn't preclyde collude these cuts going forward? >> -- preclude these cuts going forward? >> on the republican side, this is their holy grail. these tax cuts for the wealthy.

this seems to be their central economic docket are in. and so unless -- doctrine. so unless we have 60 votes in the senate at any gip given time it would be very hard for us to move this forward. i have said that i would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. i thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election. to crystalize the positions of the two parties, because i think the democrats have better ideas. i think our proposals to make sure that the middle class is held harmless but that we don't make these bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals because it's going to cost the country at a time when we've got these luming -- looming deficit, that that was the better position to take and the american people were persuaded by that. but the fact of the matter is, i haven't persuaded the republican party. i haven't persuaded mitch mcconnell and i haven't persuaded john boehner and if i can't persuade them, then i've

got to look at what is the best thing to do given that reality for the american people and for jobs. juliana. >> thank you, mr. president. back in july, your press office said that you forecasted that unemployment would be 7.7% in the fourth quarter of 2012. will this package be lower than projected rate? and also, is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your recovery effort? >> this is not as significant a boost to the economy as the recovery act was but we're in a different situation now. when the recovery act passed, we were looking at a potential great depression and we might have seen unemployment >> up -- go up to 15%, 20%, we dent -- don't know. in combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the federal reserve did, that's behind us now. we don't have the danger of a double dip recession. what we have is a situation in

which the economy although growing, although company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy's not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate, given the eight million jobs that were lost before i came into office and just as i was coming into office. so what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than i think most economic forecasters had expected. in fact, you've already seen some just over the last 24 hours suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. i think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace. so, overall every economist i've talked to suggests that

this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. and that is the main criteria by which i made this decision. look, this is something that i think everybody has to remember. and i would speak especially to my fellow democrats who i think rightly are passionate about middle class families, working families, low income families, who are having the toughest time in this economy. the single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy. the single most important antipoverty program we can put in place is making sure folks have jobs and the economy is growing. we can do a whole bunch of other stuff but if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster than it's currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many programs we put into place. that's why when i look at what our options were, for us to

have another three, four, five months of uncertainty, not only would that have a direct impact on the people who see their paychecks get smaller, not only would that have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing. >> just a follow-up. the unemployment rate was north of 8% when the last recovery act was put into place. it's now 9.8%. are you prepared to say today that the unemployment is rate is going to go down as a result of this act? >> my expectation is that the unemployment rate is going to be going down because the economy is growing. and even though it's growing more slowly than i'd like, it's still growing. now, how fast is it going to go down, how quickly the economy

is going to grow, when are private sector businesses going to start making the investments in equipment and start hiring people again, you know, there are a lot of economists out there who have been struggling with that question. so i'm not going to make a prediction. what i can say with confidence is that this package will help strengthen the economy. will help strengthen the recovery. that i'm confident about. chuck. >> mr. president, what do you say to democrats who say -- rewording republican construction here, they were unwilling to budge on this? a lot of progressive democrats are saying they're unwilling to budge and you're asking them to get off the fence and budge, why should they reword it? >> let me use a couple of analogies. i've said before that i felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high end tax cuts.

i think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers. unless the hostage gets harmed. then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. in this case the hostage was the american people and i was not willing to see them get harmed. again, this is not an abstract political fight. this is not isolated here in washington. there are people right now who when their unemployment insurance are ups out will not be able to pay the bills -- runs out will not be able to pay the bills. there are people now who are just making it on the paycheck they've got and when that paycheck gets smaller on january 1, they're going to have to scramble to figure out, how am i going to pay all my bills? how am i going to keep miking -- making payments for nye tchiled's -- child's college tuition? what am i going to do exactly? now, i could have enjoyed the battle with republicans over the next month or two because

as i said, the american people are on our side. this is not a situation in which i have failed to persuade the american people of the rightness of our position. i know the polls. the polls are on our side on this. we weren't operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. the problem is that republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. and in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently. so, i guess another way of thinking about it is that certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high income individuals in exchange for these short-term things

that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable and the reason is is because, you know, you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short-term that would help to offset that. the deal that we've struck here makes the high end tax cuts temporary and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the american people that are my number one concern. >> if i may follow up. aren't you telegraphing a negotiating strategy of how the republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year? because they can just stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge, to use your words, and force you to capitulate? i don't think so. the reason is because this is a

you have enuke -- >> i don't think so. and the reason is because this is a very unique circumstance. this is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly and immediately damaged and at a time when the economy is just about to recover. keep in mind, i've goth gone through two years where the wraps to me was i was too stubborn and wouldn't budge on too many issues, including health care, everybody was riding, despite public opinion and despite this and that, the guy's going to bulldoze his way through this thing. [inaudible] that's my point. my point is i don't make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. i make my judgments based on what i think is right for the country and for the american people right now. i will be happy to see the

republicans test whether or not i'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. i suspect they will find i am. and i think the american people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. but right now i want to make sure that the american people aren't hurt because we're having a political fight and i think that this agreement accomplishes that and as i said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. i mean, the truth of the matter is, from the republican perspective, the earned income tax credit, the college tuition tax credit, the child tax credit, all those things that are so important for so many families across the country, those are the things they really opposed and so temporarily they are willing to go along with that presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years. and i'm happy to have that battle. i'm happy to have that conversation. i just want to make sure that the american people aren't

armed -- harmed while we're having that broader argument. scott. >> thank you, mr. president. last week we -- the members of the administration were boasting about your willingness to walk away from the korean negotiations that led to a better deal. you can explain -- [inaudible] . >> the difference is that if i didn't get the korea deal done on january 1, the taxes to the middle class america wouldn't go up. that was pretty straight forward. if we didn't get the korea deal done by january 1, two million people weren't suddenly looking at having no way to support their families. and that's why, you know this goes to chuck's question as well about what's going to be different in the future. you have a situation here that was urgent for millions of people. but as i recall with the korea

pretrade agreement, that was deemed by conventional wisdom about us not getting something done. i remember the fold on that. it's a better deal, a heavyen doersment of not only of the u.s. auto companies but also of labor, the story was below the fold. i would just point that out. i am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with republicans. >> having -- [inaudible] do you hope to use this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code? >> yes. the answer is yes. part of what i want to do is to essentially get the american people in a safe place so that we can then get the economy in a stable place and then we're going to have to have a broad-based discussion across

the country about our priorities. and i started doing that yesterday down in north carolina. here's going to be the long-term issue. we've had two years of emergencies. emergency economic action on the banking industry, the auto industry, on unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues. on state budgets. the situation's now stabilized although for those folks who are still out of work it's still an emergency. we still have to focus short-term on job growth. but we've got to have a larger debate about how is this -- how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century? how are we going to make sure that we've got the best trained workers in the world? there was just a study that came out today showing how we slipped even further when it comes to math education and science education. what are we doing to revamp our schools to make sure our kids can compete? what are we doing in terms of research and development, to make sure that innovation is still taking place here in the

united states of america? what are we doing about our infrastructure so that we have the best airports and the best roads and the best bridges? and how are we going to pay for all that at a time when we've got both short-term deficit problems, medium term deficit problems and long-term deficit problems? that's going to be a big debate and it's going to involve us sorting out what government functions are adding to our competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making sure that we're growing the economy and which aspects of the government aren't helping and then we've got to figure out, how do we pay for that? and that's going to mean, you know, looking at the tax code and saying, what's fair, what's efficient and i don't think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient. but we've got to make sure that we don't just pay for those problem business borrowing from

china or saudi arabia. and so that's going to be a major conversation and in that context i don't see how the republicans win that argument. i don't know how they're going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when to offset them we'd end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors. but i'm happy to listen to their arguments and i think the american people will benefit from that debate and that's going to be starting next year. mark. >> how do these negotiates affect negotiates -- negotiations affect negotiations or talks with republicans about raising the debt limit? it seems that they have a significant. a leverage over the white house

now going in. was there ever any attempt by the white house to include raising the debt limit? >> when you say it would seem they'll have a significant amount of leverage over the white house, what do you mean? >> just that they'll say essentially, we're not going to raise -- we're not going to agree to it unless the white house is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the booshed, possibly go deeper and further than what you've willing to do. what lev wadge would you have -- >> here's my expectation. and i'll take john boehner at his word. that nobody, democrat or republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the united states government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. and so i think that there will be, you know, significant

discussions about the debt limit vote, that's something that nobody ever likes to vote on. but once john boehner's sworn in as the speaker then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. you can't just stand on the sidelines and be a ball thrower. so my expectation is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping social security checks going out, keeping veterans' services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to the taxpayer dollars. john. last question. >> some on of the left have requested -- i've looked at this deal and requested what your core values are, what specifically you will go to the

map on, wondering if you can reassure them with some specific things and saying, all right, this is where i don't budge and along those lines, what's going to be different in 2012 with all of these tax cuts again are up? >> well, what's going to be different in 2012, we just discussed we will have two years to discuss the budget. not in the abstract, but in concrete terms. over the last two years the republicans have had the benefit of watching us take all these emergency actions, having us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying, that's their problem. well, over the next two years, they're going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do. and i think it becomes pretty clear after you go through the budget line by line that if in

fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that that's a lot of money and that the cuts -- corresponding cuts that would have to be made are very painful. either they rethink their position or i don't think they're going to do very well in 2012. so that's on the first point. with respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principles are. [inaudible] yeah. look, i've got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. not making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. that was a line in the sand. making sure that the things that most impact middle class families and low income families, that those were preserved, that was a line in the sand. i would not have agreed to a deal which by the way some in congress were talking about of

just a two-year extension on the bush tax cuts and unyear of unemployment insurance but meanwhile, all the other provisions of earned income tax credit or other important breaks for middle class families like the college tax credit, that those have gone away just because they had obama's name attached to them instead of bush's name attached to them. so this notion that somehow, you know, we are willing to compromise too much, reminds me of the debate we had during health care. this is the public option debate all over again. so i passed a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all americans, something that democrats had been fighting for 100 years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have

affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness. and compromise. now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. people will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the american people. and we will be able to feel good about ourselves and how pure our intentions are and how tough we are and in the meantime the american people are still saying -- seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions or not being able to pay their bills

because their unemployment insurance ran out. that can't be the measure of how we think about our public service. that can't be the measure of what it means to be a democrat. this is a big diverse country. not everybody agrees with us. i know that shocks people. "the new york times" editorial page does not permeate across all of america. neither does "the wall street journal" editorial page. most persons -- americans, they're just trying to figure out how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are had looking out for us and that means because it's a big diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done we're going to compromise. this is why f.d.r., when he started social security, it only affected widows and orphans. you did not qualify. and yet now it is something

that really helps a lot of people. when medicare was started, it was a small program. it grew. under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. this country was founded on compromise. i couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding. if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union. so, my job is to make sure that we have a north star out there, what is helping the american people live out their lives, you know, what is giving them more opportunity, what is growing the economy, what is making us more competitive and at any given juncture there are going to be times when my preferred option, what i'm absolutely positive is right, i

can't get done. and so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tag a little bit this way or that way because i'm keeping my eye on the long-term? and the long fight. not my day to day news cycle, but where am i going over the long-term. and i don't think there's a single democrat out there who if they looked at where we started when i came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that i promise ts. take a taly. look at what i promised during the campaign. there's not a single thing that i've said that i would do that i have not either done or tried to do. and if i haven't gotten it done yet, i'm still trying to do it. and so to my democratic friends, what i've suggest -- what i suggest is, let's make sure we understand this is a long game, this is not a short game and to my republican friends, i would suggest -- i

think this is a good agreement because i know they're swallowing things they don't like as well and i'm looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years. thanks very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today senate leaders spoke to reporters about the president's agreement to extend the bush-era tax cuts for two years. we hear from senate republican leader mitch mcconnell followed by senate majority leader harry reid. >> good afternoon, everyone. let me just say, we're pleased as you will know and have been reporting for the last 24 hours to have reached an agreement with the president and the vice president on how to deal with the issue here, one of the issues here at the end of the session which is to make sure

the american people's taxes don't go up. at a time of .8% unemployment. i'm very hopeful and optimistic that a large majority of members of the republican conference will find this proposal worth supporting and i'm hopeful that the democratic leaders will be able to convince their members as well that this is the way to go forward and the right thing to do under these circumstances here as we move forward the end of the 111th congress. with that let me call on john. >> just one comment. several of you have asked about some very specific provisions of tax law and whether or not it's included or not in some of what we might be doing. i just ask that you give us and our staffs an opportunity to work through some of those issues that haven't been discussed by the president,

give us time to work through those before asking us to tell you exactly all of the specific things that are in or outside the tax package. we're working through those quite rapidly and i think we can conclude it fairly quickly. >> there are a lot of stories -- as there would be expected to be about who won or lost politically in this agreement. the way i look at it and i think a great many members of our conversation look at is, what would be the best thing for our country right now? and we believe our number one goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs and the best thing we can do right now to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs is not to raise taxes on people who create jobs and on the american working people in the middle of an economic downturn. that's why the right thing for our country is to support the tax agreement, it makes it easier and cheaper to create

private sector jobs. >> thith american people have too -- i think the american people have two major concerns. one is they want us to deal with the issue of economy and job creation and secondly they want to get washington growth and spending and debt uncontrol. and i think that the proposal that's been reached on taxes is an important one where the economy's concerned because i do believe that if we're going to create conditions that are favorable to economic growth, we can't have taxes going up on our job creators, our small businesses, and this particular agreement preserves the current tax rates and hopefully will unleash some economic growth so we can get people back in this country back to work. the second thing i think that the american people wanted addressed and addressed in shorter as wells is the issue of spending and debt. i hope before this dong adjourns that we can come to an agreement on a spending bill that doesn't increase spending,

that recognizes that we have to get our fiscal house in order here in washington and i hope that we can get a c.r. passed, a clean c.r. passed, before congress adjourns and deal with the issue of taxes, spending, debt and put the other things off until next year when we're going to have an opportunity to debate a whole range of other issues. >> i appreciate the president's willingness to work in a bipartisan way, to give the kind of certainty that american businesses and the job creators of this country have been asking for and by not raising taxes on anyone when there's 9 delaware.8% unemployment in this country -- 9.8% unemployment in this country. i appreciate the president's efforts to agree that this is the proper way forward as we try to revitalize the economy. >> we'll take a couple of questions. >> are you considering this proposal anagreement to the final or are there still concessions to be had on the other side? >> the agreement is essentially

final. senator reid and i will have to discuss procedurally how we go forward and as you know in the senate, that requires a pretty broad agreement as to how you go forward. i believe it is his intention, he can speak for himself, to bring it up first senate. so my assumption is we'll be dealing with it sometimes soon. >> [inaudible] >> i think it's pretty early to tell who's going to vote how. i reported a few moments ago and i'll say again, the vast majority of the members of the u.s. conference senate feel this is a step in the right direction, an important step to take for the american people and i think the vast majority of my members will be supporting it. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> good to see you. we had a healthy discussion at the caucus, senator biden, vice president biden was there. we're all appreciative of the work that the president's done to move the tax debate forward. while this is not an arrangement many in the cause would have made, we understand the president is negotiating with republicans who are willing to risk everything in order to see tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i do commend the president for fighting for lots of things but certainly protecting middle class families and small businesses from income tax hikes, including the provo tax incentives for working families like the payroll tax cut child tax credit, earned income tax credit and for insisting that those americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are provided the

safety net they need to continue looking for work. this is only a framework. it's up to the congress to pass it. some of micah cuss still have concerns about this proposal as i'm sure some republicans have concerns about it. we'll work with the president and congressional republicans over the next many hours to address these concerns. as always, our support for any tax legislation will be incumbent on its ability to strengthen middle class families and small businesses. we have this impeachment going on, i'll take a few questions. i really have to start that because i'm the one who has to start it. >> are there things you want to get added into this? >> well, the concerns are wide ranging. some dealing with matters to other than taxes, frankly. but we weren't able to work our way through all this today. the vice president got there a

little after 1:30, we went until just now. i have a chairman lunch set for tomorrow at 12:30 but what we're going to do is have another caucus so we can talk more about this. so we're working through the issues that people have and we'll continue doing that. >> how big a problem is the estate tax in all of this? >> the estate -- >> weave we're leaving this now as the house is returning for roll call votes on bills debated earlier today. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1752, resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported to the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 6400, house resolution 1642, and house resolution 1264, in each case by the yeas and nays. remaining postponed proceedings will resume later in the week. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute the clerk: h.r. 6400 a bill to

designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 111 north sixth straight in st. louis, missouri, as the earl wilson jr. post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

members and staff, please clear the well and the center aisle.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please clear the well and the center aisle. will members please take their conversations to the cloakroom. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2 a 1 of rule 9, i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows. authorizing and directing the speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the

circumstances and cause of the decision -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. members please clear the well and take your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentlewoman is entitled to be heard. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: authorizing and directing the speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to place professional staff of the committee on standards of official conduct on indefinite administrative leave and for

other purposes. whereas the constitution of the united states authorizes the house of representatives to determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of 2/3, expel a member. whereas in 1968 in compliance with this authority and to uphold its integrity and ensure that members act in a manner that reflects credit on the house of representatives, the committee on standards of official conduct was established. whereas, the ethics procedure in effect during the 111th congress, when acted in 19997 when acting in a bipartisan manner, upon the bipartisan recommendation of the 10-member ethics reform task force which conducted a thorough and lengthy review of the entire ethics

process. and whereas the committee on standards of official conduct adopted rules for the 111th congress and whereas rule 6a of the rules of the committee on standards of official conduct states, the staff is to be assembled and retained as professional nonpartisan staff. whereas rule 6 delnch c states the staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. whereas rule 6f of the rules of the committee of official conduct states all shall be appointed by the members of the committee, such a vote shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the committee

during each congress and as necessary during the congress. whereas on november 19, 2010, two members of the professional staff of the committee on standards of official conduct were placed on indefinite administrative leave and whereas on november 19, 2010, the committee on standards and official conduct canceled and has not rescheduled the adjudicatory hearing for a member of congress previously scheduled for november 29, 2010. and whereas all of these actions have subjected the committee to public ridicule and weakened the ability of the committee to properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which has brought discredit to the house. now therefore be it resolved, that the speaker shall appoint a bipartisan task force with equal

representation of the majority and minority party to investigate the circumstances and the cause of the decision to place professional staff of the committee of standards -- on standards of official conduct on indefinite administrative leave and to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process, including disciplinary measures for both staff and members where needed and the task force report its findings and recommendations to the house of representatives during the second session of this congress. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leaderor minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair

within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noted. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the the gentlewoman from from california will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. the chair will now recognize members for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. nye, rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nye: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor my good friend and distinguished colleague chairman ike skeleton. ike has dedicated his life to the citizens of missouri. ic has been a steady moderate voice during the greatest

challenges this will hallowed body has ever faced. i have served with chairman ike skelton on the armed services committee. i'm impressed that he keeps hyperbole out of the committee proceedings. to our families and national security always supersedes petty politics. he sheparded most important legislation through a minefield of diss par ate interests and motives while maintaining an even hand, fair disposition and unwavering disposition to his craft. it is a privilege to serve alongside a public servant such as ike skeleton. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to remember juan santo, a cubs

legend and cubs fan. ron passed away after a fight against bladder cancer. he was 70 years old. for 14 years, he patroled the hot corner in wrigley field and all-time and hit 342 home runs. but ron was never a numbers guy. on the field and 20 years in the broadcast boot, his optimism embodied the best of the cubs. whether he was clicking his heels behind third base or leading the fight against juvenile deebt, he wore his heart on his sleeve and smile on his face. he will be missed by everyone. let us hope one day soon he will take his place along baseball i am mortals national park

cooperstown because ron santo belongs there. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> the dream act is not amnesty. the dream act is justice. amnesty is defined as a government pardon but how can you be pardonned if you do nothing wrong. having no choice and no say in how they arrived. they grew up here went to school here and want to serve in the united states. but make no mistake, these students will not have it easy. they will have to work hard, wait an entire decade and continue to prove they meet all the criteria to be considered for a green card much less citizenship. they must be able to read, write and speak english and show knowledge of the united states. when they have done all that, they will be allowed to pursue their dreams. that is justice, the american

way. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: before i start my one minute, i would like to express my deepest sympathy to the family of elizabeth edwards who passed today, a woman who i got to know and who i admire greatly. i wish for her family loving memories and i offer publicly my deepest sympathies. mr. speaker, i rise today to remind members of what opportunity means in this country. opportunity is focused in many ways, equality and justice, first amendment rights that you can find in the constitution in

some way. but education is also an opportunity and a right in this country. i rise today to support the dream act so that millions of children who lived in this country speak the language, many of them serve in the united states military, who are seeking a simple education, can do so and then in turn invest $1 trillion in contributions to america. i speak today in tribute to ms. martinez who is on a 28-day hunger strike from san antonio, texas. i hope we will pass the dream act because you have been willing to sacrifice. we should pass the dream act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all members are reminded that members should address their remarks to the chair and not outside observers in the television audience. are there further requests for one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise.

>> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to condemn the actions of the government of brazil, argentina and uruguay for recognizing palestine as an independent state before there are conclusive negotiations between the israelis and palestinians. the prime minister of israel gave a 10-month moratorium on any kind of a building of additional settlements or houses or anything like that, in exchange for talking with the palestinians. the palestinians waited nine months and didn't talk and in the 10th month they talked and now it ran out and the palestinians are again placing preconditions and refusing to talk. palestinians must know that a peace agleement with israel is

the only way they can have their palestinian state. it can't be done unilaterally and what brazil, argentina and you're guy did -- and uruguay did is not something that can be supported. this is something wrong and should be condemned. it gives the palestinians no incentive to sit down and talk with israel and bargain in good faith. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: thank you, mr. speaker. most -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. most americans are looking at ireland and spain and at the same time the united states of america has a debt which is 96% of g.d.p., our spending level is

24% of g.d.p. mr. kingston: most states in our country have a balanced budget amendment that keeps them from going in the red. there's another thing we could do, though, that would be to modernize the gramm-ruddman-hollings act which called for deficit reduction targets. i think it would be better to have a spending cap tied into g.d.p. tied into 18% which would give congress year after year a target and if we failed to meet that target it would have an automatic trigger so that we could get in the right level of spending because we do not want to have the same problems as greece, ireland, and spain. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection.

>> as chair of the asian american conference i urge support of the dream act. it would support students in our country. mr. honda: students have overcome numerous barriers in their lives and are on track to finish college. these students already contribute to our country and we owe them a chance at the dream -- the american dream. we must act and we must make the dream act a reality for students like them. it's a good investment and let's get return on the investment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: any further one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, ms. mcmorris roggers for today and the balance of the week, mr. poe of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition. >> 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 and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, today and december 13 and 14th for five minutes each. mr. jones, today and december 13 and 14 for five minutes each, mrs. ros-lehtinen today, december 8 and 9 for five minutes each, mr. garrett today, december 8 and 9 five minutes each, mr. lincoln diaz-balart today and december 8 for five

minutes each, mr. paul for december 8 and 9, five minutes each, mr. burton today, december 8, and 9 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may address the house for five minutes and revise and extend their remarks, ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes, mr. sherman of california for five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes, ms. woolsey of oregon for five minutes, mr. grayson of florida for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous oorder of the house, the following members are

recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i have to my side faces of marines who have given their life for this country, they're from camp lejeune, in the district i represent. these are the faces of those young men and women who gave their life for this country. i come to the floor today because i joined the american people, i'm very concerned about committing our troops to four more years in afghanistan. afghanistan is a vast country, it's never been a nation, doesn't have a government, and we are trying to build a government in afghanistan. i want to share just a couple of comments, this is from the

washington examiner, it says, catch and release -- the catch and release of taliban fighters in afghanistan angers troops. more than 500 suspected taliban fighters detained by united states forces have been released from custody at the urging of afghan government officials,ing anering both american troops and some afghans who oppose the policy on the grounds that many of those released return to the battlefields to kill nato soldiers and afghan citizens. recently, on november 28, this year, it was a 60 minutes segment by anderson cooper called good cop, bad cop, afghanistan national police. i want to read a couple of excerpts from this. while the afghan army has made strides in recent years, the national police force has developed a reputation for drug abuse, illiteracy and desertion. earlier this month, "the new

york times" reported that up to 19 afghan police officers from southwest of kabul defected to the taliban en massee -- en masse, taking their guns with them and burning down the station house. just another part of that 60 minutes, what is sench is the united states has spend nine years and more than $7 billion training the afghan police force. they wanted to find out what has been the success, i'm going to paraphrase very quickly, there's been very little success, the afghan police are still nine years behind in training and we've spent nine years training them. i don't know how that adds up to anything positive. i'm going to save some of the other comments from the 60 minutes segment to use later on this week and certainly next year when we come back. mr. speaker, i have signed over 9,747 letters to families and

extended families who have lost loved ones in the wars in iraq and a afghanistan and that doesn't include extended families as well. i do that every weekend so i can be reminded of my mistake of voting to give president bush the authority to go into iraq a war we never had to fight. it was manipulated by those within the administration and it was -- it never had to be. yes, we lost young men and women in that battle. mr. speaker, on afghanistan what i am opposed to, and i join my colleagues on both the democratic and republican side to say what is the end point, what is the definition of vict arery? what are we trying to achieve. you can never get a straight answer. i don't care who gives you an answer, you don't know what the end point is. there we are spending $6 billion or $7 billion a month in afghanistan, can't fix the streets in america, can't build the school dems america, yet we have borrowed that $6 billion or

$7 billion from our chinese friends and owed them the money while we spend it in a foreign country and we can't take care of our own people. mr. speaker, again these faces of these young marines and they could be soldiers, they could be airmen, they could be navy but these young marines who died at 20 and 21, the only thing their parents can do in the years ahead for their loved ones is to show the face of a 21-year-old marine that died at 21 and will always be seen as a young man who gave his life for this country. it's time for this congress to come together and say to president obama we don't need four more years of spending money and more important than money is the blood of the american soldier and marine and serviceman that's dying for this country. with that, mr. speaker, i will as i always do, i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform to bless the

families who have given a child diing for freedom in afghanistan and iraq and i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god and i will ask god to please give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for today and tomorrow's generation and with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal communication. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. danny davis of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is approved. the chair recognizes mr. murphy of connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. the more that i learn about the department of defense's procurement policies and procurement policies of other agencies, the more angry i get, the more angry that congress should get, and the more angry

that the american citizenry should get. my home state of connecticut, we pioneered america's shipbuilding and aerospace industries. huffer, today, as more and more of u.s. taxpayer dollars go overseas to buy equipment and parts and machinery for the u.s. military, shows shops, once bustling with workers, are you silent. we have example after example of how our procunalt policy has gone wrong. you have big ticket, high profile examples like the air force ckx tanker which went to airs be bus rather than an american-based bid. you have the 21 helicopters that we are supplying to the afghan military today that we are buying not from an american manufacturer but from a russian manufacturer. then you have the thousands and thousands of smaller examples on seemingly a daily basis in which american companies come up short.

when we buy chinese-made doorknobs for the renovations at camp pendleton when there's an american company that can do the same work. when we buy copper and nickel tubing for our subs from a german manufacturer when there's an american firm that can do the same work. we're wasting billions and billions of american dollars, sending our jobs overseas. i'm here today, mr. speaker, to talk about the latest affront on this issue. the army last month offered a solicitation for 96 machines to make dog tags for our service men and women. these are aim intolbol of the life and death faced by our soldiers. they serb a crucial function in the field. little else embodies the american tradition than those little plathes that hang from a serviceman's neck. an american company lost its bid to a company that manufactures that machines in italy.

while the neubold was marginally only about 4% more expensive they still offered round the clock technical support for soldiers in the field, even after they filed a protest, and unfortunately, due to this loss, neubold has to lay off people and the 4% we saved will be offset by lost taxes, the lost payroll taxes and increased social costs like unemployment compensation. this is insanity. not only are we now relying on an italian-made machine to make one of the most iconic pieces of our military tune i don't remember, -- uniform, all to save a few dollars on the contract, it's going to cost the taxpayers additional expense. we can't allow this to continue, mr. speaker and my colleagues. for the last year i've been working with a bipartisan group

of members, including the previous speaker, congressman jones of north carolina, so we can shore up the loopholes in our buy american policies and make sure more taxpayer dollars stay here at home. i've introduced legislation that will do just that, that will begin to reorient our money here to american-made products for our u.s. military. i've had enough. this country has had enough. as we bleed manufacturing jobs out of this country, the u.s. government cannot continue to exacerbate that problem by sending u.s. taxpayer dollars overseas. it's time for this congress to deem this practice unacceptable, to strengthen the buy american provisions and to bring our taxpayer dollars back home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes ms. ros-lehtinen from florida. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. diaz-balart: i ask unanimous

consent to speak for five minutes out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much. mr. speaker in recent weeks we have seen the issue of the western sahara receive a great deal of coverage in the world press. unfortunately the press coverage has often been biased. in fact, i've seen cynical attempts at purposeful disinformation. i think it's important that we remember history. let's not forget that while the sahara was under spanish colonial rule, only morocco laid claim to that territory as its own. the kingdom of morocco repeatedly claimed the western sahara and demanded the end of spanish colonial rule. it was whonal morocco's efforts at recovering the sahara began to be seen as making serious progress in the early 197s to that the so-called front came into being. then as now, the group is

financed by algeria and is propped up by castro's communist dictatorship in cuba. why is it important to understand this? because in morocco, our ally in north africa in the struggle against international terrorism, the issue of the sahara is the decisive issue. the reality of sovereignty over the sahara enjoys the support of the entire population of morocco, including the sahara itself. in other words, the issue of the sahara is the necessary ingredient for stability and peace in that country of strategic importance in north africa, our friend and ally, morocco. king muhammad vi and his negotiatingtime team have demonstrated great courage and patience in dealing with this critical issue so closely tied to the security of the entire region. let us never forget that a make believe and a fake microstate in

northern africa would be led by a castro cuban-formed political class which would institute a minority of the population, even within the fake microstate, but would control it through castro-style repression. let us never forget that such a microstate would serve as a focal point of regional instability and destabilization as well as an exporter of terrorism. for over a decade, mr. speaker, morocco has agreed to grant a genuine and profound autonomy to the sahara under moroccan sovereignty to reach a realistic and dedefinitive solution to this problem. but algeria and the so-called policario continue the fake microstate. majorities in this congress, comprising both republicans and democrats, have spoken clearly and support of our ally morocco's position on this critical issue and letters we have sent first tit -- first to president bush and then to president obama.

the united states during both administrations and with the strong leadership of secretary of state rice and secretary of state clinton has agreed with the position ex pexed by the overwhelming majority -- expressed by the overwhelming majority of this congress. the future of america's struggle against international terrorism and the stability of northern africa require that the government and the congress of the united states continue to stand firmly and clearly with our friend and ally, the kingdom of morocco. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, please allow me to explain what happens when flawed free trade agreements are implemented and outsourced -- and outsource more u.s. jobs. our nation has not had balanced

trade accounts for over 25 years. in fact, every time we sign one of these so-called free trade agreements, we lose more and more jobs in our country. in its attempt to move forward, the george w. bush-negotiated u.s.-korea free trade agreement, it appears the obama negotiators may have forgotten the real costs of so-called free trade. with korea it has been more than a dozen years already since the united states held a trade surplus with korea. we're already in the red. in 1997 america actually held a small trade surplus with korea of a little over $1 billion. since then we've accumulated $161 billion worth of trade debt and that is in the red. that translates into lost jobs, lost opportunity in our country. using the department of commerce's estimate, each billion dollars of trade deficit

costs us 14,000 jobs, our trade deficit already accumulated with korea has cost us over two million american jobs. and everybody knows we're short over 20 million jobs in our country. the proposed new korea-free trade agreement will make our markets more open to korean industries but not -- but does not do enough to open korean markets to our products. every time the united states imports more than we export, it leaves us with higher trade deficits and more lost jobs. this nafta-inspired korean free trade agreement will lead to just that, even higher trade deficits and lost jobs here with korea. since nafta passed in 1994, more than three million american manufacturing jobs have been lost to mexico and canada. in fact, the economic policy institute estimates the trade deficit between nafta countries alone could have led to one

million additional manufacturing jobs here in our country. why would a nafta-inspired free trade agreement like the korean deal yield different results? it won't. the economic policy institute projects 159,000 more jobs will be lost if this deal is put forward and the international trade commission projects increases to our trade deficit with korea. how can this be a pathway to economic growth in our country? just in the automotive sector in 2009 korea sold 700,000 american cars -- sold 700,000 of their cars in the american market compared to sales of u.s. cars there of 7,000. just a smidgen. it now -- averaging that the korean population is 1/6 of the united states, a fair equivalent would be 113,000 cars from our

country sold in korea, not 7,000, 113,000. that would require a 1,514% increase in the number of american vehicles sold in korea. why wouldn't we wait for them to open their market to our goods before we give away the store again? instead the proposed solution in the auto sector, and this is written in the agreement, says, our auto companies can expect to export $25 -- 25,000 vehicles each so it's 75,000 to tea -- total noorks their market, which is certainly better than the current 7,000, but it accepts no limit on the amount of korean cars that can be sold into our market, but there are limits imposed on u.s. vehicle sales to korea. how is that balanced? how is that fair? this is neither fair trade nor is it reciprocal. it is a managed trade arrangement that accepts an inferior position for u.s. producers and why would we do

that when our economy is hurting so very much? and it's not just in auto, it's in beef and electronics and every single ca category. in order for the united states to have a square deal with korea, this is what should be in the agreement. we should eliminate tar itches in both countries -- tariffs in both countries. we should make certain that discriminatory nontariff barriers are eliminated by both nations, not gradually implemented over time. we should include provisions to address their value-added tax. we should contain mechanisms that will prevent and offset currency manipulation and eliminate provisions that with can trade remedy laws. this deal does none of. that the united states can ill-afford to continue job-killing trade policies. we should embrace the old adage that in fact george bush once used, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. congress cannot allow the american people to be fooled again by the false promises of

free trade agreements. when have we heard that before? the u.s.-korea free trade agreement should not be ratified until changes are made to make it truly free, truly fair and truly reciprocal based on results, not dreams. then we would hold promise to create jobs again in our nation, as well as in south korea and asia in general. but why should the united states keep coming up with these agreements that make us second class? and that hallows our out -- hollows out our middle class? let me say in closing this evening, the people of our region in northern ohio, in fact our whole state, wish to offer deepest condolences in the death of elizabeth edwards. her passing truly takes from the horizon one of the bright stars in our country. i've meat met many people in my political life and i can tell you, her intelligence, her

humility, her kindness are values that i know her children and her family will long cherish and we send our deepest sympathy to them, to the people of her state and all those who had the great privilege of knowing her. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. sherman of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, 69 years ago today the u.s. naval base at pearl harbor was attacked. in the epic four-year war that followed, millions of americans served with honor and courage. and more than 400,000 lost their lives. i can assure you, mr. speaker, that many of them were gay. nearly seven decades later it appears we are finally prepared

to acknowledge publicly what we have known for so very long. that gay and lesbian americans have been part of the military, making invaluable contributions to our nation's security for as long as we've been a nation to secure. we appear to be finally on the cusp of repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy that has asked those who wear the uniform to lie about their very identities as a precondition of their service. as if we don't ask enough of them already. those who have continued to back this policy said earlier this year that they wanted to see the results of the pentagon review before considering their position. well, an empirical review was released last week and it quite clearly concluded that repealing the policy would have minimal impact on military readiness or cohesion. but guess what, mr. speaker? that wasn't enough for the small

minority of don't ask, don't tell supporters. clinging to a fridge reactionary extremist position, they are unmoved by the pentagon's findings. they say repeal would be premature, that to do anything but maintain the discriminatory status quo would be an irresponsible rush to judgment. a rush to judgment. gay soldiers have been forced into the closet for the entirety of american history. how much longer do we need to wait for fundamental fairness and equal treatment? how much longer must we endure a policy damaging our national security and hostile to american values? repeal of don't ask, don't tell is anything but premature. it's long overdue. don't ask, don't tell is also overwhelmingly popular.

the president of the united states, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, a bipartisan congressional majority, veterans groups, not to mention most of the american people all support repeal. and now we know from the pentagon report that 92% of service members say the presence of a gay person would not affect their unit's ability to work together. and that last fact really shouldn't be surprising. i don't imagine that every single member of our armed forces is unambiguously enthusiastic about changing the policy, but don't -- but i don't think every single member of our armed services is unambiguously enthusiastic about the meal they were served last night or this morning. my point is, these men and women are dedicated professionals. they are sworn to protect the nation. they follow orders and do their

jobs as they did during the desegregation of the military and they do this without regard to their personal values. we can do this. we must do it. it will be far less daunting than president truman's desegregation of the military. the nation was far more racist in 1946 than it is homophobic in the year 2010. it's time to repeal, mr. speaker, don't ask, don't tell. the nation is ready for it. the military can handle it. justice demands it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. garrett of new jersey. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. burton of indiana. mr. grayson of florida. under the speaker's announced

policy, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes. clbclb mr. gingrey: thank you for your patience as we tried to get our act together here this evening, not realizing, of course, that here it's almost christmastime that our pages have all gone

home and it reminds me of what a great, great job these young men and women do for the members in so many ways, not the least of which, of course is helping during these special order hours. but mr. speaker, thank you for your patience. i want to, of course, thank my leadership on the republican side for allowing me and my colleagues in the house g.o.p. doctor's caucus to lead this special order for the next hour and we're going to do that, mr. speaker, on health care. and on the recently passed, i say recently, 10 months ago, march of this year, the passage of obamacare. i know it's referred to as patient protection and affordable care act. but this is a piece of legislation, mr. speaker that the american people at the 60%

plurality level opposed. and have remained here, 10 months later, as certainly was seen in the results of the election on november 2, the american people felt that this was something that was forced upon them against their wishes although they had had a two-year period of time to let not just our democratic majority and president obama but every member of congress in both the house and senate understand not only that they were opposed to this bill but why they were opposed to it. and in fact, during this campaign, our republican party made a pledge to america on many things, not the least of which, of course, was to repeal this bill. this 2,400 page monstrosity that

has done laird any of the things that poth because ma had hoped, wished, promised that it would affect. so we said to the american people, you give us an opportunity, you give us an opportunity to elect to choose, to have john bay for the as the next -- john boehner for the next speak of the house and give the republicans an opportunity to lead and we'll repeal this bill. this evening, i am very proud, as co-chairman with my colleague from pennsylvania, dr. timur fi to chair the house g.o.p. doctor's caucus. there are about 11 -- dr. tim murphy to chair the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus. there are about 11 people involved in health care before they came to this body as a

profession and i'm telling you, i think most of our colleagues know, mr. speaker, that the number of years of clinical experience among this group is something like 350 years. several of us have got a little gray hair around the temples. but i think that we have served a great purpose for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that everyone understands, from a health care perspective, what this bill has done, the harmful effect that it's had. harmful effect on individuals, harmful effect on the practice and profession of medicine, harmful effect on companies across this country. we'll talk about that tonight. the burden that is placed on small business men and women trying to abide by these provisions of obama care.

last but not -- of obamacare. last but not least, the harmful effects it's had on the entire nation in regard to our economy, the lack of recovery, the joblessness rate, the unemployment numbers came out just this past november, 9.8%. creeping a little higher, not getting better, despite a trillion-dollar stimulus package which hasn't saved jobs. but this bill and the reason we were so opposed to its passage even two years ago, when it was first introduced in the energy and commerce committee in the house, was members on our side of the aisle understood very clearly that the number one priority for this country was to put people back to work, to jump start this economy and yet we spent literally two years, these

first two years of president obama's administration on passing, trying to pass, an energy bill, thank god, mr. speaker, in my perspective it did not pass, a so-called ominous cap and trade, which would have increased the energy cost for every family in this country approximately $3,000 a year. thank goodness this bill after passing in the senate got -- in the house became bogged down in the senate. hopefully it will remain there quietly dying. but unfortunately, obamacare did pass and the economy is no better. we just got our priorities a little bit backwards. but i am pleased to say that a couple of our colleagues in the g.o.p. doctors' caucus, house g.o.p. doctors' caucus are with

me tonight to discuss this issue, congressman john fleming, a family doctor from shreveport, louisiana, and congressman paul broun, my colleague from georgia, also a family practice doctor, and i will call on them, i'll defer to them as much time as they want to take and we'll basically have a colloquy and talk about some of these issues tonight in regard to obamacare and what we republicans, the new republican majority in the next congress, 112th congress have pledged to the american people we will do. our pledge was to repeal this bill and first and foremost, we are going to make every effort to be faithful to our pledge and to try to repeal this bill. understanding, of course, and i think the american people do

understand this, president obama is president and he will be president for the next two years. the democrats do have a continued majority in the united states senate. and they will have for the next two years. so while we feel very confident that we can lead the charge, the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus leave the effort of -- lead the effort of repeal in this body, the house of representatives, we will succeed in doing that and fulfill our pledge to america and make every effort to do the same thing in the senate. although we know that we don't have the votes. but maybe we can persuade some of our democratic colleagues, especially some of those up for re-election in 2012, mr. speaker, to understand, finally, at long last, what the american people said on november 2. then, of course, the hurdle of getting a bill passed a repeal

bill passed by president obama. he has the veto pen, there's no question about that, but you know, hope springs eternal. i think the negotiations with the republican leaders a couple of days ago in regard to keeping the tax rates the same for every american taxpayer for the next two years sheds a little light on maybe the president's attitude of working with the heretofore minority and soon to be majority in the house and kind of moderate his stance on some of these things because as the president himself said, mr. speaker, elections have consequences. this election on november 2 certainly would tell president obama that people do not like this bill and they want it repealed. so maybe he won't veto, but in the likely event that either

we're not able to get the bill repeal -- bill of repeal passed through the senate or if we do, that president obama indeed would use his veto pen, then of course the options that we have are a couple that i want to talk about. i know my colleagues will get into that as well, but there are so many provisions in this bill that we will have the opportunity in this house to defund, absolutely pull the plug on some of this spending so that this bill will not go forward. and again, in the meantime, there are a number of parts of the bill that we will have individual pieces of legislation that will strip that away and these are the things that, mr. speaker, that we'll be talking about tonight. i would like at this time to call on my colleague from louisiana, representative john fleming.

mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman, dr. gingrey, and of course dr. paul broun, my other colleague who is here tonight, both gentlemen from georgia. i want to thank you both for my appreciation for your leadership in holding these special orders. we did a ton of these special orders back in the health care debate and i've got a feeling we're going to be doing a bunch more because in my opinion, my humble opinion, i'm just ending my first term up here, but i have a feeling that the health care debate is just -- has just begun, that this thing is far from over. as a preface to my discussion about health care, i want to point out and remind everyone and certainly mr. speaker the fact that we are in desperate need of reviving our economy 9.8% unemployment, and as i

travel around the country and particularly in my district, there are three main reasons for that given to me by employers. why aren't you hiring people? and this is what they tell me. number one, our tax situation is so uncertain we don't know what to expect and hopefully soon we're going to put certainty back into our tax policy by not raising taxes a single dime on any individual in this country. number two, they tell me that banks are just not lending money. and there's many reason ares for that. we're not going to get into that tonight. but the bottom line is, credit is not available to businesses. finally, and i think most importantly, is obamacare. obamacare has created such a monkey wrench into the machinery of the economy of this country, creating such uncertainty and difficultly in planning that

employers are just frozen with fare. -- with fear. we know as soon as it was passed companies came out to talk about how it was going to eat into their earnings. we get continuous reports of how the premiums will go up for the employees as well as the employers, all things guaranteed to us by the president would not happen. i'll just give you a quick story. i spoke to a gentleman who owns a small company in my district, the name of it is explo and they have a unique kind of business. what they do is they have the responsibility to take that explosive charge that's normally used in a cannon that has for some reason grown too old and no longer usable, they recycle that, they tear it down and take the various parts and of course it is an explosive so they do have some risk and all this. they have a five-year contract to dismantle thousands, tens of

thousands, hundreds of thousands of these explosive charges that actually propel the shell from the cannon to go to its destination. and he said, you know, i've got a good contract, don't have a big margin but i do have a margin i can make profit. but he said you know what, with obamacare that margin is totally wiped out. if i stay in business, i'm likely to go out of business and go bankrupt system of just that uncertainty, just that one little factor can make the difference in a company from maybe $100,000, $200,000 a year profit to losing $200 thundershower or $300,000, which a small business owner can do maybe one year, maybe two years, maybe he can borrow money to get by but this is the reality that faces americans around the country, 700,000 small businesses, when you enter this unknown about obamacare and it just simply freezes the

businessmen, so i can say that f.d.r., president roosevelt, had it right when talking about the great depression that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. and right now small businesses, businesses across the land are in desperate fear, they're afraid to make those valuable investments because they just don't know what next week, next month, next year is going to be like. and i would say that the largest cause of this is health care. the health care reform. so just to kind of reiterate that before i yield back, mr. speaker, we have three things that businesses identify as road blocks to success and to hiring. one is life of credit -- lack of credit, number two is uncertainty about taxation and health care reform. and we're about to tackle the taxes. i think the banks are going to be turning the credit around so that one thing that we have

ahead of us is obamacare, which is, i think, a big stumbling block to recovery. and i join my colleagues this evening calling for a repeal to obamacare and a return to commonsense reform methods which we will do with piece meal legislation, one step at a time, incremental reform, testing and listening from the american people to what they want, rather than forcing it down the throats of those who have to pay for this thing. thank you and yield back. mr. gingrey: dr. fleming, thank you, and thank you for being with us this evening. before i defer to my colleague from georgia, dr. paul broun, i just wanted to mention something, mr. speaker, that congressman fleming just said in regard to the taxes, the tax situation that we have and hopefully the compromise,

obviously the compromise worked out between president obama, his administration, and the republican leadership in the house and the senate, all of that has to be approved, mr. speaker, as you know, by the entire senate and by this entire house. before it becomes law. and i hope that we'll be able to do that before we leave here for any kind of a break, even a christmas break. but as part of that compromise, there is to be this cut in the payroll tax for a full year to literally cut the employee portion of the social security payroll tax from 6.2% down to 4.2%. i think, mr. speaker, that's a good thing. just as keeping the tax rates

that are currently existing and have for almost the last 10 years, to keep them all in place. not to raise any, especially not on the job creators, the small business men and women, the so-called rich. but the ironic thing about this, my colleagues, is in this bill, patient protection affordable bill act, obamacare, it calls for raising the payroll tax, for raising the payroll tax on medicare for anybody that makes above a certain dollar amount of income by 3.7%. and that's going into effect right now. by 3.7%. to increase the payroll tax. and that's why, mr. speaker, we're here on the floor tonight

as representative of our leadership, to try to point out some of these things and say, gosh, you know, that really makes no sense at all to say that we need to cut payroll taxes and we're going to do it on social security for the next year for everybody, no matter what their income might be. we're going to cut it by 1/3 in fact. and then on this bill, to raise the medicare taxation 3.7%, it doesn't make a lot of sense, as a lot of things about this bill don't make a lot of sense. well, before i call on dr. broun again, i want my colleagues to look at the easel to my left, to your right, on the number-one priority, as i mentioned at the outset, our republican priority and our pledge to america is to repeal and replace obamacare.

now, on this second slide, and i talked a little bit about that and we'll get into that as the hour progresses, but priority number two, in the event that we're not able to repeal, because we just don't have the votes or that president obama uses bad judgments and vetoes our repeal bill, we're going to have the opportunity and dr. broun will talk about this to defund certain provisions in this bill and with that i yield to my colleague from athens and my great friend, dr. paul broun. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey. i great pli appreciate your yielding and you're doing this tonight. so we can inform the american public about how bad this bill is and what the republicans are going to try to do in this next congress. we heard all during the discussion on obamacare, as well as through the last two congresses since i've been here, i'm finishing up my second term, that the republicans are the party of no.

we are the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to lower the cost of health care and we can do it in a bipartisan manner. and in fact during the discussions about obamacare, i challenged individual democrats to introduce a bill that i would give them the legislative language, all they had to do was write thane their name in a blank, -- write their name in a blank, introduce it and it would be a democratic bill. they could call it obamacare. and i was told by democrats over and over again that this makes a whole lot more sense, paul, what you're proposing here, than this obamacare bill that we dealt with here in the house, the pelosi original bill, and then the one that we finally passed that came from the senate. both of them obamacare. and in fact, two colleagues on our side, republicans, john shadegg from arizona and congressman charlie dent from

pennsylvania, and i wrote an op ed that was published in "the washington times" newspaper, challenging democrats to introduce the bill. and it would do four things. commonsense solutions that i told the democrats individually, if they would introduce the bill, it could be their bill, a democratic bill, they could take credit for it, i'm concerned about policy, not whose name is on the bill, and they could take credit for it. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield, i'd like to remind the gentleman, if you'd call attention to that poster, because i think that our colleagues need to focus in on that. mr. broun: absolutely. i was going to do. that i appreciate my colleague, dr. gingrey, for reminding me. but i have a poster here with these four commonsense solutions. and actually i introduced the bill when the democrats wouldn't take my -- my democratic colleagues wouldn't take up the

offer to introduce it, after obamacare was actually passed into law, i introduced the bill that does five things. it repeals obamacare and puts in place these four commonsense solutions. it's not a comprehensive bill because it doesn't really deal with medicare and the problems that we have with that or medicaid and we'll mention that in a minute or two. but the four things are to allow all individuals to deduct 100% of their health care costs, including the cost of the insurance off their income taxes. this in itself would change the dynamics of health care for everybody in this country. in fact, this eventually would take care of the problems that we as physicians have with managed care. because it would put patients in control of their health care decisions. but allow everybody to deduct all of their health care costs. second thing it would do is it would strait strengthen and expand -- is it would strengthen and expand revenues for

affordable health care for sick americans through pools set up in states. there are states like colorado who have already done this successfully. multiple states have already done so. the third thing it would do is, as the chart right here says, it would expand choice and competition by allowing consumers to shop the health care insurance across state lines. now, i'm an original intent constitutionalist. the commerce clause is one of the clauses that's been perverted so much to allow the great expansion of the size and scope of government. the commerce clause was supposed to expand commerce, not to control it. and it's to allow people to shop for all goods and services across state lines. and so by the original intent of the commerce clause, we're just doing exactly the opposite and when states lock up the insurance pools just within

their state borders, they're actually doing an unconstitutional control of commerce. and the fourth thing, create an association pool. so anybody in this country could join a huge pool and this would allow people to buy insurance at a much lower cost than they have today. and it actually would allow people who not only cannot afford to buy health insurance, but those people who have pre-existing conditions to be in association pools so they actually could buy health insurance at an affordable rate. and these four commonsense solutions have been introduced, i introduced the bill to repeal obamacare and to do these four things. and i'll be introducing this same bill in the next congress. the bottom line is, republicans are the party of k-n-o-w. we know how to lower the cost of

health care, we as physicians have been dealing with all these problems that our patients, particularly like dr. fleming andny family medicine, we deal with the insurance company, we try to find our patients good quality care at the lowest price, which includes trying to find them insurance, medicines, all health care products at the lowest prices, it's what we do as family doctors. and it's something i've been dealing with for almost four decades of practicing medicine and it's something that the american people desperately need. obamacare is going to distribute experts tell us, is going to put 5 1/2 million people out of work. dr. fleming talked about the uncertainty it creates in employers. i hear that all the time. i've got a small businessman that wants to do a $31 million expansion of his business. in my district. but he's scared to. and he's not going to.

because -- he doesn't have the problem with the banks because he has $31 million in the bank right now, cash money, so he doesn't have to go to the bank to the money, but he's scared of the taxes, he's scared of the energy tax particularly. that scares the willies out of small business men and women in my district. he's very frightened about obamacare. so we must repeal obamacare and replace it with some commonsense solutions. mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time just for a second from dr. broun, dr. broun, if you don't mind holding that poster up again, because i wanted to enter, mr. speaker, into a colloquy with the gentleman, my colleague from georgia. and the four points on his poster, addressing that first one, allowing individuals to

deduct 100% of their health care expenses, including the expense to purchase health insurance, whether it's sickness coverage or long-term care, which people when they get our age, need to start thinking about. but under current law, and i want my colleagues to correct me if i'm wrong on this, but i think unt current law, an -- under current law, an individual in filing their tax return, if they itemize their deductions, they can only deduct health care expenses that are more than 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. and hardly anybody reaches that threshold and i think that what dr. broun, mr. speaker, is suggesting in regard to this change in the i.r.s. code, of

course this would have to come through the house ways and means committee, but what a novel and a great idea that he and mr. shadegg and mr. dent have proposed during this congress.