continuous years before the enactment of this bill, this is not an inducement to come here. this is not an inducement for somebody to bring their children here, this is to say to those children who are here, we are going to incorporate you if you play by the rules in an opportunity, this land that we call the land of opportunity. the dream act provides for six years of conditional legal status. but only if they have completed high school or g.e.d. during those years. applicants must finish two years of college or serve two years in the military. and must not commit any crime. we're not going to allow wrongdoers, these are people who are playing by the rules. if they meet those requirements, they will be able to earn

permanent residence and apply for citizenship. understand, again, these are young people who broke no law. these are young people who had no intent on break the law. these are young people who played by the rules, graduated from high school or gotten a g.e.d. or about to do so in order to qualify. in a competitive world, america's openness to immigration is one, frankly, of its strength, not its weaknesses. and the beneficiaries of the dream act are the new americans we want, young people who speak english, abide by the law, value education and in many cases are willing to risk their lives for america as members of the armed forces. our military understands the value of a new poll of men and women committed to serving their country. the defense under secretary in

charge of personnel said failing to pass this legislation would be, in his words, unconscionable. economists understand the value of these immigrants. ucla study found that their income will weach as high as $3.6 trillion over the course of their lives. they are very young now. that may be 70 years, and that's a long time. but that's an indication of their willingness as millions and millions of immigrants throughout our history added to the value of america, a nation we call ourselves of immigrants like my father. that's why the dream act is in keeping with the principles that have made america so strong and dynamic. as michael guersten and he was

george bush's speech writer and i hope you read the article two days ago, and i quote, it is a principle of democratic capitalism that ambitious human beings are not just mouths but brains and main source of our future wealth. he urged his party, his republican party to reach out in this instance. we aren't talking about forgiving wrongdoing, to young people who have not done anything wrong. let us stress that over and over. i urge my colleagues to take advantage of that resource, to do what is both in america's interests and in keeping with america. some of you know jeb bush. i don't know jeb bush permly, but governor bush, governor of

florida twice is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. jeb bush said this, i think politicians, those of us who serve in public office, should be supporting the dream act said governor bush, i think it's a good policy. the military is the most ip press i have and most important institution in this country. those who are willing to serve should be given the opportunity, again not speaking of wrongdoers. michael said in another point in that article, it would be difficult and i hope my colleagues hear this and all who are listening, president bush speech writer, it would be difficult to define a more sympathetic group of potential americans and the choice is not between the immigrants and their absence, no one is proposing the massive deportation of this particular group.

children who have done nothing wrong, which would be the last on the target list of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionists, the words of michael guersten, let these young men and women develop their talents, serve in the military or not. ladies and gentlemen, i urge my colleagues, let ulls join that lady in the harbor who lifts her lamp beside this golden door and understand why the millions and millions and millions and millions of people came from across this earth to seek opportunity in this great and generous land. let us reflect that tonight. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i recognize mr. hinojosa for 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be included in the record. mr. expire, our nation cannot afford to turn away these talented youth in order to remain competitive in the global economy. our country must train a new generation of highly skilled stem professionals, scientists, engineers to bolster the

technological innovation that our nation so desperately needs. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and support the dream act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, representative guter res. who is from -- gutierrez who has worked on this issue, not just the dream act but the whole question of immigration with great skill and knowledge. i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gutierrez: i come here this evening let's give the dream kids and opportunity. they are american in everything but a piece of paper. they are just like my children

and your children. but i say, too, give them a chance. give them the opportunity, the opportunity this congress will not give their mothers who are today finishing picking the fruit, their mother who are in sweat shops in new york tonight finishing their labor, their mothers who are in meat packing plants in iowa, sweating under terrible conditions and that same despair and inequity and injustice that their mothers suffered let's say this congress will not allow them to suffer. their sweat, their work and toil will be responded to by this congress by saying their children will not suffer the unfairness of our immigration system. we know there are millions of un documented workers who work and

sweat and toil every day. they were wrong about the irish and italians and wrong about the immigrants of the past and wrong about the immigrants of today. let this congress stand as it has stood before for immigrants. i stand here as a democrat that understands that the rule of law also must be conditioned by justice and fairness and compassion and i say to everyone here in the same manner as we have stood up when the rule of law said to a woman you will not earn equal pay, when someone of sexual ownertation, you will not be abused. we will provide health care and we see homeless and we want to provide housing to them. and today, just as we have faced those unfairness and inequities in our system, we have come here to support the rule of law but to change the rule of law.

today change it for the generation of young men and women. we must stand up for them. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas is reck niesed. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, former attorney general of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much. i don't think i was wrong in 1984 when i stood on this floor in this position and led the republican effort to work with my democratic friends to pass immigration reform. i don't think i was wrong in 1986 when i was republican floor manager in an attempt to try and bring some law to the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. but i must say in 1986, when we did pass that law, we thought that was going to resolve many of these issues and was going to

take care of them. and even though we spent weeks on the floor, weeks on the floor, allowing 200 some amendments to be put in the record over 100 amendments offered on the floor so that members have the opportunity to have their ideas heard, i don't think we were wrong. i do think we're wrong now to bring this at the last hour, to deny anybody an opportunity for a single amendment on this important issue and to bring it in a parliamentary fashion that stuffs it in a senate bill which does what, disallows the minority the opportunity to bring a motion to recommit. why do i say that that's important? because we passed legislation that we thought was going to solve the problem. and in some cases, it solved the problem and in some cases, it exacerbated the problem. i was concerned at that time if

we passed the saw and raw provision, because i was afraid that that would be full of fraud and guess what? it has been. and since that time, we have added to the numbers of people who are here illegally in the united states. some people don't want to talk about that as if it has no importance. we have a principle in our plaw the worldwide quota. what does that mean? everyone should have the equal opportunity to come to the united states, whether you are the poorest child in africa, while you are in the phillipines, asia asian rampant illegal i am grigs -- immigration, you are discriminating against those equally poor, around the world for their chance to come here to the united states. that's why when you deal with an

issue like this, you have to look at the whole picture and we are denied the opportunity to look at the whole picture here. there are those that say well, we are here to assist those children who by no fault of their own came into the united states, those up to the age of 16 who came here in one fashion or another. if that be true, why not allow an amendment which would say, those who benefit from this will not have the opportunity to bring those who may have brought them here illegally -- 30 seconds. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. lungren: why not say they will have the right, those who did break the law, into the united states. if you qualify under this bill, you have the right to begin chain migration and bring your parents in, adult siblings in, others in. at least give us the chance to

have the opportunity for amendments. and that's all i'm saying. we know that this isn't the way to deal with this issue. we know we should have a chance. and we have had the opportunity for months to bring something to this floor. so all i would say is, this is an issue that many of us on this side of the aisle will work with you on, but this isn't the night. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i recognize the gentlelady from california, grace napolitano napolitano -- napolitano for a unanimous consent request. mrs. napolitano: i support the dream act for my young people in the united states so they can fully contribute to america, the country they call home. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan.

mr. conyers: gregory meeks, new york. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: who are we? we call ourselves american citizens. we're proud to be american. why are we proud to be americans? well, we were raised in american schools, we love our country, we studied our history, we wanted to prosper, we wanted to be able to do the things that cause us to be free. we care about children. what we're talking about here is a group of children who all they know is what we know. in fact, many of them have no idea that they were not american citizens. they grew up loving this country. they grew up aspiring for the same things that we have, that

all of a sudden they find out that they can't continue with their education, that they can't go into the military. if we are truly americans, if we truly care about kids, if we truly stand for our core values we will tell those children because those children are as much american as each and every one of us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. meeks: let's support the dream act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize yvette clarke of new york for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. clarke: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. it's my honor tonight to stand here as a secretary generation american coming from a district

where many people come as immigrants to make the united states their home. and some of those people, many of those people are residents of our nation and want to become citizens, and some are up documented. many of them -- are undocumented. many of them are young children who go through our school system and look like me. those people have been law abiding and knows this place as their home, have never known their place of origin but understand the work they do each and every day in our schools, in our communities accrue to a stronger nation. tonight we have an opportunity to make their dreams a reality. their dreams to do more than to stand and defend our flag, to give their lives as many give their lives for the freedom of america. today we make sure that that dream is fulfilled and they fulfill their obligation as new americans in our nation. the dream act will be a reality

tonight, and i'm proud to cast my vote in favor of those young people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, my grandmother came over here and landed at ellis island. 2% were sent back. we had a merit system and you had to meet those standards. i believe in an immigration policy that's designed to enhance the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the united states of america. this immigration policy is for america. we can't relieve all of the poverty in the world. that's completely impossible. today our immigration structure

is this -- between 7% and 11% of our illegal immigration is based on merit. and the balance of it is out of our control as far as setting any standards. if we're going to be a great nation we have to have a policy that is established to promote american socialism. this bill does not. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to mr. honda for unanimous consent request. mr. honda: i ask unanimous consent to be recognized. put my statement in the record also. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased at this time to yield to the speaker of the house of representatives, ms. nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house, is recognized for one minute. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and for giving us this opportunity this evening to come to the floor of the house on behalf of many children in america. it is one of those evenings when we can associate ourselves very directly with the aspirations of our founding fathers. how blessed we are -- were at the beginning of our country, even before our country began, that thighs brave and courageous people stood up for independence for our country. and when they established our country they designed a great seal in this country. it said novos ordus secorum. a new order. no country in the history of the world ever had founders standing on a new principle of equality of people and freedom, separating themselves from a

great military power by winning independence and saying this was about a new order for the future. and they could say that with confidence because it was -- they had a commitment to make the future better from one generation to the next. that became known as the american dream eventually, and people flocked to our shores to be part of the american dream. and when they came they brought their hopes, their aspirations, their determination, their optimism for a better future for their families and for the next generation. and in coming here these newcomers at that time a couple hundred years ago and to this day by coming with that optimism and hope and commitment to a better future for the next generation, they made america more american. and so tonight we have an opportunity to identify with the aspirations of our

founders. and we know that if we are going to have a better future for our country it is important for us to recognize the children who are here. they've come from every continent in the world, from europe, from asia, from australia, from latin america. my colleague, congresswoman clarke, talked about children coming from the caribbean. a lot of attention is played from those coming from latin america, but they come from all over the world. and many of them to this day do not know whether -- what their legal status is. some find out in a most unfortunate way when i.c.e. shows up at their door to say you weren't born here because their parents may not have told them that. but their identity is all american. some of them don't even speak the language of the country of origin of their parents.

so many of them come here with this great patriotism, as their families come with this great patriotism. many of these young people serve in the military and so they strengthen our national security. secretary gates has said the dream act represents an opportunity to expand their recruitment and readiness of our armed services. that's what the secretary of defense said. we all know that the competitiveness of america depends on innovation and innovation begins in the classroom, and these young people have an array of skills and talent. whether they're in the military, whether they're in college, whether they go to graduate school and we know that many of them cannot reach their professional aspirations because that's when they bump into the fact that they are not fully documented. if you have ever been to a dream act occasion when young people come together and speak about their love for america,

you will hear anthems of patriotism that again would make you so very, very proud and how it echos what our founders had in mind. so we have an opportunity tonight to solve a problem, solve a problem for these young people, to help solve problems for our military and help solve problems about innovation and education and making our country stronger economically as well as militarily. this bill does not cost money. in fact, it sends money back to the treasury. about over $2.5 billion. but a study shows it will be hundreds of billions of dollars that will be paid in taxes by these young people when they reach their full aspiration. this act is about pedro ramirez, a student government president at california state university-fresno. he was brought here when he was

3 years old and was unaware of his lack of citizenship until he was a senior in high school. and the mystery -- in the midst of the controversy of his status, he reminded us the dream act itself symbolizes what it is to be an american. it's about equality, it's about opportunity, it's about the future. young people, like pedro and so many others like him, represent the best reasons to pass the dream act. we always think in numbers. think of individual -- these individual young people and who -- how they identify with america. they have no other identity in many cases. they want to participate in our nation's future. they want to help build it. they want to use their degree and their skills to help build something better for the next generation. and that's what our founders had in mind when they said a

new order. it's on the dollar bill. you can take out the great seal of the united states. without confidence and later to be called the -- with confidence and later to be called the american dream. we owe it to our founders, we owe it to the future to cast a vote that makes america more american. i want to thank mr. conyers. i want to thank howard berman, the author of this legislation. chairwoman zoe lofgren. also on the judiciary committee. certainly congresswoman nydia velazquez, chair of the hispanic caucus. and luis gutierrez. congresswoman lucille roybal-allard. the entire hispanic caucus. it is not defined just to the hispanic caucus. as representative clarke said, it's about people from all over the world.

when steny hoyer said when the prime minister of ireland spoke. we came here and they always talk about immigration. they always talk about this issue. this is one piece of it. i know the gentleman said it couldn't be for this because it doesn't have a motion to recommit. this isn't about a motion to recommit. this is about a commitment to our future. this is about a recognition of what these young people can mean for our country. and so i hope that that recognition will result in a very positive vote, and i hope bipartisan vote in support of making the future better for the next generation which is the strength of our great country. thank you, all, and please vote aye on the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan and the gentleman from texas each control three minutes.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, one month ago the american people told congress to change course to put the american people first, to generate jobs and to strengthen the economy. unfortunately, it seems that some democrats have learned nothing and forgotten everything about what the american people want. we are considering major legislation that the american people couldn't read until a few hours ago. the democrats confused to hold any hearings on this bill and no amendments have been allowed. it is the result of a closed and undemocratic process. we all know that the point of this bill is to give amnesty to almost everyone who is in the country illegally and who is under 30. illegal immigrants get amnesty if they can show hardship if they are sent home. illegal immigrants can stay if they claim to be eligible under

this legislation. illegal immigrants get amnesty if they use fraudulent documents because the federal government has no way to check millions of claims. illegal immigrants get amnesty even if they had committed crimes like d.u.i., document fraud and visa fraud. this is a bill that gives amnesty to more than two million people who are in the country illegally. it encourages fraud and even morill legal immigration. today, americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8%, a new record. that record has now topped 9.5% for 16 months, the longest period since the great depression. the dream act means more competition for american workers who are in need of those jobs. it puts the interest of illegal immigrants ahead of the interest of american citizens. i urge my colleagues to put the

american people first and oppose this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield to barbara lee of oakland, california, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 0 seconds. ms. lee: the overwhelming majority of the congressional black caucus supports the 800,000 young people who will be able now if we pass this, will be able to live the american dream. it's in our national interests to pass this, but more importantly, this is the right thing to do, please vote for the dream act. this is an important moment in our country's history. this demonstrates our american values and who we are as a people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: howard berman is not only the chair of the foreign affairs committee, but the second ranking member of the judiciary committee. and i yield the balance of the time to him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. berman: thank you, mr. chairman and ms. lofgren for bringing this legislation to the floor. for 30 debate time minutes, we have heard the other side's arguments and so many of them have been filled with scare tactics and blatant inaccuracies . we have been working on this bill for nearly a decade. we have recently made a number of changes to make clear our intentions about who the bill should cover and who it shouldn't.

nearly every speaker on the other side has used the term amnesty. think about that. amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. if you scare it enough, you can scare a lot of people against this bill. we are talking about a group of people who didn't do anything wrong. they didn't possess the intention to commit a crime or to cross the border illegally. they were brought here. this is a universe of people who deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so clear and for that you are using the term amnesty? that's out jage rouseous. we hear scare tactics like chain migration. they say, once we give them this status will be able to petition for adult siblings. we have taken away petitions for siblings and it will be 25 years

before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here because we never undid my friend's provision that required 10 years absence after the petition is filed for anyone who came to this country without authorization. the chain migration argument is another false argument just like the amnesty argument. then we hear from the the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, the affirmative action amnesty action. this is a group of people who will not be allowed to receive pell grants and not be able to get into the health insurance exchanges and they won't be able to get into them, they will not

qualify for food stamps or the medicare program and you are talking about tremendous preferences over u.s. citizens another bogus argument. in closing, i would say one septemberens, in the end, this bill is less about the kids who deserve to benefit from the legislation than the country that will get the benefit of having them use their skills and their talents on our behalf. i urge ana vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the house resolution 1756, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion offered by the gentleman from michigan, will be llowed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5383 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the the speaker pro tempore: for whaturpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: by direction of the

committee on rule i call up resolution 1756 and to ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will are report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1756, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 5281, to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against federal officers or agencies to federal courts and for other purposes with the senate amendmes thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21 a single motion offered by the chairman of the committee of the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendments numbered one and two and the house concur in senate amendment number three with the andment printed in the report of the committee on

rules accompanying thi resolution. the senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the previous question shall be considered as ordereded on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recogned for one hour. mr. polis: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1756. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: the dream act is one of the most impoant pieces of legislation i've ever discussed on the floor of the house. it means everything to hundreds of thousands of de facto americans. to them and all of us it is supremely important and supremely urgent.

we have a choice between forcing the brain drain from our country or retaining the best and brightest to contribute to our country and make it stronger and more prosperous. the young people covered under this bill are those any parent would be proud of, sons and daughters, neighbors, classmates, prom kings and queens, football players and cheerleaders who stayed in school, played by the rules, worked hard, stayed out of trouble. the children of our great nation and we too should be proud, not oud of the broken and dysfunctional immigration system and lack of enforcement that put them in this situation. not proud of their parents' violation of our immigration laws no matter how out of touch with reality those laws may be. not proud of the indignities, discrimination and fear that these young people have faced at every turn but proud of how these young americans have overcome adversity and demonstrated american exceptionalism. their pluck, ingenuity,

ambiti, drive and ingenuity in pursuit of, as the declaration of independence puts it, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they embody the best of our american values and we should be proud to call them out countrymen. this is a great nation and we will be stronger, greater, more produces produces still with the full participation of these young men and women, each with the opportunity to go as far in life as their ambition and ability takes them. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman are reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding time. mr. speaker, today i rise in oppositiono e rule for h.res. 6497 and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. mr. speaker, i don't think there's anyone on our side of

the aisle th isn't empathetic to the fact that the youth brought to america's children did not come here illegally of their own accord. i certainly feel that way. however, the majority of immigrants come to america because of what our nation stands for, and that it is rooted in our foundation. the corner -- cornerstone being our rule of law. in order to maintain our liberties and freedom, congress must always respect and preserve the rule of law. we must exercise our principles in fairness, not inequi and i would argue that amnesty is not fairness but a direct assault on the rule of law. our immigration system is in disarray. and any immigration legislation we consider should begin with securing the border and should go through regular order. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my -- of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield the gentleman from florida the opportunity to submit a statement for the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for the opportunity to submit my statement for the record on behalf of thousands of florida students, businesses and family. mr. polis: i have no additional speakers on this side. i'd like to inquire how many speakers the other side has. mr. wool -- ms. foxx: we have several speakers. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, . lincoln diaz-balt. mr. diaz-balart: thank you. i think it's unfortunate that the way the majority leadership has treated this issue. see tha

bringing the stimulus and the cap and trade and the health care legislation, all of the political capital that the president and this majority leadership had has been exhausted and after receiving that defeat at the polls, after all that, they bring this legislation to the floor. i think the process is most unfortunate. and the way in which they have handled this legislation, mr. speaker, shows the lack of interest that they have had in it. that doesn't negate, however, the ct that the legislation is extremely important and if there's anything that distinguishes the united states

of america, i think in an appropriate and admirable way is that we are -- you stand or fall in the united states based on your decisions, not the decisions of your grandparents or their parents or grandparents, your decision determines your reputation in the united states of america. somewhat we are dealing with in this legislation is who. we are dealing with, number one, the kind oimmigration that we work day in and day out to attract and retain in the united states. college educated people who have become so after extraordinary hard work. and secondly, mr. speaker, after thinking about what we're trying to do, it all boils down to the

decisions. i referred to previously as to the fact that the united states is distinguished by the fact that we stand or fall, the american people stand or fall on our decisions. the students that we are dealing with in this. they didn't come to the united states out of status. the only decisions they have made in their lives have been to work hard rkts to study hard, make our communities proud. this legislation seeks to give them an opportunity to make their situation regular, normal so they can contribute even more to the greatness of this nation. at the end of the day, despite the unfortunate process, we cannot stop thinking about who we are dealing with with this legislation. that's why i've been for a

decade a sponsor or co-sponsor of this legislation and that's why i'm proud to support it this evening. and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i would like to yield seven minutes to my distinguished colleague and soon to be chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recnized for seven minutes. mr. smith: i thank my colleague for yielding and distinguished member of the rules committee for giving me time. mr. speaker, i oppose this rule. the so-called dream act is a nightmare for the american people. and in this proposed rule is a nightmare for house members. once again, we are considering a bill that members have not had adequate time to review and has not gone through theroper committee process and we cannot

amend. this is far from the open and transparent process we were promised. the majority promised that members of this body would be able to review legislation 24 hours prior to a vote. we have only had the text of this bill for a few hours. so much for that commitment to the american people. the majority will have present venlted members from offering amendments and the majority has even eliminated the one possible way the bill could bemproved, a motion to recommit. this undemocratic way of nsidering legislation stands in contrast to the way republicans will operate in the next congress. come january january, the republican majority will show the democrats what it's like to have a fair, honest and open debate. we will educate them on the democratic process. just over a month ago, the american people rebuked the way the america democrats have run

the house of representatives. one might think that the majority would change their ways, but on it seems that the democrats have learned nothing and have forgotten everything. if this rule is adopted, we will be forced to consider a bill that we will have no chance to amend, even though it puts the interest of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of american citizens. it hurts american workers, rewards law breakers and encourages defiance of the most fundamental american vue, the rule of law. today americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8 the unemployment rate has exceeded 9.5% for 16 straight months, the longest stretch since the great depression. it makes them eligible to work legally in the united states.

this congress should not allow unemployment. i'm sympathetic to the young immigrant children who are brought here by their parents because their parents disregarded united states immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. this bill actually rards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. once they become citizens and turn 21, if they their parents, spouse for citizenship and others and this will further hurt american workers and american taxpayers. i -- this new amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration because other illegal immigrants will bring their children to the united states because they expect to benefit from the dream act. as soon as an individual files

an application, the department of homeland security is prohibited from removing them. so there is an automatic stay from deportation for anyone who applies under this bill. and criminals are not excluded. those with histories of passport fraud, visa fraud and even driving under the influence will be granted amnesty. the bill enacts disastrous policies, the lack of a fair and open process is another reason to oppose it and this rule. the majority has brought this bill to the floor without giving members adequate time to review it. the majority has brought this bill to the floor without holding any hearings on the bi or its impact, thus depriving members of the ability to learn how the bill would work or not work. the majority has brought this bill to the floor without committee approval, so members have not had the opportunity to offer amendments.

the majority has eliminated the one way the minority is guaranteed to address the people's concerns, a motion to recommit. in addition to the negative impact of the dream act on american citizens and rule of law, the undemocratic procedures justify strong opposition to the rule. madam spker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time to allow the gentlelady to cle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: thank you, madam speaker and i thank the gentlelady for yieing and i rise in very strong opposition to the rule of h.r. 5 81, the

so-called dream act. in fact, many of those constituents who abide by the rule of law would call this the nightmare act rather than the dream act. this legislation has been misnamed from the beginning as an avenue to obtain the american dream, but let me perfectly clear, h.r. 5281 is nothing short of amnesty for illegal immigrants. according to the migration policy institute, two million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. that number is not too difficult to imagine given it would allow these individuals once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap. we call that shame migration and can bring in 179 other individuals. the potential for fraud is great

considering that one provision of the bill mandates that the immigrant has resided in the united states since they turned 16. my question is simple. how can we verify how long an illegal immigrant has been in the united states. we cannot and should not require ourselves to rely on the word of individuals whose very presence in the united states is illegal. so madam speaker, we all know that the requirements to become a legalized permanent resident do not actually mandate that the potential naturalized citizen complete any college or degree, they have to show up and go for two years. if the bill attempts to educate immigrant work force in america, this legislation will not achieve thatoal. in closing, h.r. 5281 will open the doors, yes, to criminal jailen obtaining permanent status. this legislation allows an alien

to submit an application for permanent resident status and the department of homeland security will no longer be allowed to deport them, criminal or not. oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i uld now like to yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. rorkrork i rise in -- mr. rohrabacher: i rise in opposition to the rule and dream act. the american people are opposed because they understand it is nothing more than mass amnesty that will undoubtedly encourage millions more to illegally come here to our country and we are being told by the other side of the aisle this is not amnesty.

if it walks and quaks like a duck and this may be a lame duck, but it is amnesty. the dream act focuses on promising young foreigners a bright future if theiparents choose to break the law. this will unquestionably bring millns of parents across our borders illegally and once the children gain citizenship, their parents and other members will be put on the fast track to citizenship through family unification and will be eligible for all the rights and services currently enjoyed by american citizens. moreover, if an illegal immigrant happens to be a racial majority, then that individual will be entitled to all the education, employment and other preferences for minorities that

are written into our federal and state laws as soon as their legal status is granted. as a result, the dream act would put them on par with american citizens and in many cases would put them ahead of most american citizens who are not minority and ahead of legal immigrants as well. it is not being cold hearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on an illegal immigrant is one dollar less for our own children, our own seniors and all those in our society who have played by the rules, paid taxes and expected their government was going to watch out for them and their needs before giving privileges and scares resources on illegals who have not played by the rules. yes,his is the dream act all right. it is the dream of millions living outside our borders to come to our country and par take of the health, education and other benefits tt we can

scarcely afford for our own citizens and legal immigrants who have played by the rules, worked hard to build a better home and life for our families. this is not the dream act. this is the nightmare act. i appreciate our nation's immigrant heritage. we have more legal immigration into our country annually than all the other nations combined and we should be proud of this, proud that we are generous and open, but we must be honest how many we can absorb without hurting the lives of our citizens and the legal immigrants that came here within the boundary of the law. the dream act will serve as a magnet -- i would ask for another 30 seconds. ms. foxx: i would like to give him 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: we must oppose policies like the dream act that will serve as a magnet to those who would flock here illegally.

i urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to rob our children of this dream and vote no on this irresponsible legislation which will do know more than bring millions more illegally across our border and only this time they will bring their kids, all of them. i ask i ask my colleagues to vote in on sillings to this dream nightmare act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: madam speaker, an inquiry of the chairi'm wondering if the gentleman from cal has no speakers or is simply going to keep all his time until afr our speakers have spoken? mr. polis: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro teore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i now would like to yield one minute to our distinguished colleague from florida, mr. mario diaz-balart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. for four years the democratic majority has promised to fix our broken immigration system. the president promised to pass immigration reform in the first 12 months of his administration. just another broken promise. instofede passing meaningful legislation to secure our borders, this congress has refused to do so, madam speaker. and now, in the final hours of their mari, they now bring up this bill. just another example of why american people overwhelmingly rejected this majority. on the merits, those who stand to benefit from this bill include thousands of young adults raised in our country and know no other country but america. they simply wish to pursue the american dream and have the opportunity to study to work hard to serve in our armed forces. they are exactly the type of people that we want in this united states of america. i therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i would like to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and rise in opposition to this rule and the bill, h.r. 5281. i agree with some of the presenters before me, it is not a dream act, it's a nightmare act. it's one of those pieces of legislation that if the proponents actually understood the components of them, some of them would be lost, some would change their mind and some would wish they could but they're on record and can't. the ghtmare act is amnesty. we need to come to an agreement what amnesty is. i have long said that to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the object of their crime. this seeks to reward those who

are under the law eligible for being sent bk thire home countries. if everybody that says they came in from their first birthday or the first day of their birth s are 198, the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery they are guests of the house and any manifestation

of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is against the house. the unfinished business is the question on passing h.r. 3353. the clerk: a bill to provide for american samoa to be treated as states for certain criminal justice programs. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to recoider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: could i ask members to take their conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection the title of h.r. 5012 is amended to read as follows. the clerk: to amend the richard b. russell national cool lunch act to establish a program to provide nutritious food to at-risk children on weekends and holidays during the school year. the speaker pro tempore: ask members to take the conversations off the floor. we'll entertain one-minute requests from the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise?

without objection. the house will be in order. ms. chu: toiling on america's farms is no easy job. few people are willing to endure the heat, cold or the low wages. so today an estimated 75% of the farming work force is undocumented. this is bad for everybody. undocumented workers are easy prey for exploitation and unable to assert their rights. they talk about heat, abuse and no one to turn to for help. growers talk about labor shortages that can spoil their crops. i heard farms struggle to maintain a relyable work force. farm workers and growers need immediate relief to ensure agriculture in california that continues to thrive and that solution is add jobs. now that the house has passed the dream act i urge the senate

to pass both bills soon so farms can continue to operate and students can achieve their dreams as we work on a permanent fix for this broken system. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, address the house for one minute, revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, in 2008, the president and house of representatives lifted the 24--year-old moratorium on offshore oil and gas production on most of the atlantic and pacific coasts. president obama pushed for offshore oil drilling in eastern gulf of mexico through 2017. then the oil spill happened and that disaster is a cautionary tale. but the first week in december, the secretary of interior without an act of congress or

presidential directive order prohibited offshore energy development from 2012 to 2017, five-year plan for offshore leasing. this change means no new production can begin until 2022, if then. that is not the way to reduce our rising independence on foreign oil or solve our unemployment problem or lack of economic growth. we must learn our lessons from the oil spill and proceed with care but must proceed. president obama in stran did you lation by regulation has set our country back by 20 years which will produce higher energy prices, hardly sound energy policy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection. the house is not in order.

we ask that you take conversations off -- coferingses off the floor -- conversations off the floor. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. it's great news that we gave opportunity to young people today by passing the dream act. but it's shame on us that we did not pass the seniors protection act of 2010. as democrats rallied to make a commitment to the nation's seniors, for $250 refund, as they listened to the horrible pronouncement that they would not get a cost of living increase, we owe them, we owe them because of the hard work that they have contributed over the decades to build this nation. they have provided us with years and years of work and investment and production and part of the manufacturing history of this country. how can we leave this session

and not provide our seniors with relief? so i call upon my colleagues to rally together for what is right. for those seniors who have carried the flag, who have fought in our wars, who have nurtured the sick, who raised our children and invested in america. it is time to pass the senior protection act of 2010 and we should not leave this congress and not finish this year without passing this relief for the seniors of america, patriots deserving all of them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? if not, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and therein extraneous material

-- and include therein extraneous material. mr. mcconnell for today, mr. poe for today, mr. jones for december 15, mr. graves from georgia today, mr. rohrabacher bacher today and mr. mccotter for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes. to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. ms. wasserman schultz from florida, mr. mitchell from arizona, ms. kaptur from ohio, mr. defazio from oregon, ms. woolsey from california, mr. grayson from florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and

under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mrs. water -- wasserman chicago bulls -- ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. mr. mitchell of arizona. mr. mitchell: mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. mr. speaker, tonight this congress passed the so-called dream act. several of us on the floor of

the house said that this act would be more accurately referred to as the affirmative action amnesty act. the bill is a piece of legislation that the american people should -- that the american people should pay close attention to. and they should see whether or not their representatives in congress are indeed representing their interests. or if they are involved with supporting the interests of people who are not citizens of this country and have come here illegally. now, in this case this bill would not grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants, but instead the reason it's called the dream act is because it would have legalized the status of several million of illegals who are young people in our country. and that supposedly was to -- mr. speaker, can we have order

in the house, please? the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. please take conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california may proceed. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. well, what do several million new citizens or should we say legal residents of our country mean to the well-being of the american people? yes, we understand that several million young illegals now made legal in their status would certainly be their dream but what does it do to other americans? what is the effect? is it a dream or a nightmare? the american people need to look and see who voted for what and who is representing whose interests here. i will note that illegal immigration is probably one of the greatest threats to the

well-being of my constituents and they understand that and i would think that people throughout our country understand that the quality of our education is going down, the quality of america's health care is going down, our personal security, meaning the security of our neighborhoods and our families, are going down as the criminal justice system is put under incredible strains by this massive flow of illegals into our country. by legalizing the status of two million younger illegal immigrants, what we have done is making sure that those people who are considering coming to our country illegally will certainly bring their children, all of them, with them. realizing that the chances are that if the american people see that someone is here illegally and is a young person, we've now set the precedent that we will legalize their status some time in the future -- future.

so what we're really talking about is encouraging a massive flow of illegals into our country, bringing their children with them and what will that do to the education system of our country? what will that do to the health care requirements that our people have who are now finding that their own health care facilities are overcrowded and that the budgets for providing health care to the less fortunate are being strained to the breaking point throughout the country? this bill was done at the expense of the american people. the young people who they are helping, the young people who supposedly would be assisted in getting a college education if they go to school, they're going to, now that their status is legalized, yes, those people may be helped but it is being done directly at the expense of the american people. this is about as bad as it gets.

when we have members of congress that are, instead of considering what this will do, what their actions will do in harm to their own constituents, have decided to, yes, to side with those people who are wonderful people overseas and there's no doubt about most of these young people we're talking about and most of illegal immigrants coming into our country are wonderful people, but their well-being, we are not being selfish by suggesting that a time of unemployment, a time when the budgets for all of our own programs are being strained to the breaking point, that we have to take care of our own people before we encourage other people to come here illegally, i am proud that our country has a very liberal and open policy for immigration. we allow more legal immigrants into our country than any other country of the world. in fact, all the other countries of the world combined do not permit the legal immigration

into their society as we permit into america. but if we don't watch out for our people, if we do not carefully look at this issue and try to say, what is good for our people, our people will be severely damaged and that will be the product of the dream act. it will be the nightmare act of american people. perhaps the worst element of this is, this bill, and i know there are many people who are suggesting that that's not true, but it is true, that this bill will provide an affirmative action status for those illegals who have been legalized, who happen to come from a minority background. now, most of them are illegal immigrants who come here, are hispanics or some other minority. thus if their status is legalized, all of a sudden all of the laws that give preference to minorities in the united states is, all of these

preferences are given to these people who are legal just a few days ago. we're not providing equality, what we're providing is that illegals now will take their spot in the head of the line when it comes to job training, when it comes to education and being accepted at universities. in terms of all of these type of programs in which racial preferences have been written into the law, these illegals will now have a status ahead of u.s. citizens. this is about as bad as it gets. this congress is supposed to represent the interests of the american people and in this case the interests of the american people were betrayed with misplace -- with a misplaced value system of being foe kess -- focused on the plight of, yes, some very deserving young people, several million of them, who are here illegally. i would hope that the american people take a look closely at this vote and realize what it

signifies. there are many people struggling right now in our country. our social programs are strained to the breaking point. and, yes, what happens when you legalize the status of several million young people and you make sure that these young people, many of whom are of a minority status, that they then receive the preferences written into our law for our own minority citizens, it will cause great damage to our country and to the very most vulnerable americans that we are supposed to be representing. so tonight i would ask the american people to look closely at the vote of their member of congress. was their member of congress representing them? was their member of congress representing with all good intentions but representing the interest of someone else? and i would say that the illegal immigration issue is an issue that reflects that dichotomy, more in our country than any

other of the other major issues that we face as a people. so tonight, the choice is stark and the american -- and the people here have cast their vote. it is now time for the american people to hold us accountable, if we are representing their interests and the interests of the less fortunate people in our society or whether or not we are giving away scarce resources and putting our own people in jeopardy in order to perhaps to attract as votes or whatever illegal immigrants who are coming to our society and thus attracting even more illegals to come here and of course now after they come here they will make sure that they bring their entire family and once by the way a young person is legalized, that young person through family unification laws and programs will be able to then start the action necessary to bring even

more and more illegals into our country to have their stats changed. is this -- status changed. is this in the interest of the united states, is this in the interest of the american people? i say no and i say that the american people need to pay attention and judge us on our votes on this act tonight. the american -- the dream act, which is the nightmare act, let's wake up, america. your country's being taken from you and given to somebody else. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. mr. mitchell of arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. udall once said that those elected to positions of leadership have a moral obligation to exercise leadership. since coming to congress, and throughout my whole career, i've always done what i believe was in the best interests for my

district, for our state and for our country. this is what i was elected to do. to make tough decisions. knowing some were not as popular as others and i would not have changed one thing, not one vote, not one decision. when i think about what we've accomplished together in congress over the last four years, i know that there are many reasons to be proud. we are able to make college more affordable for millions of young americans. we were able to invest in clean energy technology that will clean our environment and set our nation on a path to energy independence. we've raised the minimum wage for working families across this country. we were able to ensure equal pay for an equal day's work for women. day's work for women. we passed historic health reform, making health care insurance accessible and

affordable for thousands of individuals, families and small businesses. but i'm most proud of the work we have done to take care of our nation's veterans. together, we made it possible for our veterans, active duty, national guard and reserve to empower themselves by furthering their education. i was honored to be part of an effort to pass the 21st century g.i. bill into law. we know many of our returning veterans and those who served in past generations for wounds that can't be seen. doom continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and are at risk for suicide. together, we have pushed the v.a. to provide more mental health assistance to those who are returning from iraq and afghanistan because our veterans deserve the highest attention and respect they deserve when they come home and we have work to do to bring them all home.

as much as we have accomplished, there is still more to do. i have rarely said you can't be successful unless a lot of other people want you to be and i have been blessed to have so many people who have been supportive of me. for the better part of close to 40 years, i have been teacher, counselman, mayor, senator and congressman and there are many people i want to thank, a special thanks goes to my family, my wife, my son, my daughter and my five grandchildren. i also want to thank my staff. they are the most hard-working, talented and loyal bunch you will ever find and i'm grateful for them. lastly, i want to thank the people of arizona's 5th congressional district for allowing me to represent them in the united states congress for the past four years. it has been an overwhelming honor to have had the

opportunity to serve my district. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house out of turn for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes.

mr. grayson: mr. speaker, here in the house and in the senate and with the president's pen, we make policy for america. we make foreign policy. we make security policy. we make health policy and environmental policy and we make economic policy. and it's time to take a close look atlanta exactly what the tax cuts for the rich have done for us for the past nine years because now we are going to make policy for not just the next two years but far longer than that. let's take a look at the nine lean years that we have experienced under tax cuts for the rich and compare them to the nine fat years that preceded that. the first thing you'll know, which you can see from this chart here is that in the nine previous years before we enacted tlt bush tax cuts for the rich, 23 million jobs were created.

since we enacted those tax cuts for the rich, we have lost 2 million jobs in america. the next chart shows that the average unemployment rate as a result rose from 5.5% approximately toll well over 6% after we enacted the bush tax cuts. so often i have heard that the bush tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs when the record is directly to the contrary. in fact, it doesn't only affect people who work. it affects everyone. if you look at the net worth of this country, the net worth of america, value of our schools, our homes, our 401k's, our small businesses, our cars, our furnishings, everything we own in america, in the nine years before we enacted the bush tax cuts, home values in america

rose by 37%. in the nine years after we enacted the bush tax cuts, our home values in america rose only 13%. and as a result of that, because our homes are for many of us, the most valuable thing that we own, as a result of that, our net worth as a country increased by 93% before we enacted the bush tax cuts and by only 26% after we enacted the bush tax cuts. now, i think that's a very important statistic taking into account, the rich and poor, black and white, male and female, people all across the country. when we didn't have our bush tax cuts, our net worth increased by

93%. now there is a lot of discussion lately about the deficit, the debt, when you look at the effect on the deficit and debt, the nine years before we enacted the bush tax cuts, 2.37% surplus in the federal budget. in those nine years, we had a surplus on the average of 2.3% of gross domestic product. and since the bush tax cuts were enacted, we have had a deficit of 8.5% on the average each year. we all know the dramatic effects the decline in the economy and the middle class. but what effect did it have on

the rich. before we enacted the bush tax cuts, the s&p 500 index, 500 different companies, s&p index increased by an amazing 285%. now since more than half of all stocks owned in america by the top 1%, the most wealthy americans, that means the most wealthy americans benefited by not having the bush tax cuts to the tuvene of 285% increase in the stock market. in contrast to that, since the bush tax cuts were enacted, the stock market has actually gone down over the past nine years by 11%. so i ask you whether you are working, whether you are not working, whether you are poor, middle class, whether you are rich, isn't it obvious? isn't it obvious what will happen if we extend the tax cuts

any further, whether it's for one year, two years or for another nine lean years. i think the answer is obvious. fewer jobs, higher unemployment, a lower value to our homes, lower value to the nation's net worth and a drop in the stock market. that's the future that we face if we extend these tax cuts further. thank you for your time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. jones of north carolina. >> i rise to claim the time to speak to the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the poet john whittier greenleaf wrote, the saddest are these, it might have been.

mr. speaker, given the prevalence of sadness in our world, tonight on the 30th commemoration of the murder of mr. john lennon, i rise not to lament the loss, but to celebrate his inspiring life. perp actually along our journey, we stand at the crossroads of comfort and truth, in perfect souls, we are measured not solely by our missteps, but also by our return to enlightening truth. as shown in a recently released 1980 interview "rolling stones," mr. lennon understood this. quote, i have never claimed puretty of soul. i never claimed to have the answers to life. i only put out songs and answer questions as honestly as i can,

but i still believe in peace, love and understanding. striving for honesty is how in his family life he fulfilled his most challenging and rewarding role, that of devoted father and loving husband. striving for honesty is how in his music, mr. lennon met the artistic challenge, namely to have the last word in the argument with death by means of a form that endures. thus because truth is beauty, beauty is truth and the most beautiful truth is love, i thank mr. lennon for striving through his enduring art to endure the truths that unite us in our mortality, our frailty and our beauty when we love. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues

to join me in remembering the life of john o. lennon and extending our sympathy to his widow and sons, to all he loved and to all who love him, may he and we all shine on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. garrett of new jersey. ms. woolsey of california.

mr. lincoln diaz-balart of florida. mr. paul of texas. mr. burton of indiana. mr. graves of georgia. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority. mr. akin: it's a pleasure to join you. we have had a busy day and dealt

with a lot of questions and issues and yet on the minds of americans i believe all across our country, people are thinking about the economy, they are thinking particularly about jobs and they are thinking about what appears to be imminently approaching, the largest tax increase in the history of our country. that's an odd thinking thing to be approaching when there is uncertainty in terms of the economy and that is a matter of some considerable debate and discussion and different political maneuvering. we won't talk so much about political maneuvering but talk about some understanding of economics and the things we need to be doing to put america on the right track. americans want congress to fix it and want to hear discussion and get things organized, get it

straightend out, get the economy going, get people back to work. people have a choice, one, you could have bureaucracy and food stamps or you could have a job and a pay check. and i think most people in america want a job and a pay check. i'm joined by a couple of my colleagues, people that are very long on common sense, so they're my friends, but also people that i believe are very much respected not only by their delegations, the people that elected them, but increasingly known across the country. i'm joined by dr. gingrey. i don't know how many careers he has had. he delivered a bunch of babies down in the atlanta area and been a state senator and now has joined us here and helped us on health care questions but pretty good on these economic things

and j.t. from pennsylvania, a small businessman who worked in health care privately and a member of congress and a good conservative friend of mine. i'm -- i'm going to call on them and just talk a little bit about something that when i fist came to congress 10 years ago seemed a little odd to me. in fact, this is almost like water running uphill because people were saying that if you cut taxes the government can take in more money. now, that seems like an odd thing, doesn't it? that you can cut taxes and have the government take in more money. well, what's going on there is that an effect that when you crank taxes up high enough you stall the economy. when the economy stalls you can keep running the taxes up but you don't get any more revenue because things are not working right and the machine isn't churning out any money so you lose money.

i came up with a way of explaining it, and we had a chance to have art laffer, an economist who was back with the reagan administration who came up with this understanding and he explained it in different ways the other night, earlier in the week. but the point of the matter is that you can actually cut taxes and the government gets more money and here's the way it might work. think about a loaf of bread and you're king for a day. you've got to tax the loaf of bread. what are you going to tax it? a penny or $10? you say, a penny, it's easy, i can get everybody to buy the same loaf of bread that they do today. so we'd sell a lot of loaves of bread and maybe get a penny for each one but that doesn't add up very fast. maybeky charge $10 on a loaf of bread. well, maybe people wouldn't buy very much bread but when they did i'd get $10. common sense would say, there's someplace in between a penny and $10 on a loaf of bread where you can collect the most taxes and that's what's going on. when the government cuts taxes, it gets the economy going and

this chart shows that. it's called the laffer curve. this red is the tax rate and then this here is the federal revenues. so what we're seeing here is that we have a ratio, as you start to drop taxes, actually the federal revenue goes up. and that's what's happened a number of times. but i'm going to -- would either one of my colleagues want to join in and talk a little bit about where we're going, what we ought to be doing? what do we do on the biggest tax hike in the history of the country? are we going to let that go into place in january or not? what do you think? mr. thompson: well, first of all, i thank my friend from missouri for hosting this hour. this is a very important issue. we are facing the -- without action and intervention, the largest tax increase in the history of our country. and i am -- the laffer curve and the professor that put that together, very smart man. and i think it's very telling.

i think that actually it could be named -- take a little creative license and in addition to being a laffer curve, a curve of certainty. because there is some point in there and you've already mentioned that word, that you either have certainty in the economy and jobs are created and economic development happens or you have uncertainty and things come to a screeching halt and that's what we've seen over this past two years plus in terms of the economy and jobs and the one thing i tell people or what i hear when i go around and talk with the people at home, frankly i talk with the people that are the job creators, it's unsent itity in the economy and a lot of that -- uncertainty in the economy and a lot of that has to do with taxes. they don't know which taxes are coming. they've been not just these -- and some people will call these the bush era tax cuts, i call them the people's tax cuts. week of been enjoying them for

almost a decade now. it's been money in the pockets of the people at home. they're making decisions. but it's not just those, it's all the taxes that have been layered on bill after bill by this democratic congress over the past two years. and i've talked with many people who -- normally every year they will take part of their profit, and that's not a bad word, that's a good word, that's what's made our country strong, and they'll take that profit and they'll reinvest it in their businesses. they'll build a new location or they'll add a service line or a product line or maybe they'll just repackage something so that you have -- freshen it up. they hire people to do that, they create prosperity them. create jobs. and they're sitting on the sidelines right now and a big part of that has to do, i believe, with these taxes that, with no intervention on january 1, the largest tax increase of our history of our country goes into place. mr. akin: i appreciate your perspective and i think you're right.

i had a similar experience back in my district in the st. louis area. we had a meeting that we had on main street. you have to have main street. downtown st. charles there's main street in downtown st. charles. we asked a bunch of small business owners, i think about 40 or 50 of them, to come to a meeting about a year or so ago. and we just asked them, i said, here's the deal, i'm just collecting information and i have my own opinions as to what you're going to say, but i want you to give me your best shot. what are the things that are going to create unemployment? and of course the converse of that is if you don't do those things, then employment will come back, you know. what are the things that are really enemies to the economy? and they gave me a list of five things. and we didn't actually put them in order but the one that came to their mind first was taxes. temperatures just -- it was just basically along the same lines as what you're saying, gentlemen, because if you're a small businessman and you get

taxed and taxed, that takes away the money you have to invest in new processes, new technology, new lines of equipment, adding a wing on the building, put some -- putting some new machine tools in there, whatever it is. all those things create jobs. but if you take all the money away then they can't make those investments. if you do what f.d.r. it and you do it over a sustained period, will you not just cause them to hunker down and not hire, you'll put them out of business and then it will be a long time before that business ever comes back again. so far -- i don't think we've shut them all down yet, although some businesses have had to close, there's still businesses out there, and if they had the revenue and if the federal government would get off of their case, i think we could see some jobs turning around. but the very first thing they mentioned was taxes. and the second thing you mentioned was uncertainty. and they mentioned that. about second. so you are exactly in line with the st. charles people.

mr. thompson: pennsylvania folks and missouri folks think the same way. mr. akin: same way. dr. gingrey. i see you in a contemplative air there. we'd like to hear wisdom on free enterprise. mr. gingrey: well, mr. speaker, i thank my gentleman friend from missouri for giving me the opportunity to join with him and with representative thompson from pennsylvania in this special order hour this evening. talking about taxes and job creation and the state of the economy. and certainly as we look to this first slide in the art laffer curve and referencing of course as a march on tax rate, it has gradually decreased, then the amount of revenue has in turn increased. and we've seen that, mr. speaker, we saw it in 1960 under a democratic president john f.

kennedy, we saw the same thing occur in 1980 under our great communicator, president ronlt reagan. the economist art laffer talks about this often, presents it in a very simple form with this laffer curve. i think one thing that our colleagues need to understand in regard to the so-called bush tax cuts, and as representative akin has pointed out, mr. speaker, it's really been 10 years ago and so it's a bush era. but in a time when those tax, low marginal rates were enacted back in 2001, 2003, we cut the taxes on dividends from a marginal rate to 15% from capital gains from 20% to 15% and even for the low income earners to 10%. i mean, these things had a profound effect, positive effect, on revenue. and of course when you are faced

in an eight-year period of the bush administration with two wars, the 9/11 attack, the dot combubble burst, certainly deficits are going to go up, debt's going to go up, but revenue continued to go up. and that's something that i think people need to understand, to put it in the proper context and certainty -- certainly as we continue the discussion this evening, i want to close my opening remarks, if you will, by saying, this president, president obama, i'm very encouraged by the coming together with the republican leadership in regard to deciding what is best for this country, what could best stimulate the economy, put people back to work, not have another november unemployment rate of 9.8% and over 14 1/2 million people unemployed.

and not only unemployed, but, mr. speaker, over 40% of them unemployed more than six months. so this is why the president, thank god, has it seems to be trying to moderate his position and to say to the republican leadership, i do agree, you maybe drove me crying and screaming to the alter of sanity in regard to fiscal policy, but we cannot in a recession, with these kind of unemployment rates and this number of people unemployed for this prolonged period of time, we can't raise taxes on anybody and we're not going to do that. and i thank god that the president kind of saw the wisdom. he has said many times in the past, elections have consequences and indeed i think he knows now that on november 2, the american people have spoken and he's coming our way. i can only hope as i yield back

to my friend that the democratic leadership and the rank and file membership of the democratic party will listen to him and will listen to vice president biden as they come over here and plead with this democratic majority that it is time to get onboard and to moderate not for the sake of the next election, but for the sake of thises -- this and the next generation. mr. akin: i really appreciate what you were saying. i didn't think i was going to be saying anything particularly complimentary about our president because it seems like all of his policies relative to the economy and jobs and all seemed like it was highly destructive. he was making the same mistakes that f.d.r. made, he wouldn't listen to henry morgenthau, and we on the floor came out here, both of you gentlemen, for week after week after week now for the last document of years. we talked about the idea of the stimulus bill and the theory that you can grab your boot straps and list and -- lift and fly around the chamber, it's about as reasonable as fixing a

bad economy by federal government spending money. it doesn't make any sense in a commonsense way. and it's never worked. never worked historically. but both of you have made references to what does work. and if you're a democrat you don't have to listen to ronald reagan and bush, you go back to j.f.k. and he used the same method principle and the ideas, whether politicians like it or not, what has to be done is you got to stop the federal spending and you got to reduce taxes and you got to create symptom stability and if you can drop that red tape down and then give the economy some time to breathe. and that money will eventually work into those businesses and they'll start hiring people. now, we saw that happen here, this is -- i have a couple of charts here, antiques, they're a couple of years old. but they're talking about when this second part of the bush tax cut came in place in may of 2003. i hate to admit it, i was here at that time. and we saw this.

and so i've got a series of charts, but this may, 2003, is in the center of these different charts. if you take a look, this is job creation in this case this is job loss that goes down, job creation goes up. and the red is before the tax cut and the green is after. now, what you see going on here is we're losing jobs heskly -- heavily 2001 to 2003 and then by may of 2003, you have one month that we lost jobs but after that it's all increases in jobs. so this is the kind of thing that i assume the president must have looked at and go, oh, my goodness, i've tried our stimulus bill. we spent $787 billion. i think they spent it before they really thought the economy was that serious. and so in that money they had bailouts for the california teacher pensions and the illinois teacher pensions. it wasn't even f.d.r. stimulus, it was just basically pork

robbing other states to pay for the mismanagement of teachers' pensions that the california and illinois had done. so it had all kinds of stuff in it, but it really wasn't even much of a stimulus bill. they said it was going to generate, i think it was $3 point something or other million jobs and the result is we lost two million jobs and unemployment went up to 10%. so that didn't work for the president. and now he's got some true believers in the house and the senate, the pelosi and reid gang, they still think you got to tax everybody out of house and home and you're going to have all these jobs. but the president's had two years and the jobs have been going worse and worse. so i think maybe he's starting to pay attention to this affect. and so this first chart is actually job creation and i have a couple of the other ones as well that we can talk about, but i want to give either of you the opportunity if you want to talk specifically about jobs and tax cuts, here's an example of the

tax cut and here's what happens in terms of jobs. jobs. i think the moral of this story is a very, very complicated economic principle, which is frequently lost in my liberal friends, and that is, if you want jobs, you have to have employers. if you don't have employers, you don't have employees. it's complicated, i know. but try to grasp it. you have to have a business for people to work for a business. if you destroy the businesses, you won't have jobs. that's the moral of the story. people need money to invest in their business and there may be some americans that are chasing the american dream. they are going to be rich and have a lot of money. and because someone else has a lot of money, maybe they aren't having that much fun. you start poor and you have something to look forward to and before too long you make some

money and come out ok. that's the whole point of the american dream. the american dream doesn't mean you are rich and the government taxes you into the ditch. that's how the communists work. we have to go from people who don't have much, save and pretty soon, they have some money. that's the way it's supposed to work. my good friend from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i thank my friend for bringing that chart out tonight. we need to reproduce that and get that into the 435 offices. i tried to lead my life by principles and one of them has been the principle that the best predictor of future performance is past performance and here we are loaming days until we have the nation's largest tax increase in history and what a great chart to be able to show

the practical impact on job creation that tax cuts make because you have the documentation right there. you show it pre-tax cuts and post-tax cuts and the results are astounding. we are talking jobs. and there are few issues and problems that we face that our families face and individuals in this country face that quantity be solved by a good job, period. i don't care if it's health care, economic issues. it's so important. and i'm very appreciatetive of the leadership that the president has shown in the past week or so in terms of what appears to be -- and i have to tell you in the first bipartisan, true bipartisanship that i have seen in my first two years here in congress -- mr. akin: i forgot what that

word meant. mr. thompson: he has figured out who the job creators are. the other side of the aisle -- and i'm sure when we get into the debate, you will hear that we are providing tax relief for the wealthy and the top 2% of wage earners in this country fall into that category. by definition, people that make $20000 or more a year or $250,000 with their shoes. -- spouse. that's a lot of money. we see who are those people and it's amazing to find it's the people that are reflected on that chart that are creating those jobs that showed up after the tax cuts in 2003, 2004,

2005, 2006, 2007, because it's 60% of those folks or more are people who organize their businesses as a sole appropriatorship, limited liability corporation or a sub-chapt tier corporation and they pay their taxes. maybe they make $200,000 or $2 50,000 but create jobs. there is nothing wrong with that. work hard, take risks, to sacrifice and to achieve great things. that's the american dream. that needs to be rewarded. but they create prosperity for other people. and i'm so thankful that president obama has in a very enlightened way embraced that in coming together in this bipartisanship of extending these tax cuts.

honestly, i would like to see, if i was king for the day and i think you would all agree, we would make sthem permanent because the best way -- them permanent because that's the best way. mr. akin: if you look at what businesses need, they need to have the taxes off their backs, but they need a sense of stability, because you aren't going to make a decision that's going to be with you for a long time if everything looks turbulent in front of you. you want to know where things are going to bounce. if you see the tax cuts are permanent, then you know the environment and people take risks if they think it's going to be stable. mr. thompson: forecasting and build business plans and models. mr. akin: i got an email. the choices are really more

bureaucrats and food stamps or more jobs and paychecks. that's the choice. are you on the bureaucrat or food stamp time or jobs and paychecks. people would like a good job and decent pay check and feel better than a bureaucrat telling you what to do and giving you food stamps. he said these tax cuts for the rich, blah, blah, blah and the fact of the matter is, the thing that this affects are the people who own the businesses. you aren't going to have the jobs. and people miss that. and there's always this class warfare. we ought to take them down. it's ok to have some money, ok to run a business and hire people, that's what we want. that's what we are trying to

accomplish and that's what this all shows, when you ease off on the taxes, it's a pleasing to everybody. and i know my good friend from georgia is not going to let the american dream go by without a comment or two, because that georgia delegation is looking like there are pretty patriotic folks and i'm proud of the folks they are sending to congress. mr. gingrey: i thank my friend from the show me state. we representatives from the peach state are very proud of our colleagues and the commonsense discussion we are bringing to the house floor this evening as part of this special order hour, pointing these points to both our republican and democratic colleagues. i join with my friends in saluting the president. i would only wish i had the

opportunity, not being part of either the current majority leadership or the current republican minority leadership, to be in that room over the white house, oval room, but i would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to some of the advisers. christine romer is gone, but people like david axelrod and others are still there. i would like to hear, mr. president, we have given you some advice and you have given -- gotten advice from the legislative branch that hadn't worked out too well. mr. president, you had said to the american people, elections have consequences and indeed, we are looking back on november 2 and seeing a net gain of

republicans, net gain of 63 in the house of representatives and a net gain of six in the united states senate, republican members and something like 600 republican members in state legislatures across the country, 19 new republican governors. mr. president, indeed, elections have son he with senses, and it's -- consequences and time for you to get back to the middle and listen to the american people. if it's so partisan you can't listen to the minority party, listen to the american people, and they have spoken loud and clear and they are saying, it makes no sense to raise taxes on anybody, especially those who create the jobs. and you know, i had heard and have heard from our democratic colleagues, mr. speaker, this

mantra, well, you know, you are going to cut taxes for the rich and it's going to add $800 billion to the deficit. ignoring the fact if you cut taxes for everybody else making less than $200,000 a year that you are cutting $3 trillion of revenue out of the budget. so where's the concern -- you are concerned about spending $800 billion to extend the tax cuts for everybody, but you totally ignore the fact that keeping the tax rates in place for everybody making less than $00 urk,000 a year if -- $200,000 if you score c.b.o., that is a $ trillion increase to the defendant. our colleagues tonight are talking common sense.

and that's what the american people want. they understand it. they understand when you have a 14.5 million population out of works and unemployment rate of 9.8%. and in over 40% of these people out of work more than six months, no wonder they are begging for an stings of unemployment benefits of 99 weeks for these additional workers. when the president comes together with the republican leadership and says, i agree, it's a give and take, it's a check and balance and i'm going to sit down with you guys and gentleladies and going to agree that we are going to keep those tax rates for everybody. we aren't going to let the taxation on dividends go up to 39.6% but keep it at 15% so mom

and pop can get a decent return on the dividends. and furthermore, we're going to cut the payroll tax 1/3 on social security from 6.4% to -- 6.2% to 4.2% for the individuals, for the employee. it's a little contradict tower at the same time under obamacare that we raise the payroll tax 3.8% on the so-called high earners, but that's a whole another story. we are coming together with the president. i'm pleased with that and pleased with him. we need to look closely. it's not perfect and there are members on our side of the aisle who are very concerned with the fact that steppeding unemployment benefits another 13 months to 99 weeks for those who have been unemployed for more than six months is not paid for

and that is a concern and we need to address that. but this opportunity to come together on the floor tonight to talk in a bipartisan way to all of our colleagues to say yeah, the american people want us to do this now. they don't want us to wait until after january 1 and want us to g me the opportunity to weigh in on it. mr. akin: i appreciate your perspective. when you keep looking at this from the rich people-poor people thing, that is the wrong question to be asking. the question should be asking, what do we need to keep the economy back on track. what do we need to provide jobs and paychecks, not to discuss whether someone is paying too much. i forget the exact numbers, but i think it's the top 10% of people who pay income taxes pay something like over 70% of all

the tax money that's paid to the federal government, comes from only 10% and that the bottom 40% pays zero. now, that's a pretty graduated income tax that you got just the top 10%, top 1% paying a very, very high amount, in terms of 50%, quite a lot. all of this stuff about the rich and the poor and all the pay, it really should be about america and should be about the american dream and should be the common sense that when the economy is in bad shape, you don't hear increase taxes. that's just plain nuts. but that's the train wreck that's about to happen january 1 if this congress doesn't take action. and i at least credit the president for getting the message. i don't know if he has true religion but appears to be on

the right track. he is going to keep this thing going for a couple of years so in the middle of the recession, we don't hammer the economy. here's another chart. this is the g.d.p. after the tax rate. this is the same tax relief in 2003, may, 2003. we did the tax cut for dividends, capital gains, death taxes, look at what the g.d.p. is doing. gross domestic product before the tax. it is a shakey line, g.d.p. not up to 3%, dropping down -- losing on a couple of different quarters here. and then you put this tax cut in place and look what happens to g.d.p. a shot of fertilizer, bang, it's taking off. you can see the difference in the anche. so not only from the first chart that we saw here, not only do the tax cut affect job creation,

job creation is much better, but it doesn't surprise you when the job creation is up. so also your gross domestic product is up. so these are a couple of charts that just show this affect. the tax cuts don't really lose the government money. they get the economy going again. that's why j.f.k. did it, that's why reagan did it, that's why bush did it. it's worked in all those instances. so that's what we should be doing. now in this case, unfortunately what we're talking about is not a tax cut. what we're talking about is a tax increase which we're trying to prevent. very different thing. if we prevent an increase it means the daniel won't be done but these things -- damage won't be done but these things economically work both ways. if do you one thing and make it better, if you do the worse it's going to make it worse. so why do we want to do a great big tax increase? that doesn't make sense at all. our last chart here and i think this completes thetried a, and here's -- in fact, we're talking about this laffer thing here, here's the tax cut right here.

this is federal revenues. this seems to be an odd chart, doesn't it? you have three years of decreases as we're going into this recession, capital gains dividends, death tax, and all of a sudden you cut taxes and federal revenue is going up. that's why the deficit under bush, even though he had a couple of wars going on, things were looking better because we had four years, this chart was made back in 2007, i guess, four years of straight increases when we did this. so now do you want to reverse this thing now? do you want to put the biggest tax hike in the history of the country and have the affect got other way so federal revenues plummet, jobs plummet, g.d.p. plummets? is that what we want to do for january, i don't think so. i thank you gentlemen for standing up. if there's a recession going on, if the economy is not strong and we say, what you got to do is cut taxes, you got to cut

government spending, you got to cut red tape, you got to create certainty, you know, the average person on the street in our districts understand that the average business person says, of course, you know, and even an awful lot of people who are carpenters and machinists, other people they work with their hands, people with a lot of common sense, they understand, when you're in a recession, when you got economic problems, you don't go out and just bust the budget spending money. and then look at what goes on in this city and they think, what in the world is wrong with that place? we need to get some people in there that's going to talk some common sense. and fortunately we think that the president is at least, whether it's because he really believed it or because he felt the political heat, has put us back in the right direction, not to reverse this very thing that worked so well for us. now this doesn't solve the problem that we're in. it just prevents an evil from happening.

but right now that looks pretty good. i see my friend from georgia, congressman dr. gingrey, will join us again. i yield time. mr. gingrey: and i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. and i wanted to at this point to interject once again. my thoughts as a physician member of this body, about the enactment in march of this past year, almost 10 months ago now, of the patient protection affordable care act of 2010, or what we refer to as obamacare -- mr. akin: i thought that was socialized medicine. mr. gingrey: there are a number of terms to describe it. and i think if you do look at a canadian system or you look at a british system or many other countries across the world, certainly it is a national health insurance program or

certainly a march in that direction and some people do refer to it as socialized medicine. but when i joined the energy and commerce committee at the beginning of the 111th congress, when president obama took office, i had the opportunity to serve with our governor-elect of the great state of georgia, nathan deel, who was the ranking member of the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, and we saw that this, as this bill came forward, you know, that there was this great emphasis right after several months on trying to pass and indeed passed it in the house, so-called cap and trade. not all of the above, but this emphasis on a carbon tax and an energy bill that would end up costing every family in this country about $3,000 extra a year in utility bills. so we spent all this time on this why? because, you know, elections have consequences?

or because this was a near and dear to the hearts of our nobel lawyer yacht for vice presidential gore or our very liberal speaker of the house of representatives, ms. pelosi from california? i don't know. they were determined that they had these giant majorities, mr. speaker, and that we were going tooth these -- to do these things come heck or high water. all of a sudden you come with this health care bill that costs, in a very conservative, i don't know, almost cooked the books estimate, by the congressional budget office, of only $1 trillion at a time where, as the gentleman's charts predict, the american people were suffering. people were out of work. 60 million were out of work. if you asked them after six months of unemployment, hey, you can have your job back but we're not going to be able to offer you health care, they would have taste taken it in a minute. it's a matter of priorities, mr.

speaker. that's what i want to point out to my colleagues. we wasted a lot of time spending a lot of money while people were suffering and couldn't support their families, didn't have a job, becoming frustrated, depressed, angry and by golly the result was the election on november 2. i think the president got a wake-up call and to his credit he has awakened and what we're talking about a lot here tonight is to say, we tip our hat to him. to come together, to be willing to moderate and to do something to get us back on track. now, i don't know at what point he might, if ever, admit that obamacare was a mistake, but the house majority for the republican party in the 112th congress, we will, as it's depicted in our pledge to america, we will do everything in our power to repeal that expensive monstrosity that failed on every promise. if you like what you have in

health care you can keep it. it will lower the cost of premiums and on and on and on. i yield back to my colleagues as we continue to have this spirited discussion. mr. akin: you know, i really appreciate your perspective, particularly as a medical doctor. and the whole medicine thing, you know, the public just isn't behind it. we've had enough trouble with the government running medicare and medicaid and those things, all of the economist it's, liberal and conservative, all say that at the rate they're growing over time because of the changing demographics of the population, they're going to put us in the poor house nationally in terms of spending. well, if the government can't manage medicare and medicaid, how are they going to manage the entire medical system? the public does not want the federal government running our health care system and that's what was shoved down our throats and that trillion-dollar price tag, as you correctly point out, gentleman, that is a very optimistic trillion-dollar price tag. it's going to cost much, much more than that and you're right.

the republican leadership and all of us are complitted to trying to stop that bill. that's the least we'll do. at least we'll try to defund it. if there's enough votes we'll try to repeal it. there's things that need to be done to health care in america to improve it but not throwing it under the bus, have the whole -- all of health care taken over by the federal government. that has to be repealed and then we can start with what we're going to do with the existing system. but that's just one of a whole series of these things which is just run-away federal spending. and boy is that ever a recipe for disaster. you mentioned your constituents were upset and angry and worried and scared and all those kinds of things. the three of us here on the floor have been feeling that way for two years also. i was ready to move away to some island somewhere if the election results hadn't come along the way they did. but now i think there's at least a little ray of hope and today we've been talking about the fact that we want to change the

way things are done down here and we've even taken a few steps today that was announced how the house was going to be run in a much more business-like kind of way. we're going to know what our skids -- schedules are, we're going to know when the last votes of the week are and we can plan our time and schedules and do a better job visiting with our constituents. i think that's a very encouraging first step. i think the other thing that was very encouraging to me and maybe i don't want to get too much in the touchy, feely department, you know, engineers don't do well in the touchy, feeling department, but i remember our first meeting a couple of weeks ago, the republican party got together in a conference and we had won the biggest election since 1946, which i don't remember, i was born in 1947. so it was a year before i was in, and we had the biggest victory we've ever had and the tone in that room was dead sober and the attitude was, we've been given another chance and it's time for us not to do the same old things, it's time for us to really do what's right, use some common sense, let's get this

mess under control, let's stop the federal spending, let's start cutting the things that need to be cut and let's start backing off on the taxes to get this economy back on track. and -- because we don't think that the american dream is bureaucrats and food stamps. we think it's jobs and paychecks and that's the course that we think the public has told us to go. common sense. and a good bit of good hard work and good management is what's required and so that's -- and also learning a little bit of something from history. and that's where we have to be going. there's a strong commitment now, even the president has seen this and we're encouraged. congressman -- j.t., i really appreciate the fact that you've run your own business and you have that just commonsense kind of experience to know what it takes to make it work.

and a lot of americans understand that. but somehow or other, for a couple of years, the majority down here just doesn't get that. the fact of the matter is, we are right now kind of sitting at this precipice, you know, we're just a week or two away from january 1 and the question is, what's going to happen on this massive tax increase? are we going to get, after all of the last two years of not only socialized medicine, but that idea about cap and tax or cap and trade or whatever it was, about the global warming thing, you know, i asked my constituents a question in a survey, are you more concerned about global warming or our dependence on foreign oil? guess what the results on that were? 80% said we're worried about being dependent on foreign oil. let's keep this conversation

somewhere in the reasonable zope. but anyway, i would yield to my friend from -- friend, j.t. mr. thompson: my whole life as a young boy i grew up in a family-owned sporting goods business. it wasn't a very big operation, it really was my mom and dad, a brother and a sister. and we -- that was -- the store was open seven days a week and 12-hour days. as a teenager i remember i had the 6:00 a.m. shift on saturday morning. to get up -- mr. akin: what did you do? mr. thompson: i was getting up in the middle of the night back then. but hunting season was ammunition and supplies and fishing season was bait and minnows and -- but you know, it was a wonderful way to grow up. and to be able to see and to live the private sector. because that's what it was. we were immersed in it. and it was very positive from that standpoint, of interacting

with the public. but at the same time it was a front row seat on just how many burdens government can layer on business. on jobs. and whether it was taxes, whether it was regulations, just incredible, incredible burdens. but i guess i have very fond memories but i have some very useful lessons that i take from those years, then went on into health care and created jobs and managed rehabilitation services and worked with a nursing facility. i most recently -- we're talking taxes tonight and the looming taxes that will go into effect here january 1. probably about two months ago i was in titusville, pennsylvania, it's where one of my district offices, we happened to be having an event there one

evening, it may sound familiar to those who remember their history. that's where we drilled oil the first time anywhere in the world, titusville, pennsylvania. 151 years ago. we're very proud of that. we called the valley that changed the world with the discovery of oil. but i was -- mr. akin: 18 70's or so? mr. thompson: yeah. absolutely. this is 151st anniversary. but i was talking to an individual whose family had roots going back 151 years and was talking to this gentleman and he was describing that he has a family business and his family has been in this business for at least 100 years or more and talked about during his lifetime, just his lifetime, he has had to purchase his family business from the government three times. every time a generation has past

away. that is just morally wrong and economically stupid. the fact is, this is a company that has for over a century created and provided really good jobs for that community, for that part of pennsylvania. mr. akin: he is having to buy his company back from the government. mr. thompson: the official word is estate tax. mr. akin: death tax. mr. thompson: it's the death tax. and we know that today, as a result of these tax cuts, a schedule that was set up almost 10 years ago, for someone who passes away in 2010, the death tax is 0%. they have been taxed all through their lifetime and saved something else for their kids and they want to pass it on to their kids. mr. akin: the death tax is going

to tax them whereas if they got drunk and gambled it away, they wouldn't have to pay tax. mr. thompson: it's i am moral. mr. akin: i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt. mr. thompson: those are great points. you work hard, sacrifice and take risk and accumulate wealth and make profit and want to pass it along to your children and grandchildren. you want to provide for them. that's the american way. that's the american dream. and what does the government do. government comes in and takes a large portion of it back. and you know, there has to be a lot of people thinking about it will be more convenient to die between now and december 31, because the death tax is 0%, but if you are unfortunate to die a minute after midnight on january 1, it's 55%.

you think about someone who owns a business like that gentleman or a family farm for that matter. i mean, what part of a business or farm do you sell in order to come up with 55%. if it's a farm, do you sell the livestock, the barn, outbuildings, the crops, the equipment, resources, the inventory, do you steel any of those? you sell those or you don't have a farm and people don't have jobs because we drive jobs out. that is one of the most egregious taxes. mr. gingrey: i claim time from my friend, because on this same point, i think we do need to elaborate on this, mr. speaker, i would suspect that all of my colleagues, certainly most of my colleagues on this side of the

aisle, republican members of the congress, would philosophically agree that there should be no tax on death. death should not be a taxable event. i think steve forbes is a brilliant publisher, said a number of years ago when he was running for president, i'll always remember that, no taxation without respiration. i love that comment and as a physician, i can relate to it. and again, i would prefer that there be no death tax, estate tax. our friend from pennsylvania, representative thompson just said, this year, there is none. there is no taxable event if you die in this calendar year of 2010, but you hurry up and do

it, because come january 1, then all of a sudden, the estate tax goes up to 55% with a little old exclusion of $1 million. well, there are many, many, many small businessmen and women and farmers, who paid for that investment with tax doll rs -- dollars, that will get hit with it. as my speaker knows, the president sat down with the republican leadership and said, you guys passed a bill on the house floor and it would be a 45% tax on everything above 3.5 million. but we will compromise and agree that there will be a $5 million exclusion and the tax on the overage would be 35%. and that is what zphor lincoln

had proposed on the senate side along with our republican colleague senator cornyn from the great state of texas. so basically, again, the president has recognized that. so we get down to the point where, .03%, very, very low number, have any tax at all. do our colleagues on the side of the aisle or the american people say, the principle is no tax ace, no taxation without respiration or do we accept this compromise where hardly anybody pays an estate tax. and again, these are tough questions. they are going to be tough for our republican colleagues in the house and senate and i guess tough for the democratic colleagues as well, because they want the 55% and the exclusion to be $5.5 million or less.

these are the things that the american people need to know about it and again, i will take the opportunity this evening to commend the president to be willing to come that much closer to what the american people want. mr. akin: i think what congressman thompson said earlier about it being permanent, that would add a tremendous amount of stability particularly if you are doing estate planning and things like that. zero this year and 55 next year and gets changed to 35. how in the world does anybody plan what's going on and how in the world can a small business survive? if you have a multitry trillion -dollar business with armies of accountants, you have the flexibility to move your business overseas and don't want to create jobs in america, fine. you show us the rules, we'll

play the games and big business can do that. but the small businesses that have most of the jobs in america don't have that flexibility. and when we hammer them with a 55% death tax which is fixing to happen as they say in missouri, january 1, that's pretty tough. you can picture a farm, and as you said, what are you going to do, sell the fields? are you going to sell the trackors -- tractors and equipment. you inherted the farm from your dad, sell that, liquidate the whole thing and sell half of your farm to pay the government on something you already paid for. i can't imagine your discussion, mr. t. on a family that has bought their business three times. you can see why people get hot

under the collar. and what are we using the money for, to bail out the california teachers' pension when they can't manage their pension. and the state of missouri, we have teachers, too. they have a pension and expected to manage the pension, too. if they don't, it goes bankrupt. why are we bailing the teachers of some state that can't manage their own pension. i don't understand that. that's why i don't like that big old bailout. it was a scam and it didn't work. i was asked by a liberal television talk show host when you are going to say to someone who lost their job? i can't say. this is a policy that this liberal congress did. we need to be getting back on good solid economic footing. i think we have three, four

minutes, but i would be happy to kwleeled to my good friend from -- yield to my good friend from pennsylvania if you would like a few finishing comments. mr. thompson: you had a charlotte showing health care, bank bailouts, the omnibus, we are talking about billions of dollars being spent and all in the name of supposedly good causes. i question many of those as being very ineffective. mr. akin: you have your wall street bailout here, economic stimulus. that was a doozy. socialized medicine at trillion. they aren't going to get by with a trillion on that. i.m.f. bailout. mr. thompson: the absolute best economic stimulus we could have is these -- extending these tax cuts.

i think what happens as a result of that is it provides some certainty back into businesses, especially those 2.1 million small businesses that create 70% of our jobs that you referenced, mr. akin. if we create that certainty, we will see a lot of business plans take off and what we are going to see is unemployment will go down because jobs will be created and people will have more prosperity. mr. akin: as we're saying, jobs and a pay check beat bureaucrats and food stamps. i do yield. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman. and i ask you to give me permission to shift gears because we are talking about the economy and that's the main point of the special order. but we had another vote this afternoon that is pretty important, barely passioned on the house floor maybe an hour our so ago, the so-called dream

act, the dream act which people in northwest georgia think is a nightmare. it may be a dream that these students want to go back to their own country and attend one of their great universities, but bottom line is, mr. speaker, i wanted to say as i'll put in the record that i came to the floor and with my electronic vote card voted no. had to step out quickly and find out it wasn't recorded. very disappointed to me, because i think that vote was to allow 2.5 million in this country illegally to ultimately be granted amnesty and it was a boneheaded wrong vote. and i yield back to my friend from missouri. mr. akin: you brought up a tender topic here basically. and i appreciate you gentleman joining us and your commitment to the american dream and god bless you and the american

public. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: appreciate to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and the opportunity to address some things on my mind perhaps while others are speaking and perhaps while others are having trouble speaking. i'm very, very grateful to the c-span cameras and the transparency that exists here in the house and i think back on

those years now, maybe almost 20 years ago, maybe even more, when i sat in my living room and i watched what was going on in this room and i listend to the speeches and i analyzed the presentations that came from the various members of congress that came from either side of the aisle. an american who was busy building a business, meeting payroll for 240 consecutive weeks and trying to build capital and shape that together so we could take care of my family and that of the families of the people that i hired that worked for me and did so well to build the business, while that was going on, i was watching on what was going on in washington, d.c. in des moines, iowa and i saw and heard the voices of the people that came forward tell america that there was something wrong in this congress. and as i

-- as i listened to them, they inspired me to get more engaged in politics, there were a lot of decisions being made in this city and in the capital cities in the states across the land that were affecting the very lives of the american people, down into their families, and a lot of folks didn't know this. they weren't paying attention. so i started to pay attention and from those years forward i saw what was going on. the irresponsible spending that was taking place and the dysfunctional congress that had rolled itself up into a point where it no longer represented the american people but it seemed to exist for its own purposes and not for the purposes of serving the american people. as this unfolded, the personalities that were here on the floor, newt gingrich and dick army and a number of others that stand out in my mind and caused me to think that i might be able to make a contribution at some level, whether that be the state level or the federal

level, but they convinced me that there was a broad philosophical disagreement in america and on the one side of the aisle you have people that believe in zpwrowing government, that government is thelusion -- growing government, that government is the solution and that higher taxes are necessary in order to fund this degreing -- growing government and if there's a problem that exists out there, even if it's for a single individual, there's somebody over on this side of the aisle that will try to pass a law to fix that problem for a single individual and government grows. and we all look at empirical data, by the way. i offered study after study and they turn a blind eye to those studies. they simply want to try to reach out and touch people's heart strings and tell the anecdote, the single anecdote. with 300 million people we'll always have someone who got the short end of the stick. that's this side of the aisle. the case, the people with the poor mes, the ones that think that these greedy capitalists

are victimizing the poor person and it's a zero stomach game and the glass is half empty and it would have been maybe 3/4 or maybe it would have been not as empty as half empty if these people that went out and got out of bed and went to work every day and produced something hadn't been taking from that glass. might have been full for them. they wouldn't have had to do anything. but truthfully, mr. speaker, it's not a zero sum game. and anybody that thinks their glass is half empty and their resolution of that is to go to government and ask government to tax the person whose glass has got the same level in it but this is the half full side of the aisle. these are the people that believe in understanding -- and understand that it's not a zero sum game, this is a growing economy, that we don't have all of this capital that we have in the united states of america because it was a zero sum game. we've built things. we produced goods and services that had a marketable value. to each other, yes.

and to the rest of the world certainly. and we exported a lot of that and america became more wealthy and we developed our skills. this idea of a zero sum games that over here on the democrat side of the aisle, mr. speaker, is a self-defeating philosophy from which you could never build a great nation. it's already a self-defeating philosophy. if you get up every day and you think you have a bad case of the poor mes and somebody is out there working industriously and taking from this pool that you have some right to for not earning it, if you have that attitude you're not going to be contributing to the whole. and our job and it should be our job on both sides of the aisle is to increase the average annual productivity of all of our people. now, it doesn't mean that we won't have some people that aren't producing at all. some can't. and we need to take care of them. some won't. and they need to take care of themselves. and some aren't doing enough and they need to do more.

but if we increase our overall productivity, that increases our average annual productivity, that increases our gross domestic product, that strengthens us economically, it puts us in a position where we're no longer borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar we spend from somebody, often the chinese, puts us in a position where we can balance a budget and by the way the people that are out there working and producing every day, every working day, at least, and hopefully taking sunday off to worship, those folks aren't putting pressure on government for services. they just say, take the taxes you have to take from me and don't take any more than you have to take and leave me otherwise alone. i'll take care of myself and my family. that's the american spirit. that's the american way. it's part of the american dream. and so as i use that word, mr. speaker, dream, the american dream, we saw a bill come across this floor today, turn through

this system with lightning speed, who says the house of representatives can't move quickly if the speaker of the house determines it shall move quickly? let's take the word american off of it and call it the dream act. they can't call it the american dream act because that would be a high level of hypocrisy. they just call it the dream act which we described as the nightmare act. and this is an act that's been churning through the public here for a good number of years. and what it is, it's designed to give a path to citizenship, to young people that came into this country before their 16th birthday, who have resided in the united states for perhaps as long as five years, who are willing to enter into an institution of higher learning or sign up for the military and give them a path to citizenship. give them a green card right away. it would triple the number of green cards in america right away.

and these young people, they were young maybe when they came here, but still it's an amnesty bill. and amnesty, to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawmakers and reward them with the crime. if somebody comes into the united states illegally on the day before their 16th birthday, this dream act gives them amnesty. we have lots of people that sneak across the border that aren't 16 years old. some of the accomplished coyotes are under 16 years old. some of the accomplished drug smugglers are under 16 years old. you've got a murderer down in mexico that was reported in the news who is, i'll call him a serial contract killer, that's just been arrested. it's alleged. he's not yet convicted. multiple times he's executed people in the drug wars and he's 14 years old. and so this dream act would give everybody that came into the united states illegally, whether it was in the first day of their

life, perhaps they were born across the border and they came into the united states on the first day of their life, and were nurtured here, went to school here, gives them distribute result is an in-state tuition discount to go to college or perhaps go off to the military in the united states and a path to citizenship and the ability to bring all their family members in on the family reunification plan. all that have offered to somebody that maybe was brought into the united states on the first day of their life, but it also is the same reward for somebody who came into the united states on their own illegally as well on the day before they were 16 years old. and that's good up until such time as they're 30. so let's see. we can do the math on this. 14 years -- if this bill becomes law tomorrow and it's possible, because it passed the house in lightning time, the senate may or may not take it up, cleas a cloture vote apparently that's scheduled. i don't think they have the

votes. they should not have the votes. but in any case, if someone comes into the united states the day before their 16th birthday and this bill becomes law, the day of their 30th birthday, they will be covered under the dream act. they would be able to apply for an application, that's presumed that they would have entered into an institution of higher learning, so you don't have to be going into a four-year college to go off and become a brain surgeon, you could simply be centering -- entering into a tech school to become a plumber or technician or a buetigs or whatever it might be that would be a 12-month study or more. enter into it. you don't have to get a degree. you have to have a college -- or a high school degree which can be done. a g.e.d. can be picked up and then you could have never gone to school, you could pick up your g.e.d. and then apply to go off to a buetigs school, those things are all that's required and you would get approval for

your permit that would give you immediately a green card, access to the welfare system and the ability down the line a little ways to bring in through family reunification all of your family members. they could go -- this reward for somebody that next week might turn 30. and the chairman of the judiciary committee tells me, never fear, because they have good background checks and they have good solid biometrics that they're using, checking out, biometric information that's there with a good background check with the f.b.i. doing this good background check, mr. speaker. well, i'll tell you that it doesn't do a lot of good to ask the f.b.i. to do a background check on somebody that came into this country before or after their 16th birthday, that doesn't have a legal existence in their home country, they were

not born in a hospital in mexico, for example, almost all the time there is no birth certificate and about half the time they're not born in hospitals so with no birth certificate there's often not a record of their existence and they could be anybody saying they are anybody, coming here, declaring that they came here at any time without a record to back it up. all the way to 30 and, well, i came into the united states, my parents brought me in against my will the day before my 16th birthday and next week i'm going to be 30. i qualify, i'm signing up and we'll give them protection under the dream act. that's what they have passed off the floor of the house of representatives tonight. it is a reward for law breaking and it isn't for kids alone. these are old kids, a lot of them. old kids that are in their 20's, kids that are in their 30's, kids that will perhaps be as near as very close to or even possibly in their 40's by the

time that they would receive the citizenship that's promised to them under this dream act. would we do something like that? mr. speaker, thomas jefferson once said that large initiatives should not be advanced on slender majorities. well this was a slender majority here tonight. it came very close, the vote was tied up on the rule within one vote for a long time. there were 38 democrats -- excuse me, 37 democrats voted no on the rule. 38 democrats voted no on the bill. almost all of them blue dogs. a lot of the blue dogs have been defeated in the election last november 2 and they are here for this week and next week and for most of them and possibly all of them it will be the last time they serve in the united states congress. most of them are pretty good people. and they were pushed into this hard core leftist agenda by speaker pelosi. they had that san francisco

agenda shoved at them over and over again, to use the speaker's expression, i believe it was, made them walk the plank. the speaker tried to get the blue dogs to walk the plank one more time tonight on this dream act, this not aptly named -- the wrongly named nightmare that's named the dream act, it's a nightmare act. tried to get the blue dogs to walk the plank and they said no. they said no in numbers of 37 on the rule, 38 on the bill. because they're not going to go out of this town having handed the speaker another victory that goes contrary to the best wishes of america and contrary to the american dream. now i believe that immigration policy that's designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the united states of america. i believe that for a long time. and i think that the american leadership has believed that, perhaps not articulated that the same way, but believed that for

a long time. and i reflect upon my grandmother coming over here through ellis island and as i went through that tour at ellis island 3 1/2 years ago, i learned a good number of things. they gave everybody a very quick physical. they watched them walk, they watched how they moved. if anybody was obviously pregnant they put them back on the boat. if there were people that weren't in good physical spess mens they went back on the boat. if they had signs of disease, back on the boat. if they had signs of not being mentally stable, back on the boat. they screened them before they got on the boat in europe and looked them over and gave them all of those same kinds of tests before they even let them board because the united states of america, even at the height of our immigration hay day, at the peak of ellis island, in fact, the peak of ellis island was april 15, 1905, excuse me, i've got to get this year right.

think about it. april 15, 1907, when they had the largest processing of legal immigrants in the history of the country pouring through ellis island on that day. april 15, 1907. they were brought into the united states across the floors on the great hall and on average, you can do the math, cut it down, 2% went back on the boat and went back to europe. or wherever they came from. because they didn't meet the standards. even though they'd been screened before they got on the ship, they were screened before they could get off ellis island and i don't know how many were screened out before they boarded but 2% got sent back. why did we do that? because we had an economic or excuse me, we had an immigration system that was designed to -- for america. it was designed to improve the economic, social and cultural well-being of the united states of america. the united

of america because we believed in something then t