on this side of the aisle believe today. we believe, and i believe in american exceptionalism. we are an extraordinary country, mr. speaker. we are extraordinary for a lot of reasons. there are a series of pillars of american exceptionalism. beautiful marble pillars that have been cut and polished and our founding fathers understood that and they set them in place. and i think god moved the founding fathers around to shape this nation. when he look out across the world and i think down through the heritage of nation after nation and look for a country that has a history that is even similar to the history of the united states, and i don't mean that as far as the chronology of the events that took place, the wars, the depression, the foundation of our country. the foundation of the united

states of america is absolutely and completely utterly unique to any of that in the world. if you look over the last 250 years or so, the most successful institution in the world, part of it has been our religious institutions, but arguably, the most successful institutions in the nation states that emerged out of city states when they were merged together and where did they come from? people that had a common language banded together from city states into nation states and that's what brought about all of the myriad of nation states in western europe, for example. that's what has set up the boundaries of our nations across the globe. if you speak russian, you lived in russia, if you spoke german, you lived in germany. not if you speak austrian -- no one speaks austrian, but speak

german in austria, chances are you are home. french in france. spanish in spain. it's not too complicated, but why do we have the nation states? because people with common interests banded together, protected their interests and defended their borders and made sure they took care of each other. excuse me. and they built their nation states, england, speak english, united kingdom, spread english. they believed in their culture. wherever the english language went, freedom accompanied the

language. no nation has been founded upon these principles of liberty and freedom like the united states of america. and you can say that we had a continent that needed to be settled and you could argue it was the quirk of history that brought this about, but, mr. speaker, it is far more unique than that. if we look around and we can think south america was a continent to be cementled and so is central america. what is the difference? and then we could rule our division down to australia and see a continent that is about the size of the united states that had to be settled, settled with the western european influence and still, they don't have the rights, they don't have the liberty that americans have, the dynamics of their country, they have been very good to us as allies, don't match us in the united states. the things that bless this country are completely unique.

we are founded on a core of jude o history christian believes. they wanted to get away from king george and come to a place to be free and worship god in their own way. and it's true that old english common law and these concepts of western civilization and english-speaking component of the age of enlightenment were established that. and it arrived here in the new world. there is a plaque down in jamestown, virginia, i think i'll get the year right and may have been 1607, really close to that, old english common law arrived in virginia down the coastline. all those things made us unique.

american exceptionalism. and the rights that emerged in the bill of rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, speech, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the fifth amendment property rights, the right to be protected from double jeopardy, the concept of federal ralism that pushes those rights, rights of government that are granted to government by the people. those are new concepts. those concepts still don't exist in the world like they do here in the united states. so we get into these debates where people want to undermine the rule of law and their version of compassion is worth this and ought to have enough compassion that we can set aside these values and make this a great nation. how can people think like that?

the thing we should protect the most, our core faith and these beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism. we must protect them. we take an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. that's our commitment. and you can't take an oath to a constitution that is living and breathing or an activist judge is going to decide, the very last nine people on the planet that should be amending the united states constitution, all those nine supreme court justices, but they do amend the constitution. and i don't believe there should be anybody sitting on the bench that doesn't adhere to the deepest conviction that the constitution means what it says and it means what it was understood to mean at the time of its ratification or ratification of the succeeding amendments. that's what the constitution is. it's a contract. it's a guarantee.

and our founding fathers made it clear, our rights come from god, we hold these truths to be self-evident. our rights come from god and the rights come to the people and the people grant the right to govern to their elected representatives and the constitution con stews -- guarantees us a republican form of government and i mean that as a representative form of government that is not designed to put our finger into the wind. it's designed to elect representatives that owe their constituents and everybody in this nation their best effort and best judgment and we have to keep that oath to uphold the constitution. some of the foundational principles of this great nation and its concept of american exceptionalism, which is at risk because what we saw happen here tonight.

the people that would undermine the rule of law and give people a free college education at the expense of people who are having to pay for it and don't have the access to that benefit are undermining the rule of law. they are damaging the concept of american exceptionalism and rewarding the people that have undermined our rule of law itself. american exceptionalism and comes from these things i have said, all of these rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, bill of rights has a couple of them. one of those is free enterprise capitalism. and i mentioned property rights, fifth amendment property rights. the ability to own property and know that you paid property tax, government can't take away from you and invest in businesses and

start jobs and do the things we choose to do as a myriad of individual citizens. and the free enterprise component of it. why is it that country after country they don't form capital? they might start businesses, but it's a little business where they are selling trinkets or selling snacks or hand them out, get them by, invest in the capital, they just go every day and sell the hot dogs but not turning it into a franchise, not building a chain of restaurants, not getting an idea, now i have this equipment in here and market it to the world. americans are full of ideas. we aren't suitable to live under any form of government and since i have gone through this list of

reasons of american exceptionalism and not exclusive, i have this other piece, mr. speaker, and it's this. americans are full of vigor. we are the cream of the crop of every donor civilization that sent immigrants here. the reason we are and the biggest reason wer it was hard to get here, but there was a great reward that you could earn when you got here. and some people came here believing the streets were paved with gold because there was room to achieve in the united states. and the people that came here had an extra vigor, because their dream drove them to did that. there is a filter that has been set up worldwide and sets up at the borders of the united states. this sovereign nation with our borders and can't be a nation state if you don't have borders and can't call them borders if

you don't defend them. but our borders were set up and people had a hard time getting through the system. had a hard time like my grandmother walking across the hall in ellis island and being granted entrance into the united states of america but had vigor and a dream and had things they wanted to build and didn't let grass grow under their feet. they went to work and committed themselves so much to this country that they expected that the first one in my family that past away here, the rest of them will be buried around her and that seems to be the case and i don't know the whole history of it and i'm coushous speaking about it, but my grandmother came here and sent my mur sons back.

she directed my father, who went to school not speaking english to never speak anything but english in the home so she could learn it because she said i came here to be an american and learn english and teach it to me. english needs to be the official language of the united states of america. our common language is what binds us together and this vigor of americans that comes from every country in the world and every walk of life, this unique vigor, because of this filter, kept the slackers out. the doers got here and were inspired by a dream and they came. every donor civilization contributed to america their vigor, the cream of their crop and now here we are. we are -- some people will disagree with this, but i will tell you, mr. speaker, we are a race of people. we aren't just what sometimes what we look like, all of these

colors and different configurations in god's image, we are a lot more than that. we have a common interest, common bond, common history. we have common rights, common privileges and a common dream and that's to leave the world a better place than when we came and pass it along to our children. it's in our culture, part of our being, that's who we are. we are a common race of people as far as looking at us from americans but we are uncommon because of all of these reasons i have said and we need to understand that. we need to understand what made us great. we need to preserve, protect and polish those beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism and need to understand what made us great and protect it and preserve it and enhance it. and these things that go on here in this house of representatives, in this lame duck congress, still being

driven by the repudiated majority that can take a bill that they call the dream act that has been rejected by the american people over and over again and suspend the proper function of this congress and bring a bill like that to the floor, how? there is a proper way first, mr. speaker, in case it's not something you have had the opportunity to evaluate. the proper order is this. some member of congress comes in, writes up a bill and says i think we need this as the law of the land and go down here and file the bill here at the well, at the clerk's location here at the well and then that bill is referred to a committee. now if it gets enough legs and gets enough co-sponsors, there can be a hearing before a subcommittee or two or three or

four. the subcommittee can then take action on it. the full committee can then hold hearings also to inform all the other members of the committee. and they can then, when i say pass the bill, at each point of committee action, it's an unlimited number of amendments that are germane in order but an unlimited number of amendments that can be offered to seek to perfect the legislation. that's how it's been set up. it's got to be set up in such way that you can actually fix a bad bill before it gets to the floor. and so a bill that's introduced goes through a hearing in markup process in the subcommittee, then it goes through a hearing and a markup process in the full committee, then it goes up to the rules committee, the hole in the wall up here in the third floor, where sometimes they run into a little trouble because those folks don't work out in the light of day. they work sometimes at night, there's no television camera in there, reporters don't go up there, they think it's a little boring and maybe it's not really news.

if they'd come up there more often i might go up there and make some news because it might be nice to let the american people know what's going on. so then the rules committee passes a rule that sends the bill to the floor, actually sends the rule to the floor, we debate on whether we want to accept the rule, if we vote the rule down, it goes back up to the rules committee and we said, -- say, get it right and get it back up to us again. so we deport the rule back up to the rules committee and the hole in the wall. and they come back and try again. doesn't happen very often that a rule comes down. but once a rule is there, it sets the parameter by which we debate a bill and our speaker dessing nat boehner has told the rule and i'm very glad that he has, that we're going to have far more transparency and far more open rules on our bills. that allows members to offer amendments and try to perfect this legislation. how it's supposed to work. so a bill would come to the floor in theory under an open rule that would allow any member to offer an amendment, force a

recorded vote, or require a recorded vote, i shouldn't say force. it should be a process that people in this chamber are willing to go through. and actually eager to improve legislation that otherwise might not be as good as it can be. and then once the amendments are all heard and voted on and resolved, then the bill can be certainly debated in its form, final form, and placed upon its pass and. if the house passes that legislation we message it to the senate, down right that hallucinateway, and they either take it up or kill it. that's how it's supposed to work. the dream act, this nightmare act, had an entirely different experience than i've just described, mr. speaker. because it didn't really exist in this house of representatives and it was in the form that it came to the floor today. it worked out like this. speaker pelosi decided that she wanted to go along with the

majority leader in the senate, harry reid, and they would force a vote on the dream act. whether it could ever become law or not. and so instead of going through the hearing process and the markup process, subcommittee, full committee, up to the rules committee and down, they just went to the rules committee, at some 3:00 this afternoon, this bill that -- i don't know that anybody had an opportunity to read it before it was presented to the rules committee, i know that i didn't, but i maybe could have caught up with it a couple of hours earlier. all of these versions floating around, nobody can figure out what's going to move. down from the speaker's office comes a bill, dropped into the rules committee, they take this up, a little email goes out to some of our staff to let us know that they're going to be hearing testimony on the rule, no amendments allowed, some members, myself included, go to testify before the rules committee, we know they're going to say no to any suggestions that we make including any amendments that we might try to offer even though there wasn't time to con figure them upon

notice. they report out a same-day rule that says, this congress is going to hear this bill right away. so the rules committee meets on a bill we haven't seen at 3:00 in the afternoon, a few hours later it's here on the floor for a vote on the rule, a few hours later it's here on the floor for 30 minutes of debate on this side, 30 minutes of debate on this side and an amnesty bill that's twice the size of the 1986 amnesty bill passes off the floor of the house of representatives. and now it's messaged to the senate where harry reid has asked for it. and this is sunlight? this is a responsive congress? no, this is an act of a congress that has been reputeyaded for the same reasons. there's a reason why -- repudiated for the same reason. there's a reason why so many democrats are going home. i for one feel bad that some of the best are the ones that are going home. some of the blue dogs are some of the best, the best to work with, they reflect american

values by my view more than the others in a lot of ways. they've been defeated because of these kind of shenanigans, these kind of tactics, these kind of acts that close the system down, lock the members out so that the franchise, these 435 members of the house of representatives, and there isn't anybody who sits in these seats who whose constituents deserve less representation than anybody else. everybody's franchise deserves to be heard and the will of the group should be brought up through the leadership and should be manifested in legislation here on the floor, sent to the senate. if it comes back and it doesn't match us, we should have our say as well. that's not what's been happening . the right way i think is around the corner. i think we take it up in january. but we americans, we americans that believe in american exceptionalism, we americans that take an oath to uphold the

constitution, we americans that adhere to and uphold the rule of law, which i believe is implicit in our oath to the constitution, reject the idea of this nightmare act that i believe turned into an affirmative action amnesty act for two million or more people that could be tripled. and our immigration policy that we have here, mr. speaker, is already so bad, it doesn't reflect the best interests of america. it doesn't reflect the economic, social and cultural well-being or enhance it in a fashion that i believe it should. existing immigration law is set up in such way that merit is almost out of the question. to evaluate the people coming across ellis island and turn 2% of them back after they'd already been screened and filtered on the european side before they got on the ship tells you there was at least a merit system.

but here in the united states if you look at the legal immigration and the legal immigration number will range up to 1 1/2 million a year, no country in the world even close to as generous as we are in the united states with legal immigration, but out of all of that some place between -- and this is testimony before the immigration committee, some place between 7% and 11% of our legal immigration is based on merit. the balance of it is out of our control. so that means that between 89% and 93% of our legal immigration is in the hands of the people who are deciding they're going to come here rather than in the hands of americans who would decide which people would come here. it's completely out of sync with the values of a lot of the other western civilization countries like canada, united kingdom, australia. they have immigration policies that are designed to bring the best people into their country

and not put burdens on the taxpayers in their society. i can't make the grade to go to canada, excuse me. i can't make the grade to go to canada because i'm too old, i would be relying on the government to feed me too soon and my education level's not high enough, i don't know about my years left to work but in any case, you put it into the score system they have, i can visit but i can't go live. that's how they would be. if they reject steve king in canada, we should be able to say no to some folks that want to come to the united states, especially those that broke our laws. and this legislation, this dream act, this nightmare act, has a number of things in it that the american people need to know. it is a hard core leftist liberalism peete piece of amnesty legislation. it provides for protection for people who have broken the flaws

this way. would get still a dream act registration that would protect them from deportation, even if they had been alien object sconders, people that were sent for der to -- set for deportation hearings and ske daddled and didn't hoe up, those people -- those people. they will be protected from -- they can sign up under dream and then they're shielded from being prosecuted and deported even if they're an alien obskonder. document fraud, no problem, we'll give you an education. if you have false claims of being a united states citizen, that's no problem either. you're still eligible under the dream act. we'll give you a college education, too, even though you lied about your citizenship. even aliens who have been deported, who would sneak back into the united states and the

deportation records are there they sign up for the dream, they will not be deported either. now what a reward. so there will be all kinds of people that sneak in the united states that will go ahead and sign up right away for this dream act because they'll be protected from deportation. and even though it requires that they be no older than 30 at the time of enactment and that they came into the united states before their 16th birthday and that they've been here for five years, who's to know whether it's valid or it sint? who's to know how old they are if they don't have a real birth certificate? who's to know if they have a high school education, a g.e.d.? who's to know if they've completed a two-year education at a tech school? but i know i did receive in my email tonight a website that is in the business of selling these false documents. these false palomas. helping people be in a position where they can qualify already for the states that have made

these provisions. s a -- it's a big business. fraud and corruption is a big business. it's a big business in the countries they are coming from. and it's becoming a bigger business in the country they are coming to, the united states of america. we have been a clean country, that respects the rule of law. we're a proud nationality, we're a race of people. we have a common cause, a common belief system. we believe in the rule of law. it's our job to uphold that. and this bill, this dream act, undermines that. and it costs a lot of money. the c.b.o., congressional budget office, score put out a score that's been often touted by the other side that somehow it turns into a plus for the u.s. budget because some people get a better education and they'll pay, earn more money and pay more taxes. i don't think this thinks this through very far but i can tell you in the second decade, even the congressional budget office says that it's going to be a cost of $5 billion to the taxpayers. and i can tell you that the

center for immigration studies, c.i.s., has done a study on the cost for state and local government and that would be $6.2 billion a year. that's each year. that doesn't necessarily project out over a decade. a couple of years perhaps, maybe longer. they only did a couple of years, $6.2 billion so $12.4 billion is pretty close to what they'll commit to. and, you know, the tripling of the number of green cards, the billions of dollars in debt, the people that get a safe harbor, who are alien obsconders, any alien that has a pending application will be protected from deportation. and this amounts to a de facto scholarship for those who, if i.c.e. were required to deliver that de facto scholarship and before they handed it to them, they would have to apply the law to make sure that they woke up in a country that they were

legal in within a few mornings. that's the facts. and furthermore, the most egregious aspect of this is this. if this is going to provide for in-state tuition discounts for people that are today illegal in america, and it will come in because their parents came in, many of them came in on their own, crumb -- coming across the border at age 12, 13, 14, 15, turning 16, many of them will be up to 30 years old saying they were brought into the country when they were 10 or 12. not records to prove that. but here's what happens. those people that are here illegally, that are eligible for removal, are today and would be under this act sitting in college classrooms with a tax-payer funded education, sitting in a desk, and a resident of california, zero

tuition. but if my son or daughter-in-law wanted to go to california to go to college, they'd have to pay out-of-state tuition. the out-of-state tuition for the california institutions annually is $22,021 a year. you can imagine writing a check for $22,021 a year to go to college in california and sitting in a classroom in a desk next to someone who is unlawfully in the united states, who is getting a free education paid for by the taxpayers, how much that would burn you if you're an american citizen in good standing, a taxpayer, an individual and a family that has funded and contributed to this government in a way that most of us do? there is no justice or equity there. it can be reconciled. and i would add to this, that it gets even worse and it must exist today and if this bill passed, i'm convinced it will

exist all over this country and that's people that are illegal here in america, with their tax-pair funded, some states free education in iowa it would cost them $3,000 a semester, and it would cost the out of state people about $9,000 a semester, in some states a free education, sitting in a desk in a classroom next to a grieving widow who's lost her husband in iraq or afghanistan, who has elected to go across the state line to go to college out of state, paying out-of-state tuition, $22,021 in california, a grieving widow of an american patriot who gave their life defending our liberty and our nationality security this grieving widow who maybe has children who lost their dad and maybe now is going back for training because she knows she's now the principle bread winner

in that family, paying out of state tuition, sitting -- sitting in the desk next to someone who is unlawfully in the united states getting a free college education paid for by the taxpayer.tu a free education paid for by the taxpayers. it's what this dream act sets up. it is an impossible issue that shouldn't be upon the american people. we wounded it here in the house. 37 democrats voted no on the rule, 38 democrats voted no on the bill. we had some republicans who weren't able to vote for health reasons or otherwise. i actually look at out we were close to mustering this poorly named dream act that was the amnesty act in act. we can do better. and i'm hopeful that the united states senate will step up,

speak up and vote down this dream act when the majority leader in the senate brings it up, which may be tomorrow and i suspect what will happen is, won't have the votes but will try it any way because this has been political from the beginning. he has realized it's not going to become law, but made a promise to his constituents if you re-elect me, we'll give you a vote on this dream act. and the gentleman from chicago, who has pushed on this so hard got his vote today and saw the results of the lame duck congress in this repudiated 111th congress that has been led by nancy pelosi. and i think about thomas jefferson, who once said, large initiatives should not be advanced on sleppeder majority. this was a slender majority. and this was a large initiative.

this initiative of amnesty out of the dream act is so large that it's twice the size of the amnesty act of 1986 and seen the fraud triple the estimates. if that's the case, pick your number, three to six million people that would get amnesty and then they start bringing in their extended families over and over again, generation after generation and becomes out of control and poor america has illegal immigration based on merit that is going to enhance the cultural, social well-being of america starts to fall apart a little more. and we need to be in the business of refurbishing those pillars of american exceptionalism, not getting out the jack hammer and chiseling

away at them as what done today by this pelosi-led congress. jefferson said large initiatives should not be advanced on slender majorities rkts he didn't contemplate about large initiatives being advanced by repudiated congresses that were voted out of office that should go out the door meekly with respect towards the american people and do nothing that violates a sense of decency and the will of the american people. nothing, only provide the functions that are necessary to get this government bridged over to the other side so that the new congress can be seated and those new 87 freshman republicans and how many democrats can take the oath of office and go to work, go to work and fixing and saving america from what has been visited upon her by a

dysfunctional congress that writes bills in the speaker's office, brings them through the hole in the wall, rules committee, down to the floor, no amendments, 30 amendments of debate on each side to try and resolve an issue. no time to penetrate an issue in 30 minutes and can't fix a bill. even denied a motion to recommit, which is standard practice in this place. so there is no possible way to put up a motion that is going to fix a bill here. it's a bad bill. it damages the rule of law. it grants amnesty and costs tens of billions of dollars and rewards people who break the law, gives them an in-state tuition discount, iowa, $3,000 versus $9,000. california, free tuition versus

22,021. that's the america that they are building. and americans saw what was going on, that and deficit, irresponsible spending, damaging the rule of law, breaking the american culture and civilization, constitution demolition crew at work every day and they said you are digging out the hole and we aren't going to take it anymore and american people took the shovel out of the hands of barack obama barack obama, nancy and pelosi and made it harder for harry reid. nancy pelosi is still digging because the shovel is not out of her hands and lined up the blue dogs and said i'm going to make you walk the plank one last time before you go home for the last time and they said no. stepped off the side of the plank and voted against the rule and voted against the dream act

and they sent a statement as they walked out the door. well, i think there are a lot of them who served america and stood up to the courage of their convictions and those who came to this place to work in good faith deserve the gratitude of the american people. and those who disagree with me made a good argument. it is my privileged to have served with people on both sides of this aisle and the debate is essential and important and from my stand point i will debate things with those folks who have beliefs that disagree with me, believing as our founding fathers did, we'll sort out the right policy for this country. but when you shut the debate off, the iron fist of the speaker shuts out the committees and sends it to the floor with no motion to recommit, you end

up with a terrible piece of legislation and break faith of the american people and faith of the franchise of every member of congress. that's what has happened here over and over again and gotten worse each year. this is one of the starkest examples. who would have thought that in a lame duck session when we had big things to do and big things to worry about, the speaker would push an amnesty act out here in a lame duck session and not give all those freshman an opportunity to weigh in. they are the conviction of this united states of america. i look for good things from them. i want to see them empowered to the maximum. fresh ideas and energy and cohesiveness that i hope is that class and put a marker down in

history, a marker that will meet that standard and take us on up to another level and in that class, i expect we'll see committee chairs and we'll see new majority leaders. maybe there's a speaker in that class, maybe there is a majority whip in that class and conference chair, maybe all of them. might be a president of the ubse united states that is coming in here. those things are possible and most of them are likely, mr. speaker. i look forward to the new breath of fresh air that's arriving in this congress. i look forward to speaker boehner, who will be offering transparency here in this congress. i look forward to the voice of every member being heard with respect and those ideas that can prevail in the arena of ideas on the floor of the house and in the committees are the ones that

are the best ideas for the american people. we will get there. we have a lot of things to reconstruct. we have a lot of undoing to do and not going to be an easy job or short job. we will be undoing for the next two years that will elect us do in the next four years and america will never be chosen to perfection but it's our struggle to work on it every day and get it close to right so it is handed off to the next generation and be proud of the toil we did here and understand there is a vision and a commitment that we kept in this new majority our oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. mr. speaker, i appreciate your indulgence and attention here tonight, the opportunity to address you here on floor and close out the business for the day and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no., members also passed the dream that immigration bill, 216-198. if changes immigration rules to create a path for citizenship ors who gomented miners w

to college to join the military. live coverage of the house here on c-span. coming up tonight, today's house debate on the fiscal 2011 spending bill. then an interview with tom harkin and a senate hearing on the stability of capital markets and computerized trading. today, the house of representatives passed a spending bill to fund the federal government for next september. the measure freeze that the spending at 2010 levels and less than the president's request. here is the debate on the bill. it is just over an hour. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: i call up the bill h.r. 3082 with senate amendments

thereto and have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 3082, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. senate amendment. mr. obey of wisconsin moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3082 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1755, the motion shall be debatable for one hour work 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations and 20 minutes equally quided and -- divided controlled by the ranking minority member of the committee on commerce. mr. obey and mr. lewis will each

control 20 minute, mr. cacksman and mr. barton each will control 10 minutes. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the pending legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. members please take their conversations off the floor.

i hope that the congress is not too offended to recognize that yes, we must deal with long-term budget deficits. if this country is to grow for everybody, we also need to confront our investment deficits in jobs, in education, in infrastructure and science and technology. that is the context in which this resolution -- which this bill to keep the government functioning for a year is being considered. this bill frees the discretionary appropriations at the 2010 level for the rest of the fiscal year, spending $46 billion less than the president asked for this year. it adjusts last year's priorities in three main ways. it funds the current shortfall in pell grants for college students, meets the increased medical needs for our veterans,

maked adequate adjustments to meet military pay and health kansases. it provides the department of defense $513 billion, which is $4.9 billion more than last year with corresponding cuts on the domestic side of the ledger, i'm sorry to say. i'm sure we'll hear a lot of talk about a number of changes in the bill. the number of hard choices we had to make in this package to try to keep uncle sam from being uncle scrooge this holiday season. john wesley admonished to us to do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can in all the places you can at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can. this product falls embarrassingly short of that goal. but i make no i apolings for the fact that the committee has done its dead level best within the constraints under which we're operating to make some modest

adjustments to salvage some investments which over the long haul just might create more jobs than tax breaks for millionaires and adjustments that might ease the financial desperation faced by so many families today who cannot afford to send their kids to college to find decent child care or to provide adequate medical attention to their needs. so we have had the unmitigated gal to shift gsh gall to shift additional funds@social security administration to ensure that people get their benefits without undue delay. in an outrageously socialistic attempt to provide some additional health safety protections for minors who have all too often been the victims of the mind -- protections for miners who have all too often within the victims of the mind set of owners who put more focus on the bottom line than mine

safety, we have shifted money into that account. i hope the congress is not so penny wise and pound foolish that they will object to our efforts to further our efforts to ferret are out waste, fraud, and abuse in social security and medicare. on a day when temperatures are dropping to five above zero in my hometown and we're a balmy 23 degree here's in washington last night, i hope this congress isn't too offended that we are recommended $1940 million above last year for homeless assistance grants to combat the growing number of families who are living on the streets thanks to the brilliance of political leaders in washington in managing this economy. those are a few of the modest changes we've made in what would otherwise be an automatic pilot course of action in a straight continuing resolution. within the same dollar limits, this legislation attempts to make modest adjustments and

recognize that needs and conditions change over a year's time. i hope it does not represent too great an inconvenience to those members of this body who are much more comfortable in providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky a little -- make those -- make their lives a little bit better and the investments that might run the unholy risk of making the economy work nearly as well for average families as it does for the american elite who can afford to make large contributions to those fortunate enough to be honored by our constituents with the stewardship of the national interest. i want to say one other thing. there are at least 50 decisions in this resolution that i'm

flatly opposed to. there are many arguments in this resolution that i have lost. but the fact is, sooner or later if you're beginning -- if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that congress doesn't become the laughing district of columbia stock of the country. the only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an aye vote. i urge support for the resolution. with all of its shortcomings. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker. it's rare indeed i have the opportunity to watch my chairman speaking from the well, the minor adjustments in this package that caused him to be unhappy amounted to some $33 billion. if both of us dislike it so

much, mr. obey and we both voted no, maybe we could bring the turkey down and start all over again. in the meantime, lest i dwell too long, we're now nine weeks past the beginning of the new fiscal year and congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill. out of 12 total for 2011, two have passed the house while 10 bills have never even been considered by the full committee. as a result of this historic breakdown of regular order, the house will soon be considering what many people are describing as a full year continuing resolution to keep the government operating through the end of the current fiscal year. truth be told, it's more of a c.r. rolled into an omnibus spending bill because of the adjusted spending levels, the $33 billion i was talking about, and the many extraneous policy provisions i was talking about as well.

it's worth noting that none of these spending adjustments or changes in policy were ever debated or considered by the appropriations committee or the house this year. like so many other items added to bills in the democrats' era of closed rules, new program funding levels and legislative riders just somehow magically appear in bill after bill and particularly in this bill. for the record, i remain adamantly opposed to extending the c.r. for the balance of the fiscal year at democrats' current levels, which are too high, or at the inflated levels proposed in this package. rather than simply keeping the government running, this bill picks winners and losers among agencies and programs across the government by moving some i suggested $30-plus billion. for all kinds of programs. none of it for defense. not surprisingly, labor, health

and human services programs are are among the biggest winners in this package, receiving a $7 billion net increase over fiscal year 2010. the state operations also receives a $2 billion increase over current levels this c.r. omnibus provides $513 billion in base defense spending which is over $18 billion below the department's request. it is also over $11 billion below the level the defense subcommittee reported out back in july. while i freely admit that all spending including defense must be on the table as we look to rein in this historic set of deficit we must proceed smartly and wisely, especially when our troops are engaged in the battlefield. ultimately this approach is neither. it shortchanges our troops at a time when we should be

supporting them, at a time when we should be supporting our troops this bill uses defense funding as a piggy bank for the majority's domestic priorities. additionally, this legislation triples the time for which the department of interior has to approve exploration plans for offshore operators, extending the timeline for some -- from some 30 days to 90 days and essentially codifying the de facto moratorium offshore operators have been operating under for months this significant policy change, done without debate or a single committee or house vote, has far-reaching inch cakeses relating to both existing and future oil and gas leases. simply put, this is a christmas tree bill that provides more spending for the majority's many domestic priorities before their time in the majority comes to an end in early january. i am encouraging our colleagues

on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about excessive spending to oppose any effort to extend the c.r. beyond february. that would allow the new republican majority to complete the unfinished f.y. 2011 appropriations bills. at the f.y. 2008 levels and save taxpayers some $100 billion. this would be the clearest signal the house could send to the american people that we got the message in november and are deadly serious about cutting spending. even as the house prepares to consider the c.r. omnibus, the house and senate majority are finalizing the details of a 12-bill, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. the senate faces a 60-vote hurdle to pass that omnibus bill but if they succeed, it will fall on the house democrats to pass it. and they will have to do it without a single republican vote, i can assure you.

mr. speaker, none of us believe we should shut down the government, but i cannot and will not support the this c.r. omnibus because it simply spends too much and contains unnecessary and extraneous legislative writers. if we pass a c.r. we should pass a clean c.r. funded at the f.y. twathe levels and demonstrate our commit -- 2008 levels and demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. and, mr. speaker, just per chance the senate is not able to get those 60 votes, this could be the last time that my chairman, mr. obey, and i are on the floor together and as we do that, i wanted to recognize especially my staff director, jeff shocky, for the fabulous job he's done working for us over these years. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from can connecticut, ms. delauro.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this continuing resolution that deals with the responsibility that we have to fund the government so that it can function. this bill represents some really hard choices, it freezes discretionary fending and this is a point that should not be lost. at a time when we are looking at those on the other side of the aisle that would pass a tax package that would benefit the richest 3% of the people in this nation. the richest 3% of the people in this nation will get a tax cut and so people have the at the merit to propose an estate tax to 1/4 of the 1% of the richest people in this nation while folks in this country and kids are going hungry. the chairman should be commended for closing the grant short

fall, for including critical investments and services needed to keep people from falling through the cracks. i commend him for the small and modest funds dedicated to early childhood programs, such as head start and child care. and as the chair of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee, this bill continues the important and necessary investments that we made last year in agriculture research, rural investment, nutrition and food aid, conservation and, yes, the public health. key federal agencies like the food and drug administration will have the resources it needs to meet its important responsibilities to the american people, to combat the continuing economic crisis, to provide food and nutrition that millions of americans currently rely on. this resolution includes language that allows the supplemental nutrition assistance program and other crucial entitlement programs to be funded at the levels

necessary to maintain participation in the current fiscal year. one out of five families is being -- is today on food stamps. one out of four children are going to bed hungry every single night in the united states of america. i urge my colleagues today to support this bill, with all of its difficulties it keeps the government functioning and we've made modest progress -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if the house did what i suggested, that is to do a c.r. to the end of february, i would be introducing the gentleman from kentucky as the new appropriations chairman of the house, but in the meantime, i'm privileged to yield the gentleman four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields how much time? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank the speaker and let me thank the gentleman for yielding and he is a true

gentleman. the long service that this man has contributed to the welfare of the nation, its defense, we can never repay jay lewis for the great job he's done in this committee. mr. speaker, how can we explain this year's so-called budget process? mr. rogers: should i begin with the historic failure to enact a budget resolution? how about the despicable way special interest bailout funds were dumped on the backs of our troops during the war supplemental debate? and what about the band-aid, border security supplemental that was used for political cover just months before the president proposed cutting the border patrol? and who could forget the fact that this year marks the very first year the house has failed

to pass a homeland security appropriations bill? a failure that came in the midst of several serious terrorist attacks and disrupted plots. and then there are the results. no discipline, no oversight, no bills. instead we have this monstrosity before us today, a measure that puts our fiscal and oversight responsibilities into a year-long c.r. that's laden with exceptions, gimmicks, riders and is based upon a strategy of the senate, although riding this bill with a gigantic, unaffordable omnibus bill that's never seen the light of day. mr. speaker, that's not a budget process, that's a failure of epic proportions. as we were resoundingly told just five weeks ago, the

american taxpayers are demanding far better from the stewards of their precious but limited dollars. we need a whole new ball game. no more bucking tough decisions, no more failing to prioritize our security needs, no more letting failing programs slide and no more enabling the overreach of federal agencies. we need to go back to the tough job of oversight. we need to go back and usher in a new era of collaboration and transparency and we need to do the hard work of cutting spending, right-sizing the government and restoring the trust of the american people. this c.r. marks the culmination of failure on all fronts, process, product and performance. i urge my returning colleagues to reject this legislation and

prepare to go to work in the 112th congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: can i ask the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining? mr. lewis: mr. chairman, i have three or four more speakers. mr. obey: we have none. mr. lewis: you have none? hallelujah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm privileged to yield my colleague from virginia, mr. wolf, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman and i want to thank mr. lewis, too, for his service, thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition. everyone should know that in this continuing resolution there is the expansion of indian gambling. there is the expansion of indian gambling and probably nobody in this institution bar one or two people on the appropriations committee have even read the bill. this overturns a supreme court

decision. do you all know, on my side and that side, this overturns a supreme court decision. has anyone remembered abramoff and corruption and problems that have come about with regard to that? having such an erroneous provision, had an expansion, no markup, no markup on the natural resource committee, the election just said the american people want to know that we've read the bill, nobody's read this bill and now this is slipped in and i don't know who has slipped it in but quite frankly nobody -- mr. obey: would you like an answer to that question? mr. wolf: yes, sir. observe this was a republican amendment offered by mr. cole from oklahoma. it was voted in the subcommittee appropriations bill five months ago. mr. wolf: i don't care if it's a republican amendment or a democratic amendment, it is a bad amendment and it will bring

about major expansion of gambling. mr. obey: don't suggest it's been sneaked. it has not. mr. wolf: there have been no hearings, the department of interior has refused to answer a written request from members of congress to identify which tribe so nobody knows what tribes, nobody knows what tribes. nobody knows anything in this institution when it comes to this. the department of interior has refused to answer, there's no consultation with the states. this bill is almost a repeat, a repeat of how this congress and this city and this country got in trouble with the abramoff thing. this is scandalous. this provision, i don't care if it's a republican amendment or a democrat amendment, it is a bad amendment. it will bring about crime, corruption, a tax on the poor and it is a bad amendment. and because of all the great reasons that mr. lewis said and others said, this is another good reason. this bill should be defeated because when you vote for this

bill, you're voting for expansion of gambling all over this country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin still reserves his time? web web -- mr. obey: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, i happen to agree with the gentleman from virginia on the substance of the issue. but the fact is that the interior appropriations subcommittee voted in open session with open debate to adopt the cole amendment. now, as chairman of the full committee, i don't have the luxury of producing bills that represent my own priorities. it is my obligation to try to find the center of gravity that enables to represent the views of the house. that's what we did on this issue and for the gentleman to suggest that there's anything corrupt about it is scarulous. mr. wolf: what this is is it

will bring major expansion. again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time? the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. wolf: thank you. this will bring major expansion of gambling and i don't care what subcommittee, the average member came down here and were told tomorrow that they voted for major expansion of gambling, they will not have known. it is a bad bill, it is a bad idea that brings about crime and corruption and it's a tax on the poor and i heard -- i urge a defeat of this c.r. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a member of the committee, mr. kingston of georgia, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to say that i do understand that we're here largely because there was not a budget this year and we were unable to move bills under regular order and because

of that here we have something that was published, as i understand it, last night at midnight and the list itself came out at 9:00 a.m. and as a member of the committee, i'm not sure what all these things are doing. i see that we are increasing the ag market and healthy food initiative, excuse me, it's not an increase, it's a brand new program. i'm ranking member of the ag committee, i don't know exactly what that is. i think that might be something that has been voted on but we have not had it through the committee. now, i understand a lot of these other things are old items that have gone through the committee, but that one is one that has not. the broadband, there's a $30 million increase in broadband loans. i'm very confused about that because the stimulus bill includes broadband loans, $7 billion. and then there's an f.d.a. increase of $470 million. f.d.a. has gone a lot of money over the past year, including some of the stimulus, so i'm not sure why they're getting an

increase when so many others are getting a cut. i noticed on another page that there is a rescission for the navy of $168 million and for the air force, $136 million. i also serve on the defense committee, there's been no debate on that. now on the next page we increase funding for the i.r.s., including $125 million for i.r.s. enforcement. i guess that's because people who won't get health insurance now, i.r.s. is going to get a lot more agents and they'll have more money to spend on prosecuting people who don't buy health care. then over here on the other page, we're cutting the cust -- border patrol by $225 million. we've got a problem as we all would agree on immigration, but we're cutting the custom and border patrol. i looked further, the c.d.c. is getting a cut of $57 million. can i have 10 more seconds?

mr. lewis: i'm happy to give the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman. over here we're cutting grants for academic competitiveness. i think one thing we all agree on is we need our students to be as competitive as possible. but we are increasing congress' budget. house of representatives, $2 million increase. capitol police, $8.8 million. the congressional budget office, $1.7 million. the g.a.o., $1.5 million. congress is getting an increase while we cut academics. on another page a myriad of things we're cutting out of the military. this run into the millions of dollars. and i noticed here in a very small account we're actually cutting opec, which is the overseas insurance account that

underwrites loans for emerging markets, it's one of the few federal agencies that makes money. maybe that's why we're cutting them but it would appear to me that that kind of behavior should be well rewarded but under the c.r. they're getting a cut. so i respectfully think we should put this thing back two or three months and -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: can you tell us how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has 10 3/4 minutes. mr. lewis: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i rise in opposition to this c.r., having failed to present one of the 12 annual appropriation bills to the president, this body finds

itself in the position of scrambling to pass legislation to keep the government running this year is different. this year the outgoing majority wants us to accomplish much of its agenda long before republicans take control. it would seem that if you fail to pass legislation in regular order, that would fund the government for the coming year, that you should at least recognize that we've had an election and if you can't finish the work of all those who are coming in -- allow those who are coming in to go ahead with their own budget. republicans have called to cut spending to fiscal 2008 levels. this, i think, continues funding at 2010 levels. that might not seem significant until you realize that that's $100 billion difference. when you're running these kinds of deficits, when you have this kind of debt that makes a difference. the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging.

certainly the first rule when you're running a deficit like we are is to stop spending. if we can cut to it fiscal 2008 levels rather than 2010, we should do it. we're digging a deeper hole that we'll have to fill in later or make deeper cuts later on. i would encourage everyone reject this c. are r., pass a short-term c.r. so we can deal with this responsibly in january or february, rather than continuing funding at an unsustainable level. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i thank the chairman for yielding. i have not intended to speak on this particular issue. i had the opportunity to hear my good friend, mr. wolf, in debate recently and i wanted to come down to the floor and correct a misimpression he has about the so-called fix, let me begin by

thanking my good friend the chairman for allowing us to put that legislation in the bill. i proposed the amendment on the floor which passed unanimously on a bipartisan vote by our subcommittee in the interior. the bill, frankly, the measure has absolutely nothing to do with gaming. as a matter of fact, the supreme court fix that it addresses didn't involve gaming at all. it involved a housing case, land put into trust and used for housing by an indian tribe. what the supreme court has done by a very narrow interpretation of the 1934 indian reorganization act is create two classes of indian tribes, some of whom can receive land in the trust as they have for 80 years by secretaries of the interior of both parties and some of whom now cannot. almost all the cases involved here, almost every single one, involved cases that have absolutely nothing to do with gaming.

this is a solve trinh issue and process issue. if this fix is not made, it would not have been made without the support of the members of the committees of jurisdiction and the united states senate who said this was the best vehicle and the best way to go. but if the fix isn't made, we are going to have billions of dollars worth of litigation and have enormous disruption of economic development, soing my friend is under a misimpression, mr. speaker. i wanted to make that point for the record, again, i wanted to thank my friend, mr. obey for working with us and his staff and my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, chairman moran, for working with us for a bipartisan solution to a real problem. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, for my last speaker, i believe, i'm pleased to yield one minute to mr. turner of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. turner: i rise in strong opposition to this c.r. specifically because of section 2142. the democrats are holding hostage the funding necessary to sustain our nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities until the senate ratifies the new stark treaty. the administration opposes this provision. in fact its offered its unequivocal commitment to recapitalize and modernize the enterprise. for important issues that must be resolved. russian intentions, missile defense limitations and nuclear modernization. just yesterday, myself and incoming armed services committee chairman mckeon and 14 others -- mckeown and 14 ores sent a letter about these. unfortunately, this legislation would hold these concerns. section 2412 is irresponsible,

dangerous and must be opposed. i ask unanimous consent that our letter that we sent be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. lewis: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 3/4 minutes. mr. obey: i yield myself such time as i may consume, and don't worry, i'm not going to take it all. i had not thought to get into this discussion today but i think the comments of a previous speaker from the other side illustrate just another reason why i'm glad to be leaving this place. when i came here i don't think there were very many members who would reach a conclusion that if someone disagreed with them on

substance, that somehow they are morally defective. in a civilized, adult legislative body, members would recognize that there can be legitimate policy differences that can be highly controversial and that you can have honorable people on both sides of the question engage in honest debate and discussion about those issues. in the main, that is what members in this house usually do. but i have noticed a tendency in recent years on more and more occasions for members to substitute hyperbole for thought and to substitute attacks on character for attacks on argument. i find that sad indeed.

i do not know of a straighter shooter in this congress than mr. cole. he is a highly partisan individual. he at one time ran the republican congressional campaign committee. but he did it with honor and in my view, he has brought honor to this place in the way he has handled himself on a wide variety of issues, as long as i've watched him operate. i do not believe that he or any other member of the interior subcommittee who dealt with the issue at hand demonstrated anything but an honest effort to try to deal with a court decision which played fruitbasket upset on years and years of legal precedent.

i am for one proud of the service i've had in this place with people like the gentleman from oklahoma. and i would simply urge all members as i leave this chamber to remember that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who have honest, hard-fought views and hard-earned views and have a right to express them without some off the wall member accusing them of corruption. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time and urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. waxman: i yield -- >> i yield to myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i urge my colleagues to support the food safety provisions. with the help of my good friend, the gentleman from texas, reported the bill unanimously. mr. dingell: why is it here? it's substantially the same as the bill passed by the hoss and substantially the same as that passed by the senate. it cures the weak thovepbs food and drug administration and the fact that about a third to a quarter of our food is imported from abroad where there's no real protection for american consumers. some 5,000 americans die every year of bad food, 300,000 go to the hospital and 77 million get sick.

this bill gives the food and drug administration the authority to do what needs to be done. if we do not pass this legislation, we'll find that legislation like this cannot come to the floor before late in the spring or in the summer of next year. i urge my colleagues to respect the problems that we have, see to it that americans are protected against unsafe food coming in from china. milk with mel mean, unsafe -- with melamine, unsafe strawberries, unsafe fruits and vegetables, unsafe fish and seafood and shellfish, all manner of unsafe food is being brought in and sold to the american people because of the inability of the food and drug administration to protect the american people. this legislation will cure and address those problems. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous con sent to

revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: i rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. the primary reason that the energy and commerce committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the food safety act in the continuing resolution. the food safety act bill that passed the house last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between chairman waxman and subcommittee chairman pallone, chairman dingell, myself, then-subcommittee ranking member nathan deal, and others on the republican side. it was a result of a number of years of work, it was an open process, it was an inclusive process and the result was a very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the house floor.

i believe on the house floor 59 republicans joined with almost every democrat to send that bill to the senate. the bill that's come back from the senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the house bill as amended, it is a senate bill that is significantly different in several respects. the inclusion of what's called the tester amendment in the senate bill means that some farms, small farm, and along the borders between the united states and mexico and the united states and canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill, the methods of payment are different, the house had a registration fee, an annual registration fee that is not included in the senate version. senate version. there are a number of tax issues

with the senate bill that we have a problem with in the house that if it's not included in the c.r., the food safety bill would be subject to what we call blue slipping here in the house of representatives. so it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill, because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the energy and commerce committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. but our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a take it or leave it attitude. ranking member and soon to be agricultural committee chairman, frank lucas and i have sent a

letter to our speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. we are going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. we could have a conference. we could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. i'm still hopeful that might occur. with regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the food safety act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. the f.c.c., the federal communication commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4.5% from fiscal year 2010 and more than $14 million than what they perhaps asked for.

in the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. the funding for public awareness, for example. so far, h.h.s. has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, andy griffith. "the andy griffith show," one of my favorite television shows when i was growing up, but i have a little bit of problem watching mr. griffith talk to seniors about the important new benefits of the current health care law as a pitch master for something that in all likelihood we are going to change, perhaps even repeal next year. independent groups have found that some of these ads have

misled seniors. they claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to medicare advantage and others in the medicare payment rate. this is misleading and unfortunate. in the area of telecommunications, it exempts the universal service fund from the anti-deficiency act. this would allow the government to obligate money to carrier subsidies before we have the money in hand. most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, find that to be very objectionable and quite frankly, irresponsible. so i again on the food safety bill that passed the house, i voted for it. i have nothing but respect and comply mepts for mr. waxman, mr. dingell, mr. pallone and others, but the c.r. version of food

safety that we are being asked to vote on today is not the version that came out of the house. for that reason, i oppose and the basic c.r. overall, there are numerous reasons from an energy and commerce perspective to oppose that. we would ask for a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i yield to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: the house passed the food safety bill a year ago in july, 2009. and we waited for the senate to act and they recently acted by 73 to 25 in favor of the legislation. when we had it before us, there were 283 supporters. now, the senate made some changes in the bill, but all of

the advocacy groups have told us that f.d.a. needs this legislation to be able to protect the american people from unsafe food, whether it's domestic or foreign imported foods. this legislation gives them important tools to have clear authority to issue and require manufacturers to meet strong enforceable standards to ensure the safety of various types of foods. this bill does not create unnecessary burdens for farmers and small businesses. it would allow f.d.a. to exercise their new authorities and require manufacturers to implement actions like preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur. i would have preferred the house bill rather than the amendment in the senate bill, but sometimes you have to accept a change that you may not favor at

first blush. but to have us defeat this bill and have the american people go without the tools at f.d.a.'s hands to stop unsafe foods would be irresponsible. i urge support for the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: we would be delighted to receive extra time. at this time, i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from new jersey, chairman of the subcommittee on health, committee on energy and commerce, one of the original sponsors, 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, chairman dingell and all the work you have done on this bill and so many other bills. there shouldn't be any more time for delay. every time we have a food safety crisis, eggs, spinach or pepper,

we shake our heads and say we don't have the tools to protect it. each year 76 million americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food and 5,000 people die. as the bill we are going to vote on today perfect? certainly not. the food safety act would give the f.d.a., the ability and the authority to protect consumers from contaminated foods. f.d.a. will ensure food safety through more frequent inspection, the development of a food trace-back system to pinpoint the source and enhance pours to ensure that imported foods are safe. it helps to ensure that food is safe before it is distributed, before it reaches store shelves and the kitchens of american families. we have the most productive and most sufficient food distribution system in the world but we need to have the safest

food supply. people need to know the foods they select and males they put on the kitchen tails are safe. we started this job in the house. let's finish it today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. dingell: if the gentleman from texas would yield me time, i would be delighted. mr. barton: i will yield to the gentleman two minutes. mr. dingell: i want to commend him for his help on this legislation. mr. barton: on the house-passed bill. mr. dingell: i want to address that because i want the house to understand the great job the gentleman did and the fact that the senate in an unusual action did only slight damage to our bill. at this time, i yield to my distinguished friend from michigan, mr. stupak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is

recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. stupak: i rise to support this continuing resolution which includes the food safety act. i want to thank chairman dingell, mr. waxman and mr. pallone and other members of the leadership to make this important legislation an important priority. the act will provide the f.d.a. with some of the resources and authority to effectively monitor our food supply. as chairman of the subcommittee on oversight investigation, i have held 13 food safety hearings, examining the failures of the f.d.a. and food industry to protect our nation's food supply. the findings of these investigations highlighted the needs for the first major overhaul of our food safety laws in 70 years. among its key provisions, this would establish a food tracing system and provide the f.d.a. with recall authority. this bill is not perfect, but it is improvement over current law.

i urge the next congress to look closely at providing the f.d.a. with a dedicated revenue extreme for inspection, requiring country of origin labeling and giving the f.d.a. the subpoena power it needs. despite the lack of these provisions, this bill as compromised with the senate, is a good bill and one that deserves to be passed by this congress and signed into law this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. mr. barton: i'm reserving. i have no speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i thank the distinguished the gentleman from michigan who is leaving us at the end of this congress for his outstanding leadership and chairman of the oversight subcommittee and the outstanding work he did so we can pass this legislation. at this time i yield to the

distinguished the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this continuing resolution and especially the food safety provision. they represent a good first step in reforming our food safety system and reducing foodborne illness. this house passed much stronger food safety legislation in july, 2009. the bill before us today still includes critical reform and deserves our support. it provides the f.d.a. with several authorities that will help the agency better prevent food-borne illness, including increased inspection to inspect records relating to recalls, the creation of more accurate food facility registry, improved traces in the event of an outbreak, and certification of

certain food imports as meeting all food safety requirements. it will help us identify food-borne outbreaks more quickly. food safety should be a vital component of our national security and our job as the people's elected representatives and when it comes to the real potential of a full blown food-borne epidemic, we have been playing a dangerous game for far too long. our food safety efforts should not -- will not end with the passage of this bill. i believe we must establish a single food safety agency, one that will consolidate all the food safety functions spread across 15 federal departments under one roof. i will continue to fight for the single agency. i believe it is needed to ensure that the food in our supermarkets, restaurants and kitchens are safe. nonetheless, the food safety provisions in today's resolution are a great first step. i urge my colleagues to support them.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: at this time, i have no further speakers until i close. i believe it's the other side to close. and i invite my dear friend from texas to say whatever he has in mind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining. mr. barton: i appreciate the speaker's indulgence. we are going to have to suggest that members on the minority side to vote no on the c.r. because of a number of reasons because our friends on the appropriations committee have alluded to. if we could have a conference between the house confereys and the senate conferees on the food

safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises that we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. that is still possible to do or would be possible if the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate, chairman of the appropriate committees in the house and senate were willing to go down that road. in this congress, those types of conferences have been far and few between. so we're stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the house, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the senate at the last moment and being attached to a continuing resolution that shows the party in the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very seriously for the last year. so

-- so as much good as in the food safety part of the bill and as hard as they have worked on that aspect of it, i still believe the correct vote on this bill today is a no vote. we do ask that members vote no on this. the good parts of the legislation will we will hopefully try to bring back very quickly in the next congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year. with that, i would ask for a no vote on the bill today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. dingell: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from california for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. i rise to revise and extend my remarks. i appreciate the great work

chairman dingell did on this effort, unfortunately i can't support the continuing resolution, the food safety effort, the good work we did in the house that was sent to the senate, the senate amendments make it a flawed measure. this process should be based on science, not based on miles and sales and for those reasons i unfortunately will oppose the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: pl dingell: mr. speaker, i rise to close, i yield smeist such time as eremains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: i want to commend my dear friend from texas for the superb job he did working with us on this bill. the house bill was a superb bill, came out unanimously of committee and passed the house. it has the support of everybody in the industry and the consumer support administrations and the food and drug administration. i want to commend chairman waxman, chairman pallone,

chairman stupak and ms. degette for their outstanding leadership. mr. stupak did a very fine job of conducting the hearings which demonstrated the weaknesses of the existing law and made it possible for us to establish the need that has to be done. in my extension of remarks, i'll include the list of supporters of this legislation in industry and amongst consumers and i urge my colleagues to address that because this is a good and a strong bill. i'm going to commend rachel and eric on the committee and two members of the staff who worked directly for me on this important matter, mr. virgil miller and ms. katie campbell who did superb work here. the legislation before us has been changed by the senate but not in any significant way. i agree with the gentleman from texas that we should be going to conference with the senate but regrettably, while we would be

doing that, we would be failing to pass this legislation and winding up with a situation where americans would continue dying because poo food and drug is not able to do its job and protect us from bad foods imported into this cubtry but from some which is domestically produced this legislation gives food and drug the authorities they need to seize and to compel manufacturers to use best technology for the protection of american consumers. in other words, the work which is done now by food and drug, which is simply wrong doing, we would change the fact by addressing the problems before they become real by ensuring manufacturing uses the best practices. they recognize that the food safety of the united states as well as the food safe i have to

goods manufactured here is threatened by imports from places like china where they put melamine in milk products to up the amount of protein in milk. something which is poisoning babies and adults. and of course the roster of unsafe foods which we see come swoog the marketplace is a continuing source of fear, particularly when you contemplate the fact that it is coming in from china because we import now somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of our food. there's not time enough to conduct a proper investigation of the differences between the two bodies and a proper conference between the two bodies. i regret this as much as anyone. it is not the fault of this house that this has taken so long. it has taken the senate since the bill was passed in the house

in june of last year, not this year, and they have dawdled around and dawdled around as the senate always does with the end result that we are forced to take the senate bill. the problem which existed has been corrected in this legislation and we will find that the bill, although it is not as good as the house bill, will provide enormous advantages in the safety of american food products and food products sold to american citizens of -- by everyone who sells not only american companies but also the foreigners. i had observed that we cannot properly protect americans from unsafe foods imported unless we impose similar and identical burdens on americans because of the trade laws. i urge my colleagues to recognize that this legislation is something which is going to stop the death of about 5,000 americans a year, about 300,000 of whom get sick and about 77 --

about 300,000 who get sick, and 77 million who are sick and 300,000 are hospitalized, this is a very serious problem and it is my hope that we will be back next year with legislation to make the other food and drug powers sufficient to address the needs of the american public in pharmaceuticals, in other things under the jurisdiction of the food and drug administration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of >> later, the house went on to post a fiscal 2011 spending bill -- to pass the 2011 spending bill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, our interview with senator tom harkin. then the senate hearing on the stability of capital markets. and the justice department examines the u.s. food supply chain. >> in time for the holiday season, "the supreme court" is available at a special praise -- just $5 plus shipping and handling -- a special price. is the first vote to tell the story of the supreme court -- the first book to tell the story of the supreme court. it includes a john roberts, sandra day o'connor, and sonia sotomayor.

rich in history with photographs and detail in the architecture. to order copies of the publishers special price of $5, go to c-span.org and click on the supreme court book. place your order by december 15 to receive your copy in time for holiday delivery. >> we recently spoke with tom harkin about president obama's tax cut proposal. table, senator tom harkin, democrat from iowa, welcome. we want to begin with what president obama said at his news conference yesterday on why he negotiated with republicans and what they came up with on this tax-cut deal. we will show that to you and yours and we will get a response. >> this notion that somehow we

are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate we had during health care. this is the public option debate all over again. so, i pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all americans, something democrats have been fighting for for 100 years, but because there was a provision in there that they did not get, that would have affected may be a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. now, if that is the standard by which we are measuring success for core principles, then let's face it, we will never get

anything done. people will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and did no victories for the american people. and we will be able to feel good about ourselves and said the moon is about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are -- sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are but people not able to get health insurance because of pre- existing conditions. or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. for can't be the measure how we think about our public service. that can be the measure of what it means to be a democrat. host: senator tom harkin, your reaction? guest: well, first of all, i am not opposed to compromise. i have been in this business a long time and i developed a lot of compromises myself --

agriculture, when i was chairman of agriculture committee, i had two farm bills that passed overwhelmingly with republican votes and democratic votes. i worked compromises, a major piece of legislation -- back in 1990 but the americans with disabilities act which i was chief sponsor of in the senate. i work out a lot of compromises on that. on my health bill, chairman of education health committee. i am not opposed to compromises. that is the art of possible in washington. i think the real question comes down to when you compromise and how you compromise. i have often said that a good lawyer compromises on the courthouse steps, not back in the conference room someplace. so, i think if there is some dismay among democrats and the progressives in this country, i think they did not perceive that we were really do you really willing to stay in there and fight hard and compromise at the

right kind and on the right kind of structure. i disagree with the president when he referred to it as a political fight. this is not a political fight. this is a fight about what our country is about, what our economy is going to look like. it is a fight about, again, the divergence between the rich and poor, the gap is growing wider and wider. it is a fight about fairness and justice. i think what is right and wrong in terms of how we divide the pie of in our country. and if we are going to grow the pie, who gets the better part of the pie as it grows. that is what this fight is about. it is not a political fight. and i think, quite frankly, i think that perhaps a better deal could have been gotten had been a persistent a little bit longer. host: with time running out -- and unemployment benefits about to expire, lame duck agenda

short, and other issues who wants to get to. guest: well, you know, there is one thing the president forgot to mention that he has in the tool kit, and it is called the veto, and that is a powerful instrument. president clinton will -- will the did and other presidents before. president reagan was famous for saying i've got the veto pen. but that was never role -- rolled out as a possibility to get the republicans -- republicans to compromise a little differently on this deal. i think the fact that so much of this is going to the upper income, again, these tax breaks for high income, wealthiest americans, is just kind of i think unconscionable really. now, i realize we are probably going to have to compromise at some point, but i would hope that the way to the compromise would have been about two things -- getting our economy moving in a different direction, but also

advocating a different tax approach. i think what we have bought into, what it appears that we bought into it is we are going to accept the bush era economic formula, the trickle-down for miller, which is never worked. it does not work in the last decade and not working now but we bought into that. we should have had eight different approach. raising the level of the earned income tax credit. not just extending it but raising the base level. increasing child-care tax credits. increasing, not just extending it. raising the cap on payroll taxes. i have often said why is it that a person who makes $40,000 a year pays the the full load on payroll taxes on every dollar that he or she earns, as someone who makes -- someone who makes

$400,000 only pays on 25 cents on the dollar. making everybody pay the same. if you make $4,000 -- $4 million you pay on every dollar you make of the social security trust fund. those are different approaches that we could put on the table rather than saying, okay, we will only deal with what we have. i think this is a time for us to propose a new approach in how we are going to get our economy going again. host: as it stands now, are you a no vote on the tax-cut deal? guest: first of all, as the deal was first proposed i said i was inclined to vote no, but as our leader senator harry reid said yesterday, this is still a work in progress. we did not know what the final package is going to look like yet. i learned a long time ago not to guest: i do not know.

i have to take a look at some of the parameters of it. i am disturbed, that number one, tax breaks for the wealthiest are there for two years or risk people is only one year -- for the poorest people is only one year. i do not like that. secondly, what happened on estate taxes, i think, is just mind-boggling. in 10 years, the exemption on the estate taxes have gone up five-fold, and the rate has gone down 20%, 55% to 35%. so the people with the largest

the states pay less and less on their taxes. working people are making up the difference. it is either the working people who have to pay more taxes, or we are putting a greater debt on our kids. to me, that is not fair. host: if the deal stands as it is, would you joined senator sanders in a filibuster? guest: maybe you do not know, but i have been an opponent of filibusters for a long time. 15 years ago, i introduced a major at the beginning of congress to do away with filibusters. i got 19 votes, but i am not a fan. there ought to be reasonable today, sometimes a reason to slow things down, but overall, the senate should work through its will. in terms of debate, getting the

data and fax out there, so that the american people know what we are voting on, i have a problem with that. host: i want to ask you about the peace in "the baltimore sun" about obama alienating the left. progressive people, like yourself, are moving away from him and may not vote for him in 2012. guest: well, there is a long time between now and the election. i know the president feels he has to make some compromises. that is the art of the possible. but again, what the progressives in this country are looking for, what i am looking for, is a president who is willing to take a stand and say, here is my veto

pen. i said i was for tax cuts for everyone below two and $50,000, and by the way, -- $250,000, and by the way, it got 53 votes in the senate. what progressives are looking for it is for the president, at some point, to push against this onslaught of heart right wing rhetoric, right wing rollback everything and giving everything to the wealthiest in our country. no one is opposed to compromise. we know you have to do that, but when and how you do it means a lot. host: you said if the tax break goes through, yopresident

obama better hope that sarah palin will be the presidential nominee. there are murmurs on the left that there could be a primary challenge to obama. guest: as i said, there is a long time between now and the election. i believe the president needs to be thinking more about the progressive issues on which he campaigned and on which people placed so much hope in him as president. no one is expecting miracles, but we expect that a progressive president, like president obama, would be at least as forceful in talking about and fighting for middle-class values and progressive values, as ronald reagan was fighting for conservative values.

i think that is what progressives are looking for in this president. host: chris in manhattan. you are the first phone call. caller: good morning. i wanted to know, senator, tax cuts are going to be extended for all high income earners. why do you think president obama extended unemployment to all of the 15 million that are unemployed? guest: you are talking about the 99ers, those that have been on unemployment for more than 99 weeks. they have gone through their benefits and they do not qualify anymore. that is an issue that needs to be addressed. they are sort of out of the equation, but they should be in the equation, and help for them should be a part of it.

host: next phone call from hawaii. randy, good morning. caller: i would like to say first off, it is a pleasure to talk to you and mr. tom harkin. i would have liked him to be president at one time. he is a great man. guest: tried that once. caller: my comment right now, i think some people are missing. we had huge amounts of money being spent in this last election from special interest without any real knowledge of where it was coming from, and in little towns and cities all over the country, people running for office could not win over the big money because lies could

be told without anything to support them. the thing is, with our president, i have to say this. i am an independent and i do not always vote democrat or republican. sometimes i write somebody else in, and i may not be the smartest guy, but i know this. this president was facing a worldwide depression. the world has benefited from president obama. guest: sounds like a pretty smart guy to me. i think randy makes some good points. again, the question is really one of how you compromise and when you compromise. i will make one more point here. when you give tax breaks, and unemployment compensation to people, they spend that money.

20, 30 years ago, if you give somebody that money, most of the money stayed in this country when they spent it. now, they go out and buy clothes, shoes, a tv set, what ever it may be. a good share of that goes overseas. that is why we need to look at economics and see if we get the best bang for the buck. i think we could do better if we actually employed people in infrastructure projects, rebuilding the infrastructure of america. roads, bridges, highways, sewers systems, communication, wind, solar -- most of that money would stay in america. so you would have a multiplier

dollar taffect on the dollar. obviously, some of that stays here, but more of that goes overseas than it did 20 or 30 years ago. secondly, i always like to show they had done in the paper. "luxury spending is back in fashion." but underneath it, it says lag in the essentials shows income gap. this was right before the election. when you give all of these tax breaks to upper income people, they might buy a $30,000 wristwatch made in switzerland, or maybe they will buy some new tools, or a diamond-encrusted rolex watch, or a $2,500

cashmere scarf. those do not really help our economy much. we need to put money in the pockets of working people and they are doing something that builds a better future for our kids and grandkids. that is why i talk so much about infrastructure spending, education spending. the report that came out yesterday about how the u.s. is now way down in the world in terms of education, that is something we have to address. host: you are arguing for stimulus-type initiatives. in the business section of the ne"the new york times" that is what president obama traded for, in return, he got --

guest: that i have no argue with. was this compromise done at the right time? that is just on the taxing side. there is another side. for example, we have appropriations bills coming up. it looks like we are going to have to cut down on things like child care, head start programs, the elderly, meals on wheels, thing that tends to support low income people. that was not part of the deal and it should have been. host: chris in alabama is tweeting in --

so if you support the compromise in the end, why not -- guest: i am saying i think we could have gotten a better deal, had the president not agree to the compromise up front. and frankly, as i said, this is a work in progress. this is not the final deal. we are hoping to partner with the president in making this better. host: westminster, maryland. scott, republican line. caller: good morning. senator harkin, the debt commission, for one of their recommendations is to abolish the home mortgage reduction. will you introduce a bill in the senate to abolish the home

mortgage tax reduction? guest: i do not know if we should abolish it, but it should be changed. it depends on who you are trying to help. if you are tried to help first- time home owners, young people try to get a start with low- income housing, that is fine. if you are tried to help someone who is going from a $250,000 home to an $800 and dollar home, i do not know if they need that help. -- $800,000 home, i do not know if they need that help. we need to be helping people on the lower income scale. host: ian writes in -- guest: that is another thing

that i disagree with the president on, and others. this 2% cut in the payroll tax that goes to social security trust funds. the last thing we need to do is invade the social security trust fund to pay for things right now for people's living. they will make that up by taking from the general fund, in other words, debt. that bothers me. as i argued earlier, i think the cap we have on the payroll tax right now should be raised. everyone should pay on every dollar they make into social security. it bothers me that we are now going to establish principles where we can take money out of the trust fund and replace it with debt. i am very bothered with that.

i think there should have been a different way to do that. host: ann in waldorf, maryland. caller: thank you, senator harkin. you remind me of a state's a politician. we throw these words out at each other like communist, fascist, and what i think of it is the old english term common wheel. it seemed like we have lost our sense of our commonwealth. i wonder if you could talk about that a little bit. people say we are an exceptional country, but that is what made us exceptional. i would really appreciate hearing back from you. thank you so much.

guest: thank you. you are right. i talk a lot about the common good. we tend to forget about that. we often think the common good can only be attained by answering one group or by trickle-down economics, which i have fought against my whole life. this tax plan seems to be more of the same. i think we have to think more about legislation, how our government reacts to making sure we have a ladder of opportunity for everyone. it is not right for the government to provide cradle to grave-type of support, but one of the functions of our government is to make sure the wrungs are on the latter. if you are willing to work hard, you can get up there.

decent education, health care, job retraining for people who need that, social security in your old age. there are certain things that the government can do to build this common good. what i see happening now, more and more, the common good is being pushed aside only to focus on narrow, special interest groups. host: another e-mail from a democrat. guest: a fifth tier. i am not certain i understand what that means. there are unemployment benefits. i am not certain i understand that question.

host: we will move on. maybe they will e-mail back in. richard from maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for letting people like myself get a chance to speak to the nation. from my understanding of history, i have always known republicans are for the rich, democrats are for the poor, but democrats wanted a tax cut and all of these hippies wanted tax cuts. i do not hear the democrats talking about tax cuts for everybody, including the port. this is not a communist country. what happened to the political correctness on the democrat side? it kind of goes back to where republicans are racist, democrats are not, but it was

abraham lincoln that ended slavery. hogwash. how come they are not talking about a tax cut for the poor? it may not be big, but everything helps. i appreciate you being there answering questions, giving us your time. thank you. guest: thank you. i think that was a very intellectual approach to what you just said. we have to forget, there is another part to this problem, and that is the deficit that we face. we want to stimulate the economy and get the economy going. you really need to look at middle income americans. by that, i do not mean people making $250,000 or more a year,

i am talking about people making $25,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. we wanted to restrict the tax breaks. i think the people in the upper bracket, they do not need help. people in the lower bracket need help for their families. someone making $5 million a year, they do not need help. they do not need an extra $100,000 a year, which is what this tax break would give them. they might buy another wrist watch or a diamond brooch, or something like that, but it is not going into thing that will stimulate our economy. it is kind of like wasteful spending, but we are borrowing from our kids and grandkids in order to give the wealthy and

extra $100,000 a year. if we are going to borrow from our kids or grandkids, let's put it into things that will make a better country for them. better roads, bridges, highways, education system, health care system, all the things that will enable our kids and grandkids a better life, and a better economy. host: he was referring to a fifth extension, something you already addressed. next phone call from pittsburgh. caller: good morning, senator harkin. i was born and raised in a small town in iowa called muscatine. i am planning to move back in a couple of years. my question is the cola for

social security. we have had no increase. i understand they base it on what individuals between 25 and 30 purchase on it. host: are you still there? i think we lost her. she was asking about colo. what are the prospects -- cola. what are the prospects of something happening to that? guest: the caller is absolutely right, we are not basing our cost of living on the elderly. their expenditures are higher, their drugs are higher priced. the cost of living formula for social security is kind of skewed. i guess, against the elderly.

we are trying to get a bill through to get an extra $250 to the elderly, but we have had a lot of opposition on the republican side to that. hopefully, that is part of the compromise. host: if it is added, what does that do to the prospect of getting a yes vote from you and others? guest: it would move me more in that direction. host: silver springs, west virginia. norman. caller: good morning. i would like to say that today, obama, democrats are a completely different breed than the old democrat. of course, by following the

things that president obama had to adjusted, -- suggested, [inaudible] host: we are having difficulty hearing you. your television is on and we are getting some feedback. you are saying that today's democrats are different from older democrats? what did you mean by that? caller: i mean, the old democrats would never think about cutting taxes. it was always about raising taxes. host: senator harkin? guest: i do not know how to respond to that exactly. democrats are looking for a

fairer tax system. we have to pay taxes. hopefully, we are a primitive world power, but that requires taxing, things to make our country work better. the real question is, what is fair and equitable in our tax system? that is where we have some problems. that has been going on since the 1980's. we have skewed our tax system -- again, trickle-down economics. the idea that you give more to the wealthy and it trickles down. i have often used an analogy on this. you do not fertilize a tree from the top down, you fertilize it from the roots. if you want to get our economy going, you do not put the money in at the top, you put it in at the bottom. as far as i am concerned, that has been the message of

democrats going back almost a century. host: "the washington post" with --s had donheadline carl allen writes in -- guest: well, i would tend to agree we are overspending, but what are we spending it on? that is the problem. we are spending it on frivolous

tax breaks for the wealthy who do not need it, we are spending it on wars of choice. look at what we have done in iraq, afghanistan, maintaining bases around the world. look at what happened to britain a couple hundred years ago, they were doing the same thing. we are not investing our resources wisely. just take something like education. we need to do more in preschool. we have data from a long time ago that the more you put into early education, the better off kids will be later on, but we hardly do anything on preschool education in this country. that is where we should be investing our money. we should be investing in better communication systems, better

power systems. that is going to take a lot of money, but it puts a lot of people to work, the money stays in our economy, and what happens is our kids and grandkids will have a better platform on which to compete in the world economy. we are just not spending our money wisely, we are wasting. a lot of what we are doing right now is more of the same. i do not think it will get us out of bell whole. host: larry from new jersey. democrat's line. caller: i believe i understand the president's reasoning for what he did. he is trying to be practical, but that does not quell the anger over which the way this

came about, which i consider consort -- extortion. it is a shame that in this day and age, a political party, quite unabashedly, stands for wealth and not the common person. you have a lot of people on fox news complaining about the president and his idea of wealth redistribution. look at the numbers. the numbers are astounding as to where the wealth is going. a lot of this has to do with the fact that unemployment is high because people do not have anything to do. the republican party voted to do away with tax breaks for companies to send their jobs overseas. all the facts that the republicans brought up to support their claim that this was necessary for all wrong. there is nobody paying attention.

thank you. guest: thank you. i think that is a good point. people should not always be upset with president obama. it was the republicans who held us hostage. people at their most desperate, people who had run out of their unemployment benefits during this holiday season, republicans were willing to hold them hostage to deny them any kind of support, especially this time of year, in order to get their tax breaks for the wealthy. they were holding them hostage, you are absolutely right. whatever disagreement i may have with the president in terms of his methods, what we should have done in the process, pales in comparison with my disagreement with republicans for holding these people hostage. it is just not right the way it

is done. host: republican eric cantor has taken issue with those kinds of phrases, taken hostage, and it does not help getting the economy back on track. guest: i disagree. we tried five times to pass a bill on the senate floor to extend unemployment benefits. the republicans filibustered it. what else can i say? those are the facts. in fact, look at the letter that senator mcconnell and all of the republicans signed. they would move nothing on >> tomorrow, we will discuss

taxes with congressman john campbell and keith ellison. also a look at fannie mae and freddie mac with a financial analyst. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. coming up common a senate hearing on the stability of capital markets in computerized trading. the agriculture and justice department examine the food supply chain, and later, the debate on the fiscal 2011 -- fiscal year 2011 spending bill. >> find gifts that are c-span store -- at our c-span store. you're watching c-span, bringing you politics, public affairs, every morning is

"washington journal" connecting with elected officials, policymakers, and journals. during the week, watch the u.s. house and the continuing transition to the new congress. congressional hearings and policy forums. supreme court oral arguments. you can see our signature interview programs on the weekends. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org. it is all searchable in our c- span video library. c-span -- washington your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> last may u.s. capital markets experienced a crash which caused the dow industrial average to fall 100 points in a matter of minutes. we look into the cause of the crash and the regulatory response. if witnesses include securities

and exchange commission mary schapiro and commodities futures trading commission gary ginsberg. this is just under three hours. >> today u.s. capital markets which traditionally have been the envy of the world are fractured, vulnerable to system failures and trading abuses, and are operating with oversight blindspots. the very markets that we rely on to jump start our economy and invest in america's future are susceptible to market dysfunctions that jeopardize investor confidence. i want to begin by thanking chairman jack reed, his ranking member senator bunning, and our colleagues on their subcommittee, the securities, insurance, and investment subcommittee, who have already held hearings on these issues. we thank them for welcoming our subcommittee to join with them to shine a light on problems that threaten u.s. market

stability and integrity. seven years ago the new york stock a chick predicted york stock exchange accounted for 80% of trade in its listed stocks. today, less than 25% of the nyse-listed stocks are traded there. what happened? there's a chart that we will put up. , exhibit 1, and it shows us u.s. stock market has fractured. stock trading now takes place not on one or two but on 13 stock exchanges, as well as multiple off-exchange trading venues, including 3 electronic communication networks, 36 "dark

pools," and over 200 registered "of broker-dealer internalizers." they may need more explanation. electronic communication networks are computerized networks that enable their participants to post public quotes to buy or sell stocks without going through a formal exchange. dark pools, by contrast, are electronic networks that are close to the public and allow pool members to buy and sell stock without fully disclosing to each other either their identities or the details of their prospective trades. a broker-dealer internalizer is a system set up by regulated broker-dealer to execute trades with or among its own clients without sending those trades outside of the firm. these off-exchange venues are increasing their trading volumes. most use high speed electronic

trading, and they escape much of the regulation that applies to formal exchanges. the new trading venues did not appear out of thin air. they are largely the result of regulation nms which should the sec issued in 2005. some call it the resulting world news -- they call it a model of competition. others call it a free-for-all that defies oversight and is ripe for system failures and trading abuses. both descriptions have some truth. trading competition has led to lower trading costs and trade -- and faster trading, but it is open the door to new problems. one of those problems involves system fell years, of which the may 6 flash crash is the most famous recent example. on that day, out of the blue, the futures market suddenly collapsed and dragged the dow jones industrial average down nearly 700 points, wiping out billions of dollars of value in a few minutes for no apparent

reason. both the futures and stock markets recovered in less than 20 minutes, but left investors and traders in shock. after five months of study, a joint report has concluded that the crash was essentially triggered by one large sell order placed in a volatile futures market using an algorithm that set off a cascade of out-of-control computerized trading in futures and equities and options. that one futures order placed at the wrong time in the wrong way set off a chain reaction that damaged confidence in u.s. financial markets. in some ways, the may 6 crash was a high-speed version of the 1987 market crash, where a sudden decline in the futures market led to a corresponding collapse in the broad stock market, which led in turn to crashes in individual stocks. and it is not the only type of

system the your affecting our potential markets. so-called "mini flash crashes," in which one stock suddenly plummets in value for no apparent reason have become commonplace. on june jet 10th, 2010, shares in diebold, a large ohio corporation, suddenly dropped from $28 to $18 per share. the stock recovered but the company was trying to understand and explain what happened. even after the sec initiated a pilot circuit breaker program after the may 6 crash, at least 15 other companies have had similar experiences, including nucor, intel, and cisco. of former senior nasdaq executive told the subcommittee that the nasdaq exchange has experienced single-stock flash crashes 5 times per week. the nyse-listed and finra have

told us these crashes are commonplace and attribute them to various glitches in computerized trading programs. single-stock crashes might seem to be a minor problem. what happens if the security that crashes is a basket of stocks or commodities? on november 29, 2010, 3 of the top 5 equities traded by volume were actually baskets of stocks. if a basket of stocks or commodities crashes in value, what happens to the underlying financial instruments? uncontrolled electronic trading and cascading price declines in multiple trading venues, including in futures, options, and equities markets, could be the result -- in other words, another may 6. many investors are not waiting around to find out if our regulators have fixed the problem. according to the investment company institute, each month

since may, more investors have fled our markets, pulling billions of dollars of u.s. investments. system failures are not the only problem raised by our fractured markets. another problem is their increased vulnerability to trading abuses. traders today buy and sell stock on and off exchange, simultaneously trading in multiple venues. traders have told my subcommittee that orders in some stock venues are being used to affect prices in other stock venues. futures trade on cftc-regulated markets are being used to affect prices on sec-regulated options and stock markets. some traders are using high speed trading programs to execute their strategies, sometimes submitting and then cancelling thousands of phony orders to affect prices. to get a sense of the trading

activity day goes on today, take a look at this stack of papers. this stack, nearly 5 inches high, contains the actual message traffic generated in the futures, options, and equity markets with respect to one major u.s. stock over the .ourse of one second t one stock in one second produced over 29,000 orders, order modifications, order executions, and cancellations in all three markets. this stack shows in black and white how traders are now analyzing trades in all three markets at once, evidencing how

the futures, options, and equity markets are interconnected. imagine the same stack multiplied countless times, filling this entire hearing room, and the interconnectedness of the markets as well as the potential for system failures and trading abuses becoming alarmingly clear. one well known trader, karl denninger, recently made this public comment about u.s. trading activity. folks, this crap is totally at hand. and it is no a daily game that is being played by the machines. they are the only things that can react with this sort of speed, and they are guaranteed to screw you, the rest -- the average investor or trader. go ahead, he said, keep thinking you can invest. now wall fractured markets -- let me start over. walt fractured markets and high speed trading are causing new

problems and forms of manipulation, they are leaving our regulators far behind. traders are equipped today with the latest, fastest technology. our regulators are riding the equivalent of mopeds going 20 miles per hour chasing traders whose cars are going 100 m.p.h.. our regulators are confronting at les four challenges. and before i go through them, i want to join chairman reed in congratulating and thanking our witnesses today. you lead your agencies in important you reforms in you are doing it with great professionalism and talent. we are amending the efforts that you are making. here are some of the challenges that our regulators are facing. each trading venue today has its own infrastructure, rules, and surveillance practices. besides the expense and inefficiency of all, no

regulatory agency has a complete collection of trade data from all the venues, much less a single integrated data flow allowing regulators to see how orders and trades in one venue may affect prices in another. second, even if regulators had an integrated data flow, the current data systems fail to identify key information, including the names of the executing broker and customer making the trades. that means that regulators can i use the electronic records to trace trading by one person or set up alerts to flag trades. instead, before any trading analysis can start, regulators have to figure out the broker and customer behind each trade. patterns of manipulation are hidden. the third problem is that the sec has no minimum standards for automated market surveillance by self-regulatory organizations --

sro's, and the quality of those efforts is apparently all over the map. recent sec examinations of certain exchanges have found some ineffective surveillance systems that were unable to detect basic manipulations or used such restrictive criteria that they failed to flag suspect activity, exchanges that failed to review some surveillance alerts, and exchanges with only rudimentary or under-budgeted investigative, examination, and enforcement programs. the fourth problem is that the sec and cftc have not set up procedures to coordinate their screening of market data to see if trades in one agencies markets are affecting the prices in the other's markets. given the strong relationship between the futures, options, and equities markets, joint measures to detect inter market trading abuses are essential. the impact of the regulatory and

technological barriers is demonstrated that it took the s -- the cftc and sec five months of intense work to figure out what happened over a few minutes on may 6. and i believe that chairman reed made the same reference. in addition, over the past five years, there have been few meaningful single day price manipulation cases. one recent case involves a small trading firm, trillium trading, which apparently used phony trading orders to bid up the price of several stocks. in that case, finra found that over a three month period in 2006 and 2007, trillium submitted phony orders in over 46,000 manipulations, netting gains of about $575,000. apparently the victims of the price manipulation got annoyed enough to research the mandate

to bullet -- the manipulative trading and hand over the data to finra. even then it took finra four years to reconstruct the order books, prove who was behind the trades, and resolve the matter. trillium and its executives recently settled the case by agreeing to pay over -- to pay fines and disgorgements. traders and regulators have told us that trillium is not the only company that has engaged in or is engaging in price manipulation in u.s. financial markets. in fact, one of the more chilling examples involves suspect trading involving traders located in leave china. if our overseas traders trying to manipulate u.s. stocks? our regulators are currently unequipped to find out. the may 6 flash crash and the trillion case provide powerful warnings that we need to strengthen u.s. oversight of our financial markets to restore investor confidence. much needs to be done.

recent action by the sec to prohibit phony quotes, impose single issue circuit breakers, and set up a consolidated audit trail are important vances'. there is a long, long way to go, particularly with respect to coordinating market protections and surveillance across market venues, and across the futures, options, and equity markets. there also needs to be a greater sense of urgency. the sec's proposed consolidated audit trail is expected to take years to put into place and will not cover all the relevant products and markets. requiring executing broker and customer execution -- information, an essential component, is in limbo pending completion of the consolidated audit which a consolidated audit trail. integrating trading data and market surveillance of the futures, options, and equities markets by the cftc and sec is not even on the drawing board.

i hope this hearing will help inject greater urgency into strengthening u.s. oversight of our fractured, high speed markets to restore investor confidence. again, i want to thank you, chairman reed, for holding these hearings and for the kind of leadership that you have shown in digging into these kind of issues over the years. >> thank you very much, chairman. let me introduce our witnesses. our first witnesses the honorable mary schapiro, chairman of the securities exchange commission. before that, she was the ceo of a financial industry regulatory country, the largest non- governmental regulator. as chairman of the commodities futures trading commission, from 1994-1996.

our second witness is gary gensler, who served at the department of treasury as the undersecretary of domestic finance from 1999-2000, and the assistance, and prior to joining the department of the treasury, chairman gensler worked 18 years at that goldman sachs company. before you begin your testimony, i will turn it over to chairman levin to administer the oath on investigations. would you please stand? >> thank you very much, chairman reed. according to the rules are subcommittee, each with its bid to be sworn. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you would get before the subcommittees will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? they can. >> chairman shapiro, began.

>> thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the u.s. equity market structure. when we discuss market structure, we talk about everything from the organization of a market to the number and types of venues that trade a financial product, and the rules by which those markets operate. although these issues can be complex and the rules are kane, a stable, fair, and efficient structure is the backbone of the equity markets and importance engine of our economy. keeping that backbone strong response to the problems. most of the volume in stocks are seen manually. neyra -- nearly all orders now are operated on an automated system. as you mentioned just five years ago, the new york stock exchange executed about 80% of the volume. today it executes about a quarter of that volume.

the remainder split among 13 public exchanges, more than 30 dark pools, and more than 200 in retirement -- and fertilizers. -- internalizers. they don't make their data generally available to the public. we know we must keep pace with changing landscape of our security markets. that is why we initiated up for review of the equity market structure. as part of the review, we've received public of -- hundreds of public comments. many raising concerns. we of heard how this fosters competition. we've heard about the benefits of highly interconnected markets and had been cautioned about regulatory changes and unintended consequences. on the other hand, we've also heard the concerned about the quality of price discovery and whether the current market structure offers a level playing

field on which all investors can participate meaningfully and fairly. as we consider regulatory response is, the commission will evaluate these issues but a particular focus is on obtaining data and analysis. we'll ask whether the changes we consider will aid capital formation and investor protection, enhance competition and price discovery, and improve inspection and surveillance and enforcement. in this context, we will have the role of professionals, and whether they compete in ways that ultimately benefit investors, and our company seeking to raise capital. as in the, our market structure review is not a theoretical exercise. it for family impacts investors in these companies. the may 6 crash highlighted the ability to reconstruct the events of a million -- of the

data across multiple shares and many markets. today each exchange heads its own unique and incomplete data collection systems. it complicates efforts to reconstruct activity that can involve millions of records across dozens of exchanges. in response, the commission has proposed reporting requirements and a consolidated audit trail. this would for the first time allow regulators to track trade data across multiple markets simultaneously. it would also be able to rapidly reconstruct trading and quickly in dallas -- analyze unusual activity. we have taken a series of measures to reduce the chances of such an event occurring. for instance, we approve the circuit breaker program that limited by the volatility in individual stocks. ibm proved order transparency to the process of breaking clearly erroneous trades. we adopted new rules to a rigid to require risk controls in place before providing customers

with access to the market, or rule that effectively bans naked assets. we've improved rules including eliminated stet quotes which represented a significant portion of the trades that broke on may 6. we are lining our examination and enforcement efforts with current realities of market fragmentation and high frequency trading. we're looking at fundamental structure changes in the way we approach examinations of organizations, including a focus on how sro's frequently abused algorithmic trading strategy. we are investigating whether various market participants have sought to unlawfully exploited the fragmentation of the product, the volume of securities, or contribute to market volatility at the expense of investors. additionally, we created a

specialized market to in -- on to investigate how this program areas. we cannot turn the clock back to the days of trading crowds on exchange floors but we must continue to carefully analyze market structure issues to ensure our roles to keep pace with the trading realities and identify way to improve our markets, provide additional transparency, and increase investor protection. as we move ahead, we look forward to looking closely with the congress. >> chairman gensler. >> good afternoon, chairman reed, chairman levin, members of the subcommittee. i thank you for inviting us here today and pleased to be testifying here. i think this is the seventh time testifying together. and our third time since may 6. the cftc-regulated markets have rapidly transitioned, an

electronic trading represents 88% of our markets. as a father of three daughters, i've learned much about the new world of twitter and social networking and certainly testing. just this week -- just as we cannot turn that clock, we cannot turn back the clock which now we have a automated execution in of -- in high frequency trading. the may 6 the event highlighted across market linkages that you spoke about, but when prices and volatility in the securities market, the futures market, and other derivative markets, and it was all enabled by technology. price discovery, which may first occur in any one of these markets, futures or security, they can move rapidly over into correlated products and other markets. small disparities in prices arise, even in milliseconds, market participants try to profit in what markets call

arbitrage. the sec surveillance program works to promote market surveillance and to protect against fraud and manipulation and other abuses. we're working closely on a policy level, specifically tried to coordinate with rulemaking implement a taste -- implementation. we also look for surveillance and data sharing. after macy's, one example, our staff promptly shared with the sec position data and transaction data with regard to that day's events. and the exchanges and self- regulatory organizations, is a board to conduct front-line market surveillance and coordinate closely not just on may 6 but on other days as well, and have regular interactions. in terms of data, the cftc proceeds futures data on a daily basis. its most important for us to get the very next morning. we do not regularly get the

order book because we do not have the resources to get that. may 6, we ask for it. there were 14 million orders. i just calculated that, 476 times more than that stack right there. for that one day and one contract and one month. and that was why it took all while to analyze that data. but we did get it and share it with that -- with the sec. we have what we would call a pre-trade risk management functionality. these safeguards protect against extreme movements, maximum order side, protection against orders, and market clauses that timeout. a little time out in the market. exchanges are required have these, and executing brokers have to have some pre trade risk

parameters for uses of the clearing houses. last week, the commission actually put out a proposal that mandates that markets have pre- trade with safeguards like this, but asked the public for their views. the events of may 6 and the act present new challenges. our new authority tests give us at the of party to work with regard to disrupt -- disruptive trading practices. whether it is three specific things, and we're asking the public to work on other acts and we put out an advance notice of rulemaking. the second thing that i want to mention is resources. the current funding is less than what we would need to really do their surveillance, not only from the events of may 6, but the new pact. we have 680 full-time staff

currently. we estimate that we will need about 400 more staff. and in dollar terms, our current funding is $169 million. the president's request for 2011 is $261 million. we anticipate we will have 400 new applicants the wall of arrive on our doorstep next summer. either swap dealers are swap execution facilities. we have no intention of robles signing these applications. we're going that awfully look at these and we will need the resources to do that. >> thank you both during much. chairman gensler, i want to thank you but i think you have raised a troubling