. 66% of the wealth generated, of the recovery, during 2001 and 2007, went to the top 1% of wealth in this country system of they accumulated all that wealth and it's middle class america that needs to get that clout now. we can do that because the investment in r&d, the investment in basic research that transforms into jobs, that allows us to be more productive in our startup small businesses and big businesses like g.e. if we introduce a soundness in basic research and r&d, that translates into an empowerment of the middle class. that's an important message shared by this president and the nation accepted that speech. it was shared across this country. it was emanating from g.e., from the floor, from the factory floor, where innovation and invention, were coming from the

working from the working class on the assembly line. it was their ideas, their gene jus that allowed -- allowed us to have all the mills in that erie canal corridor that i represent become the center of innovation in their heyday. that's our pioneer spirit that's uniquely american and the president wants to tap into that spirit and he wants us to be that innovation economy. you know, the other day, many of us on this floor here shared in the 50th anniversary celebration of j.f.k. that remarkably strong and powerful and inspirational inaugural address. so many people highlighted many of the challenges that president kennedy issued in that address. amongst them, exploring the heavens. exploring the heavens. what it did was, the tone he

established, allowed the nation to embrace with a great degree of passion a resolve to win that price and e-- that race and we entered that global race on space to win it and we won it and unleashed untold amounts of technology, science and technology that has strengthened every dynamic of life and here, fast forward, some 40-plus years later, the 39 is challenging a nation to enter a global race this time on the clean energy economy, the innovation economy, and we should have within us the fortitude to go forward and invest in a way that allows us to empower our working family, the middle class of this country, to invest in soundness of manufacturing that enables us to build it in america, make it in america again and be proud of that. so representative garamendi, thank you for brings us -- bringing us together this

evening to voice our support for the president's vision, for the vision we share as a caucus in this house. i think it's the empowering vision that enables us to go forward with the make it in america mantra that enables us to promote the correct policy and the resources associated with that policy to truly make a difference. mr. garen -- mr. garamendi: representative tonko, you were at the president's speech in your district. mr. tonko: we flew up on air force one and then returned with the president because we had the jobs conference. mr. garamendi: we had this colloquy on the floor where we discussed make it in america but you came back charged up. mr. tonko: we are charged up, fired up. mr. garamendi: the great erie canal manufacturing sector is about to rise up. but i'm not going to take second fiddle because i represent the innovation part of california and we, too, know we have the potential to really drive the

american economy forward, the innovation economy. one thing you said when you, hen back to the space race -- you hearken back to the space race, he said not in that speech but shortly thereafter, we will put a man on the moon within a decade. the federal government collected the resources of this nation and met that challenge and within a decade, we americans were on the moon. the last thing -- the lesson here is the focused attention of america on a goal and in that case and in this case, the investment. america must -- the investment america must make to succeed. it was an american investment a lot of tax dollars went into it. not only did we put a man on the moon but we created an enormous industry that gives us

everything from, i don't know, the ability of this iphone to work, satellite all the great technologies that we have, many of the great technologies we have today on communications and travel and defense came directly from that initiate investment made by the american people to put a man on the moon. when the president talks about the innovation economy, he's talking about the same kind of, let's do it, let's build this thing for the future, and from that leadership, we will find the opportunity to really grow our economy and a whole new industry. you talked about the electrical industry generated a century ago and now you talked about the great space industry and we're going to enter a new industry. it'll be the solar technologies, it'll be the wind, the energy technologies, it'll be transportation. when one talks about transportation, you've got to figure out some way to get to

and out of the -- the cold of the middle of america. joining us today in the warm 20-degree temperature of washington, d.c. is representative ellison from the upper midwest where it is somewhere below zero. mr. ellison: somewhere. but you know what, congressman, though the weather is cold, our spirits are warm. every time we hear about making it in america. this campaign that we're on -- mr. garamendi: i thought you were going to talk about green bay and the packers. mr. ellison: you know, the vikings aren't in it. i don't know. i think the vikings finished last in the n.f.c. north, hey, hope springs eternal, next year, right? but we are happy to see the packers and bears fight it out, definitely, we know -- we're known as the black and blue division they played hard. but the truth is, we're used to making things in the midwest, whether you're talking about

from pittsburgh to detroit to cleveland to milwaukee to minneapolis, we make stuff in the midwest, as you do in the west in california and as they do in the east, congressman tonko's district, congressman from the upstate new york. the fact is that manufacturing and making things is an american value. but congressman, the thing i want to say is this campaign on make it in america, before we make anything, we have to believe that we can make things in america again. we have to believe that we can compete on quality, we can compete on efficiency, and that the goods manufactured by american workers are among the best in this world and can be better. it is a matter of belief, it is a matter of commitment, and it is a matter of vision. so we set forth a vision, congressman, and we say that, you know what, in this great

nation, we can forge thing we can make the steel, we can build the roads, we can have a vision that this country can build things that the whole world needs and wants and if we have that desire, that innate desire on the cellular level, we will begin to see the innovative capacity of this country, making the windmills, making the semiconductors, making the cars, making anything and everything. it's a matter of vision, it's a matter of will, it's a matter of commitment. that vision and will has to be backed up by sound policy, hard work and the spirit of entrepreneurship and if these things come together, we can do it. i believe on this house floor, and in shops across america, unions and in management, people are say, you know, we can make stuff in america. america is still the world's leading manufacture . -- manufacturer. we can't forget that we're still

the world's leading manufacturer. we have sthre highest quality steel, the best technology, the strongest workers. but you know what, when people want to be penny wise and pound foolish. they -- and pound foolish they might want to offshore jobs, saying we can get somebody to do it for less. but can you get somebody to do it better? and the world wants something that's quality, that's what make it in america is all about. mr. garamendi: let me pick up a couple of those themes before i turn back to mr. pallone. a lot of this has to do with the -- with the will, the desire, the derlings to do a task and it has a lot to do with policy. policy. before last week, there was a policy in america that american corporations would get a tax break when they shipped a offshore.

mr. ellison: bad policy. mr. garamendi: what did you say? mr. ellison: bad policy. mr. garamendi: american corporations got a tax credit when they shipped a job offshore. in this house a bill was introduced, it eliminated that tax deduction, bringing about $12 billion annually to the treasurery, helping the deficit, our republican colleagues voted no, they wanted to continue that tax break. we need to understand that we make decisions here. policies are important. one example of a policy to use our tax system to help, or to hurt american workers, just one. no support from our republican colleagues to end that tax break.

this is about policies that will drive the american economy. we're going to spend the next 30, 40 minutes here focusing on some of those policies. investment. mr. tonko talked about space. that was an investment the american people made and it paid off big time. whole new industries, millions of jobs created. mr. pallone, you come from an area where manufacturing matters, whether it's -- where it's important, where people do make things. also where they have a little bit of fun on the new jersey beaches, but we'll let that go tonight. mr. pallone? mr. pallone: i wanted to use -- i'm glad you talked about my district. i want to talk about my district and i also want to talk about mr. tonko and his district and what the president did last weekend because as you know, it was a g.e. plant he visited, was it in schenectady? but in addition, the president of g.e. is the guy that

president obama has now tapped to be head of this jobs, i think it's called the council on jobs and competitiveness. he wrote an opinion piece in "the washington post" talking about what he wants to do, which i wanted to republicans that because it hearks back. but i wanted to mention my district first and say briefly, we in my district pride ourselves on being the invention center of the country or the world. the heart of my district is edison, new jersey, named after thomas edison and men low park where he invented the light bulb and so many other things, is located in edison, that's why it was named after him after he passed away. edison, of course is the i pit mee of someone who used invention and research to practically come up with solutions that made a difference for people's lives and created a tremendous amount of jobs. but what the president is say, let's talk about r&d, i know

we'll talk about that tomorrow, it's going to solve some money that has to be spent by the federal government. but it's a wise use of funds. maybe we'll have to cut somewhere else in the budget in order to fund things that create jobs. but we're going to, as i said, with a laser beam, look at things that create jobs. big manufacturing and also -- i should say big research in my district is the pharmaceutical industry. j&j, johnson&johnson is headquartered in my district. one thing i was told about the other day, the president has decided to create a new r&d function, if you will, i think within the f.d.a. because he's realized that a lot of the drug companies have lagged a little bit in doing a lot of new innovation to create new drugs because of the recession, they don't have the money, whatever reason. now the federal government is

going to concentrate on that and do more research themselves, applied research, in the edison type of reaplied research arena, to sort of jump tart the drug companies so they can create and do more research to create more innovative drugs. there's a good example. we've always been a leader in the world with drug or pharmaceutical innovation, now we're starting to lag and the government will step in and help and put more resource, if you will, into that r&d function, which will create more jobs and boost up the existing pharmaceutical industry. the same is true, i understand when he went to g.e., turbines or something being used for a project in india. so these will be shipped overseas and my understanding is, you talk about 1 2,00 american manufacturing jobs and 400 american engineering jobs with that g.e. plant. i'll yield to you but i want to come back to what the president of g.e. is saying about the

council. mr. tonko: thank you, representative pallone. the importance, i think, of hosting an event like that, which the president joined, is that we can showcase that there are great things happening. . i'm not going to submit that manufacturing is dead in america. i cannot with the pioneering spirit, that for any moment submit to that logic or that thinking. as the president was hosted by g.e., he and so many others believe in the work force and creative genius. labor leaders, a union voice for g.e. workers. all of whom fought for the dignity of the worker, because that worker was providing the intellect to take us to the next

plateau. so what they will talked about here is not only are american workers producing a high quality tushyine but exporting to places like india. and as the president has said, we have bought many a chinese good in this country. it is time for china to buy our products. and i think he is setting a good tone so that there is this fairness associated with the trade out there and that we as a nation not only need to make it in america, but put an emphasis on exporting. and when those are put into place, we will then prosper as a nation. you talk about the tushbine and the manufacturing going on at g.e., but the president was updated with right next door and the activity right next door, which is an advanced battery manufacturing center and not the

traditional lithium ion as the cutting-edge battery. this one can deal with heavy fleets, specifically helping that niche of battery application. it can be used for energy generation and perhaps one of its greatest functions, it can be used to store intermittent power, so if we reach to the sun, soil, wind to produce our energy needs and has an intermittent nature to it, we put value-added into that supply of energy because of the storage potential of this new battery. and then they have across the street from this plant, g.e.'s global renewable center, renewable energy center. and what they're doing there is doing this global strategy on renewable. and so the turbine blades that are manufactured there, so not

only for us to create jobs, made in america, exporting around the world, but also growing our energy independence and our energy self-sufficiency, which to me is a bit of policy. this shouldn't be republicans fighting democrats or democrats fighting with republicans, but americans moving forward with a laser-sharp focus to make certain we compete with each other, but with other nations. is it robust, probably? is it hard fought? most likely. but we have to be in it and have to have the passionate resolve to make a difference by investing in education, higher education, basic resevere, r&d and modernization of our centers. people have said, we can't compete. other nations will do it

cheaper. we don't have to cheapest, but do it smartest, smartest. and when we do it smartest, we win. we sharpen our competitiveness and on the global scale. mr. garamendi: talk about this investment you talked about. mr. pallone: mr. tonko has been talking about the head of g.e. and he wrote -- not that i'm going to read it all, but in last friday's "washington post," he wrote an opinion piece about how to keep america competitive and the gist of it was, not only can we manufacture things here and do things better here, but we have to. we cannot grow our economy unless we spend a significant amount of resources, you know primarily in the private sector in creating and improving the

manufacturing sector, that it's crucial to the economy. it's not something we can just ignore. but he talked about -- i just wanted to -- one of the things i try to do is dispel the idea that we can't manufacturing -- manufacture things here, because it is almost like a defeatist attitude, because as a member of congress, you have to dispel this myth that it can't be done. and i'm going to read the last section, he says, it's possible that the competitive global enterprise and care about your home. it's not just possible but imperative. no easy solution to fix the american economy. but the pessimism should not be accepted. we must work together toll construct an economy that creates more opportunity. and that's what i want to stress. it pains me when i come here and i don't want to be negative, but pains me when i come here and i see the republicans talk about

repeal health care, repeal wall street reform, budget resolution that has no numbers, all these things, and you know, it's almost as if they don't believe that we can have a vision for the future and don't want to act on it. the beautiful thing about the president in the last few weeks and what he will say tomorrow in the state of union, he has this vision of an america of opportunity. that's what this presidency he is talking about, when he says creating opportunity for people. we have to have a vision which says this is the land of opportunity and we can be better and we can continue to be the manufacturing leader and the greatest power in the world. we can -- mr. garamendi: we can do those things but have wise public policy accompanying the spirit of america, the desire for opportunity, the desire to better ourselves has to be accompanied by wise public

policy. for example, right now many of our tax dollars are being used to buy buses, solar and wind turbines that are manufactured overseas. our tax dollars are going overseas to support the foreign industries. those ought to be brought back home to support american-made equipment, and that's one of the bills i have introduced. if it's our tax money, use it to buy american that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks made equipment. not our tax money. whether it's solar, buses or the like. more policy tweaks that will support the innovation that comes from general electric or from joe submit's new photovoltaic system that is made in the silicon valley.

i see, steny hoyer, the whip of the democratic caucus. mr. hoyer, if you would like to join us in this discussion about making it in america. mr. hoyer: i call the attention of my colleagues as the four of you have done so well tonight and in nights past, we just had a very significant conference on the eastern shore of maryland. in that conference, we discussed the agenda that we call make it in america. make it in america, as i'm sure you have explained it earlier in the evening, i have heard much of what you had to say, but not all, but making it in america is about succeeding it in america. there are a lot of americans aren't sure that they or their children are going to make it. in addition, americans overwhelmingly respond and we hear a lot of talk about listening to the american

public, and i think that's something we ought to do, but they overwhelmingly respond that their belief is in order for us to continue to be the great economic engine for opportunity in this country, it will be necessary for us to continue to make things in this country, to make it in america whatever it is. in addition to that, to grow things in america as we do so well and sell them not only domestically but around the world. that's the president's focus on doubling our exports. he knows, as we know, that if we aren't making things, the possibility of doubling our exports is zero. i believe that people around the world respect and want to buy american products. unfortunately, we are not making as many products as we used to. the president has asked g.e. to head up a task force which looks

to, in effect, enhance our ability to make it in america, to grow jobs in america, to grow good paying jobs with good benefits in america. and the american people understand that if we don't do that, 20 years from now, the united states of america will not be as it is today, the economic engine of the world. it is through our competitor in some sense, china, is growing. but they still have a far way to go before they match the united states' ability to produce goods and services. the founder of intell, mr. grove, has -- intel, mr. grove, has written an article on how to make it in america. we are the center of innovation, inventiveness and development in the world. but his point is then made that

in too many instances, we are inventing products, innovating how they can be used, developing them, but then bringing them to scale, that is manufacturing them for consumption on a broad basis, overseas. his premise is, and i agree with him on this conclusion, that if we continue to do that that our inventors and innovators will migrate to where the product is being taken to scale or in other words, manufactured for large-scale consumption. i am hopeful that republicans and democrats can join together in this make it for america agenda. we passed a number of pieces of legislation that was supported on a bipartisan basis, some of which have already been signed by the president, because on both sides of the aisle, there is an understanding and i think

a commitment to create enenvironment in which it is possible to make it in america and profit by doing so. we are heartened by the fact that ford has brought plants back from mexico and china, whirlpool and g.e., and other manufacturers as well to manufacture things here in america and do so profitably, that they can make a quality product here with skimmed labor, well educated -- skilled labor, well educated labor, that will produce a higher product, higher productivity and therefore result in profits. and i want to congratulate the gentleman from california, former state leader in california, still a great leader from california, but he's come to this body just a few years

ago to succeed ellen tauscher who became an assistant assist of state. he has done an extraordinary job and his focus on make it in america agenda. and i thank him for his leadership and his focus. and i want to thank mr. ellison and mr. pallone and mr. tonko for their focus, because i think we are on the right track on this. i think our republican colleagues will join us as partners, not to take partisan credit for this, but that america will be advantaged, america's people will be advantaged. the reduction of our deficit as we grow the economy will be advantaged and we will see an america that is on the rise in terms of growing our economy,

creating jobs, good paying jobs and opportunities and future for our people. so i congratulate and thank the gentleman from california, the gentleman from new york, the gentleman from new york, and -- why am i drawing a blank -- minnesota, for their leadership and communication to the american people of what this make it in america agenda is all about. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman from maryland. you have been a long, long leader in this house and on the subject of jobs and economic opportunity and i thank you very much for your kind comments. my work on this began in the mid-1980's in california where we developed the strategy how to keep california competitive in this century. this september try is now here. -- century is now here.

and we have a big task. and we said back then in the work we did, we said you needed to do six things, you need to have the best education. that's a public investment that pays off over and over and over again. and then you have to have the best research and development. that's the innovation economy that our president is talking about. so the research and innovation go together. and from that, you create the opportunity to make the new things, manufacture the new electric cars. general motors was flat on its back, about to disappear, and the obama administration and congress stepped forward and brought general motors back and now the innovation of an electric car, the volt. it's in place and going to happen and we are going to capture the next round of automobile manufacturing.

-- infrastructure, another important part of the development, if you take that infrastructure and apply it to the steel, bridges, america made for america's future, it's possible. and you also have to change. you can't do what you did yesterday. we need to add to that an energy strategy that frees america from the grips of the dictators. this is all of our future, this is what we want to do, this creates the opportunity for americans, for all american, the opportunity to make it, making it in america, that's what we all want. i notice that my colleagues have stood up here, mr. ellison, would you, you were grabbing that microphone with an intensity that requires attention. mr. ellison: congressman

garamendi, i don't want to go long, because i want to hear from all our colleagues but i want to mention two quick points inspired by our minority whip hoyer as he spoke, two points, one is that manufacturing has historically been the high wage sector for american workers. middle class was built because we were making things. the higher wages associated with manufacturing employment have proven to be much higher than your average service job. manufacturing is definitely in the interest of american working or middle class people and it's something that i think we should get a lot of support for around the country. the other thing is that, in order to really bolster a strong manufacturing sector, we need a strong infrastructure. there's over $1 trillion in infrastructure needs around our country just to save face.

i'm talking about making sure the guss ets on the bridges are ok, make sure the bridges and roads are safe, i'm talking basic infrastructure. if we want to go beyond that, build a transmission line to move power around and all the new innovative infrastructure, the smart grid, there's a lot more to do. the point is, is that i want folks to know, congressman, before i give it to our colleagues, manufacturing is good for me middle class and also the intended and connected jobs you need to support manufacturing, like infrastructure development, also high-wage jobs we need to invest in so we can put america back to work. mr. garamendi: tomorrow night on this floor, the president of the united states will be here on this floor for his state of the union address. he's signaled he's going to talk about the innovation economy, he's going to talk about

infrastructure and he's going to talk about creating jobs and making it in america. as we prepare for that, i notice our colleague from the great state of texas has joined us, please. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, i want to add my words of appreciation for having the opportunity to join you tonight and to join the minority whip, still my majority leader, mr. hoyer who coined the phrase, as we were beginning to speak to the american people, of how important it is for us to go back tour roots and i'm delighted to be able to be here with the gentleman from minnesota, the gentleman from new jersey, the gentleman from new york, but i want to spin it in a different way, i want us to reclaim america's genius. i could go back, of course, to the model t, or maybe even to thomas headson with the light bulb. there's an excitement about being able to build, create and invent.

frankly, when i came to the congress, i wondered why we were not making submarines anymore. we had a shipbuilding industry in virginia and of course in mississippi. because gene jus also is part of building. you must have the kind of technology, the kind of expertise to make it the best equipment you possibly can have. that's what i sense we have lost. there's an excitement when young people can be part of the genius of america. i come from houston, texas, and we are one of the new stars in light rail. we have been trying to get there for about 30 years. we are just about there. where we would be on the precipice of funding for light rail. but at the same time, as we talk about putting tracks down, there's a technology of the new light rail cars. we need to in fact build those cars here in the united states. many people view houston as the energy capital of the world. you don't know that we have wind

and solar headquarters, businesses, that are headquarters in my congressional district. the point is, of course, the turbines, unfortunately, are not built here system of my point is, when the president so appropriately makes the point about investing in america, and also building infrastructure, he is speaking the language of capturing the genius of america. i will just hold this up because i think this is an example of where we're going. we're going onward and upwards. this is the -- the red is the past administration, where no jobs were created, or maybe a minimum of a million. we can see we've had hard times. we don't ignore the fact that we've been in a hard, hard recession. but look where we're going. how can we go backwards? how can we not create more jobs? we in houston would like to be part of not sending our tax dollars overseas but we want to be able to build buses, rail

cars, ferryboats, submarines and large-size ships if you will, because that's capturing the genius of america. let me thank the gentleman for yielding and i'm hoping the president will indicate to us that he's going to go forward in his investment to mr. hoyer and to all that are here on the floor for investment in infrastructure and recapturing the genius of america. i yield back to the gentleman and i really do thank you for allowing us to participate. mr. garamendi: thank you and indeed if it's our tax dollars, it should be used here in america. we've got about six minutes and about five of us system of mr. hoyer, our whip. mr. hoyer: i'll try to take a minute. let me say what i think is so good about this agenda, make it in america. it's an agenda that unlike some brings us together and doesn't divide us. from left to right, republican, democrat, people all over this country understand that if we're

going to be a great country, as we are today, and we're going to remain so in the future, it will be because we continue to be a manufacturing country, a country that makes it in america. and i have talked to the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce and organized labor. this is an agenda item that will bring labor and management, business and workers, together to cooperate so that america will continue, not only to make it in america, but do so in an expanding way rather than a shrinking way. we're doing some growth in the last few months, last year, last two years, last three years, but not enough. we can do more. make it in america is the agenda for the future. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much. our colleague from the great state of new york, schenectady. mr. tonko: thank you again.

i am ecstatic about the choices by the president and c.e.o. of g.e. to be the chair of the council on jobs and competitiveness. we can probably remove a lot of struggle on this house floor by listening to the business minds out there that will advise us about the strength we can provide to create jobs through invention and innovation. here is a voice that's highly respected, he is tremendously strong in his beliefs in america manufacturing again, so we must let those voices speak and resonate in this discussion, in this dialogue on where we go and how we build this dialogue. the president made it clear, he spent the first couple of years stopping the bleeding of the recession. we're losing 750 to -- 750,000 to 800,000 jobs a month. now our assignment is to plan, strategically, the growth of jobs. what is sustainable?

what is sustainable? manufacturing, because it incorporates from the trades people over to the pachedse. everyone has a shot at that -- to the ph.d.s. everyone has a shot at that economy. i thank you again for bringing us together this evening. mr. garamendi: thank you. the gentleman from new york. let's hear what new jersey has to say. mr. pallone: i'm excited to see what the president has to say tomorrow, i know he's going to stress innovation. he talks about the fact that right now, many of the corporations in thisry are sitting on a lot of profit. in the last year or so, many of them have actually made quite a bit of money and we want them to reinvest that money in creating private sector jobs here. one of the points he makes and this is -- i talk a little bit about it tonight, the federal government has to incentivize all of this. in other words, i use the

example with the drug companies that the federal government by doing some research on new drugs can incentivize the drug companies in my district to do more, create more jobs. there's also an educational component to it as well. we need to do more in terms of education. it's no surprise that in the middle of this pharmaceutical industry in my district sits ruckers university. -- sits rutgers university. a lot of stimulus money went to rutgers to do r&d that's taken up by the drug industry. it's part of the whole package, i'm very excited about it and i want to thank the gentleman again. mr. garamendi: thank you for joining us. ms. lee, why don't you take a minute and then i'll take a minute to wrap this up. ms. jackson lee: gmplet e. is an inherently american company so i applaud the selection that

allows a creator to move forward and create jobs for all of america. i want to keep in mind that manufacturing is the employer of all people. women, persons with college educations, those who are in the trades, men, and young people so families can be hired by manufacturers. it's particularly important to me that women have an equal opportunity, particularly since we passed the pay equity bill in the last congress. finally, i also look forward to small, medium, minority, and women-owned businesses partnering with large businesses to create jobs because small businesses and minority-owned businesses can create jobs and be part of the infrastructure of jobsful when the president speaks tomorrow, i hope he speaks to all of america that all have the opportunity to retrieve the dream to make it in america. i thank the gentleman for having us this evening. mr. garamendi: we always thought of america as the left hand of opportunity, it has to be the land of opportunity forern in

this country. we know if we're able to erebuild the manufacturing base in america, small companies, large companies, entrepreneurs and inventors will all participate. the make it in america effort will be a bipartisan effort and if we put our minds to it, it will be a successful effort and america once again will be the leadership place. mr. speaker, we yield back our time and we thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. carter:

mr. carter: i thank the speaker for allowing me this time. i'm pleased that i can bring up some issues that i think are important, the title of this is the e.p.a.'s war on texas. this is about a lot more than

texas. . in your perm life, what touches closest to home, it was done by congress, where we decided this was good for whatever the rule is for your life or for your business or for the good of our nation. in fact, many of these rules actually come from regulatory agencies. these agencies are given rule-making power and those rules actually have the power of law. and so, a body of employees of the united states and a few of them are political appointees, depending on the agency, some of them are appointed each year, each term by the administration,

but most of these people -- civil servants that work in these agencies and there aren't agencies across the land that take sections of our rules. the rules are given to them by congress a the e.p.a. is given to them by congress, the environmental protection agency. and a situation has arisen that is not only about texas, but it's about america. and i want -- and the last couple of years i have been talking about the rule of law and the fact that we try to set up a system in this nation that has basic fairness and there are certain things that are right and certain things that are wrong. and when we do that, we don't

expect one group to impose its will upon another group inappropriately. but what has happened to texas, i would argue, is an overstepping of a regulatory agency. and to do this, to talk about this, i have to start off by giving you, so you understand, it not only affects the lives of the people of texas but 13 other states immediately, potentially every state in this union. in the last four years, we have been having an ongoing debate both on the committee level and on this floor about the effect of carbon emissions on the environment and there have been an ongoing debate as to whether or not there is such a thing as global warming. that term is now climate change. and also because of some of

false manipulated facts concerning global warming that the term has gone to climate change and there are people in this congress that believe that carbon emissions are the new deadly medicines of this country and if we don't away with them it's going to destroy our ability to live on this planet. and al gore and others are the lead folks on this and they think it's very important. and that debate has been going on for four to six years in this congress and an amendment has been made to pass cap and trade legislation and by one vote, cap and trade was passed out of this house. cap and trade went no wherein the senate. and so it never became law. but its purpose was to cap the emissions and tax folks accordingly.

and that is simplified. but it basically -- this congress, made up of the senate and house, rejected, as a unity, the concept of cap and trade. the environmental protection agency decided that even though pretty much america had spoken that cap and trade or carbon emissions were not something they wanted to impose on folks, they decided well, we don't care what they want, we want carbon emissions and they started in december of last year, they started issuing new regulations about carbon emissions. and then they started passing them onto the clean air act to the various states. now, i'm telling you this, because it's going to have a direct effect on your life. every member of congress here

and every person that might be watching someplace else, this discussion, will see that when you start talking about what is maybe happening in texas, you have to realize that as you watch the price of gasoline go up at your pump, you have to realize there is a direct relationship going on in the market and what happens to the prices for the american consumer. here's what has happened in texas. when they created the clean air act, they gave the e.p.a. the ability to promulgate rules and standards for air quality. but the act specifically says that the local authority and the states have a better means of policing up this act than the federal government, so the implementation of the rules --

of the standards set by the e.p.a. will be done by the states rather than the federal government. and each state is to come up with a plan. and that bill was passed i believe in 1974, 1976, something like that. any way, in the 1970's. and had nothing to do with carbon. had to do with noxious gases and other bad sources, things getting into our air and reducing the air quality and the standards were important. and each state had the ability to structure their permitting system to fit the needs of their state and then submit that permitting system to the e.p.a. for approval. and the e.p.a. would say, yeah, i think that's a good system, or no, i don't think that's a good

system. one of the things they put together when they set the emissions standards was what they call a grandfather clause and companies that were already in existence long before the time of the passing of this act were grand fattered out of the fact, -- grandfathered out of the fact. so some of these manufacturing facilities, automobile plants were around along enough so they would be grandfathered on certain standards. that was just the way this act was written. so texas had -- texas is the largest energy manufacturing state in the united states. and as the largest refinery capacity in the united states. i use -- i used to be able to

name the refineries in texas but i fall short today. but there are a multitude of refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities just in the houston area alone and in corpus christi and other parts of our states, huge refineries and small refineries and they are all dealing with the petro-chemical industry, oil industry, the base product that they are refining products from and so forth. in texas, looking at what it would take not only to clean up the industries that would fall under the act, which would be the newly permitted industries, but also to police up the folks that could get out from under a grandfather clause, police up those facilities, too, got together and with the people --

people in texas got together and they came up with a concept called -- what's the word -- flex permitting. here's the way it works. let's just take a refinery. baytown has a big refinery that i visited. they passed a rule that says, there are lots of sources of emissions from inside a refinery. comes from a faucet to a big smoke stack and emitting something into the air. what we want them to do is take that site and release their emissions down to the standards that is required by e.p.a. and so we're going to let them -- so long as their site reduces emissions and meets the goals set up by the clean air act, not

every individual place that emits will have to have a permit, but one permit to cover the whole site. and then as the site reduces its emissions, that falls under one permit, call it a flex permit, so it allows the refinery to go in, fix this first, fix this second, this third and this fourth, big bad ones first and work on down to fix the plant and there is a recent letter from the e.p.a. saying that texas has met and exceeded the standards under the flex permitting. but then along comes quiet gases. and the passive rule about carbon emissions. and they say now, you have to put it under your permitting system. and the other states -- the 13

states plus texas were taken back by this, but texas said, no way. we don't think you should be imposing carbon emission standards on us when the economists refuse to impose these standards. and they, as i understand it, started contesting this in the court. so here's where the rug comes in. the e.p.a. then announces to texas, we don't approve of your flexible permitting system and every county in your state is now out of compliance and you're going to have to have a new permitting system and we're taking over how that's going to work, even though the act says, texas or any state shall be the people who administer that. you may say, well, that's not

too bad. there is a kicker here. texas created this permitting system in 1994. and since that time, they have been asking e.p.a. to tell them yes or no, do you approve it or don't approve it. tentatively, they have said, we approve it, but we're going to study it and look at it. 15 years this flexible permitting system has been in place. and now as the dispute over carbon emissions comes along to batter texas into compliance, they have depermitted the whole state. they have announced they depermitted the whole state. the state went to court and got a stay on that temporarily. think about that, if you had something that the government said we have to approve it, we said fine, would you approve it or disapprove it and then waited

until 15 years and then they announce disapproval, and say we will fine you for the last 15 years for carbon emissions, something is wrong with this picture. i'm joined by my good friend and fellow judge, representative gohmert from texas. and i would like to hear his take on it. mr. gohmert: i appreciate your yielding and not only do you not have anything wrong, but the clean air act that the e.p.a. is supposedly acting under, but they're actually violating, stipulates that pollution control is, quote, the primary responsibility of states and local government, unquote. and while the national e.p.a. office is supposed to set the

overall priorities, states are supposed to have under this bill that they are supposedly acting under, the states have considerable leeway, quote, in their implementation plans, unquote. that's what the states are supposed to do. and for all these years, when the e.p.a., all of a sudden, changes their instructions, states are normally given three years, because what we're talking about, when the e.p.a. says, now you are shut down, you are talking about jobs. and i realize this is all part of the president's war on jobs and it's working well, versus the moratorium in the gulf of mexico, which has decimated louisiana and many of the gulf states as he declared this war on jobs and so many jobs there in the gulf region, but what is

happening here, as you freeze out refineries, as you declare war on drilling and activity in the gulf of mexico, we're now starting to see that effect on everybody else. and it's one thing to stand up and say and i'm sure we'll hear tomorrow night about how the president cares so much about the working poor in america and that's who he's out for, but the trouble is, don't watch what is said, watch what's done. . as we watch the price of gasoline go up and up and up, the people most decimated by that are not the people to pass the costs on but the people trying to get to those jobs that have jobs left. so those who haven't already lost their jobs are going to have to deal with this problem.

but the e.p.a., the regulation chief, mr. mccarthy, just a couple weeks ago sent notice to texas saying she had no choice but to seize control of the permitting. this is the federal government just deciding that even though the bill under which she is acting says the states and local government have primary control, she's decided to seize control. this is the federal government at its worst, at its most dictatorial, doing what democracy says you will not do because they couldn't pass the bill, and now they're coming on and doing this with the totalitarian dictatorship. you might as well put "czar" besides gina mccarthy's name. she's the latest czar and we haven't called her that because the name is unpopular.

but now she's seized control of the state and local permitting under the act, she noted that, quote, statements in the media, unquote, by texas officials and their legal challenges to e.p.a.'s greenhouse gases, but she cited no legal basis for the takeover. and what's more just really offensive is the fact that what in essence they're saying is in 1992, according to this "wall street journal" article, 1992, before there was of -- there was ever any regulation of this horrible carbon dioxide, carbon emission, and unfortunately, mrs. mccarthy, before she says anything, she's a pollutant. she's a polluter. we need to shut down polluters like the folks that are breathing out carbon dioxide. it used to be a joke, judge, that the government has gotten so overreaching that the next

thing they're going to regulate the air you breathe. and now we're here. and that's what's happening. but in 1992, there was no carbon dioxide concerns. and now they're using the fact that in 1992, texas was not regulating carbon dioxide as a reason to take over what the clean air act says must be done by the states and local government. so it's pretty ridiculous. "the wall street journal" says these words, the takeover was sufficiently egregious that the d.c. circuit court of appeals issued a emergency stay on thursday suspending rules pending judicial review. one particular item in need of legal scrutiny is the permitting takeover as an interim final rule that is not open to the normal and clean air act mandated process of

public notice and comment. as the article says, so much for transparency in government. but i guess when you declare a war on jobs, you declare a moratorium on drilling activity . you devastate the hard-working folks in america that are trying to produce energy. and what that didn't kill, then you turn right around and take over control of state and environmental responsibilities so that you can finish going through with your war on jobs. i yield back to my friend. mr. carter: and this flex permit, the whole purpose was to use common sense and meet the environmental standards without shutting down facilities and losing jobs. that's why they came up with the flex permit. it allowed them, if they met the standards, to do the repairs and fixes and integral parts and not stop until the

whole thing is in compliance and have a permit for every faucet in the building that needs to be adjusted and fixed. but rather to let them fix the problem as it goes along. and we are the model for meeting the air quality act, a model. most states don't -- aren't in as good of compliance as the state of texas in the flex permit system. as exactly my colleague pointed out, because of this carbon emissions dictatorship that is being -- because they're saying you will do as i say or else, the position that's being taken by this czar from the e.p.a., texas aren't the sort of people that just bow up when people say things like that. so we said no and we're in this fight. and i think we're in a fight to win. and i think anybody would say it would be totally unfair for e.p.a. to sit and ponder their duty to approve a plan and

spend 15 years looking at it and not doing anything with it and then all of a sudden bingo, because of this they're taking over our permitting. i am very pleased to be joined by a gentleman that is probably the most knowledgeable man in congress about the workings of this particular act, mr. joe barton, former chairman of the energy and commerce committee, and ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, and now our texas expert on all things energy and all things environmental. mr. barton. you may use as much time as you choose to. mr. barton: thank you, congressman carter and i want to thank you and congressman gohmert and the other texans that may have been here before i got here. i've been at a young guns dinner which is why i'm late but did not want to fail to take advantage of this opportunity. i want to thank you for hosting

this special order. i want to kind of set a predicate here in terms of those kind words judge carter just said about me. i've been in congress 26 years. i've been on the energy and commerce committee 24 years. i have been a congressional observer or delegate at large to all the major global warming climate change conferences, called cops, council of parties. i was at kyoto when vice president gore came over and made his famous speech and then on behalf of president clinton, he designed to sign the kyoto accord which the u.s. senate never took up. most recently i was a part of the congressional delegation that then speaker nancy pelosi took to copenhagen last year where president obama came and

pleaded that there be a conference agreement which then secretary of state hillary rodham clinton agreed to fund with dollars that the united states government didn't have. so i was in buenos aires and all the major conferences as a congressional observer/delegate. i chaired dozens of hears on global warmings, authored bills and was the original co-sponsor and passed the -- helped vote for and support the clean air act amendments in 1990. so i've been involved in this issue for a number of years. let me say this, co-2 is not a pollutant under the criteria put forward by the clean air act. it's not one of the named criteria pollutants like so-2

of our ozone. it is necessary for life, as we know it. the term greenhouse gas, if you just think what a greenhouse is, self-enclosed, in this case the world, and the greenhouse gases are what create the atmosphere and help trap the heat so life can exist. co-2 is a trace gas. it's about 1/th of 1% of the atmosphere. -- .1% of the atmosphere. and i don't know the exact percentage of the total, but it is less than 50%. so what has happened in the last 10-15 years, this theory of global warming and climate

change needed a bogeyman and they chose co-2 and they have developed these models that show co-2 levels rise in the atmosphere over time, the temperature rises. it is a fact that co-2 is rising but it is not necessarily a fact that that rise is causing temperature to rise. in fact there's quite a bit of data that would indicate co-2 rises as a consequence of temperature rising, not so it is a follower, not a leader in that. so in any event, this administration, the obama administration, when they came into office in january of 2009, began a process or accelerated a process to determine that co-2 was a danger to the atmosphere, a danger to the

health of the u.s. population. and they issued a finding that since co-2 was a danger to public health, they had the right to regulate co-2 and began to promulgate these proposed regulations. what does that have to do with the special order this evening? the environmental protections agency has made a decision, and i think a political decision to be punitive towards texas and has gone down and i'm sure judge carter and judge gohmert have pointed out that they revoked over a hundred existing air quality permits, some of which have been on the books since the 1990's. for sites and facilities in texas. those permits are for more than

co-2. they actually are required by the clean air act to regulate so-2 and n.o.x. and the ozone, things of this sort. they revoked all of those. they have also -- they" the e.p.a., has also issued, i don't know the right word, judge, threats, warnings, to the state of texas that texas must begin to implement some of these proposed regulations on co-2. and in both cases, i think the e.p.a. is acting without the law being on their side. in the case of the co-2 regulations, i'm very confident they're acting without the science on their side. so what those of us that represent texas here in the congress in conjunction with our governor, lieutenant

governor, the texas house, the texas senate and the attorney general of texas are saying is, before we go any further, let's see what the real facts are. let's see, has texass a regulatory entity through the texas council of environmental quality, tceq, failed in its obligation under the clean air act to implement the terms of that act? i think the answer is texas has not failed, i think the answer is -- and if you look at the record, air quality and the criteria pollutants that are specifically regulated by the clean air act is improving in texas. we have two, three or four -- i guess we have the d.f.w. is a nonattainment area, el paso is

a nonattainment area and beaumont, port arthur are listed. we have four areas that have been in nonattainment under the specific criteria of the clean air act and all four of those in the state of texas have submitted what they call state imprehen station plans, s.i.p.'s, and those have been accepted i think with one exception by the e.p.a. regionally and nationally. and under those s.i.p.'s, and if the e.p.a. were not to keep changing the standard, we'd be in attain number all four regions. each time we've gotten close, for example in the d.f.w. area, thief tightened their compliance and said we're not in attainment. what we're doing this evening under judge carter and gohmert's leadership is let's

have a debate about what the facts are. the first fact that everybody watching this and listening on the floor needs to know is air quality in texas is improving. the tceq, texas legislature has done an outstanding job of implementing the terms and conditions which we have passed here in washington. . number two, the state of texas, working with industry, has adopted a flexible permitting program where we work with industry and say here are the standards you need to meet, here are the various ways you need to meet it and work together. and that has worked very well. compliance costs in texas are below the national average. industry sees that. sfri is coming to texas. people are moving to texas where it's quality of life. and you have pointed out that

texas had led the nation in job creation and. texas has led the nation in -- one of the leading states in terms of population increase. now you cannot be doing all those good things and then be deer electricity in air quality if, in fact, air quality is improving and water quality is improving. we want a dialogue what the factsr both under the pollute ants and co-2, which is a greenhouse gas, and i would hope, congressman, that we do it , more of these special orders and do some of these in texas and i can assure you on the energy and commerce committee, where i'm a senior member, i

have encouraged chairman upton, mr. whitfield, mr. stearns and mr. shimkus to hold hearings and bring witnesses on both sides from texas, bring our friends from the e.p.a. both up here and dallas, come down, come up, and let's put the facts on the table and see what laws, if any, need to be changed. i'm already a co-sponsor of a bill that would make it explicit that co-2 is not a regulated pollute ant under the clean air act and should not be. i'm not saying that we may not need to issue a standard on co-2 if it is proven it is a harm to public health. but until that time, it should not be regulated under the clean air act. it was never intended to be and we think the e.p.a. is wrong to keep insisting it should be. i thank you, judge, and thank you, judge, for this special order and glad to participate.

mr. carter: reclaiming my time. i thank you, mr. barton, for coming here to talk about this. you have been dedicating your life for these issues in congress. i always wonder, sometimes people back at home are saying, so what does this mean to me? i'm speculating, only speculating, but let me say something that i think everybody agrees. the last time we had a spike in the price of gasoline, it started, i think -- everybody points to how it started. it started when they had a refinery fire in illinois. and all of a sudden the speculators said, whoa. we have to reduce refining capacity in the oil and gas industry right now. they shut down about half that plant in illinois. and all of a sudden, we started to see the futures start to move

on oil. and that was the kickoff of $5 gasoline in some parts of the country. why? because the speculators say, if refinery and capacity is reduced, gasoline will be in more short supply. i can buy now, sell later and make money off this commodity. and the price started up. other things happened then. speculators, all of that can be talked about, but it started -- everybody says that there was a fear of reduced refining capacity, because right about that same time, we had the hurricanes that reduced refining capacity over in new orleans. now, what's happened since this whole thing started right here, which -- remember, the -- texas has the largest amount of refineries in the united states.

mr. barton, if i could ask you, what percentage of refining is in texas? do you know? mr. barton: about 2/3. mr. carter: 2/3 of the refining capacity is in texas and as this dispute between e.p.a. and texas rears its ugly head and the e.p.a. is taking over this permitting and industry is saying, look, we just want to know what to do. we are at a loss of what to do. we are willing to work. tell us what the new permit is, tell us how to do this, what's going to happen, lawsuit pending and all of this stuff. now the speculators are starting to say, whoa, price may be cog going up again. has the price gone up in the last three months. is it the cause? i could argue it's one of them. and what texas does with

industry is a perfect example of government and industry working to fix a problem together. that's what we thought we were going to get from the obama administration when he started out. instead, we have government working against everybody in this administration and we start look in this particular area, little known fact, the federal government issued 3,316 new rules and regulations, average of 13 rules a day. 78 of the new rules last year were major rules. a major rule is a rule that will effect on the economy of $100 million, major increase in costs for consumers or si significant adverse effect to the economy. we had last year 78 of those rules, plus an additional 3,000

-plus more rules to pass. i yield to my friend in a moment. i want to talk br one of the solutions we are looking at. little known that -- known thing that is coming to the forefront. back in 1996, under the contract with america, as part of the small business regulatory enforcement imperative that created the congressional review act, public policy act pl 104-121, allows review of he federal agencies and to overrule that regulation. agencies shall, note that word, they don't have to, submit to

each house of congress and to the comp. controller general the comprehensive report on any major proposed rule. congress has 60, and that is legislative days, to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of any rule. the senate must vote on the c.r.a. -- if 30 members of the senate approve having a vote. only 30 members is necessary to have a vote in the senate. so this is a tool where we can have in our small way be a part of this fight on behalf of texas. and we will be following this procedure that's set out under this act. we will have a vote on this house floor, on this rule. i think when people hear the rule, it's going to be a pretty strong vote.

i now yield to mr. gohmert, the time he wishes to take. mr. gohmert: my friend indicates it's in texas. but as former chairman of the energy, joe barton knows, about 2/3 of the refining capacity for the whole country being in texas, what this means is, regardless of how anybody feels about texas, i know there are a lot of people that don't care for the state, but regardless of what people feel, gasoline they put in their cars is coming from the state of texas and e.p.a. has declared war on texas, viting the laws of this land in order to -- violating the laws of this land, the price that will be paid is on rank and file folks across this country. we had colleagues across the

aisle talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. the things that this administration are doing are killing jobs. you know, they were going to create all these jobs and create all these jobs and then they did just a terrible job in creating jobs and we were going the wrong direction. and they said we are saving jobs, but they are driving jobs overseas. we are losing manufacturing jobs constantly. and this very thing we are talking about tonight is one of the reasons. there is so much uncertainty with regard to business in this country. if you want certainty, you could be a friend of this administration, as george sor omp s is. his biggest single investment is growing companies down in south america and we loan that -- them $2 billion to drill offshore off

brazil, in the meantime we have a war declared those who make their living in the gulf coast area, moratorium, people still aren't able to drill and that has affected so many jobs. but when the price of gasoline continues to go shooting up because this administration is doing everything they can to increase the price of energy and make the harder for people to get cheaper gasoline, people are going to make their voices heard and i don't think what the administration understands is, the timing of all this is going to be such that it's going to be coming around in 2012 and really adversely affecting people's pocketbooks, jobs, employers. can't count on the price of fuel being where they need it and a lot of businesses are saying, this is something we can't do

business with. the e.p.a., the uncertainty of the requirements. what it reminds me, too, in our natural resources committee, with the democrats in control, they were always able to bring more witnesses, that's the way procedure works around here, whichever party is in the majority, they bring more witnesses that will say what their position is. they brought a witness to the natural resources committee to testify that gee, we really need to stop drilling off the course and basically everywhere. but he said over 200 million families in the world that make their living from fishing and if we allow this drilling off the coast to continue, it's going to destroy families. i pointed out, you will be glad to know that we heard those things in texas, that if you

allow platforms off our coast, then it's going to kill off the fishing off the coast of texas and the gulf. turns out, i told the witness, he would be glad to know, that those platforms become an artificial reef. fish proliferate around those areas. when you want to fish, they take you out to platforms. and i said as far as you're concerned about the oil that was leaked after katrina, not one barrel came from any of those platforms. they came from onshore tanks, which really were the place where tankers came in and unloaded some of that, which was hit by the hurricane and leaked. he said, look, this is in a nutshell what he said. i guess the real problem is this. if i produce oil or gas, onshore, offshore, some point, it's going to be burned and

mabed it's in an engine, whatever, that produces carbon. the carbon goes into the air and eventually the rain brings it down either into the ocean or on the land and washed into the ocean. that puts more carbon in the ocean and as you have more carbon in the ocean, the ph increases and evently if you do that long enough, everything dice in the ocean and that's when people can't fish. that's what this administration is basing all of their opposition to drilling and production of fossil fuel. we all agree we ought to be moving off of fossil fuels. but if we were to allow drilling on federal onshore areas, offshore areas and designate proceeds of our federal royalty to go toward development of alternative fuel, we don't run the jobs off or run the poor

folks who are trying to make it into bankruptcy because they can't afford gasoline and everybody wins. it doesn't have to be be a lose solution and i yield back. . mr. barton: i just want to know how much you have left? the speaker pro tempore: 14 minutes. mr. barton: i want to keep reiterating, air quality in texas is improving. it is improving. the clean air act gives the federal government, through the environmental protection agency the right to preempt states when the states either don't implement the federal regulations on the clean air act or if the states simply

turn it back and ask the federal government to take over. so the e.p.a. does have the right under certain circumstances to preempt state implementation. but in this case, i would postulate, and each of you are former judges before you became congressmen, that since the state of texas has complied and air quality is improving, and there is a debate about whether co-2 should be regulated under the clean air act which is a separate issue, the federal government has overstepped its bounds to come in and line laterally, against the wishes of the state of texas to repeal these permits and require that they all be resubmitted and not only resubmitted, but resubmitted in a very specific way. the state of texas air quality permitting program has been a

flexible -- it says we will regulate an entire site. and as long as you're under that cap, you can implement new equipment and new procedures as long as your emissions stay the same or go down. and under the texas flexible permitting program, they have gone down, in some case as much as 20% and 30%. now this isn't a state where population or productivity has gone up or output has gone up, so in my view the state of texas, the texas council of environmental quality should be getting awards from the federal government, not being punished and not being unilaterally dismissed. so i really respect and thank you, congressman carter, for holding this special order, and i'll tell our friends in texas that may be watching, this special order is not the end, it is simply the beginning.

mr. carter: the beginning. that's right. mr. barton: and those of us that support this initiative support it because we believe we can have improving water quality and air quality and increase jobs and economic output. it's not an either/or. it can be a win/win. but if we adopt the e.p.a.'s shortsighted mandatory, very specific command and control attitude, you are, as congressman gohmert said, you're going to destroy jobs, destroy the economy, reduce output and not get any increased environmental quality. i yield back to my distinguished friend. mr. carter: thank you for yielding back. reclaiming my time. i believe the governor pointed out that of the million new jobs created in america in the last five years, three years, something like that, 850,000 of them were created in texas. we are a dynamic economy and

we're a dynamic economy because we had the foresight of all of us working together to make jobs, improve the environment, by using logical commonsense methods of doing this regulation. mr. barton: will the gentleman yield on this? mr. carter: i certainly will. mr. barton: the commonsense, we're beginning redistricting in texas and the state of texas will gain four congressional district seats which means our population between 2000-2010 has increased to approximate three million people. my question to you, would people be coming to texas if the quality of life was decreasing, if the environmental quality was decreasing? or would they be coming to texas because it's actually a better place to live and it has economic opportunity? mr. carter: reclaiming my time. that's exactly what's going on, mr. barton. and they're all indications,

you can stop your new neighbors and ask them why they came. they will tell you, because texas is where things are happening. it's where you have a tax structure that we can prosper in business under and yet it's a fair tax structure. you are doing things right so that rather than putting up roadblocks to new businesses, you are putting up enhancements to make it easier for new businesses to come and prosper. and not the big monstrous refineries, the little bitty mom and pops. some of those mom and pops are now a chain of mom and pop stores all over the state and so to be all over the nation because texas gets it and makes sure they follow basic rules and we don't turn people loose, but we come up with methods where government and industry work together to solve problems. mr. barton: if the gentleman would yield for another question. mr. carter: yes. mr. barton: name a state which has one of the most rigid,

restrictive, so-called protective environmental regulatory schemes in the nation? mr. carter: california. mr. barton: ok. the gentleman is correct. name the state that has the largest net outmigration from its state to texas? mr. carter: california. mr. barton: the gentleman is correct again. mr. carter: that's right. mr. barton: here you have a state that is noted for its state regulatory protections at the state level, and yet that state has one area, the los angeles basin, that has been in the worst category of nonattainment for two decades. and has -- i think i'm correct in saying this. i wish i had some of my friends from the great state of california on the floor that could correct me if i'm wrong, but that particular region has not exhibited any measureable

increase in air quality in spite of the most rigid regulations. and that state has exhibited the largest net outward migration of population to texas. i don't think that's sub-saharan dip illustratey -- serendipity, congressman, because we have strong environmental protection in texas, the quality of life is improving, our air quality is improving, but because of our flexible approach, you still can create jobs in texas and there are lots of folks around the country that want to take part of that and become part of that. i yield back. mr. carter: and as we fight this fight, the fight is not just an oil and gas fight. this is going to affect power plants around the country that are operating under natural gas, coal, oil, any kind of hydrocarbon. this is just the tip of the iceberg of what's going to happen in this arbitrary

decision by the e.p.a. against the will of the congress and the american people. we've had two years of doing things against the desired will of the american people and the american people spoke in the last election. it's time for us to make commonsense decisions and do what makes sense. it makes no sense to let people operate under a system that works for 15 years and then come in and say, implement this immediately when i give you three years to implement, but you will do it now. and when we said no, wait a minute, we bow our backs up and say let's play by the rules. they say fine, we never did get around to getting you the official letter approving your flex permit system so here's your official letter, it's denied. and because you're not doing anything about it, we're going to come in and take over your permitting system.

i don't think the average american thinks that's the way anybody ought to operate. and it's not the way i think anybody ought to operate it. and i would be surprised if it's not the way most of -- the majority of the people of this house think these agencies ought to operate. and, you know, we always hear the idiot crazy things that come out in the newspaper, and you'll see some of them maybe, i hope. but just to let you know it's not just in this industry where new regulations are going to be going strange, there's a proposed regulation that's going to be affecting texas for sure and a whole lot of other states in this union. they want to regulate dust. so if you've got a dusty road driving up to your ranch house or to your personal house, they want to come in and regulate the dust that's kicked up in the summertime when it's hot behind your car. and the solution that they came

up with for this in california, california, the place where they have the drought in the central valley, a shortage of water, the solution california came in with was water down your road every day. take the water you need for the plants and for people and squirt it on the road to keep dust from going up in the air. now, like mr. gohmert said, we used to laugh and say some day the government is going to regulate what we -- the air we breathe and the food we eat. and lo and behold they are. and it's going on right now. so this is just the beginning, as joe said, this is just the beginning of this, bringing it to the attention of the american people. this regulation, what they're doing to texas, standing up for our fellow texans who are standing up for our state's compliance record, and standing up for our state's ability to create an environment where

people can have a job, and they can pay their own way, in good industry jobs, we're standing up for those people. we're making sure that we don't lose those great jobs in texas because of this regulatory agency. and this is only the beginning of the fight. there's more to come. and we're going to fight not only to end this regulation but on many, many more and we'll be bringing them to let the american people see that the regulators can be dictators. and i want to just correct one thing mr. gohmert said. we're no longer having a moratorium on drilling, i was told today by one of my constituents we're having a permit-atorium. they said oh, yes, the moratorium is lifted, you just have to get a permit and so far there haven't been any permits. i yield back to mr. barton. mr. barton: i want to make one nonscientific comment. i flew this morning from d.f.w. airport to reagan airport to

attend this session of congress. the d.f.w. is home to approximate three million people, a number of power plants, lots of industry, electronics, general aviation, defense. i flew in to washington which has almost no industry. the air was clear at d.f.w., and when i came into reagan, i looked out the window and i thought, man, it was -- i don't want to be disrespectful to our international friends in poland, but it did remind me of the last time, which was several years ago, when i flew in to warsaw and the air was so thick that you could see it. i don't know what the issue is here in the washington region today, but when we flew in to reagan, it was noticeably hazier and browner flying in than it was when i left d.f.w. where the air was crystal

clear. that's nonscientific but i would invite anybody who thinks we have an air quality problem in texas to come to dallas or go to houston, drive out along the houston ship channel. go down to corpus christi outside the major refineries on the gulf coast, and you'll see a success story. what you won't see is air pollution that's caused by industry in texas. their compliance record is excellent. and they've got the facts to back it up. mr. carter: i thank you. and at this time we'll yield back whatever little time we have and remind everybody that the stars are still big and bright deep in the heart of texas. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i move the house do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. the top line budget numbers for the year. that is a change from the previous process, which went through the budget committee. a final vote on the bill will take place tomorrow. next, today's debate on the measure. it is one hour and 20 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 30 minutes to my good friend from worcester. all time yielded will be for debate purposes only and peppeding that, i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, runaway federal spending is one of the most significant issues that this congress is facing. our national debt has implications for nearly every major challenge that we must confront. it's tied to our economic recovery. it's tied to our national security. it's tied to our ability to deliver on our constitutional mandate for transparent, limited and responsive government. the time to exercise our power of the purse with discipline and restraint is long overdue. the time for us to exercise our power of the purse restraint is long, long overdue. we must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending levels for funding the federal government. we know that a great deal of hard work and tough decisions lie ahead for every single member of this institution.

we know that a great deal of hard work is there and we're going to face some very difficult, tough, tough decisions. there are going to be difficult decisions, but, mr. speaker, they are decisions we are going to have to make. first and foremost, we must get our economy growing and our work force expanding again. strong growth and job creation will increase tax revenues and provide greater resources that are needed. but, mr. speaker, that's only half of the equation. economic growth is critically important. we need to do it so we can enhance the flow of revenues to deal with owes essential items that are there, but it is half the equation. we can't get back on to a firm ground with sound fiscal standing unless we have a leaner federal budget.

some of this can be accomplished by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. everybody is always in favor of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. and what's the best way to do that? robust oversight. robust oversight will allow us to streamline federal spending and make better use of taxpayer dollars. but we have to acknowledge up front that hard work and painful cuts lie ahead. we know this isn't going to be an easy task but it is absolutely essential. just as families and small businesses across this country have been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in this institution are going to have to do the same, and that's the message we got last november that brought people like my rules committee colleague, mr. scott, who is sitting here next to me on the floor, that's the message. some federal programs, some federal programs, mr. speaker,

are wasteful, and deserve to be cut. there will be others that have merit that which we simply cannot afford at the current levels. we have to be honest about that. we have to engage in a responsible debate about what our priorities must be. what we cannot do is allow this debate to degenerate into false accusations about the other side's intentions and let me repeat that, mr. speaker. we cannot let the kind of free-flowing rigorous debate we need to have to generate into these accusations that we so often seem to hear around here. there is no one in this body who wants to gut -- there is no one in this body that wants to gut funding for key essential programs, like veterans' programs or like education, child nutrition. no one wants to gut these

programs. so i think it's important for us to state that. and there is no evidence that any proposal out there would undermine things like support for our nation's veterans. we are all entering into this debate with good faith, good intentions and a commitment to response by address the need to implement fiscal discipline. we will have to make hard choices, but that process will not be served by unfair or disingenuous accusations. we also recognize that this will be a lengthy process. we are just beginning what is going to be a two-year process focused on this. today's underlying resolution, the measure we will be considering through this rule and then on the floor tomorrow, is merely the first step in this ongoing effort to bring our federal budget back into the

black. our committees will have to conduct extensive oversight, as i mentioned earlier, of federal programs. we will have to dispense with fiscal year 2011 spending, which the last congress failed to do before we can even begin to deal with the coming fiscal year. the underlying resolution that we have before us today lays down a marker for reducing spending and puts the house on record for its commitment to tackle this issue in a serious way, the hard work will follow. as this process proceeds, rank and file members of both political parties, democrats and republicans alike, will have the opportunity to participate in our effort to address these very tough decisions. through constructive debate, we can finally begin to impose real accountability and discipline in our federal budget. in concert with pro-growth

policies, and i said, to me, the most essential thing is implementing pro-growth economic policies, but going hand and hand with thinks pro-growth policies, this effort will put us back on the path of economic recovery and job creation. today's rule sets the stage for the start of that effort. i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and demonstrate their resolve to tackle runaway federal spending in a serious way. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the chairman for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, so much for an open process and so much for a free flow of ideas. i rise in strong opposition to

the underlying resolution. once again, the republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the american people, jobs. my republican friends have brought forth a resolution that they tout as a spending reduction measure. in fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar, not one dime from the federal budget. if this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. instead the resolution, and i quote, assume nonsecurity spending at fiscal year 2008 levels, unquote without specifying exactly what those levels might be. in other words, mr. speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless. we are told that the numbers are on their way, that the congressional budget office will tell us on wednesday of this week, what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. so why are we are here today

debating this issue? why can't we wait until wednesday we have the numbers? the answer is is as plain on the calendar on the wall, politics, pure and simple. the republican leadership has scheduled a vote before president obama addresses the nation in his state of the union address, that way they will have a fresh set of talking points. and say look how serious we are about cutting government funding, when they haven't cut anything. another problem with the resolution, it reinforces a terrible precedent that they established in their rules package. under those rules, a single member of congress, the chairman of the budget committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year. now, like all of my colleagues, i have a great deal of respect for mr. ryan, but i strongly

disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something is fundamental as the budget of the united states. mr. speaker, we have to vote in this house to change the name of a post office, but we can't have a vote on how much we spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup or medical research? that's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my republican friends promised. last week in the rules committee, i offered an amendment to this resolution that would have allowed the other 435 members of the house the opportunity to vote on this critical issue, but my republican colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote. finally, mr. speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget act. we hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. why, then, would they take hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings off the table right out of the gate?

even speaker boehner said, and i quote, i believe there is room to find savings in the department of defense, end quote. if that's true and it most certainly is, why did this resolution treat this as untouchable. when it comes to the federal budget, the republican majority is not off to a good start. the rules package paved the way for them to add $5 trillion to the deficit and they voted to repeal the health care law and ood to the deficit and now they are rushing a one-page bill without a single number or any specifics about how and where they want to cut. what we are doing today, mr. speaker, is not real. there are no tough choices being made today. this is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. the american people deserve much, much better, and i urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and i urge them to reject

the underlying bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield two minutes to one of our new members who i mentioned in my opening remarks, the gentleman from from north charleston, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this rule we are considering. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. as a business owner who has only been in congress for 19 days, if we want more jobs in our economy, we must be serious about spending cuts. spending in washington is burdening future generations. unborn americans, unborn americans will have to pay for

the benefits that we ascribe to ourselves. in the previous two years, congress has added nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt. is it any wonder, then, that during the same time period, our unemployment rate has skyrocket frd 7.8% to 9.4%? it's not. as a small business owner, i don't have to pay higher taxes, i'm able to hire more people. when i don't pay higher taxes, i can invest in more equipment and more services. every dollar taken by me from the government means i have to go out and earn two more dollars just to break even. that's why i offered the amendment in the rules committee for spending even less, even less than the 2008 levels. 2008 levels is just a start. and we need to go much deeper than that. i support this rule.

thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague on the rules committee, if this was a serious effort, there would be numbers. there are none. this is about issuing a press release -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i will not. this is about issuing a press release after the state of the union so they can have a talking point to go home with. this isn't a serious effort. if it was, there would be numbers in there. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: three minutes.

mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague, here we go again. if this were a serious proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this document. there is no number in this document. . on opening day our republican colleagues wrote a measure that gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the pay-as-you-go law. a few days later we figured out why they did that. because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. those aren't my numbers, those are the numbers of the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing which is focusing on jobs. that measure on opening day also

did another thing. it gave the chairman of the budget committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilingses, for this entire congress. no input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. so all of us thought when this new measure was coming up, maybe now we're going to have some accountability. maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the united states congress and for the government. but lo and behold when you look at the resolution there's no number. where's the beef? and i have to say to my colleagues that, if you want transparency why are you hiding the ball? is the number going to be $100 billion? is it going to be $80 billion? $60 billion? we hear all different numbers in the press out there and they haven't put it in the measure. instead they've said once again,

we're going to allow the chairman of the budget committee to decide. i have great respect for the chairman of the budget committee but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another member of congress. we shouldn't ever do that. certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the united states government. that's irresponsible and yet that's what this rule will ask every member to do. contract out his or her vote to one person. so why are we doing this? why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? as my colleagues said, timing is everything here. this is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow, the day the president's going to deliver the state of the union address, to create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number. without a number. now, we heard from our colleagues on the republican side, well, you know what? we have to wait for the

congressional budget office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions. i ask for an additional minute. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. van hollen: we asked them, why don't we have the number? they said, well, we got to wait for c.b.o. we're pleased to hear the new found respect for the c.b.o. numbers, but here's my point. that's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. 24 hours. we could have a budget resolution with the beef, with the numbers so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. no. we got to do it tomorrow. why? state of the union address, great press release. now, i've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because there was nothing in place in the house from a budget perspective. well in fact the house last year passed a budget enforcement act. i got it right here. it's got a number in it. it's got a number. like these budget documents have .

mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. van hollen: i'd be happy to yield -- mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield the gentleman time. mr. van hollen: certainly. mr. dreier: what was the vote in the house on that budget that my friend was just talking about? mr. van hollen: i don't remember the exact vote but it passed, mr. chairman. it was deemed, there was never a vote in this institution -- mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. van hollen: there was a vote on the resolution in the house. if you want to talk about deeming, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is -- that 30 seconds came from the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i ask reckons because he yielded to me. i took three seconds and he yielded me 30. i thank you, mr. chairman. deeming. what we're doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. we are passing a resolution that deems in advance the passage of a number that we don't even know and it's going to be decided by one person. we are deeming that individual all the authority and the shame

of it is that that's a process that i think we all recognize as flawed and yet this is deeming on steroids. so i would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on this, have a real argument and let every member vote and take responsibility. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me say that i think that one of the thicks that we have to -- things that we have to recognize here, and i'm happy to engage in rigorous debate and i'm happy that we have not at this point had any of our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the prospect of starving children, throwing people out of schools, dedrivinging -- depriving veterans of access to the things that they need. and so i express my appreciation to my colleagues because up in the rules committee that was the tenor of the discussion that took place upstairs. one thing that i want to say, mr. speaker, is that in 1974 the

congress put into place, known as the -- legislation known as the 1974 budget and empowerment act. i happen to believe that that needs to be overhauled because democrats and republicans alike recognize that the 1974 budget and emboundment act has been a failure -- empoundment fact has been a failure, an abject failure. i've been working with my friend from maryland and mr. ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, as well as the chair and ranking member, messrs. conrad and sessions in the senate, on the notion of our working together in a bipartisan , bicameral way to bring about an overhaul of the 1974 budget and empoundment act. now, one of the reasons, one of the reasons that i believe it is essential is that last year was the first time ever that we have not seen a budget passed.

it's the first time since implementation of the 1974 budget and empoundment act. mr. speaker, with all due respect to the crocodile tears that are being shed so often on this house floor, i think it's important to note that that is why we are in the position where we are today. we wouldn't be here had we had a budget passed. now, many people talk about this calendar year. but we are five months, we are five months into the fiscal year and that is the reason that we are in a position where we're having to make the kinds of tough decisions that we are. my friend from north charleston, my very, very thoughtful colleague, is a new member of the rules committee, has been raising with me some very simple and commonsense questions about the process that we have been going through. one of the things that he just said in a meeting that we just participated in was that we need

to recognize that we at this moment are beginning the process. we're beginning the process of cutting spending. this is going to be a two-year struggle. and so this is not going to be the end of our effort to try and rein in wasteful federal spending and i know my friend had some thoughts on that and i'd be happy to yield to minimum if he'd like to either pose a question or offer any comments that relate to either the health care bill and the vote that we just had or any other issue. i i yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. is it the first time since 1974 that the house has operated without a budget? mr. dreier: i thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat what i just said to that we can underscore it. never before have we failed to have a budget and yet for the first time in 36 years that happened. and that's why i believe that we have a chance to work, democrats and republicans together, with our colleagues on in the other body to bring about real reform

of the budget act it sefment i'd be happy to further yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. when you think of the about the repeal of health care, is that not a savings of trillions of dollars, a trillion-dollar hold or an abyss on an entitlement program? does it not reduce the debt by $700 billion? are these not real numbers? if we really wanted a number, if we were looking for the number, would they not have passed a budget last year? mr. dreier: let me say that my friend is absolutely right. throughout the debate that took place last week, we heard that in fact repealing the $2.7 trillion health care bill would end up costing $230 billion based on the numbers provided to us by the congressional budget office's estimates. we kept hearing that and one of the things in one of the exchanges we had with mr. pence, only in washington, d.c., can bringing about the elimination of a $2.7 trillion expenditure

actually cost money. now, mr. speaker, i think that the thing that we need to point to is not only the smoke and mirrors that went into the recommendations that were provided, whether it's dealing with the class act which the chairman of the senate budget committee has scribed as a ponzi scheme -- described as a ponsj scheme, whether it's that, or -- ponzi scheme, whether it's that, or to me the most important thing to point to is the fact that in that measure there is a 3/4 of $1 trillion, mr. speaker, that's 3/4 of a $1 trillion tax increase that is being posed along with the mandates. so my friend from north charleston is absolutely right, mr. speaker, when he points to the fact that we were in fact saving dollars with the action that we took last week and we're very committed to ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable health insurance by allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines,

pooling to deal with pre-existing conditions, associated health plans so that small businesses can get lower rates, the idea of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform which the president of the united states talked about last year in his state of the union message. i mean, these are the kinds of things that we believe can immediately drive the cost of health insurance and health care down itself and at the same time we can disengage the federal government's dramatic involvement in it -- -- in this. i appreciate my friend from north charleston for bringing this commonsense that he's sharing with us. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: yeah, mr. speaker, i'm glad my friend on the other side of the aisle are happy they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill but i'll tell you that there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real

protections in the bill, who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. there are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. there are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill that aren't too happy that the republicans want to repeal all that and on top that have c.b.o. said it adds considerably to our deficit. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm amazed that high colleague from california brings up the health care reform. we were bringing up the c.b.o. numbers to say that we had a $230 billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion beyond that. we're giving them actual numbers from the c.b.o. to talk about deficit reduction. but i don't see any numbers in this budget resolution that's on

the floor today and tomorrow. i call it the budget-less resolution because it contains no numbers, no spisks and no ideas for job creation or economic recovery and it doesn't even include a serious plan to reduce the deficit. this is not the way to manage the budget. it's worse than arbitrary. it's like budgeting with blind folds on. it gives no thought, no reason, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be. and worst of all, the republican resolution continues to ignore job creation and economic recovery. it doesn't even contain a real plan to reduce the deficit. we gave you numbers with the health care reform that would actually reduce the deficit. this is a numberless budget, nothing at all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i was unclear in my own mind which was worse, the terrible procedural abuse of this resolution or the serious substantive flaw. but i then realized they come together. because it is procedurally outrageous so as to protect a substantive grave error. first of all, it is a major piece of legislation and it's not amendable. just like the health care bill. you may remember, mr. speaker, what people on the republican side said about open rules. it will be a fond memory but apparently not a reality. we have a very important piece of legislation subject to no amendment and chaired a committee for four years and never would i have brought a bill to the floor with such an impact and had no amendments in order whatsoever. but i understand why they don't want an amendment, because it would reveal the grave flaw. this says, reduce nonsecurity spending until 2008.

in other words, exempt about half of discretionary spending. all security i assume to mean military spending. now we have a war and we have to defend the people who we put out there. i have to say, those who talk about shutting the government down, i don't know what they're going to tell the people in afghanistan who are out there being shot at. but we have got tens of billions that we are spending, subsidizing our war for the allies in europe and asia. the argument that you exempt military spending from budgetary discipline is one of the reasons we are in the terrible hole we're in. now, it is clearly indefensible to argue that you would exempt military spending from budget discipline. so how do you defend it? you dedefend it by not allowing an amendment that would bring it forward. . why shouldn't security go down to the level of 2008 but go down somewhat. this is part of the philosophy

that puts pressure on all of the domestic spending. and affects the quality of life in america. by security, i mean police officers in the streets and cities i represent and firefighters and bridges that won't collapse, but that's not security as it's defined by the republicans. that's the kind of spending that will be severely cut. instead, we have a total exemption for the pentagon. we have mr. gates, a bush appointee, kept on by mr. obama, said it's time to reduce the military and republicans have attacked him. let be very clear, there can't be a balanced approach when you follow this philosophy. not only totally exempt the military but don't even allow an amendment that would make it something that you could talk about. the notion that you give all this power to one person is interesting. what we are learning is the gentleman from wisconsin, mr.

ryan, has been somewhat more courageous than others. apparently what we are learning today is the republican committee has the courage in paul ryan's conviction and i wish they had the courage to allow us to debate whether military spending is included. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: then, this is just the first step in a long process, which will allow the kind of free-flowing debate we are talking about. my friend will recall that never before had we gone through the appropriations process the way we did the last two years. that being, my friend and i arrived here in 1981 and when it came to the issue of spending, members had the opportunity to stand up on the house floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill. and i will tell you that it's our intention to once again have that kind of debate that we had all the way up until the last two years.

so i can assure my friend that our goal of having a free-flowing debate is important. the second point i would like to make is that while my friend has continually said we didn't make amendments in order to this measure, there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee that would have given us the opportunity to do that. we did make an amendment in order that modifies this that came from mr. scott in the rules committee that actually said that we should get to 2008 levels or less and it is true. my friend sfr worcester asked to make an amendment in order by mr. van molen, but there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee and that vote was taken by the rules committee. mr. frank: you said no amendments were smithed and mr. mcgovern asked for one on behalf of mr. van hollen. mr. dreier: amendments submitted

to the rules committee, we don't actually have. when it comes to the rules committee, when we are getting ready to point out a rule, there are amendments submitted. there were amendments proposed and the rules committee chose not to make that amendment in order. mr. frank: would the gentleman would yield to me. mr. dreier: i think i control the time here. it's important to note we did have an amendment considered in the rules committee by mr. scott, which actually brought us to lower levels. it said 2008 levels or less. and i yield to my friend. mr. frank: the record will show the gentleman just amended his statement about amendments because he said no amendments were offered and i would ask people to look at the record, and he said, an amendment was offered. first statement was no amendments were offered. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time to say the following and i'll yield to my friend again. i want to clarify what it was that i said. amendments are submitted up to

the rules committee. there were no amendments that were actually submitted to the rules committee and there is another issue that we need to point to also, and that is, there is going to be something that was often denied, and that is a motion to recommit with instructions is going to be included in this measure so that the minority will have a bite of the apple that was more often than not denied in the past. that is the direction toward a more open process. and, as i said, this is the beginning, the beginning of a process that will consider a budget resolution and an appropriations process, which will give members, democrats and republicans a like an opportunity to participate. with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from san diego -- mr. frank: would the gentleman yield to me snr mr. mcgovern: the gentleman from san diego has asked to be recognized and i yield two

minutes to my friend from san diego and if mr. mcgovern chooses to yield time to my friend, i'm happy to engage in a discussion with him again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilbray: let me say someone who has been in local government, those of us in the federal government have to understand that there are jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set. some people believe that it it is as much a responsibility of the federal government to hire police officers as it is to maintain a military. i'm sorry, the constitutional line for those of us who were mayors and county chairmen, the federal government needs to concentrate on our responsibility, defending our borders and national security. those of us who served at local government, would be able to address those issues much more appropriately and have a lot less burden. but i want to talk about the opportunities we have to work in a bipartisan effort. when we talk about budget

reduction, rather than denying americans the right to live in the united states unless they buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost reductions like california has done, not exactly a right-wing legislature. it has had an impact on the cost of insurance on physicians, that an ob-gyn in los angeles paid 30% to 40% less for insurance than the same doctor in new york. you can't tell me the cost of living is that much different, except for the fact that sacramento is recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. if the legislature of california can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to address those issues? if we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health bill allow americans rather than taking away their rights to live in the country, the freedom to buy across state lines? that is well within our

jurisdiction as a federal body. why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs rather than taking the rights of americans to live here? that is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort redorm. and let's face it, the liability issue is an interesting one. the federal government and states can actually address issues that says -- mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. bilbray: i know this out, because i was running a health care system for over three million people. the federal government has special protection for physicians if they are in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians. the federal government accepts the situation where somebody on medicaid has more rights to sue their physician than the men and women in uniform in this country. and i challenge you to tell me how it's justifiable that if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in the military,

they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody on welfare and public assistance, they can sue. can we talk about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so essential. and i want to close with this, we have not been talking about health care in the last year, we have been talking about health insurance and the crisis that's coming down this pike, in 10 years, you may be able to call the health insurance people, but won't be able to find a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: our concern about this budget bill before us has no number in it and is a press release to be able to talk about tomorrow after the state of the union. i want to clarify what happened in the rules committee. i did offer an amendment that

was rejected on party lines that would say -- that said that members of congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic number that the chairman of the budget committee will come up with. that is rejected. there was an amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida which would allowed mr. van hollen, a substitute. that was rejected. there was an amendment for an open rule, so we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. there were amendments and rejected. before i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, i yield one minute to the the gentleman from massachusetts for a point of clarification. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: i want to address this motion that police officers on our local streets pales insignificant to the military. we have troops in western europe where our western european allies are cutting their military budgets and i do think

funding police officers and firefighters in our cities is more important than allowing germany and england to reduce their military budgets because we subsidize them. secondly, i will say to the the gentleman from california, i'm somewhat disappointed. he did say there were no amendments offered. we have now heard three were offered. if he meant there were none on paper previously submitted, maybe he should have said that, because it would have been of no great relevance. amendments were offered and they were rejected. the gentleman wouldn't yield to me -- mr. speaker, regular order. regular order. the gentleman from california wasn't happy with what he said and didn't want to continue the debate. i urge people to read the record tomorrow and read his statement that no amendments were offered and read what the gentleman from massachusetts said and see where the truth lies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from california.

mr. dreier: there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million americans without a job. and this debate represents yet another wasted opportunity for us to come together and address the real number one issue of the country, which is putting people back to work. the debate also represents a curious lack of clarity as to what exactly the majority is proposing. and there are words in this resolution, but there aren't numbers, so i did research on my own about numbers. let's take f.b.i. agents, for example. now, the resolution says that

security spending is exempted, but doesn't define security spending. when we pass the budget for f.b.i. agents here, that budget is under the justice, commerce, science, budget, so i don't know if this is within security spending or not. but here's what i do know. in the present fiscal year, if we maintain the budget that we have been living under since october 1, we are on track to spend $7.6 billion on f.b.i. agents, if we do what the resolution says, which is to go back to spend in 2008, we would spend 22% less than that, or 6. -- $6.5 billion. if you look at the average salary of an f.b.i. agent, that would mean we make due with 1,720 fewer f.b.i. agents than we due today. i would be happy to yield to the

sponsor of the resolution for him to tell me if that is true. if this passes, are we going to have that level in f.b.i. agents? mr. dreier: it has been indicated early on, we aren't going to see across-the-board spending cuts. and i believe we can preserve the number. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, the chairman has said we won't have across-the-board cuts. that means that we'll have to find larger cuts than 22% in other areas of the justice department budget. the court system, enforcement of the immigration laws, the other things the justice department does. the resolution says nothing about what those would be. so i think we can be critical in another area. .

we're spending about $5.8 billion in cancer research. if we do what the resolution says, we'll cut by 22% and spend $4.6 billion. the average conser research grant is $350,000. that means we would have 3,628 fewer cancer research grants if we're not -- if we're -- if we're not going to have an across the board cut, i would say, where else in the national institute of health are we going to cut? research for alzheimer's? research for diabetes? research for other areas? the resolution says nothing. here's what a prominent american has to say about resolutions like this, and i'm quoting. you can't kill the national debt or deficit by killing npr or the

national endowment for the humanities or the arts. nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. i'm very put off when people say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. that's usually a very inefficient way of doing it. tell me what you're going to cut and nobody up there, meaning capitol hill, yet is being very, very candid about what they're going to cut to fix this problem. tell me what you're going to cut. i ask for 30 more seconds. >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. andrews: ethe author of that quote is not a democrat inmember of the house. it's not a white house spokesman. the author of that quote ve tired general -- retired secretary of state cloin powell. who said yesterday, tell me what you're going to cut. the minority doesn't want to grapple with that problem, which is why there are no amendments

made in order, no numbers in the bill and no reason to vote for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my ti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i yield myself a minute and a half to respond to my friend with a couple of comments. first, this is about job creation and economic growth. today we live with an economy where there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty and we know right now that there are job creators, investors, who have resources on the sidelines. i don't believe there's anything that we could do, well there are a number of things we could do they may be as prnt, redeucing the job -- the tax burden on job creators, but one of the things i think is critical for us to do is begin getting our fiscal house in order to provide an incentive for job creation and economic growth. the next point i'd like to make is while i con gradge lated my friends p mr. mcgovern and mr.

van hollen for not engaging in the sky-is-falling threats about what might happen down the road or determining what would happen, i have to say that i was a little concerned and i've come to the conclusion that if one can't prioritize, mr. speaker, they resort to demonizing. and the notion -- i'll yield in just a moment. i will in just a moment. the fact is, we are beginning a process that will see us for the first time in two years have a free-flowing debate on appropriations. when my friend mentioned both the national institutes of health and the f.b.i., i believe that those are important priorities that democrats and republicans alike want to fund. my friend has concluded -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds, mr. speaker. my friend has concluded that somehow he knows exactly what will be cut based on the resolution.

mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: i will in a moment. he concluded he knows what will be cut in the national institutes of health and the f.b.i. there are as we move ahead with the appropriations level, debate that will be coming in the next several months. we'll be in a position where we'll be able to, democrats and republicans alike, establish our priorities. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. andrews: how much time is left. mr. dreier: i yield. mr.en andrews: i am not demonizing the gentleman, i think the gentleman speaks with great sincerity. the gentleman says i know what is going to be cut, no one knows what's going to be cut. can you tell us where in the n.i.h. budget you'll make up the difference by not cutting the cancer research budget. mr. dreier: let me say that obviously it does not have to be done within the national institutes of health. the notion of saying that it has

to be cut there, we have seen a doubling, we've seen a doubling in the level of funding under president bush for the national institutes of health, mr. speaker and i think that there are areas where we can bring about cuts without -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. ewe can do that without in any way jeopardizing the important priorities we have. with that,ry i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized of. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: it could come from labor or health and human services. so where will you make up for not cutting the cancer research budget by 22%. i yield. mr. dreier: this is the beginning of a process that will allow us to do just that, the country survived. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. this is what general powell was talking about. tell us where to cut and we get

verbiage but no real answer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minute the gentleman from massachusetts has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. dreier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, i just want to point out one of the reasons why these questions are coming up is because when this resolution was brought before the rules committee the chairman of the budget committee didn't show, nor did the chairman of the appropriations committee. so there are no numbers in this bill. so we are very, very concerned about what numbers might exist out there. i think people in this house, democrats and republicans, ought to know what the real numbers are. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?

mr. mcgovern: i yield for 10 seconds. mr. dreier: this resolution did not emerge from the budget committee, it's a resolution of the house rules committee, we are the committee of jurisdiction for the -- for h.r. 38. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for making that collar 23i case. however, what we're talking about is -- for making that clarification. however what we're talking about is setting the spending levels so if there are questions about how deep the cuts will be or where they'll come from, it's because we have no clarity. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: those of us on this side have said, we need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. i know the chairman said that's what this bill is all about. but let's look at what the bipartisan commission on deficit and debt reduction said. they said two things. one, absolutely, we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction

and work together to get that done. they also said another thing. they said draconian cuts right now would in fact reverse the economic progress we're making, that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and hurt job creation in this country chsm is one reason we would like to know what the number in this, i would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it's going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60 billion, whatever it will be, because there's no number. if you've got it, it should have been in here. let me get, mr. speaker to the other issue the gentleman raised. we have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut which is what you all talked about in the fall, right now in the immediate moment, that it will result in approximately 20% across the board cuts. now all of you say when we raise specifics like cutting research for freement and cures at n.i.h., no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. then we say, ok, you're going to cut the f.b.i. budget because

that's not part of the protected budget. no, no, no you say, we're not going to cut that. you keep moving stuff off the table. do you know what that does to the rest of the budget? it gos from 20% cut, to 30%, to 40% who knows what it is. but the point we're making is, you haven't given us the starting point number. so you don't have a clue and of course we don't either, but you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number. we know there's been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisle no secret about what that number will be, you amended this rules provision, but if you got the number, put it in here now and if you're going to get it, the day after tomorrow, on wednesday, wait 24 hours and let this body vote on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. mr. dreier: i yield myself one minute to say to my friends, it's interesting to have this debate, and i'm happy to be standing on this side say, we got the message last november 2, i know the 87 new mobes on our side who came to the this

institution have made it clear, the goal of moving in a direction of bringing about spending cuts is critically important. now my good friend has just become the ranking member of the committee on the budget. i know it's a new assignment, it's a new assignment for my friend, but i'd like to take just a moment to explain what the budget process consists of. we are going to see your committee proceed with establishing the broad 302a allocations and that big number will be determined. this institution, democrats and republicans aliking and again we haven't seen -- republicans alike, and again we haven't seen it in the last two years because we shut down the appropriations process, but weir going to allow -- we're going to allow members the opportunity to actually participate in establishing those priorities. that is going to be a joint effort. our priority is -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. our priority is to get the economy back back on track and

create jobs. we know very quell that getting our fiscal house in order is going to be essential if we are going to have the kind of job creation that both democrats and republicans want. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the skwlelt is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank the gentleman for his useful guidance. the fact of the matter is in the spring, we'll begin the budget process in the budget committee. we're now feeling with fy-2011. as the chairman know, there's a budget resolution in effect that had a number in it. you chose not to extend put it. now for the first time ever, you have asked this house, every member to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. that is budget malpractice and it also cedes all

responsibility. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i really appreciate the gentleman's dramaticcally raising the level of a simple two paragraph house resolution that is the first step in a process that will allow the budget committee to do its work, to allow the appropriators and through the appropriators the full house, democrats and republicans alike to establish those priorities and so i would say to my friend that while we do very much want -- i'll yield in just a second. why we do very much want, mr. speaker, to have a chance for this institution to go on record and i hope democrats will join in support of h.res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow to go on record demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message from the american people and out of respect to my friend, i yield myself 15 seconds and yield to my friend.

mr. andrews: my question is simple. do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being leer is $120 million, which may mean 30% across the board or -- do you think it matters it's $149 billion. mr. dreier: across the board cuts are not something being considered here. we are pursuing 2008 levels and i believe that that's what this resolution says and we hope very much that we can get to lower levels of spending and i suspect that some members on the other side of the aisle would want to join us in working together in that effort to get our fiscal house in order. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind my colleagues when they read the resolution it's 2008 or less. that muddles the numbers even more. at this point, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. berman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. berman: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. oy pose this resolution, i oppose it because i think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage. but i want to focus my time on the limited question, but the very important question, of what's in and what's not in security funding. because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less. . at the rules committee. was that part of the exemption? said no. my definition, me, david dreier, chairman of the rules committee. out of which this committee or resolution comes. as we have outlined here, this

is discretionary spending that is nonsecurity spending. it's discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, v.a., and homeland security. i assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to a less than a week later. i am happy to yield. mr. drier: i will say that is the definition of security spending, defense, homeland security, v.a. and military construction. mr. berman: thank you. reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman reaffirming that position. now let's take a look at what that means. that means not exempt from these drastic cuts are weapons and training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in yemen, in pakistan, the philippines, that's all part of our security assistance package, part of our

international affairs budget, financing for the purchase of u.s. military equipment to ensure israel's qualitative military edge, defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism, and afghanistan, cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge, would force the military to perform civilian jobs, the reductions would harm four provencial reconstruction teams and ford operating bases -- and forward operating bases, security training, ordnance disposal, popular mechanics and eradication programs. in iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition of nonsecurity funds that have to be dramatically cut back are training for iraqi police and security forces to take over when the u.s. troops depart, funding for our special inspectors general in iraq and afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and

properly managed implemental. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i give the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. berman: everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in congress will be undermined by virtue of what he's proposing. the speaker pro tempore: all members will suspend. members should bear in mind the official reporters of debate cannot be expected to transscribe two members simultaneously. members should not participate in debate by interjection and should not expect to have the reporters transcribe remarks that are uttered when not properly recognized. the chair must ask members to bear in mind the proper courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate especially in asking another to yield. it helps to foster the spirit of mutual commodity that elevates our deliberations

above mere argument. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. drier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend i very much appreciate his recognizing the opportunity i've had to recognize the assistance programs. and i must make it clear we are just beginning a process today, we are beginning a process today that will allow this house to work its will. and it's obvious, going to 2008 levels, 2008 levels is not going to gut all of the very important national security aspects that we have of foreign assistance programs. my friend knows very well, mr. speaker, that it's essential we get our fiscal house in order and this is the first step on a road towards doing just that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. govern: i am the final speaker on our side.

i would inquire if he has additional speakers? mr. drier: if the gentleman would like to close debate, i'll close on my side. mr. mcgovern: ouch time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. mcgovern: this is not how we should deal with the budget. transparency means knowing what the budget number is. i don't know why that's such a radical idea. accountability means everybody in this house should vote yes or no on whatever that number is and it shouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally determine that number. and this budget process that the republicans have put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process and sets a lousy precedent. mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. if the previous question is defeated, i will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the house passes this rule it will take up an amendment to exempt cuts in funding for the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. my republican colleagues said

they won't cut programs to protect our nation's security but the resolution itself doesn't even bother to define nonsecurity spending. and the definition i've heard from the other side of the aisle would not include the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. so i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials in the record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: a no vote wouldo lou the house to consider an amendment exempting cuts and funding to the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. an amendment that would ensure we do not sacrifice our nation's security in the post-9/11 world. i urge all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote no on the previous question so we can assure that we continue to protect this nation from terrorism. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the -- the gentleman from california. the gentleman is recognized. mr. drier: mr. speaker, every member of this institution, democrat and republican alike

knows full well the american people are hurting. we have an unemployment rate that is at 9.4%. we have, in my state of california, 12.5% unemployment rate. i see my friend mr. lewis here on the floor. in the m&m empire of california it's 15.5% the unemployment rate. people out there are making very tough decisions and the economic uncertainty that exists today is playing a big role in diminishing the kind of investment we need to create jobs. this resolution is a very simple one. it says that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. we shouldn't spend money we don't have. that's what we're saying as we begin this process. those are the decisions that families are making all across this country.

they're not spending money they don't have. and in fact we've seen, because of this economic downturn, lots of families today saving more than they have in the past because they don't want to get themselves in this position that the federal government is. we're going to have to make some tough choices around here. it's not going to be easy. no one is saying it's going to be easy. but this resolution we're going to debate tomorrow, h. recent 38 -- h. res.38 says we're going to 2008 levels or less because frankly, 2008 levels, as far as i'm concerned is too high and believe we need to cut back even more. now, we continue to hear this argument that we are going to decimate research in the very important diseases out there. we began the debate, as i said in the opening, not going there but we did go there. as i said, if you can't prioritize, you end up demonizing and creating this

great deal of fear that is out there, or the f.b.i. is going to close down if we go to 2008 spending levels. well, mr. speaker, obviously that's not the case. this institution is not about to undermine the federal bureau of investigation. but we do know that with adequate oversight, which is our constitutional responsibility, and focusing, yes, on those three things that the democrats and republicans alike say, waste, fraud and abuse, we will be able to rein this bethemeon. -- behemoth. again, it's going to be tough but this resolution is the first step in a two-year process to get our economy growing, create jobs, and to rein in the size and scope and reach of the federal government so that we can encourage individual initiative and responsibility. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. and tomorrow when we bring the

resolution h. res.38 to the floor we support this motion and i hope very much we'll have democrats joining with republicans for this very commonsense approach to do exactly what the 87 new members on our side of the aisle and i suspect even the nine new members on the democratic side of the aisle have come here to do and that is to rein in this wasteful government spending we have seen. and so with that, mr. >> the day begins with general speeches at 10:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tuesayday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to the congress.

coverage begins at 8:00 p.m., followed by the speech at 9:00 p.m., followed by the republican response, plus your phone calls and reaction. use our website for enhanced from ge to see tweetse fro members of congress. you can add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress, live on c-span 2. >> in a few moments, at today's white house briefing that includes questions about what the president will say in tomorrow night's state of the union address. and a few minutes, hear from a panel of federal officials on contracting in afghanistan. in three hours, we will uigher today's house debate on a role for a bill that would cut non security federal spending at 2008 levels -- we will re-air

today's house debate on a rule for a bill that could cut non security federal spending at 2008 levels. the house oversight and government reform committee holds its organizational meeting at 9:30 a.m., eastern. committee chairmen, republican isin, represents california. >> do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states foreign and domestic? >> the senate returns to work this week, including a new class of freshmen senators. learn more about them on line and follow their appearances with c-span's congressional chronicle. read transcripts of every house and senate session and find a full video archive of each member. at c-span.org/congress.

>> white house press secretary was asked numerous times today about tomorrow's state of the union speech. the 45 minute briefing began with a statement on the bombing in russia. >> before i get started, let me -- i want to read a brief statement from the president on the terrorist attack in moscow today. "i strongly condemn this outrageous act of terrorism against the russian people at the domodedovo airport. i want to express the solidarity of the american people with the russian people in the aftermath of this premeditated attack against innocent civilians. michelle and i offer our deepest condolences to the russian people, who have

suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism. we share your sorrow and a resolve to stand with you in our common fight against those who use terrorism for their political goals. our thoughts are with the families of the victims and we are praying for a successful recovery for all of those who were injured." to give you an update, the president was briefed on these events at 10:45 a.m. in the oval office by john brennan, separate and apart from his presidential daily briefing. so, with that -- >> on the attacks, would it be your initial sense that it would be the work of chechen rebels, as opposed to some group that might also be -- >> i'm not going to get into -- i don't think it would be a good idea for me to get into that. obviously we are continuing to gather facts, to talk with the russian government. we would extend any assistance that they might want, and officials here and throughout

our government will stay briefed throughout the day on it. >> and on the state of the union, your response to the comments by mcconnell and cantor yesterday, basically holding the line on any more spending? >> well, look, i think many of you will find this to be a semi-unsatisfying briefing, the fact that i am not, at noon on monday, going to talk or give a lot about what the president is going to say at 9:00 p.m. on tuesday. i will say that i think you'll hear the president, as we've discussed, speak -- spend most of his time talking about the economy, talking about the challenges that we face both in the short term in terms of doing whatever we can to help create jobs, in the medium and long term to continue working on issues like competitiveness and innovation, and ensuring that in the medium and the long term we get our fiscal house in order.

so i think this is -- we're not going to have a debate in washington about whether we need to make some changes and whether we need to control spending. hopefully, to have, a bipartisan discussion and work together on how we go about doing that.