california, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. waters: madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. maloney: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk which is in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: madam chair, i rise in support of my

amendment, the neighborhood stabilization program act, which will quantify the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the bill listing these numbers in every state so that it will be transparent exactly what the impact will be and not continuing this program that is needed. the neighborhood stabilization program is one of four programs that the -- my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to eliminate. and all of these programs in one way or another helped to stabilize neighborhoods and helped to provide affordable housing and keep people in their homes. economists have testified before our committee and other committees that housing is as much as 25% of our economy. so it's critical that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit of the families

benefiting from the housing but also for their neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for the states and for the overall economy. foreclosed properties lead to volatile housing prices and the deterioration of the community. the mayor of new york cited at a recent meeting of the delegation how important the neighborhood stabilization program has been to help the new york recover from the housing -- new york recover from the housing crisis. they said over 400 units were converted into rental housing. now, some of my colleagues say this is not important or should not be a priority but i can tell you it has been a lifesaving program, particularly to the families that are living there now and to their neighbors and to the housing prices in the neighbors where these housing units are

located. funds has also been used to assist multifamily buildings in distress and has provided long-term affordability for renters. it has also provided jobs. the number two priorities of most communities across this country are housing and jobs. and this program helps provide both. my amendment points out why the program is so desperately needed by listing through findings the number of vacant homes that could be eligible for funding by state. for example, in the home state of my good friend and colleague, mr. miller, california, there are over 92,000 homes that have been vacant for 90 or more days. in my state of new york there are over 16,000 homes that have been vacant for over 90 days. the amendment clarifies that by terminating the program vacant homes across the country cannot benefit from the neighborhood

stabilization fund that could rehab in some cases, demolish in some cases and redevelop in some cases. we've seen pictures on television of bulldozers plowing vacant homes under because they're pulling down the prices and the blight in neighborhoods. this is one program that i received phone calls, not just from the mayor in the city in which i serve but in cities across this country where they've expressed the importance of the program and helping them to stabilize and to recover from this financial crisis caused primarily from the subprime mortgages. the neighborhood stabilization program accomplishes the dual goal of ensent advising homeownership while -- incentivizing homeownership while helping neighborhoods hurt by foreclosures. and vacant foreclosed

properties have a very regular tif effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and on the property values of those homes in those neighborhoods. i believe this is an important amendment to highlight the potential housing stock in this country that neighborhood stabilization funds could help. to rehab, to preserve property values in communities across our country. i ask members to support my amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california, does the gentleman rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. miller: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: well, i know my good friend, mrs. maloney, has the best intentions on putting this amendment forward, but you are talking about the homes in each state vacant 90 days or for and could be eligible under

n.s.p. well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. entities are eligible for those moneys. they can buy about any home they want to. the other restriction on the program is that you can only earn up to 120% of the median income in the area to be qualified to buy the house. but it does not restrict the price of the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. they can buy virtually any home they want to. and that's one of the flaws in the bill. for example, you have to -- any home that's been vacated 90 days or more, a partner of mine and myself had four homes in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. the houses were in perfect condition. yet, they remained on the market over 90 days. so based on this encouragement, one of these groups, whether it be a city, a county, a private entity that's not affiliated

with government could have bought those houses and resold the houses far less than they paid for. that's the flaw with this program here. we're saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional findings to the bill listing all 50 states and the district of columbia in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each state that have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive funding from n.s.p. what you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be listed because there's not a dollar amount in the bill to say how much you can pay for a house. there's only a dollar amount to say how much a person can earn to buy the house. for example, if you live in hawaii, you can make up to $73,825.20 a year and qualify to buy a home. in california you can earn $68,416.80 a year and qualify to buy a home. it might be an $800,000 home

but you can qualify if they sell it cheap enough. in new jersey, $78,367. in massachusetts, $72,384. in utah, $77,044. alaska in $77,766. in new hampshire, $79,411. so the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower runs who are really struggling. i'm not saying people are not struggling in these income brackets. that's not what i mean. i don't want the american people to have the perception that we're trying to sell them to the lowest of income. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: yes. mr. frank: will the gentleman tell us what's the maximum number people should be eligible to buy a house under fannie or freddie mac? mr. miller: i was in the building industry in my early 20's and the most excitement you can see on a person's face

was when they bought a home and they were moving into that home and they thought about raising that family. i would love a country that every person in this country has the ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home. but in some fashion lenders have put people in positions to put them in homes that they could not afford. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: in just a second i will. mr. miller: in those homes in many cases the people lost those homes to foreclosures. and those people that were well-intentioned, that moved into homes they could not afford because the lender perhaps did not describe exactly or they thought the way the economy is going in three or four years the house will be worth 40% more and i will make a lot of money. the problem is the market went the other way as they did it in 1974 to 1981. and recently in 2007 to current, the markets slid. and then we're seeing -- we're pretending to go out and ask to do a survey and we're going to

list any home throughout the united states in separate subparagraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more that could be eligible. well, all of them could be eligible. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: yes. mr. frank: by my recollection, i was struck by those figures because the last i heard the gentleman and i were together in trying to establish 729,000 -- mr. miller: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time, mr. frank. what's specifically been said throughout this debate is that we're trying to help people at the lower runs which i have no problem with. what i'm saying there's not a restriction on the amount that could be paid for the house and there is no restriction on -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york. the gentlewoman from new york has 30 seconds remaining. mrs. maloney: the problem is the other side of the aisle wants to abolish four programs

that help people stay in their homes, help housing. they have no idea or no program to be helpful. they say it will be taxpayers' money but if they supported the democratic plan it would come out on an assessment of the banks. i understand the gentleman is introducing a bill and i would like to co-sponsor that. mr. frank: will the jo yield? mrs. maloney: absolutely. mr. frank: you could have -- up to $729,000. now he's worried. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. maloney: reclaiming my time. i'll place in the record a statement from the administration in support and a letter from mayors for support. the chair: all time for debate on the amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment from -- offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: madam chair, i call for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york will be post poped. -- postponed. it's now in order to consider en bloc amendments number 9 and 10 printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. castor: good afternoon, madam chair, i have an en bloc amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendments en bloc numbers 9 and 10 printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, madam chair, -- ms. castor: thank you, madam chair. it says 90 days after enactment

of this bill we will commence a government accountability office study to determine the impact of neighborhood stabilization rounds one, two and three. now, madam chair, i don't need a study to tell me that in my community neighborhood stabilization has provided terrific benefits. neighborhood stabilization in the tampa bay area in florida, a community that was very hard hit by predatory lending, subprime and the foreclosure crisis, neighborhood stabilization has given us the tools to create vital housing in the midst of this horrendous crisis and it has created jobs. i have to tell you, things have been tough in my neck of the woods and neighborhood stabilization has given neighborhoods and communities and nonprofit agencies a little bit of hope. property values in the tampa bay area have plummeted by over

40% since 2007. neighborhood stabilization has helped us to stop the bleeding. neighborhood stabilization has helped us protect our property values. and neighborhood stabilization has turned some of the worst abandoned and foreclosed homes that were causing blight all across our community enter rehabilitated properties. and here are just a few examples of what neighborhood stabilization has done in tampa and in hillsburg county. first, with the help of our local nonprofit partners in east tampa we have taken an abandoned, delap tated residential property and we are turning it into housing for 18 homeless female veterans and their families. if you come down to my neck of the woods, unfortunately you will see folks out on the street corner. we have a panhandling problem like never before, nothing i have ever seen in my lifetime.

it's hard to deal with. a lot of those are veterans and most of them are female veterans. so we have taken that money and plugged it into buying an abandoned, old residential property and now providing housing for those homeless veterans. we broke ground last fall, and let me tell you all of the construction workers, the architects, the engineers, they were there to thank us because they also needed the work. . we also breathe life in a downtown redevelopment mixed use initiative. years ago the tampa community tore down one of the worst public housing projects anywhere around. it was named central park village. thanks to neighborhood stablization, next week, we will break ground on the first residential piece of this and will provide affordable apartments to seniors. neighborhood stablization did that.

we did not have the funds and our local partners did not have the funds to continue on ta mixed use public-private partnership. and it gets even better because that mixed use project is going to create 4,000 construction jobs in an area that needs them and 1,000 permanent jobs once the new redevelopment is finished. third, throughout our community, we have targeted those ugly abandoned houses and did you flexes on the street or -- due flexes on the street. we put people to work and sold them or rented them. a renovated home can sometimes set off a chain reaction of home improvement throughout your neighborhood, and that is what we are seeing. the alternatives would be letting houses stay vacant and drag down property values in my community, even further, putting families back into these homes. our partners are returning them

to the fabric of the neighborhoods rather than just having them sit there or seeing them flipped by out of town investors. in addition to the tools and the thousands of jobs it has helped create, i would like you to take one step back and consider the modest investment enabled stablization has provided. overall, $7 billion over the past few years. i can't help but compare that to the $700 billion that was provided to wall street through the wall street bailout that i did not support because that was not directing the big banks to provide any help to our local communities. well, neighborhood stablization, this modest investment, 1% of the wall street bail outfunds now are providing greater stablization throughout our communities. i urge my colleague to support

my amendments and oppose h.r. 861. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: some of the arguments that the gentlelady made are heart wrenching. you hate to think about homeless people. veterans are suffering in this country, no doubt about it. veterans are coming back. some of them have problems from being on the front, combat. in our church every week, our pastor talks about that and you feel sorry for them. we talk about elderly, we talk about veterans, children, homeless, nothing in this bill prioritizes them in any fashion. there are groups that could be helped as a consequence of that and i understand that. but nothing prioritizes it. i'm going to accept the gentlelady's amendment because i have no problem trying to determine the economic impact of the neighborhood stablization.

i think it has been a huge impact on the economy because we have given away to date $6 billion of taxpayers' money on this program and i think we could have done a much better job at investing that money in another fashion and wouldn't have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs. but national association of home builders talk about the industry being out of work and all the building industry association members being out of work and trying to put them to work. we talk about a giveaway to banks. in tarp 1, we lent money to banks, yes, and paid it back with interests. freddie and faney, we are lending money to them, they are paying 10% interest on the money. to create this straw man on this, bank give away is false. fanny -- -- fannie mae and

fannie mae -- it's my time. they are paying 10% interest on the money. people who voted for this voted to give banks money. it was to stop a major run on the banks and stop this economy from plummetting and the administration and both sides of the aisle agreed it had to be done and the money was paid back and made money on it, shock. this money was given away and we will not be getting it back. i yield to mr. schweikert for 90 seconds. mr. schweikert: i'm pleased we are accepting this amendment because if we get an honest study from it, there could be interesting numbers but i hope it's an honest study that looks at from top to bottom and neighborhood stablization in the previous $6 billion, what crowding has done, what homeowners and investors found themselves with government.

be interesting to know. if we keep hearing the numbers, well, with government money, we created this, how many jobs were being created if they were private investors or families acquiring the same sort of properties. then we have to deal with the reality of it as we saw in the previous amendment and that amendment, it was claiming there was about 1 million foreclosed home. if we do the math with the remaining money, how much impact and will the study step up and say with the $6 billion that's out there acting like a revolving fund, five years from the beginning of this program, how is that money being used or is it now sitting in houses that are competing with other neighbors who are trying to sell theirs. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from

california. mr. miller: i yield to the gentlelady. i was not meaning to be rude. ms. castor: i thank my colleagues for agreeing to accept my amendments. my point on comparing neighborhood stablization to the wall street bailout was just to point out and i know both sides of the aisle were involved in the wall street bailout, a number of democrats worked to do that and i'm not here to criticize that, but just to compare the scale. $700 billion -- mr. miller: reclaim the balance of my time. ms. castor: 1% communities. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: reclaiming my time. i was going to allow for adequate time on that but it was not a giveaway but a loan and comparing $2350 billion in the first half -- $350 billion, a

giveaway. the chair: gentleman has 15 seconds. mr. frank: would the gentleman yield to me? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts will allow the gentleman from california his time. mr. miller: i think we are comparing things that have nothing to do before us. we can talk about wall street and banks, if anything it has helped banks and bought foreclosed property. add these straw men to the debate but should we give away taxpayer dollars. i say no. and i say aye on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 12-34 on which further proceedings were

postponed in the following order. amendment number 3 by mr. ellison of minnesota, amendment number 6 by ms. waters of california, amendment number 7 by ms. waters of california, amendment number 8 by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair will reduce the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 112-34 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison on which further proceedings were postponed and which the knows prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair of the committee of the whole in the state of the union reports that the committee has under -- has had under consideration the bill h.r. 89 -- 861 and pursuant to house resolution 170 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendments to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to rescind the third round of funding for the neighborhood stabilization program and to terminate the program. >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

members will please take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. braley of iowa moves to recommit the bill to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same to the house forthwith with the following amendment. in section 3 -- mr. braley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> mr. speaker, i yield a point of order against the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion is considered as read. a point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

the house will be in order. mr. braley: mr. speaker, this picture tells a story of why this amendment is so important. this isn't wall street. you don't see any hedge fund managers or investment bankers here. they're doing pretty well these days. this isn't the headquarter of b.p. most small towns are lucky to have a single convenient store and they're even luckier if that convenient store sells gasoline. this is a main street in my state of iowa. and there are far too many of these in communities in my state and in my district. and i guarantee you there are far too many of these in rural communities in your states. because while wall street and big corporations are doing fine, our rural communities and small towns are facing a real crisis. and the neighborhood stabilization program is making a real difference in rural america. i want to tell you about a woman who -- a woman from a small noun

my district. she's 23 years old. she only makes $22,000 a year working as a daycare -- at a daycare. she grew up and wants to raise her children there. and the national neighborhood stabilization program is helping her become a first time homeowner. now our amendment would simply take the money that has already been allocated for this program and prioritize it for a -- our rural communities so we can change the way that streets like this look. and so we can make sure that more moms can raise their kids in towns where they grew up. this amendment doesn't cost any money. it allows a mom to raise a child in her home community and our amendment will not kill this bill. it would simply give our rural communities the ability to weather the worst crisis they've faced in a generation. now, maybe our small towns or this young mom should incorporate as a bank, maybe

then they'd get the same kind of attention that we've given to wall street. because, folks, wall street is getting through this crisis. main streets are not. and it's time we answer this question. are we going to stand with wall street and big oil and corporate c.e.o.'s or are we going to stand up for small towns all across america that need our help now more than ever? and i'd like at this time to yield to my good friend from the state of iowa, congressman boswell. mr. boswell: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. and again i want to say this amendment does not kill the bill. i thank you for the opportunity to speak. republicans are put forth a bill that again forces our middle class and our working families to sacrifice, sacrifice and sacrifice. so they can continue to give away for big oil, billionaires

and corporations that outsource american jobs. as a former professional soldier, i approach our economy with a military eye to take the hill and get our economy going again and we need all of our troops behind us. in this case our troops are our workers, the middle class americans who must be healthy and armed with the tools to rebuild the economy, our camps are the communities that must have the resources to do just that. so why are our troops and communities in america being left behind? rural main streets in iowa have been devastated as republicans rewarded outsourcing, manufacturing plants like in my district, like maytag, all of you know who maytag is. they've been packed up and moved their jobs to mexico. many of you have similar situations. rural workers have lost jobs in ethanol, biodiesel, wind turbine plants and because we've given tax breaks to big oil while cutting investments in renewable energy. these communities have weathered crisis after crisis and as republicans defend wall street

speculators, taking away the markets we depend on, i urge my colleagues to say yes to rural america and the middle class by supporting this amendment to h.r. 861, rural america is not blue or red, rural america is simply hardworking communities that are already struggling to keep their american dream alive for their residents to live, work and believe in them. thank you and i yield back. . mr. braley: many people, rural america is a policy or a program. to us, it's where we came from. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: address the house for five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: reservation is withdrawn. mr. miller: very nice picture of a story front, not a picture of a home. why would you impose a terrible program on rural america that you don't want on usual and america? you have to say we have given away $6 billion of taxpayer monies and it will never come back to the federal government. we're saying let's preserve the last billion dollars. there is a huge lack of accountability in this program. the inspector general of h.u.d. has addressed multiple misuses and g.a.o. has questioned the tracking system. how many of you want to use your money to buy this house that chairman bachus has pointed out? nobody. but taxpayers, we are using your money. the biggest problem with this program is unfair allocation. rural america, you probably got ripped off in this whole process like everybody else did. where did the money go?

we spent billion dollars and we are saying the last billion dollars, let's save that for the taxpayers and use it for some beneficial purpose. where did the money go. let's see if it was fairly districted. l.a. county goss 23.6 billion. san bernandino got $33.2 billion. orange county, 5.1 million. a total of $68.9 million on hard-hit counties. let's say what did n government agencies get out there that are incorporated. neighborhood levending partners got $50 million. community builders incorporated, $78 million. last and housing service incorporated, 50 million and 137

million. now all of my counties got $68.9 million. community builders, $78.6. is that considered nonequitable. it doesn't make sense. $1.3 billion went to nongovernment agencies. now saudi arabia said i was raises because they got $137 million. they got 10% of all the funds given to nongovernment agencies ffment it was germans for affordable housing got $137 million i would oppose it. taxpayers understand clearly it did not prevent one forecast in this entire country. not one person got to keep their home because we spent $6 billion. in fact, imagine a family who owned a home, maybe their mom

and pop got in trouble and couldn't make the payments for the last three years and have been unable to repair the plumbing or the oven that wasn't working, a couple of windows were broke out, house needed painting and had to let their house go back to the lender. to watch a nonprofit governmental agency fix that home up and sell it to somebody else, how would you feel that no one came to your aid when you were losing your home but your tax dollars were used to buy that home and give it to somebody else. the they made the argument, look at all the money we have given to bail out the banks. 99% of the money we lent to banks has been paid back. and guess what, we made $20 billion on it but gave 7 away to this program. yes, we made up 20 but a net 13 by lending the money that you say bailed out the banks, it was

a loan. this program does nothing to say that we are going to send you a check and you never send us a dime back. and the sweet part is you can pay any amount of money you want for the house. it's almost impossible to violate the terms of this deal, because there are no conditions. you can pay $800,000 for a house and sell it for $50. the requirement is whatever you pay for the house, plus whatever you pay to rehabilitate the house, you have to sell it for less and doesn't say who you have to sell it to. a nonprofit? not saying they would, could sell it to a cousin and they could sell it legitimately for $20,000 and guess what? you have not violated the terms and you have not broken the law. and when you sell the house, if you sell it, you can take the money and recycle it again and take this money and do a private venture with a private group, splitting profits and falling

into the conditions of how you sell the house and buy the house and money gets split. very few restrictions. this is a terrible bill and encourage a no vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. for what purpose does the

the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 174, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1076, to prohibit federal funding of national

public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio contacts. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. clyburn: mr. speaker, i rise today to ask for unanimous consent -- mr. clay: mr. speaker, i rise today to ask for unanimous consent to have my name removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 979 that would amend chapter 89 of title 5, u.s. code, to ensure program integrity, transparency and cost savings in the pricing and contracting of prescription drug benefits under the federal employers' health benefits act. thank you, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain one-minutes, after the house has

maintained order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise to recognize an extraordinary school in my south florida community, the miami help brew -- hebrew community. the academy was the first jewish day school in the southeastern united states. the hebrew academy has grown to over 600 students and served the

educational and religious needs of our jewish families and students. in addition to a general education, the students of miami hebrew academy are taught the benefits of a strong israeli-american partnership and holocaust education. i cannot thank them enough for its leadership in both the general and spiritual education of our south florida community. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized. ms. berkley: i rise today to express my sympathy to the people of japan as they are being threatend and i reject calls for more wasteful spending, $100 billion more of wasteful spending on the yucca mountain project in response to

japan's nuclear tragedy. dumping radioactive waste located inside a volcanic zone 90 miles outside of las vegas will only increase the danger to americans from radioactive wastes produced at nuclear power plants. they call for waste shipments to be unleashed on communities across the united states that are unprepared to deal with the death and destruction that this radioactive garbage can cause, whether it's a tragic accident involving a trainor a truck carrying nuclear waste or a 9/11 terrorist attack on one shipment, the risk to human lives and billions in economic damage are staggering. let's start focusing on securing the waste at existing sites stored in bunkers geared to keep this material isolated from our fellow citizens. what we are witnessing in japan,

these pro-dump forces should be -- concerns as safeguarding lives above concerns above profits. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute . it's with a heavy heart i come to mourn the passing of a pioneer in the farm broadcasting industry. as the only ag reporter in congress, i feel compelled to honor him. dairy's influence was far reaching and it will be felt for years to come. while many overlook the importance of ag reporting, he prided himself as speaking to the farmer for the farmer from the farm. he informed and educated rural

america was unparled and inspiration to the farmers and farm broadcasters. there is a hole in the agriculture community but we can take what dairy taught us by continuing the education of agriculture reporting. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? -- massachusetts, excuse me. >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from is recognized. >> my district is the home of the largest population of irish americans in the nation. my grands parents came from ireland at the turn of the 20th century. when they came here, they had their worldly possessions in one trunk. they had eight children, five of whom served in our armed forces

and one gave his life to this country. so many of my friends and neighbors share stories of sacrifice and dedication to family and new country. no wonder that irish americans have embodied loyalty, community and hard work in the fabric of our nation. as they say, everyone is irish on st. patrick's day. let's embody the challenges that face our country. may the road rise up to meet you, may the sunshine warm upon your face, the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again, may god hold you in the palm of his hand. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, nine months after the administration sent 1,200 national guard troops to the border, washington has decided it's time for the troops

to withdraw. in my opinion, this decision is dangerously irresponsible. violence has spilled into the united states from mexico. the counties are packed with foreign nationals charged with serious crimes in the united states and according to the g.a.o., 56% of the border is wide open and instead of fulfilling their duty to protect the people of this country, washington orders retreat. it defies logic that we would remove the national guard from the border. if anything, we need more troops on the ground. doesn't washington know that the border is a war zone? it puts americans at risk with cross-border crime. this is a national security issue that cannot be ignored. it is the first duty of the federal government to protect the people and the homeland, not order retreat. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i would like to rise this evening on behalf of the people of the state of ohio to offer our great heartfelt support to our brothers and sisters in the nation of japan. every person in the world, really, is bound with the -- with compassion and with hope that we can find a way to help heal the great damage that is occurring there and has occurred. i know that we have over naval vessels that have moved across the pacific to offer assistance and nations around the world will help the nation of japan. my message is one of hope to the japanese people. some that i have worked in my career, so many educational leaders and just the people of

japan who have been so kind to us on our visits there. i hope they know that japanese americans living in our country and ohio's 9th district are bound with them in an attitude of rebuilding and healing, we offer a very special hello to the valiant people of japan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. nadler of new york after 1:00 p.m. on wednesday, march 16 and for the balance of the week and mr. labrador for today and the balance of the week. without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and i do echo the comments of my friend, ms. kaptur from ohio, our hearts do go out and our prayers do go out for the people in japan, difficult time there. at the same time, there are so many people struggling in this country. there are so many people out of work and although in the last week, gas prices have come down some, sadly in the wake of the japan tragedy, but there's no doubt speculation will eventually will go back up unless this administration stops ceases, desists inputting our natural resources off limits for our use to help our economy to

create jobs for our citizens. certainly other countries welcome the pigheadedness of those in charge of this administration who are determined to keep us from using our own resources. we had a hearing today in the natural resources committee and chairman of the railroad commission, regulating body in texas, his name is jones, had indicated -- and i was not aware of exactly what she said, but apparently this administration is making a big deal of reopening and granting a permit, actually was not a new permit. this is something that had been pending, that had been drk was released and not a new permit.

and how ironic. the ultimate irony that this administration's first supposed new permit would be to a drilling project in which british petroleum, bp are the major investor. how about that? this administration simply cannot get away from trying to help their buddies at bp. it was interesting to hear our friends from across the aisle from massachusetts in our hearing today indicate that in the european waters off their coasts, they have the same drillers, the same international companies, and yet the safety records over there are much better than they are in the gulf of mexico.

quite interesting, because the only difference is in this country, the administration is run by those that help out, president obama, those who help out president obama and they have sadly looked the other way while bp wracked up safety violation after safety violation and in the men time the other major drillers had one, two violations over the same period, bp racked up dozens of violations and then hundreds of violations until they had reached 800 safety violations. but did this administration rein

them in? no. and when this administration could not bring itself to really come down on bp after the disastrous blowout at the deepwater horizon, that bp executives were negotiating and working out the day, the time, the place that they would come out in support of president obama's and our democratic colleagues' great pride and joy called the cap and trade bill. i don't want to offend people by calling it the crap and trade bill but we'll call it the cap and trade bill instead of calling what it really is. but they were negotiating and coming out to be the administration's one bill energy company that embraced this whole cap and trade bill.

why? because they had special things they were getting out of it with regard to carbon sales. they were coming on board. well, of course, this administration did not want to come down on bp when they were going to be the big energy company that came out and said, yeah, we're for this cap and trade bill. we are going to get rich off of it even though americans are going to be paying out the nose for energy when this thing kicks in and americans will be losing jobs right and left, but boy, we'll be making money because we are cronies with the administration, but they were going to come out in support and the administration didn't want to shut them down. they were hoping that what bp was telling them, not really being that big a deal would be true, so of course the president didn't fly down there

immediately like he said about president bush after katrina. this president waited and waited and didn't want to come down on bp because those were his buddies that were going to help him get across the finish line of the cap and trade bill. . they were the guys that had safety violation after safety violation. so it gets difficult, we hear those across the aisle talk about cronyism. when we know that when you really ext facts where the cronyism lies. we heard people talk about how offensive it was that there were offshore leases that had language removed from the pricing from which royalties were paid that cost the united states treasury billions of dollars in royalties. that rightfully would have been the u.s. treasury's, except that

our hearings indicated that there was actually at least one or two people in the clinton administration who had it pointed out, hey, hey, we need this language in here that allows us to get the amount of royalties we should but they were instructed, we're leaving it out here. when we had a hearing and a friend of clinton administration, the former appointee of the clinton administration, had done his research and i asked him why he had not questioned those people who had ordered that that language be kept out, he said, well, they left the administration. so we really can't question them , they're in the private sector now. well, you do a little further research and you find out the private sector that these people that cost the united states

government billions of dollars and made billions of dollars for the cronies of the democrats in the big oil actually had gone to work for british petroleum. how about that? so to have heard the former clinton appointee who did the investigation and said, well, i couldn't possibly question these people because they left and they're in the private sector, i was surprised because if someone intentionally and knowingly defrauds the government it's a crime. and the f.b.i. doesn't have any trouble normally going after folks, subpoenaing records, they know how to do it. they do it quite well. but they didn't go after these individuals because, well, they

left government service and this one in particular had gone to work for british petroleum, how about that? so imagine our surprise in 2009 when we find out that the person who was most knowledgeable about the language being taken out that cost us billions of dollars and had gone to work for british petroleum had now been brought on to the obama administration to supervise these offshore leases. how about that? or to quote our friends from "saturday night live," what's up with that? they cost the country billions of dollars, went to work for british petroleum and then you bring them back on and put them in charge of the offshore leases? then we find out that those who

worked for the interior department, the offshore rig inspectors, who stand between this country and disastrous problems off the coast that are man-made, were the ones within the bureau of land management that were allowed to unionize. well, that sounds kind of strange because, you know, union negotiations normally you go back to the inception of unions, it was to overcome issues of corporate greed. it didn't seem to fit here because here were people that were supposed to stand between our nation and man-made disasters off our coast and they were allowed to unionize because we know unions, they'll negotiate, oops, these folks can't work too many hours, can't work too many hours in you is

session, you need to do this, can't go this way. there are all kinds of things negotiated. it would be like negotiating a union contract on behalf of the military soldiers. you can't yone overwork them, you can't expect them to work too late in the evening, travel too much. when people are standing between us and disaster it just is not appropriate to have contracts negotiated in a union manner because they stand between us and disaster. it's not appropriate for the people in the military and it's not appropriate for offshore rig inspectors. if they have to work extra hours , they have to travel extra, they have to do some task to ensure that our country does not get devastated because of man-made negligence, disaster

off our coast, they'll have to do that job and if they don't like it, go to work for the private sector. that is the way it was supposed to be. not to have unions organize people who stand between us and disaster. because if you go back to the founding, the founders anticipated and some of them wrote this their letters and their diaries that we had within our grasp, they indicated, the chance to do what philosophers had only dreamed about, to govern ourselves. we can understand a need for union collective bargaining, to overcome corporate greed in cases where it's occurred, but to need unions to extort things

from the government that's supposed to be we the people in a democratic republic, offshore inspectors standing between us and disaster and they get to have a bargaining session where, gee, we don't want them to work too many hours. even if it meant saving america, saving thousands of jobs. in the hearing where we heard from the director of land management, it was over an old system. when i ask what are the checks and balances since you have these inspectors, these offshore rig inspectors unionized, what are the checks and balances that protect us from disaster?

it should be these offshore inspectors so how do you ensure that the allegations that we read and have been hearing that some of the administration's offshore inspectors had been bribed, had been given perks to look the other way with safety violations and they'd done so, we'd read allegations of that kind of thing, so what is it that protects us and ensures there are checks and balances to make sure offshore inspectors are not bribed, are not given things to make them look the other way and the director indicated, they do have a solid system of checks and balances for such offshore inspectors. they send them out in teams of two people at a time. that way we could rest assured that if one inspector were subjected to some type of bribe

or perk, something to look the other way, the other inspector would report them, would refuse to accept the bribe or the perk and looking the other way, and so we could rest assured we were protected. apparently she was not aware that i was aware that the last two-person team of inspectorers that went out -- inspectors that went out, were sent by this administration out to the deepwater horizon before the disastrous blowout, was a father and son unionized inspection team. that's who was sent out to stand between us and disaster. now there are some disasters like earthquakes, like tsunamis that insurance companies call

acts of god. i still do too. i don't believe that god causes those things to happen to punish people, i think he has the power to do so. but we do have the power to build and to inspect and to prepare for disasters so that we can mitigate and minimize damages after such things occur. but you can't very well mitigate and minimize when you're allowing the kind of abuses that have gone on from this administration with the cronies in big oil like british petroleum. and it's interesting to have heard today friend as i cross the aisle trying to -- friends across the aisle trying to wrap

the british petroleum around the republicans' neck as an albatross when actually the group that is protected, british petroleum, over and over has allowed them to continue to drill and when this administration finally got around to granting a new permit that really wasn't new after all, it happens to be to their cronies, their buddies, good old crony capitalism, where b.p. is a major investor. how about that? mother hen, what's up with that? b.p. gets the latest right to drill in the gulf when others have lost thousands of jobs, families have been left destitute and that means not just that the workers who work on those oil rigs have been hurt, their families have been hurt, and then all the places where they did business have been hurt, the restaurants, clothing stores, everybody who

did business with those have been suffering because this administration did not punish the company responsible for nearly 800 safety violations, it punished all those who were not their cronies. and how ironic that the biggest financial supporter of this administration and democratic politics and george sorros had as his biggest individual investment in brazilian drilling, oil and gas. how ironic that when this administration granted a $2 billion loan from the united states of money we don't have, over 40 cents of every dollar of that $2 billion that we have to borrow and pay interest on, we have loaned it to brazil to do offshore drilling that we won't

allow here, oh, but by the way, that helps the democrats' biggest supporter financially, george sorros, with his biggest individual investment, so therefore it's ok to drill off the coast of brazil with money borrowed from america at low interest rates that we have to borrow from other countries at a different interest rate. that's just astounding. and then we have calls to eliminate the method of -- that has produced over 100 years, perhaps 200 years, of natural gas reserves. we've been provided information that indicates that if all of the 18 wheelers in america started utilizing natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel then we would cut our dependency

on those who hate us by 50%. but, no, we're not going to do that. in fact, there are measures being pushed by this administration and the e.p.a. to eliminate our ability to utilize over 100, 00 years of natural gas that -- 200 years of natural gas that could provide our electricity, even cutting the need for more nuclear power plants. it could be of tremendous assistance in cutting our reliance on foreign oil and this administration wants to eliminate that ability. it makes no sense. our hearts go out to japan for the decimation that's occurred, the loss of life and livelihoods and this administration has expressed that so eloquently, but not so for this administration's

actual activities to help the lives and livelihoods in the gulf coast area of those who this administration didn't save their job they cost them their job. they cost them their livelihoods. they cost them -- caused gasoline prices to go up because we will not help ourselves. we were told when gasoline reached $4 a gallon that probably 25% or more of that was speculation. well, when speculators see that we're doing nothing to help ourselves with our own energy needs and in fact we're making it more and more difficult to produce our own oil, gas, natural resources to take care of ourselves, and instead are going deeper and deeper in debt

to countries that don't like us, thank goodness we're friends with canada and they're helpful in our energy needs. but we're funding some of the very terrorism we're concerned about in the middle east. because we refuse to use our own natural resources. i was told by a chinese gentleman he thought he'd figured out what our energy policy was because often the chinese, they look farsighted they look down the road, they try to examine issues and policies in a farsighted manner generations down the road when we here in america sometimes have a hard time looking at what we're going to do tonight. certainly tomorrow is a stretch. but anyway, this chinese gentleman said, i think we figured out what you are doing. you continue constantly to put your own natural resources off

limits, and that forces the rest of the world to use all of their natural resources, and then eventually everyone will have used their natural resources but you, and then you'll be the only one with natural resources, you'll still be the superpow and you'll still be the superdom nant -- super dominant country in the world because everyone elses resources will be used up and you'll still have yours. i told him, i wish i could say, you caught us, that's our plan. everybody else use up our natural resources but we haven't been that strategic in our thinking. no. we're just having people say, it may devastate the economy, obviously it is, it does, when you put your natural resources off limits, but they claim that will cey the environment, not understanding that when you

devastate an economy and people are losing their jobs and they can't pay their bills, they're not concerned about the environment. they're concerned about getting by biand just living. and it's only when you have a vie brapt economy like we did have that you have a country where we're concerned about pollution of air and water and we rein it in. instead, policies of this administration are sending more and more jobs overseas where they pollute four to 10 times more than we do doing the same job and yet that pollution goes into the same atmosphere and often floats over into our country. mercury, toxic materials come floating up because we ran those manufacturers off thinking we were doing some good for the economy and for the environment an we were hurting both. that's not the way it works

when you have natural resources, when you have been so richly blessed as we have in this country with so many resources, you're expected to be good stewards, use those resources wisely, but don't be an idiot and not use them. we've been blessed with them, use them, help the environment, help the economy, and you help the world. and as a -- as i mentioned here before, but i've not forgotten, an african a west african told me last year when i was over in west africa that they were all excited when we elected an african-american as president, but they had seen this president's policies weakening america and he asked me to make sure that people here

understood that when we weaken or allow america to grow weaker, we hurt the peace-loving people around the world, particularly christians, who want to live in peace. because he said, when you allow the united states to get weaker, we don't have hope of anyone coming to our rescue when people come after us. you're our hope in this world. please tell your friends and congress -- your friends in congress and in the administration, don't keep weakening your country. you're hurting those who hope and want peace around the world. we owe it to ourselves. we owe it to all of those who want peace around the world and count on us to act responsibly. now, i know the obama

administration, those in the superior department have said, gee, we are going to not be allowing these risky ventures in the gulf of mexico, yet they turn around and give the most unconscionable violator of safety regulations to be the major investor in the per met they just released and what about these major oil companies that keep being demonized? a moratorium in the gulf has doesed -- caused many of them to move rigs to other countries. they won't be back for a number of years, if at all. we're costing ourselves thousands of jobs and forcing ourselves to send more money to countries that hate our guts. and what about those who are

unable to just move because they're international big companies? the independent oil companies, of which we have numerous in texas. and in louisiana. other gulf states. they can't just take off and go to brazil or other countries. they go out of business. they've got nowhere else to go. because this administration is putting them and those they hire and those they buy for out of -- buy from out of business. it makes no sense to keep shooting ourselves in the foot and hurting those who rely on us. now, we've had a temporary cessation in the explosion in gas prices. there is a chance here that the

administration will take advantage of it and quit running off more jobs with more regulations and continuing a -- an actual moratorium in fact on offshore drilling. if the administration will take advantage of this time out and say, you know what, we've seen the light, we've heard the hue and cry from across america about expensive gas prices, we've heard the hue and cry about 100-plus years of natural gas, so we're going to encourage cars or 18 wheelers to start utilizing natural gas for their fuel. it does not produce carbon monoxide, which truly is poisonous and dangerous to human life. and so it's a good idea. my friend across the aisle, dan boren, has a great bill. and i'm hoping that the house

will move it and the senate will take it up and the president will sign it. and we can help ourselves get off such incredible reliance on foreign oil. it's time to start helping ourselves. it's time for people to stop helping those simply because they have helped them get elected. it is time for people here in washington to follow our oath, protect our country, and that includes by helping create a strong economy. that means like doctors who have taken the oath to do no harm, we should take the same oath. first do no harm. quit trying to force people out of business because you don't

like them. once we do that, we'll be on the road to a greater economy than this nation has ever experienced. now, i want to finish up, i was given a book of historical nature called "mr. jones meet the master." it has sermons and prayers of peter marshall in his time as chaplain of the united states senate in the 1940's and it's got some wonderful material in here and i would just like to finish my time by reading a prayer by the chaplain of the u.s. senate as he prayed it in the u.s. senate. chaplain -- senate chaplain peter marshall prayed these words in the u.s. senate, our

father in heaven, give us the long view of our work and our world. help us to see that it is better to fail in a cause that will ultimately succeed than to succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail. may thy will be done here and may thy program be carried out above party and personality beyond time and circumstance, for the good of america and the peace of the world. through jesus christ our lord, amen. that was the prayer of chaplain peter marshall during his time as chaplain of the united states senate. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. i claim this time on maff of -- -- on behalf of --

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, my name is keith ellison, i claim time on behalf of the progressive caucus. i want to thank you, mr. speaker, for providing the time so ke we cap share our views and opinions about the world we live in and the importance of congress being responsive to the american people. tonight, i'm here on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus a caucus in the united states congress, 83 members strong, who can be counted on to stand up for peace, as opposed to war. who can be counted on to stand up for middle class people, economic justice and a fair distribution of our nation's resources, who can be counted on to stand up for civil and human right who believe that color, culture, sexual orientation and things like this are not important as it relates to the worth and merit

of a human being. we can be counted on to stand up for these ideas to make our country great. every great movement in our country, the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, whether it was the right to expand the vote to 18-year-olds, whether it was the fight to end slavery or support the rights of working people on the job, including our public employees so imperiled today, it is progressive who have made these struggles, it's conservatives who fought progress, fought against ending slavery, fought against integration, fought against women's rights, always the conservatives have been the ones that are against moving our country forward and they are today again system of we in the -- we are the progressive caucus and we're proud to be members of the congress and are proud to stand up an articulate a people-focused, american-focused agenda we know and believe will be to the benefit of the american people. we are the progressive

congressional caucus and we are proud to be part of the congress standing up for the american people and tonight i'm here to talk about the progressive message, the message we're going to share tonight is protecting the american dream. protect the american dream. stopping corporate tax cheats and having a sane budget. that's what we want to talk about tonight. protecting the american dream. what's the american dream? the american dream is the dream, not the fantasy, but the dream that if you work hard and you live life by the rules that you'll be able to be successful in america. that you'll be able to get a job, go to school, that if you live long enough and are blessed to do so that you will be able to retire with social security and medicare, that your children and grandchildren will be able to give -- get a quality education at a public school if they want to and that no matter what color they are, no matter

what culture they are, no matter what rng they are, they're welcome but a -- religion they are, they're welcome because americans are americans are americans. that's the american dream. this is a dream shared by people who go back 14 generations in america, like my family does, or people who are brand new arrivals in america, the newest person who just got their green card or just got their citizenship sworn in, just got naturalized yesterday. the american dream. this is a dream we're talking about. now i believe that the conservatives in this body have another kind of dream. their dream based on the policies that they pursue is to get the rights of workers away from them. they're all applauding what happened in wisconsin. so that on the work force, in workplace you got no democracy, no say so on what happens to you. they want to have us working for china wages, they want us competing with the people in the third world and they want to drive wages down so that we can

be price competitive with people who basically don't make anything. they want to have a tax code that allows the richest of the richest to keep their money and not contribute to society and push the expenses of society onto the working and middle class people. they want to have -- they envision a society where you have a tiny elite and a vast number of americans who are desperate and will work for anything because they will have gotten rid of the social safety net that we as a society come together and put in place. they want to get rid of liheap which is home heating oil, get rid of pell grants which help our students from moderate and low incomes to get a chance to get ahead, get rid of foreclosure mitigation programs so that americans can try and keep their home, get rid of all this stuff that helps people and just say, yeah, you can work but you better work for whatever the big boss pays you and you can't

have a union and, you know, if you're lucky enough to be the among -- to be among the top 1% then life's going to be good. this is the progressive message, that's what we're here to talk about today. the american dream. but the dream i'm talking about is rooted in the pledge of allegiance. i got to confess to you, mr. speaker, i love coming here to say the pledge of allegiance. whenever i'm privileged enough to be able to be on the house floor at 10:00 a.m. or 12:00, whenever we open, i always feel good about saying the pledge of allegiance. i teach it to my children, the pledge of allegiance. and my favorite part of it and of course i love the whole thing but my favorite part of it is when we say liberty and justice for all. i love that part of this. for all. now, see, the conservatives in this body, they like to talk about liberty and when they talk about liberty they're not talking about a woman's right to

choose because that's liberty, they're not talking about the freedom of worship to be muslim, christian, jewish, no religion at all, they don't believe in that. they believe only one way to seek the divine and they get more radical with it every single day. they don't believe in liberties like that. they don't believe you should be able to say whatever you want to say, they don't necessarily believe in the liberties that i'm talking, they believe in property rights. that's the liberty they talk about. they mean that you ought to be able to own as much as you want and if you can buy the whole state of texas, oklahoma or minnesota and you got the money for it, you ought to be able to do it. that's what they're talking about. they're talking about property, they're talking about -- now, nibble property rights, too. i'm a very firm believer that if you -- that you ought to own your home, you ought to own your business, you ought to be able to have some things that are yours in there. not for the government to control.

i share that belief with them, not to the extreme they believe, it but i do believe that there is an important role for property rights and i also believe that there's a right for personal liberties too. and they're not so hot about that. but it seems like they end the whole discussion after and justice for all. they're ok with the liberty part, as long as it's property rights, but they're against the and justice for all. because it's and justice, not or justice, and justice. justice has to do with treating people equally, all colors, all cultures, all faiths, justice means that you marry who you want to marry in america, it's not the government's business. justice means treating people with fairness, that's what it means. justice in the economic spear means that all of us -- sphere means that awful us have to share the expense of the burden with of this great country of ours and that none of us can

reap all the goodies of being in america but don't have to pay anything when it comes to footing the bill. that's justice. justice. now on this last part, in some ways it's the best part, for all. for everyone. last week we had some hearings in the homeland security committee where one particular religious group was pointed out for persecution, actually, that was a sad day. for all, though. america's about for all. for everybody. all americans. of whatever faith group. of whatever color, of whatever -- rural or urban, straight, gay, awful us. liberty and justice for all. it ought to make you feel good and when you think about liberty this means you can do what you want to do. my conservative friends think it only means property. but it really means property or

personal liberty. justice means we treat people fairly in america. you've got a right to a fair trial even if you're accused of a crime, we can't take your liberty and your justice away or your money or -- until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, justice. that we have a fourth amendment that says the government has to have a reasonable basis and has to get a warrant before they go snooping on you. that's just justice. justice, right to a lawyer. these things are important. we don't give up on justice even if you are a person accused of something really bad and it looks like you really did it. still you get justice in this america i love so much. and it's for all. everybody. we have no exceptions. it seemed like some of my friends on the conservative side of this body would have and liberty and justice for all except gays, muslims and

immigrants. that's what it seems like their opinion is, that's how they behave, anyway. anyway, i'm just going to leave it up there for a moment. because i'm going to refer to it. but i want to say, the fact is that democrats aren't afraid to stand up for the middle class. we're not afraid to say that americans ought to be, if you're really ready to work hard, you ought to be able to get a piece of that american dream. if you're ready to study hard we ought to do something to make sure that you can go to school and get a quality education. and the government, the american government has a certain responsibility to help make sure that's there for you. one of the big debates we're having in congress now, mr. speaker, is simply this, on the one side we have people on this side of the aisle and they're under the impression that the government can't do anything for you, shouldn't do anything to help you out. and on the other side we believe

in mixed government, yes, the government should be there for you, but you should be able to do -- i mean, of course you have liberty and the private sector and a mixture with the public sector together. they say the private sector, we say private and public sector. this is the debate going on in congress right now. and when i think about the things that we worked on today, they wanted to get rid of all the foreclosure mitigation programs, america, four million foreclosures and perhaps seven million before it's all done and we literally voted on the house floor today that all those people can just let the market deal with their problem. that's what -- now, we didn't let the market deal with its problems when they came here and asked for a $700 billion for wall street. we didn't let the market deal with them. they get some socialism when they are in a jam. but what really happened is that when that bailout happened to

those banks and republicans voted for it, democrats, too, i voted for it, full disclosure, what happened is we said, look, you've been irresponsible, you've done the wrong thing. you're like a person who's been smoking cigarettes in bed. you're like a person who's been drinking and got busted and you're in jail. and like that person who smoked in bed your house burned down but i can't run out and lecture you about how smoking in sbed wrong, i got to go get some water and put the fire out because the fire you started could burn my house down if i don't do something and just like that friend who got drunk and was out, you call me up at 2:00 in the morning and say, man, i'm really wasted, yeah, i'm going to tell you off and tell you how wrong you are, but i'm going to get out of bed and pick you up because i don't want you to get in the car and hurt yourself or hurt somebody else. so, yeah, i voted for the bailout. i voted for the bailout because if wall street went down it was going to take the rest of us

with it. but the point is, they -- under the bush administration they asked to us step up and they asked all of america and this is representative democracy, we represent our districts, and they asked the american people through us as their representatives to say, could you please help wall street out? they were very irresponsible, but, you know, if we don't help them, we're all going to suffer, so can you help them? and the american people through us, their representatives, came up with the majority said thank said, ok, we'll help, we don't want to go through this again, we want our money back, we got rules that we're going to impose. but we'll help. an guess what? today we pretty much are going to get all that money buck -- back. but when the american people needed a hand, as soon as the republican caucus got in the majority, they started tearing down all the foreclosure mitigation programs. this is a sad day and it's wrong. it's morally reprehensible and i'm sad they did it, i fought against it, voted against it

every time i could. but, you know, we go by the rules and the rules are the majority decides. there's another election coming up, mr. speaker. anyway, there's two things that should be pointed out about the republican caucus. they say two things, two things that don't make much sense, well, they say a lot of things that don't make much sense, but they say two things in particular. one is that they want -- they're fighting for jobs. they're not fighting for jobs because if they were fighting for jobs you'd see them introduce at least one jobs bill. we've been here for 11 weeks, they have introduced exactly zero job bills. none. i know people listening, mr. speaker, might say, well, maybe, i'm sure they introduced at least one or two, no, check it. none. they have introduced none. absolutely none. they have introduced no bills for a job. in fact, they introduced these spending cuts that are going to

cut jobs. we showed today the neighborhood stabilization program which they cut and voted to eliminate today , offered 100,000 jobs across america. one of those people was looking forward to that job so they could, you know, put groceries on the table, pay their rent, take care of business. but we cut that program out and they're all fine with that. the budget they introduced, h.r. 1, h.r. 1, that bill, experts, even conservative economists, say will cut 700,000 jobs. they're not even embarrassed about it. it's amazing. now then they also said, oh, we got to cut it, we got to cut it because you know what? we got this enormous debt and we don't want to put this debt, they always say this, on our children and grandchildren. they always say it. know what they're about to say

once they start saying it. we're broke, we can't put this debt on our children and grandchildren. you know what? america's not broke. america's the biggest economy in the world. as a matter of fact this economy is three times bigger than the chinese economy. you wouldn't know that listening to them because they're always running around like chicken little, oh, my god, the sky's falling, the sky's falling, america's got doom and gloom. well, i don't believe america's doom and gloom. i believe the best days of this country are yet to come. and i think that we have to stop all this crying and we've got to understand that we have to grow ourselves out of this deficit, not just cut everything so that we get rid of the social safety net that people rely on in order to climb up the latter -- ladder to the middle class. that's right, mr. speaker, we can't allow that to happen. there are two things republicans say that are wrong. they are, one, not about jobs. if they were, they'd have

introduced at least one jobs bill. they're not about cutting the deficit, if they were they wouldn't have forced poth because ma into this bargain where they extended tax cutters in richest and -- extended all the tax cut which is cost this country $858 billion. and they forced them into that bargain all so that we could extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work because of republican mismanagement of the economy. this is the reality. they say they're about the deficit. when we try to do anything to get more revenue in, they're against it. they want to extend tax cutters in richest americans and want to make sure -- $858 billion goes right out the door. if we would just let those tax cuts expire, it would have went down to the rates when bill clinton was in office yusm know what, we had a booming economy

then because democrats are just better at managing money than the republicans are. during the bush year we had slow job growth, we had very abysmal job growth, middle class people had flat pay, didn't have any increases. rich people had huge, precipitous growth in their income. it's amazing how much income the rich got during the bush administration, and i'll never forget that at a big fundraiser george bush was having, he was talking to a body of people at an $800 a plate dinner and the president said, some people call you the elite, i call you my base. you know what, he wasn't lying when he said that. he went into office and he took care of those people too. so they're not really about deficits. if they were, you know if we didn't extend any tax cut, we would eliminate the deficit in

four years. i'm for that, i'll sign up for that. if we did not extend, excuse me, i misspoke. if we did not extend any tax cuts and let them all expire, the deficit would be wiped out in four years. but you know, the republicans aren't serious about deficit reduction so they would never do that so they're in the serious about job, not serious about deficit reduction. ill tell you what they're serious about. they are absolutely serious about giving the richest americans as much as they possibly can. that's what they're serious about. they're serious about giving the richest americans as much as they can, and they're serious about depriving lower income and working class americans of a social safety net. they're serious about those two things but they're not serious about jobs or deficit reduction. but we in the progressive caucus are serious about liberty and justice for all.

i really like this board so i hate to take it down, but i'll put it back up. now i just said that the republicans, conservatives, are absolutely not about deficit reduction, really, they're really about cutting out the social safety net, cutting out aid for student, cutting out aid for poor people who need heat in our northern climates. they're for that kind of stuff. they're for cutting out head start. and what they do is they extend these bush tax cuts, then they say oh, we don't have any money. and then they say, an the only way we can solve the deficit is through cuts. so you, grandma, you sonny boy who is in school you little kid who is in head start, all of you guys are out of work. but that doesn't happen to some people. now, here's a board, mr.

speaker, and this board is what i call an interesting board. this board has on it bank of america, general electric, citigroup, common mobile, wells fargo. mr. speaker, -- exxonmobil, wells fargo. mr. speaker in my pocket right now, i have $25. that's what i've got in my pocket, i went to the a.t.m. because i needed a little money, that's all i got. mr. speaker, i've got more money in my pocket than all of these companies paid in taxes. mr. speaker, i've got $25 in my pocket and it is $25 more than bank of america, general electric, citigroup, exxonmobil and wells fargo all together paid in taxes. i need you to look this up, mr. speaker. i need you to investigate this. you might think, oh, that's just a politician talking.

i'm telling you, i am tell jug now and i will back this up, they didn't pay any tacks. guess what? the republican caucus is telling us that the students can't have any pell grants. that we can't afford a foreclosure mitigation program. they're telling us we've got to cut head start and we've got to cut home heating assistance. they're telling us we've got to cut the basics that people rely on. we've got to cut research programs. we've got to cut programs that are going to help us investigate new scientific breakthroughs. but these guys don't want to pay. i'm like you don't want to pay anything? wait a minute, bank of america. wait a minute, g.e. respect you guys proud to be american companies? don't you -- didn't you guys benefit from being here in the united states? don't you feel good about being

here in the united states of america, greatest country in the world? where you're free to pursue profits all you want -- all we want to do is ask you to do a little something for people who are still trying to climb the ladder? and apparently, the republicans say, don't worry about it, guys, you don't have to pay anything. oh, my goodness. this is really quite amazing. mr. speaker, this board here is a challenge to all these companies and any other big ones that didn't pay any taxes. it's a challenge. it's a challenge to support tax policy to help america. it's a challenge to support the policies of liberty and justice for all.

they benefit from being here. they're protected by our nation's fighting men and women in our military. they're protected by local police. if any one of their members get injured or hurt or sick on the job, emergency medical services come to their rescue. they drive their big drug trucks and probably put more wear and tear on the roads than regular citizens do. they use as much water as anybody else, sometimes even pollute it. in their cafeterias, they rely on the meat that's going to be served to be inspected by our government agencies. and yet they don't want to pay nothing. and the sad thing -- sad thing about it is, they probably wouldn't mind pay bug the republican caucus insists they pay nothing. look at it, mr. speaker. they didn't pay. but on april 5, me and you are going to pay.

we're going to pay. big time. but guess what. those companies didn't pay. also, it's not just corporations. it's individuals. now look, i have no problem with mr. trump, i'm sure he's a nice person, doesn't really seem like it on television but he probably is, that's probably just an act. and i'm sure ms. hilton is a nice person too, i've got nothing against her personally at all, nothing bad to say about her. but i don't think they need a tax break. i don't think they need a tax break. i think they should pay their fair share. i think billionaires should pay their fair share. we are in the middle of a mighty budget battle, mr. speaker. i think patriotic americans should say you know what, we need a progressive tax code that asks the most privileged of all of us to pony it up too. if you're going to ask mildred

who bangs it out nine hours a day at a diner on $9 an hour for some money for taxes, if you're going to ask teachers and cops, firefighters, e.m.t.'s, to bang it out and pay up on april 15, i think donald trump and paris hilton should pay up too. i don't have any problem with these people. i hope nobody thinks this is a personal attack on them. it's not. it's just a statement that you know what, in all your houses that you own, both of them probably have many, somebody's got to heat those houses, somebody's got to protect them houses if somebody breaks in them. somebody has to put the fire out if god forbid that should happen. the sewer has to be maintained, the roads have to be maintained, that's the government. that's our american government. and i just think these good

folks here ought to feel good about writing a check so that cops and the teachers and -- can stay on the job, so that the kids who need a pell grant can get it. so that the kids who are in head start can have a program, so that there can be home heating assistance for our seniors. i would just think they would do that. and i hope that they do. again, nothing personal. you know, mr. speaker, i've looked at the republican program and i've looked at it carefully and i ask myself about their program and i say to myself, mr. speaker, you know what, i'm happy to -- i don't want to just say that their program is this or that, i want to look at what their program is and see what is actually there, an then after

we see what's there, then we can determine what actually the program is. we can't go by what they just say. they say, oh, we just want to take the debt of our children and grandchildren. we just want to get rid of this debt, we don't have any money. none of that is true. but what is true? i think it's important to dig into what's actually true. i think it's important for us to really try to figure out what the program is based on their behavior. so what i've come up with is the plan for republican recession. this is their plan. they want a permanent tax break for billionaires at the expense of working families. i'm sure these billionaires are nice people. in fact, you don't see too many billionaires down here say, hey, i need more money, keith. what they say is, what we hear the republicans say that --

saying that, who are supposed to be elected by the people. which people? the second thing, put b.p., british pe troll wrum, in charge of our energy policy. because you know, the last speaker got up going on and on about b.p. here's a fact you don't need to check, but you should. leaders in their caucus, leadersen the energy and commerce committee on their caucus accuse president obama of doing a shakedown of b.p. when he said you have to clean up the oil spill in the gulf and now we have members attacking him. that's an interesting fact right there. i found that quite remarkable. anyway, put goldman sachs in charge of our economic policy. put insurance companies between you and your doctor. they are always say, oh, the government takeover. they want to repeal health care, the affordable care act, which will put you back at the whim of an insurance company

bureaucrat. at least the government you can vote on. you can't vote on the insurance company. that's a privately held company. bonuses for c.e.o.'s who ship american jobs overseas privatize social security, oh, yes, they did. raise retirement age. gut medicare. and some of them have stood for repeal of the 14th amendment and the 17th amendment. this is a republican plan. this is what they stand for. this is what they're about. this is what they believe in i think that they should be proud and come down here and claim it and say, yeah, we are for the very rich, not for you working class people. that's their program. that's what they stand for. you know, the conservative position is to call for tax cuts and deregulation, so they believe that will unleash the competitive economy. tax cuts and deregulation resulted in the worst financial