the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 188.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 189. the nays are 235. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor of adopting the bill say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: may i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. the question is on the adoption of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238, the nays are 186. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of enquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. toipped without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. canton. mr. cantor: i thank the

gentleman from maryland, the majority whip. on monday the house will meet at noon for pro forma. on tuesday 12:00 for morning hour and 2:00 for legislative business. on wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 and thursday at 12:00. on friday at 9:00 a.m. the house will consider a few bills under suspension. a complete list of suspension bills will be announced for the close of business tomorrow afternoon. the house will also consider a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government and members are advised that the rule of the debate for that measure may take place on tuesday. i do not expect the resolution itself, however, to be debated until wednesday. finally, we will take up h.r.

1705, the bipartisan transparency and regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation, other-wise known as train act. it will focus on job creation and the cross-state pollution rules. if any legislation is added for next week's schedule it will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i note that he has indicated the c.r. will be considered sometime next week, either tuesday, but most likely on wednesday. i want to ask him about -- it's my understanding that the supplemental for emergency requirements of fema will be included in the c.r. is that accurate? mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman that what will be in

the c.r. is the budgeted amount for all of fiscal year 201 which is 2.65 billion dollars will be in the c.r. front loaded. in other words, the agency will have access to all of those funds prior to the expiration of the c.r. november 18. in addition to that, we have, as the gentleman knows, funded out of this house the emergency supplemental which was $1 billion more than that which the agency had requested, all of which was offset. that, too, will be in the c.r. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. when you say all of that has been offset, it is my understanding that in fact in the c.r. for 2011, not for 2012, but for 2011 that there is a $1.5 billion offset included, is that accurate? mr. cantor: yeah, that is accurate. mr. hoyer: and it's further my

understanding that that offset which is unusual in that as the gentleman knows during the bush administration, as happens we have natural disasters and emergencies, hurricanes, floods, even earthquakes that require local governments and local agencies and individuals to respond and we have responded to them with assistance. . atimes we had done that on the bush administration, we did not offset. we did not offset that it was an emergency, and we would pay for it but pay for it in subsequent years. it's my understanding that the offset that is being considered is $1.5 billion from the advance vehicle technology fund.

the problem with that as i see it, we are talking about creating jobs. and the president's presented a jobs bill, i'll talk about that in just a minute, but that the fund that is in question to date has created 39,000 jobs, and the loan am case are projected to create 50,000 or 60,000 additional jobs. therefore if we use this as an offset, which would set a precedent although i understand precedents not being followed for 2012, what we are doing in my view, mr. leader, is undermining a specific item in the current scheme of things that is in fact creating jobs. as i said, 39,000 jobs with the loan applications that are in progress now expected to create

additional 50,000 to 60,000 jobs that we undermine that effort. frankly, on our side we would hope that we could return to what is precedent and that is in an emergency respond with emergency funding as we did throughout the bush administration. not with the concept we wouldn't pay for it. you and i both agree that paying for this is critically important, and that in fact i think you and i are both of the opinion that hopefully the committee of 12 set up to look at how we get our finances back in line with our revenues and expenditures, that that needs to be done. but certainly this is a new precedent and unfortunately it appears that you have targeted -- i don't mean you personally, but the c.r. would target a particular item that is exactly what we want to do and that is creating jobs. would the gentleman like to

comment on that? mr. cantor: sure, i do. i know that, mr. speaker, i know the gentleman is committed to paying for what we spend. and he if anyone would put as a priority that we ought to act accordingly. and i find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman is defending what occurred during the bush administration as i will posit what occurred during the clinton administration, because president clinton under his administration actually signed four separate supplementals that were offset, including flooding and the oklahoma city bombing. so it is -- the gentleman is correct, there's precedent on either side. i think he would agree with me, mr. speaker, that now is the time for us to begin to really put forth a concerted effort to act responsibly. not just say we are going to act responsibly in attempt to offlay the obligation to the joint select committee.

we have an opportunity to do so now. and the gentleman refers to the offset that some on his side have raised as an objection. i would say to the gentleman, the facts are there's currently $4 billion in unobligated budget authority remaining under the advance technology vehicles manufacturing loan program, and this so-called pay-for just rescinds $1.5 billion of that total and the program will have remaining in it $2.5 billion. and i think it's worthy of note, mr. speaker, that this money has been laying around since september 30, 2008. that is three years. so i don't think, mr. speaker, that anyone is intending to do anything damaging to potential job creation here. what we are trying to do is finally face facts. we in this body, in this town,

must stop the federal government from continuing to spend money it doesn't have. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. of course when money the government doesn't have, as you know, revenues are at the lowest point they have been in some six decades in america. on one hand because we are not collecting revenue, on the other hand because people don't have money in their pockets to pay revenues. they are not working. therefore they are not paying taxes. and therefore revenues are down for those two reasons. i would say to my friend it's my understanding that the account that you have targeted has some $3.9 billion in pending requests which are the items that would lead to 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs. at a time when we are not creating sufficient jobs for our people, let's assume for the

sake of argument you want to offset this money. you and i both agree it ought to be paid for. the question is when do you pay for it. do we pay for it right now? the fact of the matter is if you target this particular fund, you are targeting a fund which, as demonstrably, grown jobs in america. some 39,000 jobs have been created as a result of loans out of this fund. there are $3.9 billion, you indicate there's still money in the account, you are absolutely right on that. but there are pending requests, again, which would result in 50,000 to 60,000 new jobs which would be revenue creation for the federal government. so in fact it appears that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face here. i would urge the gentleman to perhaps revisit this. the gentleman mentioned the clinton administration.

as the gentleman will well recall, the concerns were not as high then because during the clinton administration, of course, we were creating over three million jobs per year on average. and so that the private sector was humming along very well, createsed 22 million jobs during the clinton administration, and unfortunately that was not the case in the last administration, nor has it yet been the case in this administration, although there were two million jobs as the gentleman knows created in the last 20 months. however the last two months have been stagnant. that's not good for anybody. it's not good for republicans, democrats, but more importantly it's not good for the country. and therefore i would urge us to make sure that we do not target a fund which has already demonstrably created jobs. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: let me, mr. speaker

-- thank you you. mr. speaker, if i could respond to the gentleman. first of all the gentleman knows good and well the situation with the federal debt was entire-l different back under the clinton administration time. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. i do know that very, very well. we had surpluses not deficits. i yield back. mr. cantor: there was also a republican congress that was at work trying to help job creation then at that time as well. so if one wants to claim, we both can claim credit, but as the gentleman knows, i prefer to look forward to see if we can work together. with that in mind, the gentleman of anyone in this body has been committed to try to take a fiscally responsible approach, and that's what we are trying to do here. i would say to the gentleman, instead of just trying to claim numbers, as if there is some panacea going on here, and as if the move to offset using funds obligated for this program would somehow create job creation, if

you look at the numbers, this year, all that has been allocated from the available $4 billion, is 780 million. that's all been allocated and approved during this program. remember, the money's been laying around since september 30 of 2008. that's three years. in addition, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, the gentleman claims the 33,000 jobs that were actually created by this program. but many would say that these jobs already existed at existing ford motor company plants. the administration, i know, has claimed that these jobs have been saved when there is no indication that in reality that that is the case. so, again, instead of trying to make all these claims and try and continue to make promises that frankly can't be

substaniated, what we are trying to do is do what every family's got to do around its table. around every small businessperson's got to do at the end of each pay period, figure out how they are going to make it through the end of the month. and just as if a family was facing a situation where they had saved $25,000, $30,000 and they wanted to use that money to buy a new car, and god forbid somebody got very sick that needed that money in their family, most families are going to take that money and decide not to use the new car and instead -- buy the new car and instead help the family member who needs it. that's what we are trying to do here, mr. speaker. we are not trying to suggest that perhaps there isn't some laudable intent under this program. what we have identified is, moneys unspent that have been obligated, moneys that apparently do not go out as quickly as the gentleman may

suggest to, as he says, and claims, creates jobs, and take that money and prioritize it by saying it belongs to help the people in a disaster so they can get the relief they need. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response. we could go back and forth on how many jobs were in fact created. my belief is that there were somebody sanction -- substantial number of jobs created by this fund and the prospect of those 50,000 or 60,000 jobs is real not ephemeral. not just debating point. but i would say to my friend that, my friend has been recently quoted, i'm sure, accurately, perhaps, correct me if i'm wrong, in saying that during the first eight months we focused on cuts. and of our cut and grow, and now we need to focus on grow. i would tell my friend, assuming that quote is accurate, that in

fact here we are again focused on cut not on grow. clearly whatever the specific number is, i think that it's frankly not refutable that the investment in advanced manufacturing technology vehicles is, in fact, going to make us more competitive globally. going to enhance the ability to make it in america. not only succeed in america but to make it, in this case, advanced vehicles which are competitive in the international markets, this is a specific era where we have tried to invest in making sure that we make it, in this case advanced technology vehicles, and i don't believe that the public, and i don't

think it's good policy for us to be focused on cutting back on those areas which have the promise of growth and jobs. that is what i tell my friend. obviously the gentleman is correct, but i want to tell the gentleman also that if you keep cutting revenues, as we did in 2001 and 2003, and then you keep escalating spending, as we did over the last 10 years, inevitably you are going to get to a point where that family is not going to have any revenues to pay its bills, as the gentleman points out. but it's inevitable when you continue to cut revenues and if you don't cut spending, you're going to be in trouble. that didn't happen in the last decade. didn't happen in the last administration. in fact, as you know, exactly the opposite happened. we escalated spending more than we did under the clinton administration, and therefore we

find ourselves in a hole. the economy went into the tank, and it's struggling. and i agree with you. it doesn't matter why it's struggling or who's to blame, it's struggling. and as a result what the president has done is come before us and said, look, here's a jobs bill. we need to build jobs. the overwhelming majority, i'm not going to go through all the polling data, i'm sure my friend has seen it, a recent cnn poll which shows the public by big numbers wants us to focus on creating, building, expanding jobs. and very frankly the public believes that you need to invest to do that, by pretty good numbers. i'm for disciplining spending. i will vote to discipline spending, but i don't think that targeting job creation projects is the way to discipline it when americans all over this country are really hurting because there

are not jobs available for them. i want to thank the gentleman for what i think are very measured and positive responses to the president's suggestion on how we create jobs in this country. i would ask the gentleman what plans the gentleman has and his party has to move forward on the legislation that the president has asked to create jobs, to invest in growing our economy, and to help those small businesses expand and create jobs and to help those who do not have any job and who are worried about how to put food on their family's table, as well as investing in infrastructure and keeping teachers on the job. we think this legislation is critically important. we think the american people and most recently cnn poll have responded very positively. they think this is a productive way to go forward.

can the gentleman tell me whether or not there are plans to have the committees move forward or for us to move forward on this legislation? i yield to my friend. . mr. cantor: the gentleman may have seen the remarks i made about the president's jobs plan. what i said is there's a lot of area i think that we can actually work together on. i do reject the president's demand for an all or nothing approach. that perhaps his way is the only way. because there are items in the president's plan that we take strong disagreement with. so i do think the american people do want us to try and drive towards results here, and i do think there are some areas we can work on together. we support the extension bonus depreciation. we support removing the pending application of the withholding on government contractors.

we support facilitating and increasing small business access to capital. we support incentives to hire veterans. we support reforming the unemployment insurance system in this country, free trade agreements. we would -- we would love to entertain serious discussions on how you reform the system so that we can get beater return and improve infrastructure spending in this country. there are many areas. small business tax relief the president discussed, we have our own ideas. as the gentleman knows, the house is proceeding on our agenda for job creation. it's rolling back regulations that are impeding job growth. the one that was just passed prior to the session -- members leaving the chamber today. we will have one every week that we believe after having consulted with small businesses around this country are getting in the way of their jumping back in the game of job

creation. so we all have ideas. it's not just the president's plan that will come up in this house. we are going to work together to find areas of agreement. and so i look forward to working with the gentleman to achieving that end so that, yes, the middle class in this country can get back to work as we see small businesses beginning to rev up again toward economic recovery. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i think the gentleman has just gone through a list of places where we can perhaps find common ground. what we need, of course, is a vehicle. hopefully on this floor in the very near future in which to find common ground and also to offer alternatives that each of our parties or individuals in this house think will fact grow the economy and create jobs. i think that will be very

useful. the president indicated in his speech a sense of urgency that the american people feel. they gave us that message very loud and clear. i think all of us share that message. i think that -- think about somebody being unemployed for three months or six months or 18 months or two years. not -- want to and have the ability to work and kind find a job is a crisis. it's in fact a depression in that person's life not only psychologically but actually so i would urge the gentleman to bring something to the floor as soon as possible that incorporates that on which we can agree and gives us an opportunity to offer solutions that perhaps the house will agree on. and if not we won't agree. i've also welcomed the gentleman's rejection of the philosophy of my way or the

highway. we welcome that recognition. in fact we need to reach compromise if we're going to move this country forward. if i might in closing let me perhaps ask you about the schedule longer term than next week. the members -- obviously we have a special committee. i think the gentleman and i are both committed to. i know i am committed to the success of that committee. i think it's absolutely critical to give our business community confidence, to give our people confidence and to give the international community confidence that this government can in fact work, can address serious problems. in this case the debt and deficit. but also confront the problem of growing our economy as both bowles-simpson commission and the rivlin-domenici commission said we ought to address both. that's what the jobs bill is about and that's what the special committee is about. but does the gentleman have any

thoughts in terms of the probability that the schedule that you have issued that indicates we'll get out on december 8, as we know the committee has to be voted on december 23. that doesn't mean we have to wait until the 23rd assuming the committee comes out with a positive report. can you elaborate somewhat the schedule will be and the certainty with which members can plan based upon the schedule that's been issued given what faces us and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows we've been really trying to stick to the schedule and afford members some certainty so they can schedule their business and their time with their constituents in their districts, and the hope is at this point for us to absolutely stick to the schedule. we at this point have no changes in the recess times, and as for whether we are going to go longer than december 8,

obviously the work of the joint select committee bears greatly on that. as you know, as the speaker, as the gentleman knows, the joint select committee is compecksed to report by december 23. all goes well, we should be able to live up to the schedule as printed. again, it will all depend on the work of the joint select committee. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments, thank him for his time today and yield back the balance of my time. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. the chair -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdrawal my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain

one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rahall: the nation voted for a winning combination of humidity, hard work, life-long dream and finally talent. today i join with my friends and colleagues from logan county, west virginia, in congratulating landau eugene murphy. this year's winner of nbc's "america's got talent." coming from humble beginnings he worked hard, never lost faith in his lord and always remembered and determined to pursue his dreams. i believe what he accomplished last night would stand as an example to every young person throughout this great nation. he's shown them they should always set their goals high and work until they get there. indeed, if you should take some blows just let the record show you did it your way. i send my very best to him, his

lovely wife, jennifer and their family as they begin this new and exciting journey in their lives. i know he remains as humble tooze as he first took the stage at the annual talent show years ago. i congratulate him and diana barnett and all the fine folks at the mountain place senma eight for their support of our hometown hero. as we've always done in west virginia, we stand behind and support our own and the work these organizations and individuals have done is phenomenal. undoubtedly they were ininstrumental in mr. murphy's victory. he accepted the high-fives of the competition. he often spoke of his respect, compassion and friendship with his opponents, a timely lesson for us all. i hope my colleagues will congratulate all those whose talent carried them to the final weeks of long competition and i thank america for recognizing a true talent and

this fine son of west virginia. thankfully we'll be hearing a lot from him in the many years to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor one of my fellow marines and a truly brave and heroic members. corporal meyer is receiving the highest military honor our nation has to offer, the congressional medal of honor. as a scout sniper with third battalion, third marine, corporal meyer ran through enemy fire multiple times in attempt to save service members in afghanistan. facing enemy fire, corporal meyer killed eight bad guys, provided cover for another 24 of his fellow marines and soldiers during a six-hour battle. mr. palazzo: corporal meyer no doubt distinguished himself above and beyond the call of duty and truly is an american

hero. he knowingly risked his own life to save the lives of others. i congratulate him on this honor. semper fi, corporal meyer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. on the 17th of september in 1787 the united states constitution was ratified. and senator byrd in the year 2005 introduced in the house's passed constitution day. so this weekend we'll be celebrating constitution day. and when i think of the constitution i think of dr. martin luther king and the right to peacefully assemble which is enshrined in the first amendment. that meant he could go to selma, he could come to washington to fight for civil rights and secure the rights of the people across the nation. i think of women's rights embodied in the 19th amendment. tennessee being the perfect 36th state to give women the right to vote.

i think the ninth amendment and the first and third as well. but that's the tip of the iceberg. the constitution embodies the fundamental values of this nation. freedom, fairness, justice and equality. we haven't always looked up to the constitution's ideals, but with the rights it guarantees and the freedoms it protects we can continue to move forward and be the more perfect union that it promises. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of be a requested for mr. webster of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair announces the

speaker's appointment pursuant to 22, u.s.c., the order of the house of january 5, 2011 of the following members of the house to the canada-united states interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. dreier of california, mr. lungren of california, mrs. miller of michigan, mr. smith of nebraska, mr. huizenga of michigan, mr. meeks of new york, ms. slaughter of new york, mr. welch of vermont and mr. larsen of washington. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. shuster: i thank the speaker. today i rise to honor the distinguished service of my good friend, his excellency, yasher aliev who was appointed by the president as ambassador.

i'm proud to serve as the co-chairman of azerbajan. located in a geopolitically location between russia and iran, it is a predominantly muslim population which has been home to vibrant christian and jewish communities. they opened caspian energy and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. on the security front, immediately after 9/11, it was among the first to offer strong support and assistance to the united states. it participated in operations in kosovo and iraq and is actively engaged in afghanistan having recently doubled its military presence there. ambassador aliev has made an

indelible mark in deepening the relations. bilateral trade is enabling it to contribute to the economic growth of the united states. bacu in washington cooperate on counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. moreover, this continued development of azerbajian contributes greatly to the energy security of the united states and europe. working with the ambassador which has more than developed the size of the caucus and brings -- aliyav served as the permanent representative to the united nations from 2002 to 2006. during this period he was chairman of the fourth committee of special political and decolonization of the 60th u.n. general assembly.

vice president of the economic and social council from 2004 and 2005 and vice president of the u.n. conference on illicit trade and small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in 2001. . began his career in 1992, serving as charge kay defair as azerbaijan's commission. he was the 47th through 56th sessions of the united nations general assembly. having joined the ministry of foreign affairs of azerbaijan in 1989, the ambassador has held the post of political officer first secretary, and deputy director of the ministries department of information and political analysis, as well as director of department of international organizations. i took up oriental studies of state university in 1972 and received the school's highest degree in 197 . he did postgraduate research as russia's academy of science in

moscow. in the early 1990's he also studied for a year at the diplomatic academy of russia's foreign ministry of affairs. he's fluent in english, arabic, russian, and turkish. on a personal note, i will miss the ambassador and i extend to him my highest regards and well wishes to him and his family in all their future endeavors. in our years working together the ambassador has become a valued presented. it's been my pleasure to visit twice with him and also to host him in my district in pennsylvania on two occasions. including sharing a recent birthday celebration together. ambassador aliyev best wishes in all your future endeavors. i look forward to continuing our friendship in the years to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 55 minutes as the designated speaker. designee of the majority leader, pardon me. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i very much appreciate the honor to be recognized and address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives for the minutes allocated. and i have enjoyed this privilege many times over the years and i think this is the greatest deliberative body in

the world. and sometimes we can do a little better than we actually do, but in the end, the voice of the american people does come here. and i look back on the intense debates we had when we went through the throws of a national debate over one summer it was cap and trade or we called it cap and tax, the idea we would limit american industry, chase american industry over to places like china and india, where they pump pump smoke into the atmosphere and send us back goods that were built more cheaply than we would build them here. that legislation did pass this house. it was killed in the senate. but that consumed a summer. for the next summer we had the debate of obamacare. i could go into that quite deeply, mr. speaker, but i will say that it was an intense debate that took place on the -- on the floor of the house of representatives on the floor of the senate and floor of almost every home in the united states of america in the streets of

america, and in the grounds surrounding the capitol and of course all the office buildings and -- around the capitol. for the first time that i know of in history, a member of congress called people from all 50 states to come here to petition the government for redress of grievances, peaceably petition the government for redress of grievances. that was the plea of the american people. 40,000 to 60,000 people surrounded this capitol on thursday of november, november 5 of this year, and late other in the spring they came back again and again. for the first time in history the entire capitol grounds were surrounded by people not just a human chain touching their fingertips or holding hands all the way around, but a human doughnut six and eight deem everywhere with thousands of people standing in the curves and corners that came here to say to the people that were duly

elected representatives of the american people here in this congress, keep your hands off of my health care. we don't want obamacare. that message echoed in this building, and on that night, that obamacare was poised for passage, the people doing business up here in the rules committee couldn't do business for a time because the echo in the windows from the people outside was so great they couldn't have a conversation to be able to actually conduct the business of passing a rule that brought obamacare here to the floor. there was hokum involved in the process. even down to the point of circumventing the filibuster in the senate and going through a reconciliation package and passing legislation on the promise other legislation would pass and passing legislation on the promise the president would issue an executive order to, get this, mr. speaker, amend the legislation that was on the floor. that's how bizarre this process became. and for a couple of years, a member of congress didn't have

an ability to bring an amendment to the floor to even force a debate or vote trying to perfect what legislation. that's how far the wheels came off of this congress, the american people were delivered something that they had resoundingly rejected. that was obamacare, and the aftermath of that -- those shenanigans that took place that consumed the summer and the fall and the next spring and longer, the american people went to the polls the following november, and they sent 87 new freshmen republicans here to congress in exactly the fashion that the founding fathers imagined. and that fashion was to have the house of representatives with the elections every two years be the quick reaction force that, in the period of two years, in that time history didn't turn as fast as it does today, but it's still i think, soon enough, to bring people here to start to reverse the mistakes made by the previous congress. we are not in a position to undo some of those bad things that have come upon this congress

right now. i thought we had that leverage a couple of times already in this congress, those moments have passed. and i believe, mr. speaker, that now if we can find and create that opportunity, i'm all for it and i'm looking for somebody to lead us into a way that we can undo some bad legislation, but where we are today in this deliberative body is we put the brakes on most bad things that have been happening here in this congress, and we are laying the groundwork to call in the reinforcement within the vision of the founding fathers so that we can undo the bad things and it's going to take some help in the united states senate and in the white house. so here's america as we had a conversation here on the side earlier. there was a couple years ago i would say now a serious discussion about whether i would go back to iowa and run for governor. and the questions that i had, mr. speaker, in front of me were this, that we were looking at what turned out to be the

dodd-frank bill, the financial regulation bill. we were looking at cap and trade or cap and tax. we were looking at obamacare. and i'm thinking, i would have to spend 14 months back in iowa campaigning for that job. and if i carried my luggage into the governor's mansion and looked out the window on to an america that had been saddled with this burden, the burden of dodd-frank, the burden of obamacare, and the burden perhaps of a cap and tax piece of legislation, it would be impossible to undo and it would be impossible to fix america from a state office such as i have mentioned. those things weighed heavily on me. today here's where we are. this process has moved forward, cap and tax has been essentially killed temporarily killed i will say in the united states senate, thanks to the filibuster and thanks to the work of the people on that side. it did pass-through this house

under the pelosi speakership. obamacare is now the law of the land but it is repealable, mr. speaker, and that gives me great hope. and dodd-frank also is repealable. and so when i look at the presidential candidates who are also poised seeking the nomination to challenge the white house, the senators that i'm convinced will come into the united states senate, the new blood that will come into the house of representatives with even deeper convictions on constitution and constitutional conservatism, the idea across america is this, government has mismanaged so much of what's come out of this federal government, they want a smaller, more responsive federal government. they want a government that does less with less. a government that balances the budget, and they want to have their freedom back. the american people want to have their liberty back, mr. speaker. and i would ask this question, and it's this. ronald reagan asked in 1980, he

said, are you better off today than you were four years ago? and the american people answered with a resounding, no. and they voted no on jimmy carter, yes on ronald reagan, and we got the greatest president of the century who served two terms and put us back on track and got us believing in ourselves again. today and throughout this 14 months or so until the next election, we have to be asking not the question of are you better off today than you were four years ago, not a lot of people can say that they are, but the question really is, mr. speaker, are you more free today? do you have more liberty today than you had four years ago? do you and your children and your grandchildren have more potential to enjoy the fruits of their labor, does this society, is it more open to success, and is america moving along and continuing to be the dominant economic force in the world? the dominant cultural force in

the world, the dominant foundation for western civilization, are we going to continue to be that? or are we going to watch the continuum of this history wind its way down and will we trail in the dust the golden oaks of all humanity. is that the future for this country? there is not an image that i can see that the president has laid out for us on a direction on where we can go. i have watched what he's done. i think i know what he believes in i -- in. i look him in the eye when he's told me that. one of those things is keynesian economics. the president told a group of of us in february 10 of 2009 to be precise that keynesian economics works. he said to us that franklin delano roosevelt's new deal actually did work but that roosevelt lost his nerve and he pulled back in the second half of the 1930's when he should have been borrowing and spending more money, and because he

pulled back, according to the president, he brought about -- it brought about a recession within a depression, unemployment went up, and then along came world war ii, the greatest economic stimulus plan ever. that was the little classroom lecture that -- i was a -- it was a statement, but that was the president's position on that day and i'm sure that's something he's held for a long time. he didn't make it up while he was standing there. it came out of him as a conviction. that's how it sounded to me. i'm of the exact opposite conviction, mr. speaker. i'm of this conviction that keynesian economics always was a mistake. and for the record, john keynes was the major economist of his time he came to prominence in the 20's and more in the 1930's as he proposed that the federal government should get money into the hands of people so that people could spend the money,

and if they spent the money, it would stimulate the economy. that's the keynesian approach. even though he said this facetiously, i believe that it illustrates the keynesian economic theory, this narrative, this is a narrative told by john himself. he said, i can solve all the unemployment in the united states of america, and here's how i would do it. just give me an abandoned coal mine, and i will go out into that coal mine, he sent other people, and with drilling rigs, and they will drill holes down all over the coal mine, and then we'll stuff them full of cash, and then we'll fill the coal mine up with garbage, and heap it full of garbage, and then turn the entrepreneurs loose, which would then solve all the unemployment in america. now, just to flesh that out a little bit, mr. speaker, you turn the entrepreneurs loose on an old coal mine that's full of garbage, they have to move the garbage off, locate the holes, clean out the holes, they have to get down to the cash, and

doing all of that will require somebody to rehandle the garbage again, somebody to set up the showers, somebody to take care of the medical needs and food needs and after a while the banking needs when they start to come up with the cash. you see how he understood the economy goes when we get moany flowing into the economy, that actually happens. what keynes missed was you can't -- where is the cash going to come from in the first place? you can't go out and borrow money and bury it and have people dig it up and think you're doing something productive, that's the efifflent of paying each other to do each other's laundry. you produce nothing extra from it. you just trade dollars. . what has built america? the strength of this economic is free market capitalism and competition. because of competition we've had inventors and entrepreneurs and we've had more trade marts -- patent, trademarks and

copyrights per capita than any other country in the world. we're natural entrepreneurs. we're natural creators and we have the resources to do it. i have to put corn in there as a natural resource. i know you use it for grits. but most we use it for thelivestock and then turn it into ethanol. americans have developed them. we've grown them. we've mined them out of the earth. we cut trees and turned them into ships and traded around the world. we did that early in this country. american clipper ships were the class of the world. and we have done this success because we produced, we produce goods and services that had a marketable value both domestically and abroad. this is what will bring america out of the economic doll drum

-- dull drums, producing something that is valuable. not spending money. not the sugar high of saying, here's your food stamps, here's your unemployment, do nothing except go out and spend the money. that is -- that is only at best a sugar high. and for the economy it's temporary. even if keynes was right on any part of it would be this -- in the case of the president of the united states we're talking trillions of dollars dumped into this economy, the best you could hope for was the keynesian economist on steroids with the president is this, he might have diminished the depths to which we could have fallen to some degree. we don't know how much. but i guarantee you the depths that might have been diminished certainly the breadth of this trough of this economic decline is broader and it will be hard

for us to recover. mr. speaker, if you are a small business, a large business or a government and if you go out and borrow too much money and you have revenue stream coming in and now you have to service the debt, you have to pay the interest and the principal on the debt, the banker's in there,'s geg to -- he's going to collect his money. you borrow money. more interest has to go and it also has to pay off the principal otherwise you can never stop the drain and it weighs you down. there are businesses. i'll say many of them in my business that have actually literally, not figuratively and not virtually but literally been underwater all summer long in the floods of the missouri river. and if all they have for relief a small business disaster loan and they can get a preference interest rate of maybe some -- preferential interest rate of

maybe something around 4:00 -- 4%, they could service it. the united states of america borrows money, it hands it to me and tells them, you don't have to work for this, you don't have to produce anything for this. we just want you to spend it. that's your patriotic money to take the money we borrowed from the chinese and the debt burden we put on our grandchildren and put into people's hands and say it's a patriotic thing. take your food stamps and your rent subsidy and your heat subsidy and your unemployment check and go and engage in commerce. that's patriotic. no. what's patriotic is carry your own weight. i mean, john smith said there, no work no eat. and he lifted that from was in galatians. he would not work would also not eat. and that doesn't mean we don't want to take care of people that can't help themselves but people that can help themselves need to help themselves and all

of the rest of us. we're hearing the things that come out of people that generally sit over on this side of the floor, mr. speaker, this belief that economic, the former speaker of the house, speaker pelosi has consistently said that unemployment checks of one of those unreliable and means of economic recovery. you get a bang for your buck to have people go out there and work. therefore we should pass out unemployment checks and stimulate the economy. that statement is ridiculous where i come from, mr. speaker. to pay people not to work and somehow in that formula it stimulates the economy. and another statement came from our secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, who is consistently -- at least it shows up in the media he's consistently said that food stamps are also an economic stimulator. thaw get for every dollar in food stamps that you hand out you get $1.8 in economic

activity. well -- $1.84 in economic activity. well, that may be. if you had somebody produce something for that food stamp you could be building capital within your economy. we have this massive amount of capital here in the united states of america and it's built within -- it's part of its cash, part of it is the real estate value that's been improved by putting buildings and equipment out. it's the utilization of that, all of that is the capital base of america. our knowledge base is part of the capital base in america. and here we have the federal government and the president's proposal with the jobs plan, by the way, continuing to want to extend unemployment benefits another year believing that that's an economic stimulus plan. now, if i were a younger man or let's just say a boy who was looking at this economy from the simplistic way of what pays and what doesn't and if someone said to me when i was, say, 16

years old, well, here's how we stimulate the economy. we are going to hand out unemployment checks and food stamps. that's what we're hearing, mr. speaker. we're hearing this out of the people that speak for the white house. handing out unemployment checks and handing out food stamps is an economic stimulus plan. now, i'm back to produce goods and services that have marketable value, both here and abroad. when i say that that means we have to compete with the value, the prices of those goods that other countries can produce so that we have an opportunity to outsell them when they want to sell here and we have the opportunity to outsell them in their own countries. we have to better at some of those things but this economy will not recover if we're going to continue to borrow money, put the debt on the heads of our grandchildren and think that spending money solves anything. i have a little granddaughter that's closing in on a year old now and she's just taken her first steps about oh, 10 or 12 of them last night, as a matter

of fact, and her name is reagan ann king. when she was born into this world her share of the national debt, what she owes to uncle sam when she took her first breath as a new american citizen and a miracle from god was $44,000, her share of the debt, and we worry about a college student that has a degree with a $40,000 student loan to pay off. i'll submit, mr. speaker, they at least have a diploma, in a likely case. they have an education in every case. and the opportunity to earn that back and from the time they leave college and the toll starts to ring on their student loan they have an opportunity to go to work and to stop the interest and pay the interest and start to pay the principal on their student loan. but this little girl, reagan ann king that's just taken her first dozen steps last night, this little girl doesn't have a chance to start earning that back.

her $44,000 worth of debt is accumulating interest every day. every day of her little life until she's turned around a year old until she's 10, until she's 20, until she gets an education that's good enough for her to start earning her share and paying taxes and starting to pay down this national debt. how much of is that $44,000 going to be before she gets a chance to stop the bleeding just for her? oh, by the time she's 10 and starts fifth grade it will be not $44,000 but $88,000. that's a national calculation roundest to the nearest thousand. $88,000. welcome to fifth grade, reagan ann king. now your share of the national debt is $88,000. how does that make you feel? study hard. i'll give you another republican approach here, mr. speaker, that i think illustrates the right attitude and it caught me a little offguard. conversation with my oldest son and his little 6-year-old

daughter who was telling me that her favorite subject is math and our family's in the construction business and we do a lot of work that requires engineering and so i immediately said to her, study hard, focus on your math. that means if you're good in math you can be an engineer and your daddy needs an engineer in the company and her daddy said immediately, i don't need another mouth to feed. she can study hard and carry her own weight and make a living in the world. now, think about the difference in that. rather than opening up the door saying, study hard, become an engineer, i can use one in the company, he said, she can make her own way. the attitude when you're 6 years old growing on up that you're going to go out in the world and make your open own way, there -- make your own way, there may be a third generation company, it surprised me that he saw the world so clearly and instan leet, directed his child that

-- instantly, directed his child that -- stand on your own. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa may proceed. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we need -- we need more young americans growing up being told on a daily basis you're going to have to carry your own weight, you're going to have to make your own way, you have to plan your own destiny and when you do that, the most patriotic thing you can do is serve god and country in that order, take care of your family, take care of your state, do your thing to contribute to our society and economy. well, there is but should not be a free lunch. mr. speaker, i'm listening to the presidential campaign, and

listening pretty closely and talking to a number of the candidate. what i'm not hearing is any of the candidates really addressing the situation we have of in the united states 72 different means tested welfare programs. federal welfare programs. 72. there's not a person on the planet that can even name them all from memory, let alone read, learn, understand and draw a judgment on how they interact with each other, let alone whether or not they motivate people to take care of themselves, go to work, do the right thing, be responsible. we like to think so. 72. why does the federal government have 72 different means tested welfare programs? that's because there were 72 different constituency bases out there that certain members of congress decided they could slip into one bill or another and send a press release back to their district and say to somebody, look what i did for you. here's your rent subsidy, here's your heat subsidy,

here's your a.d.c. check, here's your tanf money, here's your food stamp money. and then they have the audacity to come to the floor and ask for more and more money for rent and heat subsidy at the same time. i don't want anybody to go cold. i don't want anybody to go hungry, but neither do i want to see generations of americans who have been conditioned and trained that they don't have to contribute to this society. now, i'll give you an example. it was written up in the "des moines register" about 15 years ago where they went up to a residential area in milwaukee, wisconsin. odd that they went from des moines to milwaukee. they did a study in a six block by six block segment. 36 square blocks, and it was residential area of families who its predecessors in the 1930's had moved up from milwaukee from the gulf area of mississippi and generally in

that area -- mississippi and alabama to take on the brewery jobs that blossomed in milwaukee when prohibition was over. and these families that had moved in, had moved up there for the jobs and three generations later they surveyed all of those residences in a residential area, 36 square blocks and there wasn't a single employed male head of household in one of those homes in 36 square blocks. as i read through that article twice, because i want to see what i missed, the lament by the author seemed to be, at least, that we couldn't bring jobs to the people that lived in that neighborhood in milwaukee. then, so wasn't that the failure of government that we couldn't get jobs established there? and i read it completely differently. if your grand daddy moved to milwaukee to get a job, why can't you, his grandson, move somewhere to get a job?

why don't people migrate to take a job? and the answer to that question is, 72 different means tested welfare programs. they're being paid not to. the safest thing you can do is stay in a home that's maybe been in your family for two or three generations. it may well be paid for. and you've got the system of the public benefits all figured out and so those checks come in once a month and take care of all your worldly needs and if you need a little cash aside from that then you can work in the black market, work in cash or trade from the side. i sat in those areas in those communities and just watched the traffic and see what's this trace back to. well, i have a viewpoint that i think is completely objective and it illuminated more because i come from farm country but it's this, all new wealth comes from the land. .

however has the dollar in their hand, if you could trace it back to the person that handed them that dollar, and the person that handed the second person the dollar and go on back, where does it take you if you trace each one of those transaction exchanges? it will take you back to the land. and in this country all new wealth comes -- in the world, all new wealth comes from the land. and you can mine it out of the earth in the form of gold or platinum, you can pump it out in the form of oil, you can bring out limestone and aggregate of all kinds, and those -- that's a new wealth. it sits there waiting to be developed. then you turn that into concrete and steel from iron orr and the list goes on -- iron ore, and the list goings on, there is an exception, you get fish out of the sea, maybe you can race algae in the sea, otherwise it grows out of the soil. new wealth comes from this earth in one form or another. we use it to produce the necessaryities of life.

those necessaryities which were simplified down to food, clothing, and shelter, all of that comes out of thertth. those are the necessaryities. the money we spend, i used to get in debate with former congressman tom feeney from orlando, florida, disney world territory, a very smart and effective member of congress, and a good friend who i admire, when i tell him all new wealth comes from the land, he says, oh, no, it comes from the airport. they do, mr. speaker. fly down to orlando. it's a refreshing injection of capital into the economy in the orlando area. but that's not the new wealth. it's just newly arriving in orlando when you trace it back, it's the dispoeable -- disposable income that comes from the people producing goods and service that is have a marketable value, domestically and abroad, and they are producing it from the raw materials, or mined out of the el, or value adding to the crops that grow from the soil. that's what this country is, and that's how this economy works.

if you don't understand that and you're trying to manage a country that has about a $15 trillion gross domestic product, and you believe that spending money is the solution rather than producing goods and services, you can understand, then, why we are in the situation we are in. i think the speaker and i agree completely on what i'm about to say, and i'm going to take this back again, to ronald reagan, who once said that what you tax you get less of. well, i look around the united states and i look at our tax policy that we have, and i start looking for productivity. that's earnings, savings, and investment. they identify the productivity in this country. if you have any earnings, any savings, or any investment, the first lean on all of that, the one who holds the mortgage collateral on it, is uncle sam. the federal government has the first lean on all productivity

in america. and then along comes -- if you walk in and punch the time clock on a monday morning at 8:00 and hear that thunk, think of that as uncle sam's arm going out and his hand is out. and he will take every dime you earn until he's sead, en-- heast satisfied, and when hungle sam puts that in his pocket, then you throw in for the governor, he doesn't take as long. he gets his hand in the pocket. now you can start to work for yourself, your children, and your family. the first lean on -- lien on all productivity in america is held by uncle sam, the federal government. all earnings, savings, and investment is all taxed in this country unless they found a way to get you through this loophole. so because what you tax you get less of, that means you get less production because we tax it all. if you produce the federal government taxes it, this is a

disincentive for production, so we produce less. if we are going to come out of this economic decline we are in, if spending were going to be solved, we would have solved it by now. this keynesian economic experiment of the president's, but it's production that will solve it, and we need to take the tax off of all production in america. which is all earnings, savings, and investment, so that it will drive and it will prosper. when we tell people in this country you can invest all the capital you want to invest, you can earn all you want to earn, you can save all you want to save, and when you do that, we are not going to tax any of it. you can pile up as much cash and capital and savings as you want, not one dime of federal tax will be on any of that that you earn, when we do that, and i pray one day we will do that, the average worker will get 56% more in their paycheck. there will be a lot more production in this country, it

will be a lot more competitive. and then people could pay their tax with a national sales tax, the option of paying taxes which is a decision you make when you consume. that's what the fair tax is. and that's what brings us out of this mess that we are in. and it needs to be a very high priority. and i need to hear the presidential candidates talk about their position on a national sales tax. they talk around it, and they will say i'm for a fair tax or flat tax or anything that taxes us less, that's nod good enough. if you want to lead this country, lay out a tax proposal that actually solves this problem that we are in. i have looked at this proposal, mr. speaker, for more now than 30 years. and i don't know how many years ago it was when they invented the rubix cube that you could turn that thing around and arrange the colors on all the sides of the cube, but i have turned the rubix cube of the fair tax over and over, every possible way that i can look at it. and the more i look at it,

usually when you get to looking at something it starts to look a little worse the longer you look at you, the more i look at this, the rubix cube of the fair tax, the better it looks to me. that's more than 30 years of looking at this proposal. that's more years than we had the proposal. but i have advocated for a national sales tax since about 1980. that was back when i got audited one too many years in a row and i decided why do i have the i.r.s. in my life? why are they making monday morning quarterback decisions? why am i looking at paying interest and penalty on a tax liability that to this day i do not believe that i legally owed? it's because the i.r.s. has so much policy -- so much power that you can't fight them. you can fight them, but you are going to lose. that was a painful thing for a person of principle to come to a realization that hi to go to the bank to borrow money to pay the i.r.s. because even though i'm right, it would cost me my business if i stopped producing

long enough to fight the i.r.s. that was the equation that i was faced with. and so i want to challenge anybody in this house of representatives that wants to debate tax policy on the fair tax. i would be real happy to yield to anybody that would come down here on the floor, set up a special order for the purpose. go just about anywhere i would logistically get to face off with somebody that thinks the fair tax is a bad idea. it is a great idea. i sat down with alan greenspan within a month of the time that he stepped down as chairman, his retirement, and i said to him, here are all the things that the fair tax does. i went through the list. and i said, it eliminates personal income tax and corporate income tax and payroll income tax, including, medicare, medicaid, social security. it puts a check into -- rebate into everybody's household so that to reimburse them a prebate for the taxes they would pay for

their spending up to the poverty level. it provides a incentive for people to invest money, and it will attract capital from all overseas. i went through all of that. i said i need you to challenge me on any point i have made. i don't want to be making this argument across this country and have a position that i can't sustain. test me, challenge me. he listened as i went through the list. he looked up at me and said, you left out provides a incentive for savings and investment. this country needs an incentive for savings and investment, add that to the list and keep saying it. you're right on all those points. actually just forgotten to say it, provides an incentive for savings and investment. but it illustrated to me how carefully alan greenspan was listening to that presentation. how he identified the omission that i had left. and it was an astute response. i said to him i need you to advocate for this. and he said to me, serious, you

will not find serious economists that disagree with you on this position. the fair tax does all the things that you say it does. it's not an economic question because serious economists will not disagree. it's a political question. and you are the politician, meaning me, mr. speaker, and you need to solve the political question. it's not an economic argument. so comes back to the same thing over and over again. here we are in this great country. we are a wealthy country. we are also a productive country. and we do have a good work ethic even though it's being undermined by 72 different means tested federal welfare programs. we are a great country and we have the resources to solve any problem that can be solved. we can come up with the money to do it. we either have the technology or we can develop the technology. we've got the man and woman power. we have the work power to do all of that. we can solve everything. but when i look at the problems that are unsolved and unresolved in the united states of america,

invariably it comes back to, the political question. it's politics that stick in the middle of this. it's not because we don't have enough people with common sense. we have people with competing interests and we have people that confuse the issue and they bog this thing down and make it harder than it needs to be because they are looking for some kind of political benefit from it. but we have the solution here at our fingertips. this congress, if we were able to get a fair tax bill to the floor of the house of representatives for an up or down vote, i would say there would be a vegas line on whether that would pass or not, mr. speaker, but i believe it would. i believe this house of representatives would vote to scrap the entire internal revenue code and scrap the i.r.s. itself and replace it with a national sales tax. i believe this house of representatives would vote to take all the tax off of productivity in america, and put

that tax over on a revenue neutral basis on to consumption instead of goods and services, goods and services would have a marketable value domestically and abroad. i believe the house of representatives would pass that legislation if we could get it to the floor for a vote, and i believe they would be in the process of doing this, they would be granting to american manufacturers in the stroke of a pen a 28% marketing advantage over foreign competitors when it comes to manufacturing. if you take a mazda that's presumably built 100% in japan, compared to a ford, built 100% in america, and each of them were sitting on a dealer's lot perhaps across the street from each other, and the sticker price on these two comparable valued vehicles was each $30,000, then competition would upset that. into that ford is embedded 22% of federal taxes that are built

into the price of that ford because corporations don't pay taxes, consumers pay it. corporations aggregate them and they put it into the price of the products that they produce. competition drives out the embedded tax. your $30,000 ford becomes $23,400. that would be the new sticker price. it would take 12 to 18 months to turn the inventory over and get competition to drive that down. $2,$23,400 would be the new sticker price with the fair -- $23,400 would be the sticker price. but the mazda would still be $30,000 because their structure is japan not the united states. then you add in a 23% sales tax into both vehicles, and your ford price to drive it off the lot presuming it's not a tax deductible business purchase

goes from what was 30,000 knocked down to $23,400 bus. embedded federal tax comes out of the price and add in 23% tax, you drive your ford off the lot for $30,400. but your mazda needs to also pay the 23% embedded tax, it comes off the lot at $39,000. so you end up with an $8,600, 28% marketing advantage the ford over the mazda. what does that bring about, mr. speaker? instead of $800 million worth of mazda's coming to the united states aboard ships on an annual basis, you got fords being sent to japan and to korea and to china and europe and all around the world we are making more and more cars and we are shipping them all around the world because we now have a tax structure that ceases to punish production and provides a incentive for savings and investment and gives those workers that are making the

fords 56% more in their paycheck and those people that run the manufacturing plants whether it's cars or whether it's trailer taxles or whether it's the modern version of the widget , all have a competitive advantage now that's gained 28%. we reached the static low of the things we produce and sometimes half of a percent is enough to make a difference whether you sell large volumes into foreign countries. a half of a percent, maybe a tenths of a%. . can you imagine sitting there -- i'm thinking shipping product over into a place like asia and you're there where the margins are so tight. sometimes you can sell. sometimes you can't. you have to ration your price down a little bit to get it sold. people are looking for the tiny little edge that let's them export something to a foreign country. they're sitting there with a tiny little edge or no edge and all of a sudden here comes a

28% marketing advantage. whoosh. it goes overseas. we light this country up. we light this country up. we become the manufacturing center of the world again. we find jobs for people. they're out there. for american labor to produce a higher return so that -- we are the most productive workers in the world today. and we will increase our manufacturing, we will increase our exports, we will reverse this trade imbalance and it will be a surplus of exports and instead of us being a debtor nation we become a prosperous nation. and by the way, if exports are working, think what can happen. we got a dollar that's being devalued by the white house and by the fed. they're printing money and dumping the currency and the dollar is dropping. what is one of the reasons? it's because if the dollar doesn't buy much then people in foreign countries can buy more things from the united states. look how it works the other

way. when we get this 28% marketing advantage we can start to tighten up our currency and start to give its value again. maybe we can get to the point where we put a gold standard under it or a basket of currency to -- basket of commodities that would be used in lieu of a gold standard so that our dollar has a value that can be anchored to a commodity that actually can be exchanged for rather than the full faith and credit of the federal government. the fair tax solves everything good that can be solved by a tax policy. it does everything that anybody else's tax policy does that's good. it does them all and it does them all better. and i will stand on that statement, mr. speaker, and i will challenge any member of this congress or anybody that has a legitimate reputation out across this country to stand up and we'll take this issue on anywhere. this is one of these times when i'll just say that it's one of

the things i have been right on for a long time. a lot of others have been right on this for a long time, and it's getting to the point where it's high time that we move a fair tax. we had a little hearing in the ways and means committee here a few weeks ago. glad to have that. i don't know if the earths shook or not. i don't know if it illuminated the base of the members. but i tell you the public would be disappointed to know how shallow the knowledge base is among many members of this congress when it comes to a national sales tax. they're shallow. they can't pass the test. they're navigating themselves away from the mittcal liability that comes up every day in this political trade. they don't have time to dig down into it. so you need to focus them and the public needs to focus them. the fair tax needs to be moved. we need to have it in the presidential race. i want to do everything we can to bring it up. as the clock shifts down, it's important for me to address the

natural disasters in the country primarily the floods that we've had in the missouri river. we have been under water since early or mid june. we have more water that's come down the missouri river than at any time prior to this time in history. this is from sioux city downstream. christian and nick is very well-known. where we are sioux city on down, that river has been since june, and i will say mid june it's been about the narrowest typical place you would see would be the water a mile and a half wide. i wouldn't recommend it but it can be swam across. a mile and a half downstream from sioux city and if you go south it goes five, six miles wide. north of the omaha airport 11 miles wide.

water 11 miles wide and it narrows up downstream maybe four, six miles wide all the way down into missouri and into sam graves' district typical on down. we have seen more water come down that river this summer than ever before. and it is a flood of massive proportions. when i tell you a river that's 11 miles wide for three months long it gives you a sense of what it is. people have to be thinking it's stagnant water that's sitting there that can't be escaped. it isn't. it's water with a velocity. a velocity of 3 to 5-mile-an-hour even out away from the central stream of the channel and it's 11 to 12-mile-an-hour but out away at the base of the hills and it's flooded hill to hill the water is moving along at a cliff that's oh, a fast pace if you're walking is about what it would be. and we have watched business after business, farm after farm, residence after residence

go underwater. it's sandbags, set up pump and they lose the battle. halfway up on the windows of the living room. and we have miles and miles of trees that have been standing in water that is 10, 12, 16 feet deep for the better part of the summer. i'll say all summer. and when the wind blows and the water starts to go down, the trees just tip over. miles and miles of huge trees laying down. the swath of them just falling over by wind and gravity and nothing for their roots to hang on to. and hundreds of thousands of farm fields that are under water. and flooded with huge sand bars that are created by the current and all kinds of junk washed out in the middle of them. this is what we're dealing with on the missouri river. the corps of engineers has built in the upper missouri river six dams. they are known as the pick, flow and slow program. it began sometime in the 1940's

and 1950's when they look back on the historically highest flood which was 1881 and they had a large flood in 1943. it didn't -- it wasn't as much as 1881 but it was a heads up wake-up call that started congress working and they began working on this pick, slow and flow program to prevent flooding in the missouri river. 1952 there was a huge flood and that accelerated the construction and they completed in the late 1950's and early 1960's the sixth dam reservoir complex of the pick, slow and flow program that goes clear up into montana. and they wrote a master manual for the corps of engineers that guides them on how they shall manage this -- the reservoirs and how they shall manage the missouri river. the master manual, mr. speaker, has been amended. i believe there have been five different versions, but in each of those versions the corps of engineers has used the same amount of storage capacity for

flood control. there's a fermnant pool and above that permanent -- permanent pool and above that permanent pool they've kept 16.3 million acre-feet for flood control. and the reason they have 16.3 million acre-feet is that was the amount calculated to protect from the floods of the largest runoff ever experienced which was 1881. in 188149 million acre-feet of -- in 1881, 49 million acre-feet came down. and so i have a bill that i trust was introduced this afternoon or will be before the fall of the gavel today, mr. speaker, that requires the corps of engineers to manage the pick, slow and flow program to protect from serious downstream flooding and to adjust those flood levels to the largest amount ever experienced. and that language then means

2011 runoff rather than 1881 runoff. so if we get another year of this runoff we'll be using the storage rather than having it be part of the permanent pool so all of this downstream flooding that's wiped out hundreds and hundreds of square miles and set it off a flowing of water for the summer can be protected. they have the storage capacity to protect all of us downstream from that type of serious flooding and the legislation that i have that has been sponsored by representatives from -- let's see, one, two, three -- at least four states along the missouri. and i'm not sure who else might have signed on it this afternoon. that legislation just simply says to the corps of engineers, adjust the flood storage from the 16.3 million acre-feet to an amount that will protect from serious downstream flooding. that's the message from the -- in the bill. that's what i'm going to ask this congress to pass. that's what i think we have a reasonable chance of having

unanimous support among the states affected by the missouri river floods all the way up to the head waters and all the way down to st. louis. i'm hopeful that every member will sign on. it's bipartisan. we have the same amount of democrats as we do republicans on that bill. and it's something i feel the need to notice this congress that is something that i'd ask for support and hopefully we can start to move it through. and so, mr. speaker, as we get close to wrapping up business in this congress for this week and i think about what we have ahead of us, of course, one of the things we have ahead of us is how do we fund this government beyond september 30. that will be ultimately i believe a c.r., a continuing resolution. we have the debt ceiling debate behind us at least for now. we have the pressure points that are set up by the debt ceiling bill. i have never been a fan of a supercommittee of 12 apostles sitting in a room deciding for the rest of us what they think

is best. and that they will -- the product that may come from there if it's used right can be useful and it can produce a happy ending here. i'm hopeful that they will make suggestions and work with the committees and the cuts we must get in this congress i believe need to be produced by the committees that have the most and the best knowledge about the subject matter at hand. that it's not just a slash and burn from inside the perhaps and maybe not closed doors of the supercommittee, and i think this country's got a long ways to go. but in the end here's what gets us where we need to go, pass the fair tax, mr. speaker. that turns this economy back around and does all the things that i've said. it does everything good and dozen them all better. it gives people back their freedom. it gives them 56% more on their paycheck. they decide when to pay taxes when they make a purchase.

it rewards production. it stops punishing production. that in the end and it rewards production. people would produce more. they'll earn more. they'll save more. we'll export more. our dollar will be worth more. people's labor will be worth more and the 80 million americans that are working age but not in the work force need to be put to work. we can't have a nation of slackers and then have me have to sit in the judiciary committee listening to them argue there's work that americans won't do so we have to import people to do work americans won't do and borrow money to pay the welfare people that won't work. that is a foolish thing for a nation to do. we got to get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker roles and onto the employed roles and -- employed rolls and that to revalue the dollar. we need to pacific northwest a balanced budget amendment that actually is a legitimate balanced budget amendment where the supercommittee required to waive the balance, a

supercommittee required to raise the debt ceiling, a supercommittee required to exceed 18% of the g.d.p. and a supermajority required to as i said to raise taxes, balance the budget and exceed the debt limit. so if we can do those things, repeal obamacare, pass the fair tax, passed a balanced budget amendment out of this congress, ask the states to save us, that will be a pretty good foundation to build this country on and it would be a good foundation for little reagan ann king who just took her first steps in the last 24 hours to look and ahead and think, grandpa is actually doing something here in congress. it's going to open the door up to her and all generations and still have something left for themselves and start to get to the point where we can one day start to pay down this national debt. mr. speaker, i appreciate your attention here this afternoon. i'll yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we're at the end of another week of session here. the president's been traveling around the country, i know that costs millions and millions of dollars to put air force one in motion, hopping all over the country.

i've also seen what it takes from a security standpoint to prepare for a president to come anywhere, because of the sniper weapons available these days they have to be so thorough and secret service has to go along and check anything they can see, they have to take out. that takes several days. so to the average person you have to -- you think, well, gee, the president just comes in, he's gone 30 minutes, no big deal. but for those whose life's work it is in the government to make sure that things go properly, it is an extremely onerous task and we owe so much to those who protect those who are leading the country. not so much people in congress. i know we had people in congress who were advocating that we all ought to have our own security

detail but as one of my constituents said one morning at 2:00 a.m. in wal-mart, wow, you really don't have any security and i said, no, it's just you, me, and the syrup here. but i don't think we should have to have security. if it comes to that this country is in such trouble, i'm not sure we'll have it back in any proper form anyway. but in the meantime i am an advocate of, you know, letting people in washington -- washington, d.c., who aren't prior convicted felons, meet the requirements of having -- being able to carry, let folks carry, and not here in the capitol, of course, you don't need one here. we got the finest we could hope for, mr. speaker, and i know you know capitol police are fantastic. we've got some up in the gallery to make sure things are orderly

up there. and as we know from the last 20 years, there are times they've had to lay down their lives to protect the public here. so we're greatly blessed, but it all comes back to this. we're talking about tons, millions and millions of dollars for the president to go anywhere . and ever since one week ago we were chastised by the president here on the house floor as he spoke from the podium here, that we needed to pass his bill, somebody else counted them, i didn't, we got to pass this bill right now, right away, pass this bill now, and it turns out the whole time the president was saying this bill there was no such bill. which brought back memories of exactly two years before when at that time the president demanded to come address a joint session of congress, well, under the

rules of congress, the laws of the land, no one can demand to come speak to the senate or house unless they're invited. but that was overlooked back in september of 2009. the president was not doing well in the polling with his health care ideas, he figured if he came and spoke here on the floor , because he is such a gifted reader, that he might be able to persuade people to support a bill that otherwise didn't like. so he came and he spoke and he spoke of this bill, my bill, this plan, my plan. i couldn't find a bill, i couldn't find a plan anywhere. and it was even two weeks later that i ask the cabinet member charged with help health and human services -- charged with health and human services, since the president was so accusatory and said, if you any of you

misrepresent my bill i am going to call you out -- thank you -- i'm going to call you out if you misrepresent my bill, i wanted to make sure i don't misrepresent anything, so i asked the secretary of health and human service, where do i get a copy of the president's bill? she said, these words -- she said these words, i think he was talking about a set of principles. it couldn't have been. he said this bill, my bill, this plan, my plan. he didn't have a plan, he didn't have a bill, he was talking about a set of principles? how could he condemn us for misrepresenting a bill or plan that he didn't have? not then. turns out he didn't. so as i heard the president say repeeltedly, pass this bill, pass this bill, do it right now, right now, i wondered if yet again, two years later, he was making the same error and that

is demanding we pass a bill that didn't exist. and it turns out my concerns were well founded. he had no bill, he had no plan. he had a speech. but as we've learned from c.b.o., generally speaking, unless they're chastised sufficiently by the president of the white house, c.b.o. cannot score a speech. now, if they're chastised sufficiently, then c.b.o. will give them some sort of scoring because they just -- there's pressures that can be brought to bear from the white house. that somehow apparently make them sensitive. so nonetheless in which there's another whole point, i really don't believe that we will be able to fix the problems of the massive overspending, the overtaxing, the dramatic problems with the overvexation,

the overburdensome laws and regulations until we change a number of things. one of those is we eliminate the congressional budget office and eliminate the rules under which bills are scored. those rules were put in place in 1974 by the same congress that forced the military to rush out of vietnam, leaving many report around two million people who had helped us to be wiped out, murdered, killed because the congress didn't care. that same congress put in rules that would require that a bill be scored as the effect it would have on our economy, on spending, on revenue. it required it would be scored under rules that do not allow

the scorer to take into consideration reality. history, facts. all they're allowed to do is to consider the formulas, the rules under which they're bound, by that 1974 congress. that's it. now, we've gotten horrible scoring and it can't be blamed on c.b.o., the joint commission on tax. it's the rules that are the problem. but when a group comes back with a score of around $800 billion and then later they have to confirm in reality it's more like say $1.1 trillion, then you realize, on an $800 billion bill that the score really should put boldly that you have to consider

that with a 30% to 40% margin of error, plus or minus. so here's the score, plus or minus 30%, 40%, and that's about the best we can do. well, since that is the best that c.b.o. can apparently do, it's time to have some massive changes in this place. it's time to use reality, it's time to use history, and not some 1974 liberal congress' idea of how we get the government taken over everybody's lives. that's no way to run government unless you're in some country besides the united states of america. so, you know there's an old saying in this town, mr. speaker , no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up. and in my 6 1/2 years here in congress i found that certainly true.

because you want to trust everybody. you want to believe that when people say things in this town it's true. but then you find out, for example, that you can have a leader of the country tell everybody that we need to go after the big oil companies, they're having massive profits and we're going after those companies. and then you find out that the bill that's produced to go after those companies has no adverse effect on those companies whatsoever and in fact it will make them even bigger profits than they might have ever imagined. now, i know there's been some issues about the bill title, american jobs act of 2011.

and, yes, i'm the one that filed the american jobs act of 2011. i think it will be a wonderful thing when we in this body can work together, we can have our disagreements. i found that in a deacon body, even though there was a lot of nasty, mean things said, that if we had prayer together and we came together, we had meals together, we could work together . and one of the things that's so troubling on this floor is when people come so close to impugning integrity of other people, i know some people that have opposed views of how this country should work, but i know in their heart they want the country to work well and

succeed. i just believe from history they're wrong, but there are people in this body who might think we were so far from each other politically that we wouldn't want to have anything to do with each other. dennis kucinich is one of those people that is quite far afield from me in so many political issues, but dennis has never lied to me, he has always been upfront, i find him to be a man of conviction, and i find him refreshing. marcy capture and i disagree on many issues, maybe most issues, but i know she is a person of integrity, she's never lied to me, she's never been anything but honest with me. there are numerous people. bill delahunt and i would spar in judiciary committee many, many times. other committees, subcommittees,

here on the floor. but i always found bill democrat hunt, what i would call a -- delahunt, what i would call a liberal from massachusetts, a democrat, to be an honorable man, a man of integrity, and i believe with all my heart that he had a heart for this country and he wanted to see it work. we ought to be able to work together when people realize that we've got common goals, the common goal of being the good of the country. so let's at least find things we could agree on. when i was engaged in trials and i've been involved in many trials as an attorney and as a judge and i oversaw them briefly as a chief justice, but engaged as a lawyer and many times we started in the discovery process, i've told opposing

counsel, we can do this one of two ways. we can fight and scrape and fuss over every question, over every deposition, but we both know the rules require certain things will need to be produced, certain things will need to be disclosed and so i would prefer to do it that way. amicably. and the people that win are the clients. because they don't have to pay near as much money because it doesn't take near as much time. if you can agree on the things that you know you're going to have to produce and quit having a motion to compel, a motion to protect, all this kind of stuff. sometimes we had attorneys we could work together well and sometimes they would hit me with a discovery demand out of the blue that was so grossly unfair but not illegal that you would find out, ok, this is the way you want to go, i didn't want to

go this way, but i believe so strongly in the interests of the person i'm representing and believe so strongly in the process itself, then you want to fight, you'll have a fight. if somebody is going to travel around the country condemning me and other people in this body -- body for refusing to pass a bill knowing that that bill does not exist, it is not in existence because legally it is not -- it has not been filed. then we're going to do some battle over that. and if i'm going to be condemned for a week for refusing to pass an american jobs act of 2011, well after six days or so it's time to have an american jobs act that we can pass.

or at least that i could go along with. and i would certainly like, mr. speaker, the president and others to know, i'm flexible. but the corporate tax is one of the most insidious taxes that we have in this country because it's not an honest tax. governments have represented to voters for years and years that we've got this tax over here, we go after the mean, evil, greedy corporations, and some do have greed as a material factor in their business, but the thing is, that's not what a corporate tax is about. a corporation cannot stay in existence if they don't have their customers or clientele

pay the corporate tax. so a corporate tax is not actually a tax on a corporation. a corporate tax is instead requiring a corporation to be the collection agent. oh, make no mistake, that tax will come from the rank and file people across this great country. they're the ones who are going to pay that tax. the corporations or a collection agent, they -- the corporations are a collection agent. they collect the tax from their customers and pass it on to the federal government. the trouble is, in this country, now, we have the highest corporate tax in the world, any developing nation, for sure, 35%, in china, 17%, and they do cut deals where they'll reduce it, zero tax for five years, i've been told by

some people there, get a deal, they won't tax them five years, then gradually work up to 17%. not here in the united states. we are going to slap a 35% tax on anything a company in america produces. that sure makes it tough to compete in the global market. now that we've got planes, ships that move so quickly, rail that goes across borders, it is important that we be able to compete in the global market. and if we're going to slap a 35% tariff on everything american companies produce in this country, they're going to have to move and go to a country where there's not such a high collection fee that corporations are required to collect in this country. they're going to go to a country like china that charges a lot less for a collection fee from the customers.

but if people could get their mind around the fact that it isn't making the greedy corporations pay, in fact, the greediest corporations are ones that don't pay anything, you know, we found out that the close cronies of the president at g.e. are able to not pay any tax. but the mom and pop type small business corporations, they are having to pay the tax and gibsons, employing a lot of people, i got a gibson guitar when i was 18 years old, fantastic guitar, we'll send in armed agents to harass those people. that's no way to draw business back in this country. but you reduce the corporate tax, you reduce it at all, the more you reduce it, the more jobs that are going to come back because that means the more and more corporations that will be able to compete in the global market and they'll be

able to come back here, union members, not the government union members, and that seems to be where union leadership wants to go these days, forget the manufacturing unions, we're driving those jobs out of america, but any historian will tell you, when a nation that is protecting other nations, and we are, we're protecting the free world, that requires that nation to have a military and any nation who cannot provide its own military with the things it needs to protect itself, that means steel, that means all kinds of metal, it means actually uranium, we have nuclear subs and ships, it means work products, it means tires, we're buying tires for humvees from china these dies -- thee days, excuse me.

we have to be able to have supply line to provide things we need to defend ourselves and provide them in this country. it's time to quit driving companies, including manufacturing jobs, out of the country. and this bill drives more jobs out. you have got to have energy. those that are familiar with the battle of the bulge candy spell the myth that some think, gee, the war was won before the battle of the bulge, some say they buy into the russians' ex-play nations that we have whipped the germans all by ourselves, we didn't need the allies, but if you really study the battle of the bulge, what won that for the allies is the fact that the germans were running out of gasoline. so what does the president do to help us? he said go against, take the

profits of massive, big oil companies. instead, page 151 through 154, he rips the heart out of the independent oil and gas industry. in order to drill a well in america, you have to raise capital. if you're one of the majors like exxon, like british petroleum, dear friends of the president if you're one of those big companies, you know, you've got enough money of your own, you'll capitalize, you can do these things. but for over 90% of the wells drilled in the continental united states, they're raising money have to raise capital, this knocks the fool out of their ability to raise capital and not only that, it repeals the deductions that are not even available through any company that produces more than 1,000 barrels of oil a day. that's the majors. so, all this will do is eliminate over 94% of the wells

drilled in the continental united states and the result will be higher costs of oil, it will make even more profits for the president's friends at british petroleum. british petroleum's friends of the president, love the cap and trade idea, and they're going to love this bill by the president. but, also, we know we've heard complaint after complaint from state after state, and they're saying, you are giving us so many unfunded mandates, you know, we just can't take this anymore. stop already. we just can't stand this kind of help much longer. so if you look through this bill, you end up finding out there's a little provision, like i say, i was up most of -- well until about 5:00 a.m.

tuesday going through this lovely thing, but there is a provision at the bottom of one of the pages, rather obscure, and my staff made copies, i've got the best staff in the world, but i don't believe they got my tag back on that page. anyway, you can find that it says, the title of the little section is, federal and state immunity. but then you read this section that has nothing to do with federal immunity. under the law the federal government and state government are immune from being sued but in that provision, it actually says that, gee, if a state accepts any money at all from the federal government, any money at all, then they have

effectively waived their sovereign immunity and are therefore subject to suit. just found it. it's page 133. a state's receipt or use of federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a state shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment to the constitution or otherwise to a suit brought by an employer -- employee or applicant for employment of that program activity. it goes on. so at a time when states say, we can't afford any more unfunded mandates, the president proposes a bill to let them get sued a bunch more by people who are unemployed. that's just got to be great news. and we're seeing the hearings go on about cylindra, this

administration, it appears, we'll get the final verdict later, but they rushed in to give them $500 million of stimulus money so crony capitalism could occur and certain people could engorge themselves at taxpayer expense and it turns out future generations will probably be paying for that. if you like the way that was handled, you've got to be reassured because in this bill, there are a number of references that green programs like this will have priority and will rush more money out there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: there are a lot of things we could agree on in that bill that the president never had anybody willing to file. there was a provision for payroll tax holiday. you would figure, i'd support

that, i'm the guy that proposed it three years ago and personally explained it to the president and larry somers in january of 2009. but it sure would have been better for we did it before this administration squandered $4.5 trillion more than we bought in. we could have given everybody in the united states who pays income tax a tax holiday for three years an it would have only run up $3.6 trillion, we would have saved $900 billion and if you don't think that people having all of their own income tax from three years would have stimulated this economy, then you need to embrace this president's bill because you'll love it. but nonetheless, there are things we could agree on. both houses, both parties, i think, agree that we were willing to sell some more broadband spectrum. that's in there in the bill. he uses it as a platform to

create another bureaucracy, a big brother coming into your computer because it's the public safety broadband corporation that's created and will just really make sure that big brother government intrudes in your life. well, when you boil it all down, we have a moral problem in america. the founders continually pointed to god and said, that's where we need to have our focus. as ben franklin said, without his concurring aid, we will succeed in our political building no better than the builders of babel. we'll be confounded by a local partial interest and we ourselves shall become a byword down through the ages. so whether anybody believes in god or not. as the founders did, over 1/3 of the signer of -- signers of

the declaration of independence were not just christian bus ordained ministers, but to take one's eyes off one's self and put them on something higher and greater avoids the kind of engorgement, the self-satisfaction the self-emphasis we've gotten into. that's the reason you run up twls of dollars of debt without any regard for the children, the grandchildren, the generations to come. and i have to make this personal note reference. it break misheart to see that in college football, nobody loves college football more than i do, i tend -- i attended texas a&m, a lot of people are excited about texas a&m perhaps going to the southeastern conference for money. all about money. the traditions of texas a yavend m make it unique and i think the greatest public institution of higher education in the country. i'm very proud of it. but it's the traditions.

now we see that over 100 years of tradition, going back to 1876, are ready to be thrown away for money. just money. greed, money. forget tradition that made the institution great. forget it all. forget the state rivalries, forget it all. we're talking about cash. isn't that what got us in trouble in this country in the first place? when we put cash, greed for ourselves, above the interests of the country or the institutions we represented? you know, just to close with this example. my senior year in the corps cadets, i was the second level below the corps commander, i was one level right below the corps commander. there were four of us at that level. major unit commanders, there was a corps commander. he didn't play very well with others. the first meeting we had, all the senior leaders in the corps

cadets, he had his staff put together tables end to end he got up there with a corn cob pipe like mcarthur, walked up and down and condescended and cajoled all his classmates like they were 2-year-olds. i approached him after the meeting and i said, man, you know, these guys have seen you naked. we're all classmates, we're all friends. you need to try to work together, don't just condemn everybody. and i think if we could get to that level in here, not that we run around naked together but just where we could work together as friends, disagreeing on issues, but unless one person has 100% lock on god's truth, 100% of the time, we should listen to each other, not condemn each other and we can get these things worked out, put greed aside and have this country last 200 more years. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, on july 19, 2011, secretary of commerce, gary locke, certified under section 8 of the fishermen's protective act of 1967 as amended, the national it's of iceland are conducting wailing activities that diminish the effectiveness of the conservation program. this message constitutes my report to the congress consistent with subsection b of the pelly amendment. iceland's actions threaten the conservation status of an endangered species and undermine multilateral efforts to ensure greater worldwide protection for wales. their commercial waling and recent trade diminish the effectiveness of the i.w.c.'s conservation program because, one, iceland's commercial

harvest of wales undermines the moratorium on commercial waling to protect plummeting wale stocks. the thin weal harvest undermines the levels. and, three, iceland's harvests are not likely to be brought under i.w.c. management and control at sustainable levels through million multilateral efforts at the i.w.c. i concur with the secretary of commerce's recommendation to pursue the use of nontrade measures and that the actions outlined above are the appropriate course of action to address this issue. accordingly i am not directing the secretary of the treasury to impose trade measures on icelandic products for the wail waling activities. however, to ensure that this issue continues to receive the highest level of attention, i am directing the departments of state and commerce to continue to keep the situation under review and continue to urge iceland to cease its commercial

waling activities. further, within six months or immediately upon the resumption of fin whaling i have directed relevant agencies to report to me on their actions. i believe these actions hold the promise distribute most promise of effecting a reduction in iceland's commercial whaling activities. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committees on foreign affairs and natural resources and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby 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 adopted. accordingly the house stands

he was later elected in 1985 to the house representatives in ohio. in 1990, he is elected to the house representatives in the united states. he has now been reelected 10 consecutive terms. as a member of the house

leadership, he has had many different positions. he served as chairman of the house republican conference. he served as chairman of the house education committee. he served as minority leader and majority leader. and now, he is the 61st leader of the house representatives. we are glad to welcome our guest today speaker of the house john boehner. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank the members of the board. all of you honored guests that are here today. thank you for the opportunity to be here and talk to you about jobs and the state of our nation's economy. we all know the economy has stalled and it has been stalled. it is not because of the american people. it is because their government has left them down. last week, the government has

offered a set of proposals. the house will consider them. some of the president's proposals offer an opportunity for common ground. but let's be honest with ourselves. the president's proposals are reports substitute for the pro- growth policies needed to remove barriers to job creation in america. if we want job growth, we need to recognize who really creates jobs in america. does the private sector. this building is named in memory of former president ronald reagan who recognized that private-sector job critters are at the heart of our economy. they always have been that is the america that i was raised in. my father and my grandfather were small business people. there ran a tavern in cincinnati, ohio that my grandfather started back in the 1930's.

i worked in the tavern growing up. there are a lot of things you can learn working in a bar. [laughter] i will tell you more about that later. i ran a small business myself. when i was 25 years old, i went to work for a guy and he passed away and i suddenly found myself in a small business where i had small real-life customer and those hanging on trying to succeed. but i know it means to meet a payroll, to hire people and create jobs in the private sector. in washington, there is the fundamental misunderstanding of the economy and it has led to an awful lot of bad decisions. employers will higher if they have the right incentives. but the incentives have to walk out with the cost. for example, businesses will not hire someone because the government will give them a $400,000 tax credit. if the government mandates that are imposed on them cost more

than that temporary credit. in recent years, these mandates have been overwhelming. private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made right here in washington. there have been slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, about control spending, and unnecessary regulation from government that is always micromanaging and meddling and manipulating. there have been hurt by government ideas that offer short turn demits rather than fundamental reform that will in courage long term economic growth. they have been hampered by a government that offers confusion to entrepreneurs and job creators when there needs to be clarity. they have been undercut by a government that favors crony capitalism and businesses deemed too big to fail over the small banks and small businesses that are at the heart of the,.

-- at the heart of the economy. they have been demoralized by garment the causes despair when what we really need is to provide insurance and inspire hope in our economy. much of the talk in washington right now is basically about more of the same. or initiatives that seem to have more to do with the next election than the next generation. these economic decisions are made here and not to be made to help liberate our economy. i think the american people are worried about all of this as much as i am. i can tell that the american people, private-sector job creators, they're baffled by what has gone down in the last two years. i worry is that the american job craters -- creators -- that this

economy is turning everyone to fear and that this may be permanent. job makers in america are on strike. it is the policies themselves. the danger that many americans have felt in recent years is beginning to turn to fear of our future. it should bother me. frankly, i think it should bother all this. america is the land of opportunity. our country has been built on offertory, entrepreneurs, risktakers, willing to take a chance because they are confident that, if there work hard, they had -- if they work hard, they have a chance to succeed. more and more americans are realizing this and they are speaking out about it. the last six weeks or so, i have travelled through my district

and across the country listening to people outside of washington who are the key to making america work. my message today on their behalf is this. this is not that hard. what we need to do is leverage the economy from the shackles of washington. let our economy grow. i think we need to trust in the good judgment of the american people. job creation in america is facing " i would call a triple threat from our government. the first aspect of that threat is excessive regulation. during a joint session last week, i hosted about a dozen job creators from the private sector.

they have a common story. they're trying to create more american jobs. but the government is getting in their way. we all know some regulations are needed. we have a responsibility under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. there are reasonable regulations that protect our children and keep our environment clean. but then there are excessive regulations that unnecessarily increase the cost for consumers and small businesses. and those excessive regulations are making it harder for our economy to create jobs. over the past couple of months, we have seen two vivid illustrations. last month, the government raided the gibson guitar maker in tennessee. it employs thousands of people the company's cost as a result of the raid are an estimated two million dollars to $3 million. why? because it gibson bought with overseas to make guitars in

america. the other example is in south carolina where the boeing company recently completed a plant that will create thousands of new full-time jobs. for american workers. they were sued by federal agency that wants to shut it down. let me make sure i have this right. american companies are free to go create jobs in china, but they are not free to create jobs in south carolina. under current washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of the least $100 million, at least two hundred 19 times. i think it is reasonable that is not wise to be doing this right

now. the regulatory burden coming out of washington far exceeds the government's constitutional mandate and is hurting job creation in our country when we can least afford it. if ththe current tax code discourages investment. at a time when the tax code needs to be fundamentally reform, the first idea is to make the tax code more complex. the final thing is the spending binge going on in washington. it has traded a massive debt crisis that poses a direct threat to our country's ability to create jobs and to prosper. there are some people in this town who still deny this. they deny that our debt is a threat to jobs.

but if you talk with someone outside of washington who needs to be a payroll, they say that washington is one of the things that concerns them most about our future. back in may, i was in new york city. i warned that if we did not take action soon that the market would take action for us. last month, the markets took action in the form of a debt downgrade and the possibility of future downgrades that caused the markets to tumble. the responsibility for fixing this toxic environment for job creation is a bipartisan one. the situation was created by washington's inability to let our economy work. it was created by government intrusion and micromanagement. i think we have a responsibility to work together in the coming months to remove these barriers and liberate our economy. this is what the american people are demanding of us.

everything we do in the weeks and months to come need to start with asking this question. are we addressing these problems or are we making them worse? the budget control act of 2011 signed into law last month establishes a joint select committee of congress for the purpose of identifying $1.50 trillion of deficit reduction. many have expressed their doubts about the dirt committees chances of success. i'm understand the skepticism. a joint committee after all is no substitute for the president who controls most of the arms of government. it has a chance to live a foundation for economic growth by dealing with some of the obstacles that are standing in the way. the joint committee's mission is deficit reduction. i think that has everything to do with job growth in our

country as co-chairman of the joint committee, jim henson lang said last week that our debt threatens our jobs. speak to any fortune 500 ceo or small business person and it is clear that our hangs over their hiring decisions. it should be obvious that deficit reduction is a jobs program. the giants let committee can tackle tax reform and should. -- the joint committee can tackle tax reform and should. it can certainly lay the groundwork for tax reform in the future that will enhance economic growth and enhance the interment for real economic growth in our country. the committee can develop principles for tax reform that will lower rates for individuals

and corporations while closing deductions, credits, and special carve dolls in our tax code. yes, tax reform should include closing loopholes. not for the purposes of bringing more money to the government, but because it is the right thing to do and it is the fair thing to do. if we're going to tackle tax reform, we ought to tackle all of it. making short-term fixes in exchange for the long term policy is not tax reform. i think tax reform should do with the whole coat, both the personal side and the corporate side. it should result in a code that is simpler and more fair for everyone tax increases are off the table. i do not think they are a viable option for the joint committee. it is a very simple situation. tax increases destroy jobs. and the joint committee is a jobs committee. the mission is to reduce the deficit and increased job

creation in our country. it will make the in -- i hope the president will meet this standard when he puts forth his recommendations for the joint committee next week. when it comes to producing savings to reach the $1.50 trillion target, the joint select committee has only one option -- spending cuts and entitlement reform. the joint committee can achieve real deficit reduction by reforming entitlements and taking real action to preserve and strengthen social security, medicare, and medicaid. there is this myth that spending reforms are not real unless they happen this year, right now. i think that myth is built on a very healthy skepticism that spending cuts made today will not be implemented tomorrow but it is a myth nonetheless. i think we need to make sure that it does not stop us from doing what needs to be done.

modest changes in spending programs today can have large effects tomorrow. gimmicks are unacceptable. as i told the president's economic team during our debt limit negotiations, we just were not going to do any gimmicks. deficit reduction should be about -- should not just be about quantity, but about quality. $1 billion in imaginary savings from a war spending that was never going to happen is not quite the same as $1 billion in savings that strengthens our entitlement programs. still, there are many skeptics about the joint committee's ability to accomplish this mission and, frankly, i have expected it. there are always skeptics. there were skeptics when i was

in new york who said we should have spending cuts that are larger than the increase in the debt limit increase that we gave the president. guess what. it happened. and this, too, can happen. i think the joint committee can happen and it must succeed. it can help with the foundation for real economic growth and job creation in our country. and if this works correctly, adjusting the structural problems in our income of programs that put us in danger of more job destroying downgrades and setting the stage for fundamental tax reform that will help support private investment. it will have begun to remove some of the biggest barriers to job creation that exist in our country today. as a joint committee, there is a lot of other work in washington that needs to be done. 290 major regulatory actions are in the works by federal bureaucrats right now.

we know seven of them will have an economic impact of more than $1 billion. the biggest is an epa rule that could have an impact of as much as $90 billion. i think the president acted wisely by halting the implementation of that rule. and i would urge the white house to build on their actions by disclosing to the american people the process for the remaining two hundred 12 economically significant rules it has planned. allen also urge the president to hold a cabinet meeting and -- i would also urge the president to hold a cabinet meeting and say, until any further notice, i do not want anything that gets in the way of private-sector. for the president's cabinet, they are not doing their job if they're not constantly focused on removing impediments to job creation. [applause]

if they're not focused on that, they ought to be fired. in the house, for the fall, majority leader kantor has put together legislative schedule that reflects the concerns from job creators across america about unnecessary federal regulations that are hampering our economy. earlier, i mentioned the situation in south carolina and boeing. today, the house is working on a measure that will prevent the federal government from meddling in that situation and others. the senate needs to follow the house in passing this bill and we need to send it to the president's desk. the national labor relations board, that is one of a series of measures to reduce the burden of excessive regulation on job creators. we will pass the reins act, which will require a congressional review for any regulation that has a major impact on our economy.

house committees have identified dozens of job crushing regulations that are keeping our economy from producing jobs. we will repeal the 3% withholding role which serves as an effective tax increase on those who do business with our government. we will stop excessive federal regulations that inhibit jobs in areas as varied as cement to form dusfarm dust. dust.i said farm bes the epa regulates how much farm dust who have. we are working on removing barriers to trade. we have -- the state senate needs to act, too. it cannot sit idle on jobs in

the budget. we have already passed an array of bills in the house to remove barriers to job creation and they are piling up in the senate. the senate has not even produced a budget, but it must. a few other things i would like to mention that we can do in the weeks and months ahead to free our economy and to bolster confidence amongst employers, one is very simple. both parties can boost confidence and reassured job creators by being clear. there will be no shutdown of the federal government and we are not willing to default on our debt. the united states will meet its obligations to its citizens and to its creditors. in congress, i have been clear about these rules from the day i was elected speaker. we have been true to our word. i am not opposed to responsible spending to repair and improve our infrastructure. but i want to do it anyway the

truce of sorts long-term economic growth and job creation -- but i want to do it in a way that truly supports long-term economic growth and job creation. i think there is a natural link. we are going to meet modern infrastructure to bring back the energy to market. we can reassure job creators by sending a balanced budget amendment to the senate. one of the things we did in the budget control act last month was to establish caps on spending. these caps are designed to hold back the growth of government while our economy expands and creates jobs. to ensure those caps are set in

stone, we should ratify a balanced budget amendment. if the president wants to change the dynamic in washington, he should announce his support for a balanced budget amendment and to call on congress to send one to be stsenate without delay. we want politicians of all stripes to leave their my way or the highway philosophy behind, the all or nothing approach. it is not a workable mindset if we are serious about getting our economy on its feet again. our economy is facing a broad based, systemic crisis. it is going to require everyone coming to the table with their best ideas first and leaving their politics at the door. with the courage to listen to each other critiques and

discussions. an end to the name-calling and yelling and a question of the other's motives. leadership is not about that. it is about boggling down and getting to work. thomas edison once said, opportunity missed by most people is missed because it is dressed in overalls and it looks like work. we have the opportunity in front of us. the trick is to recognize it and to believe in it and to act on it. we know the challenge we face as a nation. we have an opportunity and a chance to confront them. if we put politics aside and focus on our work, we will leave the country in a much better place. getting it done will require serious effort by both parties. there are some in both parties who would rather do nothing. they would prefer to sit this out and wait to be dealt a better hand after the next

election. the old kicking the can down the road. that is not what i was elected to do. i know what the hand is that we have been dealt. instead of ducking from the challenge, we need to liberate our economy from the shackles it has been put in. i am ready. i think for the sake of our country and our economy that all of us are ready. i want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and i look forward to your questions. [applause] thank you. thank you all. >> thank you very much. when you were negotiating on the debt limit extension, did you have any doubt that an agreement

would be reached or did you fear that we would actually default? >> no. if you were an optimist like me, you would not be here. i always believed we would be able to come to some type of agreement. i made it clear all year that not meeting our debt obligations was unacceptable. >> the white house and others have said there was an agreement, a grand bargain between you and the president. was there ever an agreement on a grand bargain, or not really? >> unfortunately, not. there was discussion on what could happen or would happen. i told the president to not put revenue on the table. i thought we could get new revenue from a more fair tax code and a more it efficient tax code. over 10 years, i thought there was about $800 billion in

additional revenue that would be available. i told the president i would always put it on the table if he were willing to make fundamental changes in our on entitlement programs. unfortunately, we could never get the yes on those changes to the entitlement programs. then the president decided he wanted more revenue, $400 billion more. that was a tax increase. it was on fortunate we were unable to come to an agreement. it would have averted a lot of what happened. >> would you be in favor of resuming negotiations with the president to reach a grand bargain or do you think the committee is in charge of that? >> the committee is in charge of doing their work. i think it is hard to put humpty dumpty back together again. >> when you play golf with the

president, it did not result in new bonding. >> the president i get along fine. we come from two different worlds. i can do this job as a small business person who felt that government was too big and was out of control. i still look at myself as that same person. the president comes from a different ideology. we have a good relationship. sometimes the conversations we have would be like two groups of people from two different planets who barely understand each other. i do not mean it in a derogatory way. there is a reason why you have two major political parties with big disagreements. >> you mentioned your background earlier. you grew up in modest

circumstances. what is it like to have 11 brothers and sisters? >> chaos. the same thing i deal with every day. [laughter] [applause] >> i tell people that all of the lessons i learned growing up are the lessons i needed to do my job today. growing up in a big family, i had to learn how to get along with everybody. i played every team sport there ever was. my grandfather owned a bar. i mop floors and did dishes, waited tables and tended bar. you have to learn to deal with every jack-- that what in the door. i needed all the skills i needed growing up to do my job. [laughter] >> i understand you still mow your own lawn back in ohio.

is that true? >> it is true. i have to with knowledge that i am not home all the time. on labor day, i cut the grass. i sharpened the blade on the mower and make sure it had ample oil in it because when i am not there, my wife cuts the grass. [laughter] >> let me ask you about sequestration. on the agreement that you reach with the president, there will sequestration if there is not an agreement reached. do you think there will be an agreement reached. ? >> i am not -- is also a big believer in the committee process. in order to get something

accomplished, the senate leaders wanted this joint committee. it is established. it will work. it will work because the leaders look each other in the eye. they made a commitment to make it work. i am optimistic that the committee will be able to do its work. >> one way of solving problems is to pick up a lot of revenue by eliminating the bush tax cuts, which expire in 2012. would you regard that as a tax increase or with your caucus regarded as a tax increase to about or would you say that is not on the table, the elimination of those tax cuts? >> it is interesting. the current tax policy of the united states would generate $35 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. that is the current policy that is in effect today. the current law that is in

effect would mean that revenues would be at $39 trillion over the next 10 years. that is because the law already assumes that the bush tax cuts are gone. it assumes that increased taxes in the affordable care act would go into effect. it assumes that the alternative minimum tax will be there in full effect. it is going to be difficult for the committee to raise taxes because they have to raise taxes beyond the $39 trillion. this is the congressional budget office. welcome to our world on how the government does accounting. the law already assumes that the bush tax cuts are going to be eliminated. >> if they were eliminated, the republicans in the house would not regard them as a tax increase because they are going

to be eliminated otherwise? >> i would call it a tax increase. when you raise somebody's taxes, is a tax increase. [applause] >> the capital gains rate is 15%. would you see any possibility of that being raised in the near term? >> i would not. taxing capital is not going to help create jobs. is going to hurt a job creation. a lot of people in this room remember when we had had a capital gains taxes -- high capital gains taxes. that will not help our economy create jobs. >> the president proposed a jobs bill in his speech to congress. is that going to be considered independent of the special committee? does that stops bill have any chance of passing jim ball?

>> there may be some common ground between us. the congressional budget office is looking at the president's proposal. i would expect that the committees in congress will have hearings on that. it is too early to determine whether some of that ends up being the work of the select committee or whether we would do it separately. >> you have been speaker since the beginning of the year. was the most difficult time in your term the debt extension talks? was that the most difficult. then you face? faced?icucult you >> i do not have many concerns. i never worried about the outcome in this.

i have done the stress thing before. does not accomplish anything. i am a pretty simple guy. i know what i am trying to accomplish in i am just trying to find a way to get there. i think there is a way to do my job where people can disagree without being disagreeable. as much as the president and i can disagree about things, we really do have a good relationship. >> when you were a minority leader, you did not have as much influence in the way the house operates as you do now. >> almost none. [laughter] >> how have you changed the way the house operates? how have you done your job differently than speaker pelosi did? >> i will let other people analyze speaker pelosi's speakership.

i have seen the process of bringing legislation to the floor get tighter and tighter. in the last couple of years, five members decide what the beginning of a bill look like and the same five with decide what the end of the bill looks like. the rest of us would stand on the sidelines. i have always believed what i said in 1991. what do we have to fear in allowing the house to work? i am trying to get a more open process on the floor of the house. i want the committees to be the working zones of the congress. they have been bypassed too much over the last 20 years. the committees have a responsibility to do real work. there is a byproduct of all of this. it is a way, on the committee

level, to get members working together again. if the committee chairman knows his bill is going to come to the floor in an open process, he or she has to find a way to defend that bill and build a bipartisan support from the ground up. i can tell you that, so far, so good. members on both sides of the aisle are happy about the process. the majority leader has done a great job in reworking the schedule so that the committees can meet. we are actually going to vote during the daylight hours as opposed to spending half the night doing things in the dark. so far, so good. i think members are pleased. >> often people want jobs and when they get them they find they are not as good as they thought. now that you are speaker, are you happy you got the job? >> i am on happy i got the job.

people ask me if i am having any fun. somebody show me where the fun is. i am glad i am there. i went to washington with a mission that i outlined earlier. i had an opportunity to lead a mission. i came here not because i wanted to be a congressman. i came here to do something on behalf of my country. i did not want to be speaker because i needed a fancy title. i wanted to be speaker so i could lead an effort on behalf of our country. it is that mission that drives me every day, keeps me excited, keeps me engaged. i like to accomplish my mission and gets -- i would like to accomplish my mission and get out. >> you are not leaving, are you? >> i am not leaving any time soon. >> the republican nominee for

president, whoever that might be -- you have not picked anyone so far. >> they are great candidates. i love all of them. [laughter] >> some i might love more than others. >> if someone asks you to be vice president of the united states, would you be on the ticket? >> it is hard enough for me to go to funerals or people i know. but for people i do not know -- [laughter] to bedoesn't always have boring. >> for today, you would say the biggest challenge the country has is to solve the budget problem and the debt problem. deficits, debt, and job creation. are those the things you are worried about? >> those would be at the top of

the list. >> in terms of national security, do you have any views on what our troops should be brought back sooner or not? >> our greatest national security issue is our unsustainable debt. there are a lot of reasons we have to get rid of the debt. the national security part of it is one of them. when it comes to our national security, i think we need to find a reasonable place working with the iraqi government on what the level of troops is that need to be dead. it is clear that the iraqis are not in a position to be able to defend themselves. we have invested lives and our treasury in helping to build a democracy there. we have obligations there and we

should not be precipitous in putting at risk this fledging democracy in the middle east. in afghanistan, is a different mission. i think the president is on the right path in terms of drawing down the extra troops that were put there. let's all understand that the threat we face from ratko jihadist -- radical jihadists -- this is going to go on. they are trying to right wrongs from 1000 years ago. afghanistan is critically important to the long-term future of our country as difficult and uncomfortable as it is. >> is the presidential election were held today, do you think

your state of ohio would go for the president? >> you do not know what the presidential map makeup is going to look like. you do not know who his opponent is going to be. you cannot beat somebody with nobody. i think the president may have a tough time in ohio today. >> you won 60 new seats. these freshmen members are difficult for you to control. is that a clear statement? >> i was a rabble rousing freshman at one time 20 years ago. some of them come over and apologize to me for being difficult. i get a chance to look at them and say, you have no idea what difficult really means. our freshmen have not been a big challenge. they have had a baptism of fire. there are 87 of them, 63 of them knocked off income but democrat

members. whether it was the continuing resolution to fund our government after march 9, whether it was the budget, and then the debt limit increase, they have had a real baptism. i have some more senior members who -- god bless them -- whatever i do, it is not good enough. they stir up some problems. it is just to be expected. >> coming from the modest circumstances you did, you rose to be the speaker of the house. you people have been minority leader and majority leader. one of the most amazing things reading about your career is that you were in the house leadership and then out of the house leadership. how did you manage to go back and do that, which nobody else has managed to do? >> you mean being thrown out of

the leadership and coming back. i never took what happened in 1998 personally. newt gingrich decided to leave. they tried to go after a majority leader and the whip. i was in the number four died. i should have raised the white flag. i looked at my chief of staff, who is now back as my chief of staff. i told him we would work our way back. we would earn our way back. i said, i am never let them see me sweat. i will never see -- let them see an ounce of disappointment on my face. i will let my work speak for itself. everyone else has always left. you get thrown out of leadership and it is embarrassing. i stayed on the house floor for

a couple of years. i was not happy. i did not want to smile. but i stood there and smiled. i decided to earn my way back. >> it worked out for you. what is your relationship with mitch mcconnell? how does that work out? >> we have different personalities. we are close friends. we have worked together for about four years. it is the first time in decades where you have that two leaders from the same political parties in the house and senate that have had a good relationship. i think it has been good for him. it has been good for us. we talk every couple of days. our staff talks every day. we are on the same page. it makes the process move more smoothly. >> some people say, be careful

what you wish for. you might get it. if you had a republican president and a republican house and senate and you are the speaker. will that be easier to do? >> i was born with the glass half full. every day you wake up and you are dealt a hand, like a hand of poker. you have to play the cards you were dealt. whether it was growing up, my business career, business career. you have to play the hand you are adults. it would be nice to be dealt five aces every time. it does not happen often. sometimes you have a really bad hand. you still have to play the hand. it's not like poker. you have to play the hand you are adults. i try to be realistic about the hand i am dealt and try to make lemonade out of lemons. >> the process you have set up

in the congress to reach an agreement in the special committee, do you think it will reach an agreement before the deadline? will go up to the deadline and we will not know what the decision is until the day before? or you cannot say? >> who knows? this is washington. it is probably going to be closer to november 23 that it is going to be november 22. [laughter] >> i have two final questions. was there any regret you had as speaker that you would have done differently than you did it as speaker or are you happy with the way things have been handled? >> i feel pretty good about it so far. i do not really have many regrets. i try to move this deficit reduction bill early. some of my colleagues did not want to go along.

i had to sit down with a lot of the members and try to bring them along gently. nobody in my staff ever heard me screaming. i do not do ander. i am not the big mean guy. -- i do not do anger. i depend on being straight up with people. there were a couple of young members who seems to have all the answers. i brought them into my office and close the door. i know these two pretty well. i said, boys, that door is not going to open until you say yes. [laughter] it could be 30 seconds or 30 minutes. it could be three hours. i have a week and have worth of cigarettes in that chest. [laughter] it still took about 45 minutes.

i am not heavy-handed. the other thing i did not realize until somebody pointed out was that when you look at the big deficit reduction deal that we got past, typically that would have cost the leadership's $10 billion or $20 billion in goodies. a bridge here, money for a hospital there. we got rid of earmarked. i have been here 20 years and i have never asked for one. i told my constituents that they thought my job was to come to washington and rob the federal government, they were voting for the wrong guy. when i was running for majority leader in 2006, i thought if i could start a big fight over earmarks, i could win the race for majority leaders. i almost cut my own throat. everybody wants earmarks.

in the first time in our country's history, there is not an earmarked in the budget. [applause] >> it may getting the big deal harder. i did not realize it at the time that you had to sit down and talk about it facts. people could not hold you up. >> when you were a high school linebacker playing for a famous coach, you ever think he would be a college and professional athlete? you did not think you had those skills or aspirations? >> no. this was a different era. all my brothers played sports. i always wanted to be a sales man. eventually, that is what i did. i was in the sales and marketing

business. i was in the plastic industry. i thought i would do that with the rest of my life. i got involved in my neighbor the homeowners association. [laughter] i ended up in the united states congress. this, too, could happen to you. >> i want to thank you for your time and your thoughts. i appreciate you being here. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in her weekly legislative briefing, nancy pelosi urged both parties to approve president obama's jobs bill to get unemployed americans the help they need. other topics include its deficit reduction, federal spending, and recent elections in new york and nevada. it is about 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. nice to see you. yesterday, some of you join us as the members of congress joined together on the steps of the capital to support the president's american jobs bill. in calling for its passage. we are proud of the enthusiastic

support and the unity in our caucus in support of it. e talked about the abc's of make it in america. the bill death of the trend is that, as the president mentioned definitelyoththe bill strenthens that. communities are affected in so many ways. getting jobs to young people and the rest. we are also pleased that there is respect for the public sector in making a,b, and c possible. the bill is paid for. and the bill is paid for. how it will ultimately be paid

for will be up for the -- up to the table of 12. that is a reduction is impacted by the creation of jobs. this jobs proposal is an important one. without economic growth and job creation, it is a long road to reducing the deficit. it should be there as the centerpiece for the table of 12. central to its all is the creation of jobs. the american people cannot wait 14 months for an election to resolve one thing or another. he put for an initiative that had the support of republicans in the past and had bipartisan support. i commend him for that. that is why we want to pass the american jobs bill now. >> speaker boehner is going to

call on the super committee to take on tax reform. do you think that should be a top priority for the super committee? what would you like to see? corporate tax rates go down to 25%? >> i do not want to comment on what the speaker may say. i have heard him say that he wanted a big proposal, the grand bargain he and the president were talking about before. that is something we fully support in our caucus. we would like to see a bigger deficit reduction than is being called for in the legislation. tax reform is something we have all supported. simplification and fairness must be part of our tax code. we may not be able to get the entire job done in the next few weeks. we can certainly close the

loopholes and give tax breaks to big oil, asking young people to pay more for their college education, tax breaks to companies who send jobs overseas while asking seniors to pay more. any tax reform and closing of loopholes is important for us to do in the sense of fairness. let's also reduce the deficit. you cannot say we are going to have reform that will lower the corporate rates unless you have enough reform to reduce the deficit, too. if you don't, all of the reductions of the deficit will not to come out of the cut side. i do not think that it's there or part of the balance the american people are seeking. we all agree that the package should be a significant one, bigger than required by the legislation. it should be balanced. we need to address revenue.

i am glad we are putting revenue on the table. it addresses cuts and cost effectiveness. first and foremost, we will reduce the deficit if we create jobs and bring revenue into the treasury. >> the speaker is also going to talk about tax increases and they are not a viable option and that title -- that entitlement reform should be included. is that the way for the super committee to reach the reductions you are talking about? >> how are you willing to have deficit reform if you are just going to lower the corporate tax rate? you are putting too much of a burden on the cut side. every dollar we spend should be subjected to scrutiny. that includes entitlements as

well. i do not think we should go in there with any line in the sand about taxes or entitlements. our only sacred cow has to be the creation of jobs for the american people. >> what is your take on the continuing resolution that has been released, in particular the provisions coming down the pike? >> i have two concerns about the continuing resolution. we are setting a dangerous precedent by saying our disaster system must be offset. this would be a dangerous precedent to set. there are fires raging in the taxes that are still not under control. there is additional flooding coming along. we have a contact with the

american people in a time of natural disaster. the public sector is there to help them. to say we have to off said it will take us down a different path- offset it -- offset it will take us down a different path. the manufacturing initiative is something bad - all thought of -- someething that we thought we keep a us as number one. that would diminish our competitiveness internationally. it is a bad choice. >> there is less of a stomach for showdown's then there was a couple of weeks or months of -- 0.

and there was a couple of weeks ago. you are saying that any tax reform changes should be revenue positive, to increase revenue on a net basis. >> increasing revenue is one of the purposes of the table of 12. >> how do you feel about the table up 12 using a different measure of inflation, something different that the cpi? >> we want to be sure that whatever the initiative is truly saves money. it will have an impact on people. it will truly save money wherever it happens to be. that is a standard they should use. the impact on american people, those who are marginal in terms of low income seniors who make a

big difference. secondly, that it does what it sets out to do. does it save money or is it a political statement? >> how concerned are you about your party's prospects to take the house? there was an election on tuesday in a longtime democratic district. >> the nevada race was not a race. we had an excellent candidate. the treasurer of the state. it is a difficult district to get traction in in a special election. you have a short time. special elections are aptly named. they are special. there are special aspects in terms of the timing and the time you have to get your message across. in terms of new york, that was a disappointment.

we would have preferred to win. steve israel said, we won one of theirs and they one day one of ours. -- we won one of theirs. another analogy, if you are ready for it. this is a bump in the road. i think of it as a mogul. people would say, obviously you a are not a skiier. you plant your feet and you go faster down toward your goal. yesterday, in the aftermath of the race, there were calls for supports and fundraisers.

it was a good day because it was something that other people realized and we have to buckle down. it does not alter our plans for taking back the house, as steve israel also said. i do not get too and ball in politics under the =--- too involved in politics under the dome. we are optimistic about the recruitment of candidates, the raising of money and the issues out there. that is positive for us. we also have to take it back to the fact that this is about jobs. the president also jobs initiative is one that is important to our country. that is an issue that we would

like to have resolved and i have as a political issue. we need to pass the american jobs at. let me see. we had skiing, tennis, baseball football. that is my sports analogy of the day. >> plenty of democrats differ with the president on the policy of the jobs act. why did you think that is and how can the bill pass if you have democratic members of congress who disagree? >> what you are suggesting is anecdotal. i am on the appropriations committee. a plural anecdote is not data.

our caucus is unified in support of the american jobs at. ct and the fact that it is paid for. they may differ with provisions in its. but they do not differ in the fact that we must pass it. not for us, but for the american people. they need jobs now. we want the american jobs bill passed now. you may notice the few who may speak out against it. i hope you cannot lose sight of where i began my comments today. on the steps of the capitol, democrats stood together enthusiastically in the support of the american jobs bill. we were standing together trying to be the first sponsors of the legislation. thank you all very much. may i congratulate the

congressmen and i wish them success in their election to the congress of the united states. whenever a new member is sworn in, it is a time of optimism for them, their families, their party, and our country. thank you. >> a look at some of the today's events coming up on c-span this afternoon. in just a few moments, remarks from the u.s. postmaster general on the future of the agency. then a white house medal of honor ceremony for iraq and afghanistan war veterans. the first living marine will receive the award since the vietnam war. and they look at the house

floor, including the swearing in of several new members and a debate on a bill limiting the authority of the national labor relations board. >> tonight on c-span, john boehner on the economy. he said job creators in america are on strike and that everyone needs to buckle down to stimulate the economy. >> this is not that hard. we need to eliminate-- liberate the economy from the shackles of washington. we need to trust the good judgment of the american people. the instinct of government is always this. to get bigger, more intrusive. that instinct is at direct odds with what is needed to make the american economy move. >> more of his remarks

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span. >> a top on the latest book on economics and the intellectual pursuits that help people worldwide. on "after words." we will also continue our college serious interviews as we talk with professors at george washington university. we will talk about voter suppression and modern afghanistan. and michael moore recounts his life from starting his newspaper in the fourth great to winning the academy award. get the complete weekend schedule act booktv.org. >> in m election marred by political corruption, james

blaine loss, but he changed political history. he is featured on the contenders friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn more about the series and our upcoming programs on c- span.org/thecontenders. >> the u.s. postal service's released a list of facilities slated for closure to make the agency solvent. the postmaster general said the closures could result in 35,000 employees losing their jobs. this talk was given at the's headquarters in washington, d.c. this is 45 minutes -- at the postal headquarters in washington, d.c. >> bill soybean vice-president of corporate communications.

-- i am the vice-president of corporate communications. >> we are going to be making some important announcements about our network. we are radically realigning the way we process mail, the way we deliver mail, and the way we operate our retail networks. we are doing this in response to the changing marketplace. we are also trying to lay the foundation for a's service that

will have a sustainable business model car into -- and patience for postal service that will have a sustainable business model into the future. our immediate goal is to reduce total cost by $28 billion by 2013. we have to meet this goal to return to profitability. what we will announce this morning will help us get part of the way there. we will create a low-cost delivery platform to meet the obligations to the american public. i would like to introduce our chief operating officer. she oversees all the operations of the's service. she is responsible for retail and delivery. she is playing a big role in what we are doing now and saving the's service going -- the postal service going into the

future. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. i am going to walk you through some of the changes to our mail processing network that will alter our operating model. these are significant changes that will lady foundation for the way the postal service processes mail for decades to come. we are responding to a changing marketplace. the reality is that volume has declined more than $43 -- 43 billion pieces in the past five years. will continue to decline. our mail processing network is larger than we can afford. looking ahead, protect -- projected mail volume dictates that we make changes to our network. we are going to realign our mail

processing network. we are going to study 352 mail processing facilities for potential consolidation or closure. that we start with a graph to illustrate the business case for change. this shows our first class or advertising mail. these are projections through 2020. 2006 was the high water mark. since, first-class mail has declined 25% due to electronic diversions and the economic slowdown. first-class mail volume lost will not return. people are communicating and paying bills electronically. we project the continued decline in first class mail. we expect to see growth in advertising mail in the out years. the change in mail has

serious ramifications. the days volume declined to me we have less revenue to cover the cost of the infrastructure and we have excess capacity in our network. we need fewer facilities to process less mail. i am going to mention the word capacity quite a bit. this relates to our ability to process mail. our mail processing footprint has evolved over the years in response to bosnian fluctuations and to take advantage of technology developments. if you were an operations manager back in the day, you were managing growth. mail volume and revenue grew steadily during these years. during this time, we increase the use of automation to gain efficiencies. we were building new and larger

facilities to house this equipment. this was a time of significant capital investment. since 2006, our process has been reoriented. prior to 2006, our operational goal was to stay ahead of the growth curve to ensure we had capacity to support the body of increase. now our operational goal is to stay ahead of the cost curve. we are reducing our mail processing infrastructure to get ahead of the volume decline. this is that the core of our ability to return to profitability. we have been diligent in reacting to volume declines. in the past five years, we have reduced many processing facilities. we have done this successfully and without an impact to our customers. we have delivered record service during this time. we also accomplished reduction without laying off any employees.

these consolidations were accomplished through a formal process of area mail processing studies. this process worked well and we have been using it for decades. the study process uses objective criteria to determine feasibility of consolidation. it includes a public meeting to allow community members to ask questions and provide feedback. what we are proposing to do over the next two years is a dramatic acceleration of the processes we have been using. we expect to shrink our network to 200 processing facilities by 2013. this is aggressive planning. it will put us ahead of the cost curve for the remainder of the decade. what remains will be the core of

our operating network going forward. here is what our mail processing but that looks like today. we have facilities throughout the country of varying sizes that employ it e-to thousand employees. here is what happens at a mail processing -- from 50-2000 employees. mail is dropped off by customers and is sorted and transported back to local deliveries or to another mail processing facility depending on the destination. most of his work takes place in the middle of denied. this is to support our overnight service commitment. our entire network was designed based on our requirements that we maintain the capability to deliver a first class mail the next business day. this limit our mail to be

sequenced or the local mail carrier and have it arrive at the facility. this has implications for the way we process mail. mes our operating windows are constrained. this map shows all the mail processing facilities we are reviewing for possible consolidation or closure. we are taking a comprehensive look at our entire network. the blue stars represent studies already underway. stars represent the new studies we are announcing today. there are mail processing facilities we will evaluate for potential closure. we will conduct processing studies to determine the feasibility of consolidation. these studies will consider the overall financial impact and will include considerable stakeholder input.

these studies will take approximately three months from today to complete. we are aggressive, but not that aggressive. here is what the future mail processing network might look like. you can see there are far fewer facilities and each supporting a larger geographic area. we are able to study closing so many facilities because we are proposing a change to our overnight requirement for first- class mail delivery. this is known as a service standard change. this is a stated goal for service achievement for each male class. we have built our network to meet the standards. our plan is to rebuild our network based on a two-three standard for first-class mail. this will allow us to design a lower cost mill processing network with far fewer facilities. to give you a sense of what the

change represents, let me show you how we represent the -- how we meet the overnight commitment. the graphic shows the overnight requirement compresses our mail processing time that begins at midnight and runs for 4-6 hours. we must wait for all male to be delivered. -- al lmail to be delivered. this is not efficient. this requires us to maintain so many facilities. all our new operating model is based on a 2-3 delivery requirement. mail will be processed 20 hours per day, enabling us to process more mail per facility. another way to appreciate the power of this change is to see it expressed geographically. this is the central

pennsylvania facility. because of the overnight standard, we have to maintain all of this capacity and infrastructure within tight geographies. this is a function of the capacity requirement and the time and distance in getting mail to and from these facilities. if you think about the clock and the way we are processing mail today, the overnight commitment means maintaining excess capacity, equipment, facilities space, and workforce. with the two day service standard, we can meet all the needs in this region with two facilities. those facilities would process mail continually. we could maintain fewer facilities because of the expanded operating window and geographical reach. i used this example to demonstrate the business concept. concept.