furthermore, an e.p.a. commib analysis found no independent -- economic analysis found no change due to the cement rules. 10 underutilized plants would go idle temporarily while waiting for economic conditions to improve. however, if we can get the economy back on track and restore demand for cements then those plants would not have to go idle? we need to focus on creating customers. i heard that from my colleagues say that's what he hears from business persons. i hear the same, that they need demand and that they need customers. . we need to make it easier for them to do that and not easier for the suppliers to pollute. you know what's a great way to create more demand for concrete? invest in infrastructure

projects that use concrete for roads and bridges. the very same proposals called for in the president's jobs act. if republicans are so concerned with the concrete plant shutting down, you should work toward helping these businesses sell more concrete. making it ease your for them to pollute does not provide underutilized plants with new customers. in the midst of an economy still suffering the effects of the greatest recession in a generation, the only answer my friends on the other side seem to have is to dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our nation's public health and environment. this, mr. speaker, is economic extremism. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, reserves his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i sat here and i love listening to my friend from florida, mr.

hastings. we talk about the e.p.a. and what this rule and underlying legislation will do. what they fail to point out is that any member, democrat or republican, as it relates to any issue that this rule and underlying legislation will address, has the ability, has the ability to submit an amendment, an amendment process that allows us, if the bill is flawed, in their estimation, submit an amendment. bring it up for a house, have a debate on it. let's talk about it. there are ways to fix legislation not just kill it. there are ways that we can do things as relates to, you know, business, and we talk about the ability for these companies, i will tell you that i got a dimp flavor on it not from the

e.p.a. of course they have their own take what's going to work and what isn't going to work. but i have heard actually from manufacturers that it will cost jobs. it will be to their advantage, if they want, to actually load up this stuff, put it on a truck, and take it to mexico where there is no air quality standards at all, none. and we'll breathe that air forever. we brought up about, my good friend, brought up about cut-go, and i need to talk about that. first of all h.r. 2681 and 2250 fully comply with the rules of the house. including cut-go. the c.b.o. cost estimates clearly state that neither of these bills affect direct spending. while it may actually force the e.p.a. to revisit the rule, they have the staff to do it. it's not like it's a new mandate to them. it's not a new program. it meets within the majority

leader's legislative protocols. including discretionary cut-go. these bills do not authorize any new appropriations which is one of the tests for discretionary cut-go. these bills do not create any new program that our office, that's an additional test on discretionary cut-go, and rule making is a basic function of federal agencies and particularly the e.p.a. so they certainly have the staff available to do it without an additional cost. that's part of what their job is. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to my friend, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from florida for yielding me the time.

mr. speaker, i hope you will challenge the american people to watch this debate that happens over the next hour because i'm down here as a freshman to tell you this is exactly what is supposed to be happening in the u.s. house of representatives. this is what is supposed to be happening in the people's house. i hold in my hand the committee report. the committee report from h.r. 2250. it was introduced by a freshman. freshman from the southwestern corner of virginia who introduced it, mr. speaker, because he's worried about jobs in his district. you are not going to find, and i challenge you to find, a single member who comes to the floor to say to my freshman colleague introduced this bill because he had any motivation other than the best interests of the men and women and families that live in his district. understand that. introduced this bill that we are going to discuss if this rule passes because he is concerned about the men, women, children, the families in his

district. that's why this legislation was introduced. he introduced this legislation over the summer, june 21. on september 8, the subcommittee that deals with this legislation had a hearing, september 8. had a hearing. and on september 13, the week later, reported out this bill through the regular subcommittee process. we go on, mr. speaker, september 20, the full committee had hearings, markups, on this bill. met in open markup session on september 21, reported out this bill. printed this committee report online for all of america to read. and today if the rule is proposed by my friend from florida passes, we are going to allow any member of this house, any member, republican and democrat alike, to offer any changes that they propose. any changes. all they have to do, we gave notice of that a week ago today, all they have to do is

preprint their amendment in the congressional record, submit it by the close of business tonight, so that all members will have a chance to read it and consider it thoughtfully. mr. speaker, that is how this house is supposed to run. regular order. regular process. hearings, markups, and allowing any member to have their say. now, nevertheless this rule is being challenged and urged for its defeat because folks don't like the underlying idea. that's a real frustration for me, mr. speaker, because i grew up in a nation where we disagree about things from time to time, and that's ok. and what we do is we disagree about them and then we bring them to the house floor for a vote so that america gets it to decide. i am the voice for 921,000 people in georgia. and i can only speak for them when i have a vote on the house floor. this rule provides that any

amendment offered by any member of this body gets to have the voice of my 921,000 constituents heard. this is the way it's supposed to be run. i came, mr. speaker, from a press conference earlier with about half the freshman class urging the senate to take up legislation. job creating legislation that is just sitting there in the senate. the senate won't take it up. why? perhaps because folks don't like the ideas in their entirety. mr. speaker, i recommend they amend them and adopt our process in amending bills in a way the people's voice can be heard. we don't have to agree on everything but we have to talk about it, we have to move that legislation forward, and we have to get the american people's work done. it's not optional, mr. speaker. if you didn't want to get the american people's work done, you shouldn't have signed up for the job. come next november you have a chance to go back home. but if you want to get the people's work done, this is the right process to do it. mr. speaker, all jobs are not created equal.

i challenge anyone to come to the floor of the house and tell me that jobs are not going to be destroyed, manufacturing jobs, good-paying manufacturing jobs destroyed by the implementation of this rule. we are going to create some other jobs. all the moving companies who move folks out of their house in my district when their homes get foreclosed on because they lost jobs, those jobs will be created. we are going to create jobs with these rules but not the kind of jobs i know we want. we collectively want. this bill has a lot of common ground in it, mr. speaker, and we have an opportunity in this process to find that common ground. folks tell us the tale of republicans out to get the e.p.a. nobody loves clean air more than i do, nobody loves clean water more than i do. but the e.p.a. asked, mr. speaker, that they have more time to finalize this. they said we don't have time to get it right, can we have more time? you know what? the court got involved and said, no, you cannot. no more time for you. why?

mr. speaker, because the congress said no. today the congress has an opportunity to say yes, mr. speaker. i rise in full support of the rule and underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i guess it's my prerogative to assist in correcting a couple of measures. i kind of wish my good friend and he is, he's going to be a real asset to our institution, as an institutionalist, i'm referring to my friend, mr. woodall, from georgia. he and i enjoy quite a tete-a-tete in the rules committee. it's when he puts forward his proposition, i wish he had that same fervor with all the closed rules that we have had now in the house up to this time.

one half of all the rules we promulgated until today have been under closed rules. this one is a modified open rule, and, yes, you're correct. members can come down and they can go forward if yesterday they knew today that they had to meet by the close of business the amendment process. i see my friend would like for me to yield. i would be happy to yield. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the rules committee sent out a dear colleague a week ago warning them they had until tonight. i say to my friend i think you are absolutely right about the need for even more openness in this house. of course we only had one open rule in the last congress. as a part of this freshman class we are making progress. i would look forward to working with you to make more progress. since we can agree this one is done right, we come come together and vote in favor of this. mr. hastings: i can't agree that this one is done right because it's a modified open rule. it's not an open rule.

you know that as well as do i. more important i want to refer to my good friend from florida as well when he says that cut-go is not applicable in this particular situation. i disagree. and i think what needs to be understood by my colleague, mr. nugent, is that we don't make these rules here in the house. the protocols have been established early on and we don't say what c.b.o. needs to do. i think all of us are agreed that c.b.o. is a nonpartisan requirement group that estimates for us what would be the net cost of legislation. in this particular measure that we are considering, 2681, c.b.o. estimates that implementing 2681 would have a

net cost of $1 million over the next five years. the cost of this legislation falls within budget function 300, natural resources and environment. now then, i repeat the protocols enunciated and promulgated by the majority leader, mr. cantor. any bill or joint resolution which authorized the appropriation of funds for any new agency, office, program, activity, or benefit shall also include language offsetting the full value of such authorization through a reduction in the authorization of current ongoing spending. now, that just is not happening here in cut-go although applicable is being waived, i guess. at this time i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, my good friend and

classmate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. i must say i could not agree more with the gentleman from florida about if we were really concerned about creating job opportunities and strengthening the cement industry, we would be moving forward with legislation to rebuild and renew america. to deal with crumbling roads, inadequate transit systems, unsafe bridges, water and sewage treatment plants that need investment. sadly what we have seen since the new majority assumed office that in fact they have been involved with a series of initiatives that actually are cutting back on that initiative. that are reducing resources for infrastructure at exactly the time when america needs it the most. now, i'm sorry but this bill

continues an agenda that we heard articulated a great deal last week that is not willing to take the 21-year delay from the amendments to the clean air act and move forward to have something in effect by 2013. they want to delay, to start over in many of these cases. . now, remember in 1990 we amendeded clean air act to require these regulations to be completed by the year 2000. but a combination of the republican takeover of congress and then foot-dragging by the bush administration meant that we weren't ready. when they came up with something out of the bush e.p.a. it was inadequate and the courts threw it out. we're back trying to deal with this responsibility.

now, the concern was raised about who cares about people in their districts? well, i would be prepared to argue that anybody ought to look at the research that's available. look at the tens of thousands of lives that will be impacted. 6,600 lives every year will be saved under the boiler act, 2,500 lives a year under the cement legislation. per year. this affects people in every district. massive health care savings across america from people that won't be subjected to those conditions. if you care about people that you represent, you ought to factor in these health considerations. now, this legislation requires e.p.a. to toss out work that it has already done. and replace it with a standard that would select the least

burdensome standard. including the work practice standard which are only a requirement to keep the equipment in working order and regularly turned -- tuned up. if we had adopted that initiative, that philosophy 20 years ago, tens of thousands of people would have died. may i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: but we didn't. we moved forward. and in fact the record shows, despite arguments like we've heard today there were tens of thousands of jobs created complying with the clean air act requirements. but what would they do here? you know, as my good friend from florida pointed out, there are many in the industry that are already complying. they've seen the hand writing on the wall, they want to be good citizens. or there is pressure locally to clean up their act. this bill would reward the people who are dragging their

feet and have the dirtiest plants and equipment and penalizes the people who are being responsible environmental stewards. you know, my friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes adopt rhetoric that the 17,000 men and women who work in e.p.a. are the enemy of the american people, are the enemy of the economy. well, i suggest they ought to get acquainted with some of their constituents who work for the e.p.a. and work to make sure they have -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: and make sure they have the resources to do their jobs right and to stop making them political footballs. i've had my disagreements over the years with e.p.a., but i respect the men and women who work there. i understand the pressures they're under and congress is not helping them do their job any better. and this would be a dramatic step backward, measuresfully it

won't go anyplace in the senate -- mercyfully it won't go anyplace in the senate and the president will veto it anyway but we should understand what is going on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i'd just like to remind my colleagues that this does not violate cut-go clearly on its face. making my point that this does not authorize any new spending. not a penny. with that i want to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to come down here to thank the rules committee for the modified open rule and a chance for us to go through this bill bit by bit, amendment by amendment to address concerns that my friends on the other side might have about? . -- about this.

and finally, my good friend from oregon, and i appreciate his passion, but i come to the floor to talk about the jobs. and the e.p.a., who i also rally against numerous times, produced the cross-state air pollution rule in july. the result of that is two power plants in illinois are closing, one is 369 megawatts, the other one is 302 megawatts. that means 671 megawatts of power is going to be offline. if you understand supply and demand, less supply, similar demand or higher demand, higher cost. so it's very easy to reject higher energy cost -- project higher energy costs for everybody across this country because of that rule. secondly, the job losses.

in the first plant 14 management and 39 union representative employees will lose their jobs. that's at plant number one. plant number two, eight management and 29 union -represented employees will lose their job. we do this, we come down and we have these debates on the role of the e.p.a. so that we can have the debate about jobs in this economy. this is not the time, in fact, i've asked the president, the best thing he could do for his own re-election and for the country is stop doing things. put a hold on new rules and new regulations. let the economy recover, let's keep the people back to work, let's make these power plants that are employing these folks still have jobs, let's make sure the tax base in these small rural communities that these power plants pay taxes to still have that property tax revenue

going. so this is just -- it's another example of what we did yesterday. i mean, last week. and this -- these effects on job losses are real. this announcement was done today. it will affect a lot of municipal power plants who have an obligation with their citizens saying, we will locally produce power. and so they're breaking contract with their citizens. the cement mact is another example of, we talk about jobs and infrastructure, the result of these cement plants closing is that we will import cement. i ask another 30 seconds. mr. nugent: another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. shimkus: i would ask my friends, guzz that make sense that we are -- does that make sense that we are going to now import cement at higher costs for countries that aren't complying with these rules and

regulations? i think not. this debate is about jobs and the economy, now is not the time to rash et down these rules -- ratchet down these rules so we make it more difficult to create jobs, keep jobs and grow this economy and with that i thank my colleague and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would just remind my friend that when plants like he referenced close, it doesn't mean that the demand is not still there and what happens is it means that new plants are being built. and guess what happens when you build new plants? you use steel, you use cement and you have jobs. so i'm not certain that the analogy that he put forward holds in that case. i would urge my friend from florida to know that i have no further speakers at this time. i'm prepared to close whenever you are prepared to go forward.

mr. nugent: i thank my friend from florida, mr. hastings, for that. the last member that spoke talked about closing of coal-fired electric plants. you know, it's amazing, the president just last month put an advance in an e.p.a. rule that related to just that issue. because he said that it was going to cost jobs. in at that a time when we can least afford closing plants and cutting jobs. the president gets it and i applaud him doing just that. you know, on the other issue -- let me get to this. i am prepared to close. mr. speaker, i support this rule and encourage my -- i'm sorry,

you close first. my apologies to my good friend from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. nugent: nine months on the job and we still have -- we want to get the job done. so i will allow obviously my good friend from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: i thank my friend and at this time i am, mr. speaker, prepared to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. new jerseyent and i are from florida -- nugent and i are from florida. the largest supplier of energy electricity specifically in florida is a company known to he and i as florida power and light. mr. nugent probably does not remember that i ran for the public service commission in the

state of florida to deal with regulatory matters and to address the ongoing concerns and much of what we talked about at that time, in addition to two lawsuits that i had filed in my community, was about coal-fired electric-generating plants. florida power and light, being an extremely responsible energy producer, has taken it upon itself to eliminate much of their coal-fired activity and in spite of all of these regulations and the alleged uncertainty and everything having to do with it, they now are using gas-fired facilities and working on trying to reduce emissions period. and have no problems. the largest electricity producer in this country is a company

which has no power, they come from mr. shimkus', the gentleman from who just spoke, territory in dwril. that's where they're based. and they have no concerns with complying with these regulatory matters. now, one thing i heard about cement being imported, the reason for that is the low demand. and if my governor and some of these other governors would get off the dime and go about the business and if this congress was to go about the business of implementing the infrastructure provisions that are offered in the jobs act of the president, then we would use more cement and we wouldn't have to get any from anywhere as we have not in the past when the economy has that kind of demand. now, for people who believe in the republican antigovernment, the e.p.a. is the evil doer of the world doctrine found in many

of these bills and i might add we will see more of this according to the majority leader, we're going to demonize the e.p.a., those 17,000 employees, i found that ironic that someone commented that he have enough staff in order to be able to do it while at the same time, every time we look to cut some agency, we're cutting e.p.a. and many people in the republican party have used as their mantra the elimination of the e.p.a. so i don't know that they could offer any kind of regulation on the clean air act or anything else. but i offer to them these suggestions. if you don't like regulation, don't drive on roads, don't fly, don't go to national parks, don't worry about listeria in can't lope and let us, -- cantelope and lettuce, don't worry about toxins that pollute the air and cause our children to have asthma, just don't do that.

don't have any regulations. just go about your business and we would then find ourselves in mass confusion with people with premature deaths that are unnecessary. we can do this, we can have a conscience and a brain and we can make money in this country. we've done it in the past, we will do it in the future. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and on the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, once again i want to thank my colleague from florida for his eloquent words. it is about america getting back on track. it is about america worrying about regulations that are going to kill jobs. as i mentioned earlier, the president, the president even is concerned that overregulation by the e.p.a. would do just that. kill jobs when we can least afford it. if you look at this act, what we're talking about doing is not

eliminating anything, it's about saying 15 months to get it together, the e.p.a., to look at it, and let's not kill jobs in america. five years then for those businesses that i've met with that are more than willing to do their fair share to keep the air that we breathe and the water that where he drink clean and pure. i live in florida, mr. hastings lives in florida. we depend upon clean air and water in florida just like many other states. . mr. speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. despite what the president, president obama, and vice president biden would have you think giving a bus tour and the vice president being in land of lakes, florida, speeches don't create jobs. for the president it may be a joke to say that shovel ready jobs, you know, weren't just as shovel ready as we thought with

the first stimulus package. but the american people footed that bill and it's no joke to them. mr. president and mr. vice president need to recognize the reality that h.r. 2250 and h.r. 2681 recognize that jobs are not created in a vacuum. that government creates an environment which job creators operate. regulations like boiler mact and cement mact do nothing to encourage industry to invest in america. instead they force employers to shut their doors, move jobs overseas, or just across the border to mexico. they force us to lose our manufacturing base and import cement from countries like china. i'm proud to play a part in rolling back this type of regulation. i encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by supporting house res. 419 and the underlying bills, h.r. 2250

and h.r. 2681. with that i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: the yeas and nays -- the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2608. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement on yesterday, i call up the bill 2608 to the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto and have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and designate the amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment and report the motion. the clerk: h.r. 2608, an act to provide for additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and small business investment act of 1958, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of -- the clerk: senate amendment to house amendment to senate amendment, mr. rogers of kentucky moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2608.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of monday, october 3, 2011, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring to the floor the continuing appropriation resolutions to keep the federal government operating until november 18, 2011. and to continue support for disaster relief projects. this version of the bill which is virtually identical to the one the house voted on last week, funds the government at a rate of 1.043 trillion dollars, and provides $2.65 billion in fiscal year 2012 funding, for the federal emergency

management agency, and other disaster aid programs. however this bill no longer includes $1 billion in emergency fiscal year 2011 funding for fema and the corps of engineers, nor the offset for those funds. the senate dropped these provisions after the white house and fema suddenly and i might add mysteriously announced that these funds were no longer necessary. while in the short term fema says it can get by without the additional emergency funding, it's clear that the agency will soon need additional money to continue ongoing relief and recovery efforts from recent devastating natural disasters. i'm disappointed, mr. speaker, that the agency has apparently been playing games with the numbers. and my committee is closely examining why fema's estimates changed at the 11th hour.

the committee also remains committed to providing the proper amount of emergency assistance that families and communities across the country rely upon. mr. speaker, we have now entered into the new fiscal year, and we need to keep the doors of the government opened to the american people who rely on its programs and its services. we simply must not leave our citizens in the lurch, particularly as thousands of american families and communities continue to rebuild following devastating natural disasters across the country. furthermore, our economy can't handle the instability that comes from the threat of a government shutdown. this bill supports vital government operations but still saves the american taxpayers billions of dollars by maintaining the overall funding level agreed to in the recently enacted budget control act.

we are committed to reigning in spending at every step and this reduced funding will help our nation return to nor sound fiscal footing. in addition, this legislation gives both the house and the senate more time to finish our work on the fiscal 2012 appropriations bills. legislation that will continue the trend of reducing federal spending to more responsible and sustainable levels. the house has made great progress on this year's appropriations bills and i intend to wrap up this work as quickly as possible to provide for the economic and fiscal security of our nation and the needs of the american public. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, the c.r. before us runs through november 18. the c.r. continues funding at

last year's level minus $1.053% to make sure the spending is limited. the amount agreed to in the budget control act. democrats voted no previously for two reasons. we strongly opposed taking funding from the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program, this is a program that has proven to be a success in creating jobs, the department of energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 9,000 jobs in california, delaware, illinois, indiana, kentucky, ohio, michigan, no, and tennessee. the spending applications will create more jobs. the money received by the companies is paid back to the government. we strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires, another natural disasters should be put on hold until congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending. f.y. 2012 has begun so there is no need for f.y. 2011 disaster

relief funding. in earlier versions the house republicans insisted on offsetting the 2011 disaster relief funding. the c.r. under consideration today no longer cuts funding for atvm and does not require an offset. i urge a yes vote an i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. pursuant to the order of the house of monday, october 3, 2011, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask for a -- for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a -- in support of the yeas and nays will rise' remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12-amplets of rule 1, charities declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes. ,

representing west palm beach, fort lauderdale area. talking about gop freshmen and upcoming spending bills. guest: yes. host: many the money but the

battle that was recently before this last break, the continuing resolution. the house will vote today on a six-week intensive -- extension but how you plan to vote? guest: i will vote for that. the most and borden thing is the reason why we have the continuing resolution, to make sure we finish the appropriation bills. we have 12 of those. i think we got seven completed and the house and senate has only taken up one. we want to be able to complete that business and we want to get fiscal responsibility for the country. one of the things we are having in the press conference today is the 188 days we have gone about a federal budget. host: there are others in the freshman class and tea party caucus who disagree, who say we should not vote for this continuing resolution, particularly joe walsh, who says every dollar is worth fighting for. guest: true, and i believe that. but the thing is we are being consistent with the funding levels we agreed to in the budget control act. also, being principled is very

important but you also have to be pragmatic. the most important thing we have to show as we can lead and we can govern in washington. but it is going to take some time to get maybe 30-35 years of fiscal irresponsibility corrected. and i think we have to look at it incrementally how we do that. when you think about how we have gone up. the past -10 months, the conversation has changed in washington about how much spending we can't cut, how to write size, and, with policies to ensure sustainable long-term economic growth. host: "usa today" editorial recently said both sides need to come together and that the republican freshmen in the house should be focusing their attention, rather than on these continuing resolutions, that they should be focusing their attention on the deficit reduction committees, the so- called super committee. getting that panel to go well beyond the minimum of $1.20 trillion is a better place for fiscal conservatives to vote as their attention. what do you think?

guest: i agree. i think that is an important aspect of this continuing resolution, making sure we keep the government funded so we can focus on what the budget committee is supposed to be doing. it is not that hard, i don't think, for us to find it necessary cuts. back in february or early march, the gao had a report of $200 billion or $300 billion of duplicative or redundant programs. we have to go line by line and look at things that have been failing and look at where we can make sure thatendment to h.r. 2608. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2608, an act to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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 352. the nays are 66. the motion is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 419 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the

resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 78, house resolution 419. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2681, to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2250, to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institution of boilers, and incinerators, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 257, the nays are 165, the resolution is adopted. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speeblinger, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 4, 2011, at 11:50 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment house concurrent resolution 83. with best wished, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, to provide a committee assignment opening for newly elected congressman

bob turner i hereby resign my assignment on the homeland security committee. signed, sincerely, mo brooks, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: mr. speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 420, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. committee on foreign affairs, mr. turner of new york, committee on homeland security, mr. turner of new york. committee on the judiciary, mr. amdy, committee on veterans affairs, mr. amodei and mr. turner of new york. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please take conversations off the floor. the chair will entertain one-minute requests.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for a moment, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about an issue that should be the top priority for every member of the house and senate. jobs, jobs, jobs. unfortunately -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. berkley: unfortunately, too many of my colleagues here in washington just don't get it. yesterday the senate courageously voted to stand up to the chinese government on behalf of the working families in nevada and across the country. the senate said no to china's unfair currency manipulation that has cost our nation nearly $3 -- three million jobs in the last 10 years, including over 14,000 in nevada. however 19 u.s. senators voted to protect china's interests instead of the interests of the workers of the state of nevada. i have one thing to say to those senators, shame on you. now is not the time to cower to

bullying tactics of the chinese. with unemployment in nevada so high, we need leadership, we need to be creating jobs here in the united states of america, not in china. from voting to kill medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies to boeing to chinese bullying tack -- bowing to chinese bullying tactics, the american people should start asking themselves, when will washington republicans start making job creation their top priority? i know it is mine. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the louis the following -- before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. crenshaw of florida for monday, october 3.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. hanabusa: thank you, thank you very much, mr. speaker. you know, there are about now 11 of us who are considered freshmen on the democratic side. and we are here today to share with everyone what we have learned. we hope that because we are freshmen that we bring a different perspective on matters that everyone might be able to see it from our eyes. and for that reason we'd like to share what we've learned while in this last district workweek and talking to our constituents about jobs, small business problems and issues that face

all of us. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to begin first by asking the gentlewoman from the district 36 of california to share with us what she has heard and i'd like to say that the gentlewoman from the district 36 of california is the most recent addition to what was originally the noble nine, but we are now the exquisite 11. with that. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to bring a perspective of a brand new member of congress and last week while i was in my district i met with over 50 businesses who wanted to talk to me about what they felt congress was seether doing -- either doing or not doing. and i met with them not to talk to them, but i met with them to listen to them. and i met with very small

businesses, some that had two employees, to some other businesses who were considered small but had many more employs. ms. hahn: and what they told me was this -- employees. ms. hahn: and what they told me is this. these are tough times. they're having a tough time with our economy. but they still want to grow. and they still want to hire people and we know that our small businesses in this country are the backbone of this economy and we know that they are the ones that will be hiring people. they are the ones that will be getting this economy back up and running. they're going to be part of this great recovery. but they need help from the federal government. i asked them, what is it that you need? what is it that will keep you in business? what is it that will help you to grow and to hire people? and they told me, there was a common theme and they told me that it was their access to capital which was part of the

problem that they had. and they believed that our small business loans took a small mountain of paperwork to apply for. they felt like the requirements for these loans were so burdensome that they were not able to access capital and they said if they could access this capital they would grow. they would hire. and even in tough times this is the american dream. this is the american spirit. they wondered frankly why congress had worked so hard to bail out the billionaires on wall street and they wondered, what was congress doing to bail out the man and woman on main street? that work so hard every day? so i told them i wanted to stay in touch with them, i told them that i would urge my colleagues to do something else that they wanted. and that was to pass the president's jobs act. they loved parts of this jobs act. they loved the fact that there was a tax credit there.

if they hired somebody who had been unemployed for six months or longer, they loved the idea that in this jobs bill there was a tax credit for hiring our returning veterans. they liked the fact that we even went further and said there will be a larger, i think it's a $9,000 tax credit, if you hire a veteran who has been wounded. because we know when our veterans come home that they have a very difficult time re-entering society. they have a difficult time, frankly, re-entering their families. they have a hard time relating again to their husbands, to their wives, to their communities. and this jobs bill actually speaks to the plight of the veteran, the woman veteran, by the way has one of the highest unemployment rates in this country. so, colleagues, i think we should continue to fight for small businesses in this country. let's give them what they need, let's remove the barriers that are keeping them from growing, keeping them from hiring and

keeping them from being the catalyst to getting this economy back on track. thank you very much, i would yield my time. ms. hanabusa: thank you very much. thank you. mr. speaker, my colleagues will be coming in as they return from their respective offices but i'd like to share part of what i found when i was in district this past week. you know, i think the problem that we all have is that we're all creatures of the media. so we tend to think in 30-second sound bites and i'm sure we all got trained by the best of them as to when you run for office, keep it short. keep it short and you tell everybody what they want to hear so they can pick it up on the 6:00 news. you know, mr. speaker, when we do that, what we fail to do is we fail to recognize that people, people are not covered by one broad brush. the gentlewoman from california, district 36, said it best had

she said, when she talked to small business they want certain things. because small businesses are not all alike. but there are things that they do want. they want, for example, the finances. what about main street? what about the tax credit? how would that affect their respective businesses? and that is what we all have to step back and think about. and that's why this time, when we can go on and not have to worry about, you know, whether there's a camera there to get a 30-second sound bite, gives us the opportunity to tell our constituents that we hear them and we know what they're saying. when i was in district, i met with one type of small business and they were the construction industry. and quite honestly when you talk about the construction industry, even that we just tend to say, construction is, we need to rebuild construction. but construction isn't as simple as just simply saying, they all build roads or they all build airports.

that's not true. when we do construction and talk about construction, you have people who, for example, specialize in homes and that's a definite kind of need. there are needs, for example, are regarding finances. their needs are how healthy is f.a.t. going to be? what are you going to do about fannie mae and freddie mac, what are you going to do to help foreclosures? they have very specific concerns. where we may think, well, maybe what they just are concerned about is the ability to be able to build again, that's not it. they understand that in order for us to have a healthy economy, in order for us to have the environment in which they can then create the jobs and they can then be able to build those homes and people who have jobs can buy those homes that we need to look at the total picture and that's what we're referring to. so when we talk to our constituents and we report back to other members of congress, we have to be very clear as to what we are hearing.

they don't talk to us in general sound bites to get on the 6:00 news. what they talk to us about is to say, you know, in our specific industry we have this problem. and what can do you to help us on this particular problem? they want to know, even to the point of saying, will, for example, credit unions be able to issue different kinds of loans? you know we think of banks, we think of loans, but how many of us have stopped to listen to our constituents -- constituencies and said, hey, what are you interested in -- what credit -- in what credit unions are you a loud to do, because to them, especially those who are smaller businesses, that's their lifeline. so they want to be sure that they can -- they can affect them and they can help them, so they want to make sure -- know what we are doing in that propro-- sess. so when we talk to our constituencies and we listen to them, we must understand that

they are not simply ones that we do with a broad brush. so in the construction group that i spoke to, many of them, of course, special iced -- special a -- specialized in home building and they were of course concerned about the ability of people to buy a home, the ability of people to finance that home, the ability of people to then say, hey, we are going to have the jobs to qualify for the respective mortgages because everyone, very few people are out there who can actually buy a home for cash. . any more than we as government can buy things for cash. people are borrowing. in order for them to borrow we must have a health yes financial institution that can -- healthy financial institution that can lend that money out. mr. speaker, let's also look at where we are in terms of the constituencies. like i said, small businesses isn't just small business. small business isn't just --

you can't just say small business and cover everyone. you need to understand what kind of small business. i sit on a panel that was created and the question was, it's on acquisition, the focus there is small business. i'm very honored to be part of that and i'm very proud of the fact that we as a house is looking at how when military spendings get cut, we are able to preserve the small businesses. how do we ensure them into the future? and we also have to recognize that the definition of small business differs for many of us. it's like a company that grosses no more than $7 million or $8 million a year. to some they probably hear that and they go, wow, that's not a small business. that's a big business. but every segment of what creates businesses in our economy we have got to look at. very seriously earn understand -- seriously and understand what their respective needs

are, because if we fail to do that, if we fail to look at that we are not going to be able to address this crisis. so as tempting as it is for all of us to ignore, ignore what it is that we are looking to or speaking to when we vote on these bills that are before us, we have to understand that simply because one segment of a business community says it's good it doesn't mean that it's good for everyone. and that is what makes the challenge of what we respectively do. so back to construction. we said there are those who build homes, for example. there are also those who build commercial buildings. and they have a different challenge because their financing is also tied to how healthy the economy is. and it's also tied to the financial institution. and whether the financial institutions are out there lending the money. and that's all going to be tied to the whole issue of whether or not the economy's healthy.

and many of those who build, quote, commercial buildings, for example, they, too, are small businesses. in addition to that, you have those major construction companies that do major infrastructure. and if you're going to talk about being able to get people back to work in large numbers, of course, of course we need to talk about that level of construction. but what does that level of construction normally need? to do large infrastructure projects it needs government. it is government who is able to build or contribute to a state's ability to build roads, to build airport modernization, to improve harbors, or to basically look at highways and what we are going to do. you need government's role in that. and that is what the president has said. and that is what the president has emphasized that he, in fact, is looking to

infrastructure to be built and to say that will put people back to work. because in the long run, in the long run we as a country benefit the most from that. and you may say, well, what does that have to do with small business? it has a lot to do with small business because no one company can do it all. when you look at how construction, for example, is done, you have a general contractor who usually serves in an administrative capacity, but all the respective work that may go into building whatever it may be, a freeway, a huge hotel, or home, the other components of it are subcontractors who are small business. and each one of them hire a specific number of people. whether it be two or three or 20 or 30, you have a huge core of some sort, they are there. and we need to recognize that and we need to understand that it is through them, through the

hiring of the respective subcontractors that are small business that we are then able to move this economy along. so it's like a situation of we start on the top and to a large extent government has that role, and it filters down. to get to the bottom line which is to get people back to work. so when we start to talk about jobs or how we are going to move our economy along and what are we going to do, we need to think about that. we need to think about how do we move forward? and it is on that note that i see my colleague from detroit who i'd like to call upon because he has a bill that i want him to speak about because he knows what it's going to take to get his people in detroit back to work. and you know, let's not forget

we are a great country built on manufacturing. that is what made us big. and you know, it is also the city of detroit that i believe really epitomizes what manufacturing is about. so on that note i'd like to ask my colleague, the congressman from detroit, to talk to us and share what he's learned from his district. mr. clarke: thank you. i just want to thank the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, for her commitment to growing our economy not only here in this country but we can help the world by -- we in the united states manufacturing the best products and creating the best technologies. i have introduced a bill called the detroit jobs trust fund. it will create jobs in detroit. and detroiters really need it because we've got the highest unemployment rate. we have lost more jobs than any metropolitan region in this country during the last 10

years, but as ms. hanabusa pointed out, investing in detroit not only creates jobs for detroiters, it will put americans throughout this country back to work. and that's because in spite of detroit's troubling economic situation, high unemployment rate, we still have the manufacturing know how and we have the well trained work force to put americans back to work, especially in the area of advanced manufacturing. so when detroit makes its streets safer by hiring more police officers, more firefighters, and properly employing them, when we improve and reform our public education system by opening more high quality schools, hiring more teachers who can do the job, and when we reduce the cost of living and doing business in detroit, by cutting some very high municipal taxes, those

factors, safe streets, good schools, low taxes that will attract investment back to the city. now, if you take a look at the city of detroit, you'll see we have a lot of vacant property. that's land ready for a big plant to be located there. and by capturing the existing federal tax revenue that detroit individuals and detroit businesses already pay and have that money placed in a trust fund, administered by the department of treasury, to be invested in detroit, to hire those police officers, hire and train those teachers, and to cut taxes, we could bring employers back to detroit. hire detroiters but also we can resurrect our manufacturing powerhouse in detroit and create those jobs throughout the country. the same way detroit did back in world war ii, detroiters built the arsenal of democracy

that helped win world war ii. and save this country and this world from fascism. it was metro detroiters' manufacturing know how that -- know-how that built some of the best cars in the world and that created millions of jobs worldwide and especially in this country. so in the same way by investing in detroit and the detroit work force, and the detroit winning spirit exemplified by the detroit tigers and the detroit lions, we can put our people back to work. we can make this country even stronger in advanced manufacturing and help uplift the quality of life for everyone around the world. i appreciate you giving me this time. the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, for talking about important issue, putting detroiters back to work. if i can say as a final note, i mentioned this last night, getting a job is important

because many years ago in this last big recession we had in the 1980's i was without a job and i lost hope. and that can be devastating. not only devastating economically and financially to people, but it can be devastating to the spirit of the human being. so a job gives somebody a paycheck, but it gives a person self-worth and the dignity and the uplifting spirit that they need to keep marching on. that's what this country is all about. we had to deal with obstacles, but as americans we can turn those obstacles into opportunities. that's why immigrants are so successful when they come here to this country because they see this country for all its richness and all its opportunity and they seize it. i'm just asking that same opportunity be available for detroiters to put our country back to work. thanks again. ms. hanabusa: thank you. before you leave i want to

extend this discussion because i think we tend to think about things like when we talk about detroit and we think about manufacturing, which of course is what we are all focusing on, we tend to forget how that one industry then multiplies out and how it creates other jobs. and let me share with you because one of the things that -- and you know the congressman from detroit is absolutely correct, it is -- that is what made our country great. i grew up working in my family's service station which later became a situation where we sold auto parts. and one of the things that i will never, never forget is the fact that when you think about the ability to build a car, many of those parts are not manufactured in detroit. they come from other places in the united states and they all are put together to make the car. but the subsidiary industry is what my family was in which is,

you know, we repair what breaks down. so you have a whole secondary market of used auto parts being remanufactured or original equipment auto parts from being manufactured that then create yet another industry. and when we unfortunately get careless and sometimes through no fault of our own, that's why -- the flagpole or street light jumps in front of our car and we hit it or something, that whole other industry of repair. so, you know, with the good congressman from detroit want to elaborate what a -- just investing in detroit isn't only for detroit. i'm sure within michigan and within all the neighboring states we probably have great examples of how small industries are just going to kick start. mr. clarke: you're absolutely right. creating those jobs in detroit will have a ripple effect throughout this country. i'm glad you mentioned about

remanufacturing. that's the best way to have make it in america jobs. actually i was able to revisit a remanufacturing plant right outside the city of detroit two weeks ago. it's fascinating what they do. these are not used units. these are totally remade and actually these are better units than -- and pieces of equipment than if you bought something new. so instead of u.s. manufacturers buying new products everyseas, they can buy remanufactured units right here at home putting americans back to work. you are absolutely right about that. ms. hanabusa: thank you very much. that is why i'm a proud co-sponsor of your bill because i think that that you have hit it. that we start with someplace like detroit where people clearly know that work ethic, that work ethic started in places like detroit and then

from there we are going to build and we are going to rebuild this country because it has such a great impact all the way through. so thank you very much. mr. clarke: i appreciate it. thank you for supporting detroit and supporting americans going back to work. we are going to make it in america. ms. hanabusa: we are going to make it in america. thank you. mr. speaker, i often note that we have a person that probably all the small business guys would love to get their hands on and i know for my constituents they would love to have the ability to talk to someone from the great state of delaware, because of course when we think of delaware we think of financial institutions, we think about how they control our money, but he also is a proud member of the original noble nine, and i'm asking him to speak to us about and share with us what he know from his great state. so the congressman from delaware who i would like to add is the only person who,

while there may be others, he's the only person dear to me who actually has less people in his congressional delegation than me. . mr. carnahan: thank you to my colleague from hawaii, one of the other small states, you're a delegation of two. we're a delegation of one. i represent the whole state of delaware. i tell my constituents that we have two senators and one member of congress, that means that i have to work twice as hard, mr. speaker. mr. carney: to serve the people of my state. i'm pleased to join my freshmen colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle this afternoon for our discussion about small business and job creation. and i'd like to talk for a little bit about the situation in my state, the state of delaware. we're coming off, all of us are coming off a district workweek where we spent our time, i'm sure, meeting with constituents, talking to business owners,

small business owners, large business owners working our districts and i did the same thing in delaware, not too far from the capital here. i'd like to highlight two meetings that i had in particular. one was a job fair that we held in georgetown, delaware, which is the county seat in the lower part of our state, many of people from the washington, d.c., area know georgetown, as they pass through it to go to our lovely beaches during the summer time, to enjoy time with the family at the beach. this particular day we had sponsored a job fair in georgetown, along with senator carper and senator coons this was a program that senator coons championed in birmington, initially. we've moved it now to the other two counties of our state had, a job fair in dover and a job fair in georgetown this past week. really helping to connect those folks in our state that are unemployed or underemployed, people looking to move up, with employers who are looking to

hire. and even though we have 9%, over 9% unemployment nationally and a little bit over 8% unemployment in our state of delaware, there are still a lot of jobs that go wanting, mostly because the employers are not able to find people that have the required skills for that particular enterprise. so the good news about this job fair is that we had 55 employers there, many of whom were prepared to hire people and offer them jobs. certainly take resumes and interview people or set up interviews. but we had over 8,000 people who came seeking employment or seeking an upgrade in their current job situation. and that's a lot of people in the small state of delaware and the least populous area of our state. so it tells us the very serious problem that we have with the lack of jobs and the lack of skills that people might have the jobs -- to do the jobs that are out there.

later on in the week i met at pat's aircraft which is an airplane -- a manufacturing facility at georgetown airport and they've been hiring mechanics, airplane mechanics, over the last several years and in fact when i was lieutenant governor one of the biggest problems that they had was finding workers that had the requisite skills to do the jobs that they held. now they've since lost some of that work but they were looking ahead and anticipating with some assistance sfr the f.a.a. to extend -- from the f.a.a. to extend a runway there at georgetown airport, going back to your point about the need for infrastructure, to stir business development, business growth and job creation. if we were able to extend that -- the runway there at the airport, pat's would be able to hire a more -- more mechanics. but there are more people out there who might want those jobs,

would not have the skills to do the work. and so delaware technical and community college, with the help of the state government, has developed a training program specifically to prepare workers for that facility. and other airplane manufacturing facilities in that region. we have a falcon plant which does airplane maintenance and mechanics at the new castle county airport, as well as a large boeing facility over the line in southeastern pennsylvania. so these are jobs that are highly skilled jobs, they are jobs that require mechanical ability, they're jobs that require training and there are certainly lots of folks out there that are looking for employment and these are the kinds of jobs that we need to prepare people for. so, one of the meetings i had this week, press conferences we had, was at delaware technical and community college where we highlighted a federal grant that was going to delaware tech to

create training programs for businesses basically to enable people to upgrade their skills, to take the jobs that are available. so one of the problems obviously that we have in our country and the president's employment council has identified this problem is that we have jobs that are out there, but we don't have people with the right kind of skills for those jobs. and so we need to have programs and this is where the public sector comes into play. particularly a technical and community colleges, to provide those -- that training and those skills for those folks. later on in the week i met and spoke with the georgetown chamber of commerce and the georgetown chamber of of course is comprised mostly of very small businesses and really what -- they had a really simple message for me as a member of congress. and that is that they see their

businesses struggling because of a lack of confidence among consumers. and when you think about the u.s. economy at large, about 70% of economic activity is consumer driven. and so when consumers don't have confidence, either in their employment situation, in the present they may not be employed or their future employment situation, they're not willing to spend money on small business services or products in the community and therefore the small businesses suffer. so their message to me was really a simple one. twofold. one is, do no harm. in washington, d.c. do the work of the people, solve the problems that we have and inspire confidence. and i think one of the ways that we can do that, there's a lot of discussion, most of the discussion that i hear from my constituents in the state of delaware, and we've had town

hall meetings, we're going to have a town hall, telephone town hall meeting tonight, i'm sure i'll hear the same thing. enough with the partisan bickering back and forth across the aisle, let's focus on the challenges that we face, creating jobs and strengthening businesses, creating a business climate in the short-term where a business can -- businesses can thrive, where consumers can have confidence so, they'll be willing to spend on small businesses and other procurement and in the long-term address our deficits, our debt and our budget imbalances. if we're able to do that we'll at least provide some confidence to the people that we represent that those that they send to delaware, the members of the house of representsives here and our senators across the capital, are doing -- capitol, are doing their part, are working together, are focused on not the politics of where we all stand in relation to the next election, but on solving the problems that face our country. i think the vote that we have

coming at the end of this year that will be the result of the work of the -- of the committee on the budget will be maybe one of the most important votes in a number of years. i've heard our majority whip, steny hoyer, refer to it as the most important vote here in the last 30 years. and i think that's right in many respects because people out there, my constituents, your constituents, ms. hanabusa in hawaii, i see our colleague from rhode island, mr. cicilline has joined us as well. our constituents are asking us, begging us to do our work, to inspire confidence and to do the right thing for the country. and that involves giving people the skills they need to be able to do the jobs that are available out there, creating confidence so businesses can make investments, so people will

be willing to spend money and consume, so our economy will get back on its feet again. and so in the long-term we'll set up a fiscal situation with our government so that the economy can be strong and create jobs for my children and their children. so i want to thank you, thank my colleague from hawaii for leading our dialogue this afternoon on job creation, on small business development across our country and our respective districts and i look forward to sitting here with you for a few more minutes and engaging in this dialogue. thank you once again. i just wanted to give a few words about how the people in delaware are responding to the work that we're doing or not doing here in -- in-in congress. -- in -- in had -- congress.

ms. hanabusa: before the congressman from delaware sits, when i was in district, one of the comments i got was about the dysfunctional congress. but one of the things that i asked him to really sit back and look at, and this is really our friends in the media and they've got to do something about the way they report. i told them that, you know, when they ask about our votes they should really look at it seriously and say, ok, how many votes are really that controversial? and how many votes, how many times are we just adversaries and how many times are there that there are just a handful of votes relative to how many we pass in the house that rises to the level that we'll would say that we are just cutting down partisan lines? because i don't really think that that's the case. it's a minority of votes. but it's that which is played up. and when i tell my constituents that, they're sort of amazed. they think every single bill that we practically pass up here is controversial.

did you get that sense from talking to your constituents? mr. carney: i absolutely got that sense. people were frankly that i talked to, democrats, republicans, it really didn't matter what party affiliation they had, were pretty fed up with what they had seen in the whole debt ceiling debacle. not so much the debate around it, but the fact that we let it go to the brink and that we seemed to want to ever continuing resolution, to every vote, take it to the brink before coming together, however that might happen, whether it's one side or the aisle getting enough votes or whether it's coming across the aisle and having a bipartisan approach. frankly, the people in delaware are more focused on having us address problems and solve those problems and they're not really concerned at all in fact with the politics of it. what they tell me is, cut it out. ms. hanabusa: that's right. mr. carney: and they ask me, is it so bad? i tell them i've been reading a lot of civil war history of late. i read a book about abraham

lincoln about a year ago and after that started looking for other books to read and of course when we were just -- just after we were sworn in, one of our leaders, congressman larsen from kentucky, gave us a history of the house of representatives. and because i have been doing so much reading about the civil war, i decided to go first to those chapters just before the civil war, during the civil war, and afterwards, and to read about the history of the house of representatives. and i want to tell you, it may be hard for some of our constituents in hawaii and rhode island and delaware to believe it, but things were a lot worse during those period of time. one of stories was related in the book that one member almost caned another member to death on the floor of the house. i tell my constituents, it's not nearly that bad. in fact, we have a lot of friends, frankly, i have a lot of friends. i know you do across the aisle. i think the real problem is, we

have pretty significant differences of opinions on issues and that's understandable. ms. hanabusa: right. mr. carney: that's what makes our country so great that we can come here, we can come from our respective areas of the country with different points of view, as i look around this chamber you see america in this chamber. through the representatives that are sent here by the people. but we need to understand that this country is greater than all the rest of us as individuals. and that we need to live up to the greatness of our country by recognizing that we got to put our differences at the end of the day beside us, behind us so that we can come to some resolution for the good of the people at large. ms. hanabusa: that's a great message. the whole is greater than the parts. thank you. and with that i'd also like to call another colleague of ours, the congressman from rhode island who was actually my co-sponsor of this time, so with

that. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for convening this conversation and thank my friend from delaware for his thoughtful remarks. i think that, you know, what the american people want from us and i think as freshmen we were sent here to do our best to solve the problems, to meet the big challenges of our time. and while i think that has been our responsibility, i think what the american people have seen unfortunately is really a lack of action by the congress of the united states on the most urgent issue of our time and that is jobs and getting this economy back on track. and i think we have some proposal before the congress that is sound and that will really do an important -- make important progress in our effort to get this economy back on track and create jobs. and i think what i found when i was home in rhode island and listening to my constituents i'm just reminded of how devastating this recession has

been for american families and american businesses and how difficult it is for people who are out of work, trying to find work or people trying to hold onto a home and facing foreclosure because of their inability to make ends meet or people running a small business that are just trying to stay afloat and keep their business going. so i think to the challenges of never lose sight of how devastating this recession is and then focus what we can do, what practical solutions we can find to meet this challenge, and, you know, i think what people want is they want to see congress, republicans and democrats, working together to find common ground, to find real solutions to these answers, to these challenges. and i spent time in my district -- a couple things that i thought were particularly exciting examples of what small business can do. i welcomed the s.b.a. regional administrator, jean, to rhode island and we visited a company

called the wild world of indoor sports. two rhode island entrepreneurs that brought this business together, small business and created jobs. and they used the small business administration loan program to do it to start their business and it allowed them to hire 80 full and part-time employees and they are looking at the opportunity to create another facility, another business in another part of the state which is likely to have the same number of employees. and so it's really about how do we provide the needed capital to small business, to startup companies so they can grow their businesses. at another event in my district we announced, along with our governor and our entire congressional delegation, senator whitehouse, senator reid, congressman langevin and i, the launch of a new $13 million loan fund, it's federal funds, again, to be administered by the rhode island economic development corporation and to assist an organization called beta spring

and the slater fund. both of these organizations are really designed to help startup entrepreneurs access to capital they need to start a new business and to grow jobs. and i think one of the things i've heard repeatedly is that small businesses need access to capital, they need an environment which they can start and grow their business, but the other thing that businesses need, small businesses need that i hear about all the time is they need customers to buy the goods and services they produce. and so i think one of the things that is really important about the president's american jobs act is it really focuses on tax cuts for small businesses, tax credits for small businesses, particular attention to our returning veterans, our heroes and those who have been unemployed for a very long time and our young people. but at the same time it puts money in the pockets of middle-class families so they can increase their demands for goods and services that ultimately will help small businesses grow and create

jobs. i think this is one of the important lessons that we should have learned over the last decade is it's not enough, it's unwise fiscal policy to simply ensure that people at the very top, the millionaires and billionaires get to hold on to more of their money at the expense of the middle class because in order to have a thriving, prosperous economy you not only need entrepreneurs and innovators, you need hardworking middle-class families who have the ability to buy the goods and services that businesses produce. and i think that's what we need to do. we need to be looking at policies that will do both things, that provide access to capital, that will create an environment for small businesses to grow and at the same time give hardworking middle-class families to buy more goods and services. and i think what's exciting about the american jobs act is it does all of those things. it provides tax cuts to help american small businesses hire and grow. it puts workers back on the job

while rebuilding and modernizing america's infrastructure. it creates pathways back to work for americans looking for jobs, be sure they have the skills necessary for the jobs of the 21st century. it puts more money in the pockets of every working american family, every worker that, again, will help to stimulate growth of our small businesses. and i think the president has really identified a very serious plan to put americans back to work, and i really hope -- as i know the gentlelady from hawaii hopes, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be part of this conversation. if they have different ideas, better ideas as to ways we can create jobs and get the american people back to work, they ought to be part of the discussion. but i know one thing for sure, we cannot simply do nothing for the next 14 months. the american people expect us to take action to not only talk about jobs but to do things that are going to create jobs and create conditions for job growth, private sector job growth and to be able to

demonstrate that what we're doing, the policies we're enacting are helping to get our economy back on track and to stimulate jobs. i think the other point i just want to minges, i know the gentlelady from hawaii has been -- mention, i know the gentlelady from from hawaii has been a big -- i know the gentlelady from hawaii has been a big supporter of this -- make it in america. i know my district has a rich history of manufacturing. if we are going to be a leading economic power in the world we have to make things again in this country. while we lost things in manufacturing, the low end of manufacturing, there is a lot of new manufacturing, highly skilled manufacturing that's growing in our country. and what we need to do is we need to have policies put in place that will support american manufacturers, american workers here so that we can compete in this global economy. we have a very ambitious, comprehensive agenda of making it in america that begins with the development of a national manufacturing strategy so we can have benchmark and compete

successfully with other countries that are engaged in manufacturing. creating tax policies that support investment for manufacturing and job growth. one of the pieces of legislation was equivalent to an i.r.a. for manufacturers to reinvest in capital equipment so they can grow jobs. my make it in america block grant that will help retrofit factories, retrain workers, increase exports, things to ensure that american manufacturing can be rebuilt in this country. and this is an area where i think the public is well ahead of policymakers in making it in america again. i thank the gentlelady for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2608, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman may continue. mr. cicilline: i thank you, mr. speaker. so i again thank the gentlelady for leading this conversation. i think we all know, particularly members of the freshman class, that the single most urgent challenge, the single greatest crisis we face right now is job creation, is getting the american people back to work. and when you think all the other challenges our country faces, suddenly 14 million americans were put back to work, it would go along the way of supporting their families and, of course, they're also contributing as productive taxpayers, that's a benefit to our whole society and certainly to our country. and i hope that what the president has outlined in the american jobs act, what we've outlined as part of the make it in america agenda, the investments that are included in the american jobs act to rebuild the infrastructure of our country, to invest in roads and bridges and ports so that we can move the goods and

services and information necessary to compete successfully in the 21st century, those kinds of investments that will ensure we do things today, that will create jobs in the short term and in the long term deal in a responsible way with managing our debt and deficit. but we got to do both things. we have to have a long-term strategy for fiscal responsibility that addresses the series of challenges we face in terms of our debt and at the same time we have to make the right investment that put people back to work and that ensure that we're investing in the things that are necessary to compete successfully and win in the 21st century. innovation, infrastructure, education, the things that are necessary to ensure that we rebuild the economy and that we not only put people back to work, that we position ourselves to continue to succeed and lead the world as a world economic power. and i think we can do it, the american people expect us to do it. and i know when i am home in my own district they are expecting congress that will take action,

that will get the economy back on track, that will create jobs and that's going to allow every american to have a legitimate shot at realizing the american dream. i thank the gentlelady for the time. hanabusa hanabusa i would like to thank the gentleman from rhode island. before he leaves, i would like to say when we came here in a small number, the number of nine, and we have maintained our relationships. we hear each other all the time. some of us sit right in front of where the congressman from rhode island is and we shift inside our seats. we hear what they have done and what our constituents are saying us. i'm sure he knows it's great to hear the congressman from detroit to talk about the detroit plant. the congressman from rhode island speak about, of course, his -- sort of like a block grant for his make it in america part. and each and every one of them

has done something where they're looking at and hearing their constituents. and that's what we want to press upon everyone. we hear what our constituents are saying. and i think it was said very well from the congressman from delaware, what we all have to put everything aside and build on is the public confidence because unless the public's confidence grows and unless they begin to feel not only in congress -- we're just another body. they got to feel that confidence in the united states of america, the greatest country in the world. they got to feel that confidence. they got to understand that other economies depend upon us so that when we look like we're quibbling over things that are irrelevant to international matters, that's when their stock market go crashing based upon how we act. so wouldn't you say, david, that what we need to do is we need to set things aside and

anything we got to do within the next 14 months, if we got to work together so the american people have confidence in us and then by that have confidence in this great nation? mr. cicilline: i agree. i think one of the important work of the supercommittee, obviously first and foremost to all of us, i think it's an opportunity not only to deal with the urgent responsibilities of our economic condition and our debt and our deficit and being sure that we are responsible in the way we cut spending, but at the same time if we do this right we have an opportunity to restore the public's confidence in the operations of its national government. and i think people are going to look to this that will not only matter for the next fiscal year, it will matter for many generations. we will be able to demonstrate to the american people that we came together, republicans and democrats, and solved this hard set of questions and made the tough decisions to fix our economy and to be sure that

america continues to lead the world. i think -- i'm hoping that as freshmen on both sides of the aisle, you know, we come here new to this experience, maybe without a lot of the history that so many other members of congress may have and some of the scar tissue maybe that's been built up over the years and i'm hoping the energy and optimism of our freshman class and our freshman colleagues on the other side of the aisle will help to propel us to a new way of working together in a bipartisan way to solve the real challenges that face our country. hanabusa hanabusa and the people -- ms. hanabusa: and the people -- the real message that resonated at home, people think we are going to do this time and time again. we are going to have the c.r. issues, we are going to have the debt ceiling issues. i pressed upon them, if the supercommittee is doing what they are supposed to do, hopefully they will give us the stability. i think it was what the gentleman from delaware said, he said steny hoyer, our minority whip said it's going to be the most critical vote we

all take and one of the most critical votes that this congress will take because in this difficult time that is what's going to render us stability if we're able to do it correctly. so i hope that on both sides of the aisle we're able to do that. so thank you. and thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. speaker. i've been listening here on the floor today and i heard some folks mention the need for action on the issue of jobs, and i agree. some of them said, hey, there haven't been much action. there's been a lack of action, i think was the quote, that i heard here on the floor earlier. i'd like to talk about that a little bit.

there's been a lot of action on the issue of jobs in the house. folks talk about the confidence, they sort of group the house and the senate together. and i understand that. but the house and the senate are two separate bodies, and the leadership in the house, the leadership in the senate have two different visions of where this country ought to go. . now, as it relates to the house, there's been a lot of action. we've passed about 90 bills in the house this year. during that same time frame the senate passed 20. in a lot of those bills that we've passed here in the house directly relate to the issue of job creation and helping our country get back on its feet. many of us understand that government is not the key job creator in this country.

the private sector creates jobs, the government can make things better or make things worse for job creators. and i hope, my hope is that we are working to make things better. to create an environment where the private sector can then flourish, can innovate, can advance and create jobs. now, let's talk about the action here in the house. we've got a number of bills that we've passed that relate to job creation, that were then taked down to the other side of this building and given to the senate and that's where they rest. they're just sitting there. a lot of us grew up in the 1970's. we remember schoolhouse rock. we remember that little bill sitting on capitol hill.

he can't become -- that bill can't become a law unless it passes this house, the senate and then the president signs it. well, that little bill was passed out of here. he's waiting on the senate. to do something about it. that little jobs bill. and there's a whole host of them down there with him. let me mention a few of them. first and foremost, when we got here in january we voted to repeal obamacare. the health care law. that recently passed. why did we do that? because it is a source of angst and uncertainty and government spending, out-of-control government spending and excessive regulation, the likes of which this country has never seen before. we voted to repeal that on the

first day. of the first week back, of the first week we got here. we sent that over to the senate, they didn't pass it. we've passed h.r. 872, the reducing regulatory burdens act. no senate action. we passed the energy tax prevention act, to block some of the e.p.a.'s controversial excessive regulations. no action on that. we passed h.res. 72, asking our house committees to inventory regulations and look for place we can trim them back, reform them and save. no action there like that in the senate. h.r. 1230, restarting american offshore leasing now act. a bill, along with several others that we passed, to encourage energy exploration.

no action in the senate. the putting the gulf of mexico back to work act. no action in the senate. reversing president obama's offshore more toer toum act -- moratorium act, no action in the senate. and we can go on and on and on. one of those things that we passed here that the senate hasn't passed is a budget. a budget. a fundamental document for managing one's finances. we passed one here. they hadn't had a budget in the senate, i think about two years now. 888 days. no budget in the senate. so we've done a lot here in the house, congress as a whole hasn't acted on a lot of this stuff but we've done our part and we've sent it down the building, the other side of the

building to the senate, and we're waiting for action on this critical legislation, many pieces of critical legislation that could help this country get back to job creation. i'd now like to yield to my friend from illinois, mr. kinzinger. mr. kinzinger: thank you. this kind of reminds me of the story of the rogue cowboy. when you think of the rogue cowboy you think of somebody, you know, sitting under the sun, taking it all in, doesn't really want to work with anybody. that reminds me of the senate. taking it easy, they haven't take an lot of votes this year. more interested in, you know, i guess getting paid and letting the bills stack up and they don't need to work with anybody. but you know what we can do in that process? we can -- let's blame one small lever of government, let's blame house republicans. let's blame them for the 9.1% unemployment. let's do that.

you know, that's what we can do. we don't have to actually govern. i mean, when you look at it, they've had control of the house of representatives and the senate since 2006, with the exception -- and the presidency since 2008, with the exception of a very brief period of time over the last year where republicans have been blessed and fortunate enough to be in the majority of the house of representatives and yet this employment, according to them, is our fault. we need jobs in del this country. i'll tell what you, in my district, the 11th congressional district in illinois, you have cities like joliet, ottawa, bloomington, a lot of those places have seen their manufacturing base disappear. they've seen it over the last 20 or 30 years and what's been our reaction? well, typically the knee jerk reaction in washington, d.c., is that we have to pass some kind of a program. we have to pass more spending. well, if there's no jobs, i mean obviously the problem, if there's no jobs, it's got to be

because washington, d.c., hasn't done enough. and so we get in this perpetual cycle of let's spend more and spend more. i remember a couple years ago, you know, almost $1 trillion stimulus was passed out of this house of representatives. and i think by everybody's measure would agree that it was infective. -- ineffective. i have not seen many people with a straight face argue that the stimulus was effective. even the commander of chief, the president pim self, said, it wasn't -- himself, said, it wasn't quite as shovel ready as we expected. mr. griffin: i want to point out that in arkansas the president predicted that the stimulus would create 30,000 jobs. i think in the end the government funded about 4,800 jobs at a cost of around $300,000 per job.

now, if someone would have just given me the checkbook, i could have created more jobs right in -- writing people checks and could have saved people all the work. i mean, the idea that you create jobs at $300,000 a job is just unbelievable. mr. kinzinger: that's a great point. you know what's amazing to me. you put out those very staggering numbers and every american should be horrified at those numbers, but i've actually heard members of the other side of the aisle say the problem is the stimulus wasn't big enough. i mean, you guys -- i think most people lessening today have heard that. the stimulus just wasn't big enough. ok. well, i disagree but, fine, theoretically let's say it wasn't big enough. so what do we need? another $2 trillion, $3 trillion stimulus, a gajl stimulus because then everybody can go back to work? but we put the president -- the

president puts a $450 billion stimulus. so the only argument i've heard that has any credence and it doesn't but is that it wasn't big enough, that's why it didn't create jobs, so stimulus two, which is stimulus -- which is smaller, has to do what stimulus one never did. the insanity of some of the things i hear are staggering. we got to get people back to working. that's what it comes down to. i think everybody agrees about that. so we can look and say, for 20 years we've been spending and spend and spended, $14 trillion obviously wasn't enough to get us out of this deficit, or we can do what the house republicans have been promising the american people and following through on, which is to say, let the american consumer and businessmen breathe the clean air, the fresh air of freedom, the fresh air of capitalism. and understanding that. somebody has a fear of hypodermic needles, you don't solve that fear by stabbing them with a bunch of hyperdermick needles. so feff with a debt problem in this country, you don't spend it -- solve it by spending more and

more. you figure out a better way to deliver those solutions. look, federal government isn't the answer. everybody you're going to hear from tonight is going to tell you, federal government isn't the answer. in many cases it's the problem. but the answer, the thing that has made our country great, the thing that has made us powerful is the people that live here, not the government that represents it. it's the people. so i think as this discussion goes on tonight, i look forward to listening and being part of it. but again, to talk about a jobs bill, by the way, i don't want to say the word jobs bill again because if it was a real jobs bill i think that would be an appropriate title but it's just stimulus two. i'd like to yield back. mr. griffin: thank you. i'd like to thank the gentlelady from illinois. it's stimulus the equell. you made a really good point. the government is not going to be the answer in terms of creating jobs. the government can help create an environment where the private sector can innovate, can grow

and can create jobs. we can assist by creating an environment and a country where businesses and job creators flourish. and that's what we want to do. i yield now to the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: thank you so much and i appreciate your leadership here this afternoon, given that it's an opportunity to once again talk to the american people about jobs and, you know, as the weather gets cooler outside and i know in the state of alabama there's several large fairs that are happening right now. and i love the fair. i love going to the fair. i love taking my children to the fair. i love the corn dogs, the elephant ears, the tiltawhirl, the go carts, i love going to the fair. but i really love roller coasters and what i love about roller coasters is the anticipation, the tick, tick, tick as the carts reach the top of the hill. and every tick on that anticipation of unleashing the

speed of that roller coaster, all of these job-creating bills that we've passed right here in this house of representatives. and yeltsin -- yet it's like being on a roller coaster and you reach the very top and it shuts down because every piece of legislation that we have passed in order to unleash the private sector's speed and momentum to get this economy back on track is dead in the water, dead on arrival in the senate. and we can't take it anymore. i've just gotten back from my district like all of you have and i've traveled around and i've looked into the eyes of the people who want to create these jobs. our american job creators are sitting on almost $2 trillion that they could be reinvesting in the private sector. yet as i have mentioned on this floor time and time again, i have visited places that have told me that every dollar in extra capital that they have, they're having to reinvest back into their company in order to comply with e.p.a. regulations. this is unconscionable, this is

unconscionable at a time when our country is so desperate for good paying jobs and people have given up even looking for those jobs. i want to talk real quickly about a recent trip that i took to international paper in alabama and i had the opportunity to sit down with them and talk specifically about a bill that we have in front of us on the floor today and that's the bowler mack bill and the thousands and thousands of dollars and millions of dollars all across this country and all the jobs that aring going to be lost if this -- that are going to be lost if this bill is implemented. they cannot comply. they have stumped so many dollars already to already comply with the regulations in place and this will essentially shut them down. this is just one more example of what this congress is trying to do in order to allow the private sector to create jobs. all of us make site visits to companies and to manufacturing sites throughout our district

and all you have to do is see the manufacture space, the empty cubicles. this is real. this isn't some eye in the sky thing that we're just -- some pie in the sky thing that we're just standing here on the floor talking about. this is real. there are real people hurting and we have got to get government out of the way. i look forward to continuing this discussion with all of you this afternoon but on behalf of alabama's second district, we'll keep fighting for the opportunity and we've got it right here, just the tick, tick, tick on the roller coaster, waiting for that free fall that we've got to get senate democrats onboard. thank you. mr. griffin: i thank the gentlelady from alabama. i would say that when i sit down and meet with constituents, whether it be here or back home in little rock, one of the complaints that i hear the most is that federal government continues to overregulation, continues to burden us with regulations that are excessive, that just don't make sense, and

they're implementing them without checking with the folks that they're going to most impact or ignoring the folks that they will most impact. and there are a number of agencies that are doing that. we hear a lot about the e.p.a. but it's not just the e.p.a. you can just go right down the list of federal agencies and they are issuing new regulations , many of which are almost impossible to comply with. today we voted on the concrete mact, m-a-c-t, and the boiler mact legislation to help prohibit the e.p.a. from implementing some of this harmful -- some of these harmful rules. i can tell you talking to folks back in my district these rules will have a specific impact on

them. it will cost them millions of dollars to implement and ultimately it costs jobs. mrs. roby: will the gentleman yield? mr. griffin: sure. mrs. roby: just going back to the international paper, when passing mact with the cost of implementing other pending regulations would place at risk 36 mills, 20,541 pulp and paper mills nationally and this is approximately 18% of the primary pulp and paper industry work force. the number of lost mills would rise to 79 if all air regulations are taken into account, the loss of jobs would rise to 87,299 if jobs in the supplier and downstream industries are figured into the equation. this would mean about $4 billion in reduced wages and some $1.3 billion in lost

state, local and federal taxes. i yield back. i just wanted to add what you were pointing out. mr. griffin: this is the impact of what these -- before i yield to the gentleman from new york -- that these regulations continue. it's almost every week there's a new one. and i don't think anyone here is against regulation. this is not -- this is not an issue of, do we regulate or not ? of course we need regulations. we need commonsense regulations that protect americans. what we are talking about are excessive regulations. what we are talking about is an unprecedented growth of regulations over the last few years that are stifling and crushing business. one thing i will mention with regard to health care, it's not

just -- businesses aren't just concerned about the regulations that exist. they're concerned about the regulations that are in the pipeline that they haven't seen yet because it adds uncertainty to doing business. so a business may have some money set aside that they want to invest and expand their factories and they want to hire new people but they don't yet know what the impact of the recently passed health care laws' going to be because they put that money aside and they sit on it. i've had constituent after constituent tell me if this health care law that recently passed is fully implemented, it will have a devastating impact on my business and we will start paying an additional $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or whatever the amount is for that particular

business. and so they are putting money aside, waiting to see what they're going to have to spend to comply with this new law. same situation with dodd-frank and a lot of the new financial regulations. there was a gentleman speaking earlier talking about small businesses needing access to credit. let me tell you, dodd-frank bill is part of the problem. if you really want to inspire confidence in job creators, the ought to call a press conference today and say he will do everything he can to repeal his two big mistakes -- obamacare and dodd-frank. that will give job creators a whole shot of confidence. i guarantee you the markets would respond likewise. i yield now to the gentleman from new york. >> well, i thank the gentleman from arkansas for yielding, and i thank the gentleman for setting up this leadership hour. for us to have this important conversation. i would say to all my

colleagues, it doesn't take a wizz kid to figure out we're on -- whiz kid to figure out we're on the wrong path in america. so how are we going to change it? i come to this chamber always in an optimistic manner. i come to this chamber with the energy and commitment to make america better. and we're going to change that by changing the culture of washington, d.c. i'm proud to be part of this freshman class. 87 house republicans. 13 approximately new democratic faces on the other side of the aisle. mr. reed: so how are we going to change from that new class, develop a new breed of elected official that puts country and policy over politics? i can tell you that my colleagues, i spent a tremendous amount of time with in the freshman class that it is policy over politics. and i am pleased to be joined

on the floor today here today with a colleague, a democratic colleague joining us, a bunch of house republican freshmen members, a freshmen fellow on the democratic side who had the courage to stand up and publicly stand with us to talk about what is the critical job of this -- the critical issue of this congress. that is creating an environment where the economy improves and people can be put back to work, it's about creating an environment that creates jobs. and my colleague from michigan, who i developed a friendship with, is down here to join us to offer his ideas, though we may not agree 100% on all the ideas that he brings to the table. i still respect the man and i respect many of his ideas, and i respect that there's going to be areas that we're going to find common ground, that we can come together and move the ball forward so that america will see its best and brightest days

again ahead of us. one of the common grounds that i know is coming down the pipeline here in the next week or two -- i would say next week -- is the free trade agreements. there's vast bipartisan support for those free trade agreements which would equate up to 250,000 new jobs. essentially immediately within the next 12 months. that type of economic opportunity is what we should be focusing on and what we focus on here in the house as a freshman class of pushing forward policies and agendas that put the country first rather than our re-election efforts and our political ambitions ahead of country and policy. and one of the other things that we have to change in washington, d.c., and i know my colleagues on both sides here today are firmly committed to is that we have to look at this from a long-term comprehensive point of view. when you got the senate who

hasn't passed a budget in 888 days, any businessman in america will tell you that how you run an operation you at least have to have a vision, you have to have a strategy and in government that document that sets the vision and the policy and the guiding principles of how we should operate is a budget. it's a fundamental thing that we do. so, again, the senate needs to join us, lock arms with this freshman class and say we're going to put country and policy over politics and jump. that's why i have so much respect for my colleague from michigan coming down and joining us here today and hope my colleague from arkansas will yield him time to offer his insights in this debate. but, again, it's a commonsense approach to governing. do the job, lay forth the vision in a budget, work together to find common ground

and create an environment in america where people can go back to work and take care of their families for generations to come. it is only through that type of commonsense approach do i believe that we will move this ball down the field the way that it needs to. and i'm proud to join my colleagues. with that i'll yield back the time. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman from new york, and i will in a minute yield some time to the gentleman from michigan. i want to quickly yield some time to mr. duffy. mr. duffy: thank you very much. just quickly, you know, we have heard a lot about the president's jobs bill and i think everyone in this house can agree that this country needs more economic growth and it needs more jobs. and you know what, and i think -- i'm from wisconsin and a lot of folks in wisconsin and across the country want to see folks in washington and in mad sob try to get along, try to find points over agreement over points of disagreement.

so the president came up with this jobs bill. you know, mr. president, i can agree with you that we need tax reform. i can agree with you that we need regulatory reform. i can also agree that we should probably extend the payroll tax holiday. but the president's going a step further and he wants to have a second stimulus. he wants to spend nearly half a trillion dollars because he believes more government spending will lead to economic growth, prosperity, wealth and sustainable jobs. and we tried that to the tune of $1 trillion. that doesn't work. but when the president talks about tax reform, right after he gave that speech a week later he comes out and says my idea of tax reform is to raise taxes. this doesn't make sense. do you think that you help the job seeker by raising taxes on the job creator? he talks about reforming

regulation. but all we see is more and more regulations coming from the agencies and the white house. and what that does is it makes america less competitive. it's pretty easy to see we're a global economy, and you know what, in this country we pay our employees more and i think we can do that because american workers, they're harder working, they're more productive and they're smarter. but on top of that, our businesses have far more mandates, far more regulations, far more red tape and now they're going to pay far more taxes. with that kind of environment, how do we expect our businesses, our manufacturers to compete on this global scale? and sometimes people in washington sit back and they scratch their head and they go, why are businesses leaving? well, washington has made it uncompetitive for american

industry, american small manufacturers to compete, succeed and win and put our hardworking families back to work. i come from northern wisconsin. you guys may not know this but i grew up doing lumberjack sports, that's chop and saw and tree rolling. that's how our whole region was built. and paper is still a huge industry where i come from. and the e.p.a. was coming out with a boiler mact regulation. if that were to have gone through, that would have killed wisconsin paper and it would have rippled throughout our whole economy and it would have killed thousands of jobs in our community. and just the threat of boiler mact has sent ripples through the economy. i mean, you will be at our loggers who have -- this isn't small business. this is big business. they have big loans, big pieces of equipment, and they can't access the national forest. i mean, there are policies coming from this town that make

it so much harder for our small businesses to succeed, compete, grow and hire our hardworking people. we have to switch it. i'm not a farmer. i said i was a lumberjack. but i do have a garden. i think the economy is much like a garden. when you garden, you know, you have to have good seed and good soil, right? and you have to have sun and water. and if you put that all together it's amazing. your plants will grow. once in a while you can throw a little miracle grow on there and they grow a little more. the economy is no different. you can't have -- you can't have no sun and bad soil and just pure miracle grow and expect the plant to grow. it doesn't work that way. we need to set the environment for expansion and growth in american competitiveness. that's not happening right now. we need to change these policies. and so look what we've done in the house. in this house those are the bills we passed. we passed bill after bill after

bill that makes the environment more competitive for american industry which means we have more jobs in america, and they die in the senate. and i think -- it's almost fruit loop legislation in the senate which is no legislation, and until we start to turn this process around, start to focus on points of agreement that will turn the economy around and put our people back to work i think you're going to see a continued discontent of people in this country with this town. so with that, mr. speaker, the gentleman from arkansas, i'm proud to be here with this freshman class, doing the hard work in a bipartisan way, trying to change the environment to put our families back to work and i yield back. mr. griffin: what you just described is the fact that we can't mandate companies come back to the united states. we can't mandate companies to invest in the united states. we have to attract them.

we have to create an virpte where they want to do -- environment where they want to do business. we got to create an environment where they want to invest. we want people to look at the united states and say, that's the only place in the world to do business. that's where i want to create jobs. that's where i want to innovate. that's where i want to invest. as you say, the rules -- a lot of the rules that we set up have run folks off so they're creating jobs but they're creating them somewhere else. i yield to the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: i just want to talk real quickly. you talked about the forest industry. since 2006 it's lost 31% of its work force. that's nearly 400,000 high-paying jobs located in mainly small, rural communities. and without passing this boiler mact legislation, the situation's only going to become worse. so i just wanted to throw that in there. mr. griffin: i want to yield quickly to our friend from the other side of the aisle who's

joined us, the gentleman from michigan. . mr. clarke: i want to thank the gentleman from arkansas for giving me some time to address this body and also to my good friend, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, for inviting me here to be here. as you know, i'm the democrat, i'm currently vice president of the democratic freshman class and, we may have our differences, but the people that we represent in this great country are all different. that's what makes our country so strong and so great. is that we attract people from all around the world with their different talents and perspectives, but they all have the opportunity to responsibly express themselves and leverage their taleblets, to build one of the greatest countries -- talents, to build one of the greatest countries our civilization has ever known. one thing i do know that we request agree on is that -- that we can agree on is that the role of this congress to create jobs is to help improve the business climate to keep and attract the investment that creates jobs. i want to give you example of a

place that i was born and raised in and that i currently live in. the city of detroit. that metropolitan poll tan area has lost more jobs -- metropolitan area has lost more jobs than any other metropolitan area in the last 10 years. home foreclosures came through, hit our city like a wave, destroyed blocks and blocks of formerly viable neighborhoods. it's been heartbreaking for me to see what's happened not only to the city, but for the people that i love. many of whom have had to leave the city for the suburbs, they moved out of state. many have just lost hope altogether. i want to get to the point. with business -- what businesses have told me on what they need to stay in the city and what businesses would need to locate in the city, it's the same things that detroit families want. simple basic things. safe neighborhoods, good schools , a low-cost of living and doing

business. so think about it. if we could provide better public safety for folks, if we could improve the schools and cut those high municipal taxes in detroit, i know that we can keep businesses and attract new jobs. here's why. even though this city has been hit very hard economically, we have the best know-how in the country. we have a great trained work force. if we're able to hire more police officers, hire better teachers, keep our schools open longer, cut our property taxes by eliminating our daunting municipal and school debt and eliminate our city income tax on residences and nonresidences, we could bring jobs back to detroit. and not only that, we could create jobs for this country. now, all that sounds like it costs money. it does cost money. but here's what i'm proposing.

it's not new money, let's just use existing tax revenue that detroit businesses and detroit individuals pay right now. we put that money in trust, on a pilot basis, to see how it works. and we say, if the city wants to benefit from those tax clars, -- dollars, it's going to pay off its debt entirely. the city and the school district. and it's got to eliminate that uncompetitive city income tax. and then the rest of the money can only be invested in those core areas that will improve the business climate of that city. like making the streets safer, the schools better and rebuilding the crumbling roads and water systems. that what we can do and i appreciate the time the gentleman from arkansas has provided me. i yield back. mr. griffin: thank you for joining us here on the floor today. we appreciate it very much. i want to -- we don't have a lot of time so i just want to make sure that i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i thank the gentleman from arkansas and the gentleman from michigan for his words because while we all may disagree on how

to get there, we do want to make sure that the final goal is reached and that's a stronger, better america, an america that has a strong that's putting people to work. this is the 31st straight month where unemployment has exceeded 8%. it has to end, it's got to stop. this country needs to get an economy that's back on track. in august i spent a lot of time visiting with businesses around my district in eastern and northern colorado and one of the initiatives that we launched was an initiative called the one more job initiative. and the idea was to learn from job creators, those people who are on the frontlines of our economy, what it takes for them to create another job. mr. gardner: what would help their business grow and expand to the point where they could hire somebody else? and so that their customers are returning, so they're able to sell their goods, their product, their services, so that business could expand and grow again. in colorado, if every business, if just 10% of businesses in colorado hired one person, if just 10% of colorado businesses hired one person we'd create

60,000 jobs in the state of colorado alone. in my home state. 60,000 jobs. that's not by telling businesses that they have to hire people. that's not by telling people that they've got to do x, y or z, but it it's saying, all right, if we can get this economy growing again, what is it that would allow you to expand? so excited to share with the congress, my colleagues, ideas that job creators in colorado have about what it would take to get their businesses hiring again. an independent consultant and business own heir this to say in response to our one more job initiative. as a startup consultant and owner of my own business, i see the day to day regulatory burdens and uncertainties that many employers, both small and large, face. it seems to me that small businesses including high-tech startups are operating on the edge of knowing. they operate monthly -- month to month or even day to day only to find out that a government fee, regulation or tax threatens to close their doors. we have a cur full of every day

on this floor about what it's going to take to move this economy forward and create jobs again. let's listen to a car dealer. tourism. many jobs here. build a strategy of promoting the state's beauty on a consistent basis. i'm glad to say that last night this body, the house of representatives, passed a bill to increase the opportunity for tourism in colorado, around our ski resorts, our ski slopes in colorado. the opportunity to not just generate jobs during the ski season itself, but to allow offseason uses, multiple seasons of use, zip lines, alpine slides, creating jobs in tourism in colorado. this body passed that bill last night. i hope the senate will pass it soon. so that we can start creating jobs. when i hear from my colleagues around washington, d.c., around the country, saying that the house of representatives hasn't passed a jobs bill, we passed a jobs and energy permitting act, it would create 54,000 jobs. last night we passed a bill that would add tourism jobs. in colorado, across the state. across the country.

and so we are passing these bills, they need to move through the senate, they need to be signed by the president. the fact is we've got a lot of work to be done and i thank the gentleman from arkansas for allowing us to be here today to share that message. mr. griffin: i want to yield back to the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: the only other thing i would have to offer is to say that as we move forward in the next coming months and weeks is that we've got to find common ground. with you we do not have to -- but we do not have to forfeit our principles in cog so. we stand by the things -- by doing so. we stand by the things that conservatives stand by. it's a three-legged stool where fiscal -- fiscally responsibility, we're socially conservative and we are pro military, pro defense. and we still stand on that stool, but yet continue to seek opportunities to find common ground. the problem is is that the senate is not evenly having this conversation -- even having this conversation. we watched two weeks ago as they

stable -- tabled the continuing resolution that we passed in the house meaning they're not even going to take an up or down d vote on this and ultimately passed something much different. we are asking our friends on the other side of the aisle, in the senate and the white house, to have a conversation with us. we have passed all of these bills that will lift the heavy hand of government off the very job creators in this country and we just want an opportunity to debate and then find where we do have -- share that common ground. again, without ever compromising our core conservative principles. thank you, again, to the gentleman from arkansas. i really appreciate the opportunity to spend this hour with you. mr. griffin: sure. i'd like to say a few thins if -- things if i could about the president's so-called jobs bill. we've heard about the desire for bipartisanship, we've heard about the desire to work together and find common ground. well, not too long ago the

president visited us here in the house and he spoke from the podium and he talked about his new jobs bill. well, he didn't talk about finding common ground, he didn't really talk about meeting us halfway, finding areas we could agree on. he just said, pass my bill. pass it as it is. then he ran around the country saying, pass my bill, pass it as it is. well, at that time there wasn't even a bill here in the house to pass. and when we finally did get the text of it, we saw that it certainly didn't reflect bipartisan agreement. certainly didn't reflect meeting half way. it was stimulus two. stimulus the sequel. and we know how ineffective the

first stimulus was. i'm here to work with other folks, find areas where we can agree, and move forward. but the shortage -- there hasn't been a shortage of bills and legislation passed in this house. as we talked about earlier, we've passed bill after bill after bill that will help create an environment in this country where the private sector will want to do business and grow jobs. when the president's bill finally got here, the so-called jobs plan, we found out they're not even -- there are not even enough democrats to pass it in the senate. i see just a few minutes ago the

republican leader in the senate wanted to have an immediate vote on the president's jobs bill. and he's been blocked. he's been blocked by the democrat majority leader in the senate. he doesn't want to allow a vote on the president's jobs bill. i suspect that has something to do with the fact that most of the democrats over there aren't going to vote for it either. they didn't just get here, they were around when the last stimulus passed. and they realized how in effective it was. and so he can't -- the president can't even convince his own party to support his so-called jobs bill. i think at the end of the day we can agree here that we want to pass legislation that will help the private sector grow and create jobs. no question. no question. and we've passed a number of those here and we're willing to work on more.

what we need is the senate to actually take up some of the stuff that we've passed. because i'll just say this, i've talked to a lot of job creators in the second congressional district of arkansas, which is basically central arkansas, with little rock at the core. and a lot of them, they have money to invest and expand and create jobs, but they're holding onto it. why? because they're uncertain about the future. they don't have confidence in the direction of this country. they're worried. so they do businesses, job creators do what families do. they hold tightly to their money , save up, hoping that things will get better, hoping that they will gain some confidence in the direction of the country so that they can then spend that

money to expand a plant and hire more people and what have you. so what makes them uncertain? what makes them worried? well, what i hear is overregulation, the need for tax reform so that we can be competitive with other countries , the health care bill that passed last year, that's got a bunch of folks worried because they don't know what the impact's going to be. the dodd-frank bill is absolutely killing our smalltown community banks that are a critical source of credit for small businesses and families. they're worried to death. all of the stuff, and let's not leave out the debt. people are concerned about the

debt. because the national debt affects the marketsings it affects interest rates, it affects the value of our currency and folks see what's going on in europe and they say, man, we don't get this under control, we're next. all of that is all of those different concerns, thorough worried -- those worries add to the uncertainty. i want to yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from arkansas. to your point, what you were talking about, the direct consequences that regular lyings are having on job creators throughout the united states, another eembings mayle i got from a business -- email i got from a business owner in colorado. he ends his comments with this. right now dodd-frank appears to have completely killed my business. we dealt earlier today, we'll continue to deal with the cement mact rule and that talks about what we're going to do to basic manufacturing elements in our country when it comes to cement.

if we're going it pave the road to a better economy, we better not do it without cement because this government's about to say no more crenent in this country -- cement in this country. i thank the gentleman from arkansas for his passion for job creaters in this country. mr. griffin: when we had a visit from some folks in the cement, concrete industry, i was taught yesterday the difference between cement and concrete. cement is had a we use to create concrete. and he sat there and he said, look, i got a lot of employees. i want to hire more. i want to grow. but this regulation, this cement mact regulation is going to kill a lot of our businesses because it's going to set a standard way beyond the european standard and the going to set a standard, a regulatory

standard that our businesses cannot meet no matter how much they spent. i think he mentioned that one company spent $20 million trying to comply, trying to tighten up their operations to meet some of these regulations. he even said, this regulation is so stringent you can't even measure, you can't even measure what the e.p.a.'s trying to achieve. it's beyond our ability to measure. it's not that these guys are against regulations. he said in our meeting, he said, we've been regulated for years. we're going to be continued to be regulated. we're cool with that. we understand that. but this type of regulation will put us out of business and the only people making cement will be elsewhere. he said the cement business is growing big time in china, and

to compete we got to have commonsense regulation. i yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you. i think in that same conversation we talked about an editorial, an op-ed piece by charles schwab, very well respected businessman when it comes to this country. in "the wall street journal" editorial it basically said this, a quote from charles schwab, what we can do and absolutely must is knock down all hurdles that creates disincentives in business. that's exactly what you were talking about in terms of making sure businesses have the ability to grow and have the government getting out of the way. thank you. mr. griffin: i want to yield now to the gentleman from new york. >> i want to end this conversation as i get ready to leave and as our colleague from kansas has joined us is that i think -- the gentlelady from alabama said it best. mr. reed: we came here as a new breed of elected officials,

part of this freshman class. we are not here to compromise our principles, but we're here to govern responsibly. mr. griffin: get things done. mr. reed we are get things done. i was so pleased that our colleague from michigan joined us today. even though we may disagree on many things, there is common ground there. he recognized lower taxes creates a business climate upon which entrepreneurs can put people back to work. we're all trying to achieve the same goal. now it's time to have the senate and the president engage with the american people in an open and honest fashion and deal with these issues once and for all because if we continue to play politics of yesterday, then america's brightest days are behind her. and to me that is unacceptable. and i know to all my colleagues here today that is also unacceptable to them. and with that i yield back. mr. griffin: appreciate it.

i want to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin and the gentleman from kansas. mr. duffy: i think we come to make sure that policy will create jobs. and we don't care if it's a republican or democrat idea. just we want ideas that are going to work. so the partisanship goes away. its ideas that put our families back to work. i want to talk about taxes, though, quickly. i think there has been an engagement in class warfare. i know the president, he talks about taxing millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners and big oil companies. i don't have those people in my district. i come from small town area, and he talks about taxing those people, but what he leaves out is he's here to tax the small business man, the small manufacturer, the people making

$250,000 a year. those are the small business men and women in my community that employ 10 people to 100 people. those are the people that are looking for access to capital to grow their businesses that are going to put our hardworking families back to work. and those are the people that are going to pay the brunt of these tax increases that the president's talking about. so, you know what, the billionaires, i don't care. but i do care about my job createors in my community -- creators in my community that will be hit by his proposed tax increases. we all come to this house floor and talk about job reduction and job growth. simple point i want to make here. if you look back at 1955, the top tax rate was around 90%. the reagan years, it was around 25%. 90% to 25%. great span of tax rate. what's unique is that no matter what the tax rate is, the federal government continuously

brings in about 19% to 20% of revenue as it relates to the size of the economy or g.d.p. tax increases, tax rate increases don't actually bring in more revenue. but if you want to look at what brings in more revenue to the federal coffers, it's economic growth. when g.d.p. grows so too does revenue to the federal coffers and that's because more people are going to work which means more people are paying taxes. so if we want to reduce our debt and put our people back to work, let's focus on policies that grow our economy. when we grow our economy, more money comes into the federal coffers and more people are working, supporting families and paying taxes. and those are the policies that we're advocating for here in the house. i yield back. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentleman from kansas. >> i've been watching this debate as we discuss what to most people commonsense american values. hard work, free enterprise

system, an opportunity to all. the american system we believe in that made our country so great. mr. yoder: the most prosperous nation in the world. we see it being threatened every day by policies that are coming out of washington, d.c. and it's a heartache for a lot of us because we see the very principles that built this country being threatened in this very process. i'm pleased that the gentleman from arkansas and the gentleman from wisconsin, the gentleman from colorado are all arguing so passionately today for what they see is the future of the united states of america. i think one of the things that confuses a lot of folks back home is they see both sides of this debate on the floor saying we're all for jobs. in fact, some people come down and repeat it, jobs, jobs, jobs. where are the jobs? we keep saying jobs over and over again to try to get the private sector creating jobs again. so they come up with washington solutions. borrowing, spending, creating jobs in washington, d.c., and what we know is that jobs are not created here in washington. they're creating here at home through small business owners

and -- they're created at home through small business owners. the reason it's so challenging and the reason we're having such a hard time i think getting the two sides to combre and the two chambers to agree and the president to agree is because we have different principles by which we're arguing this debate. and i want to lay out a couple commonsense principles that i wish this congress could agree to and this government could agree to so we can move forward with job creation. the first one is regulations don't create jobs. and if we can get this body simply to agree that regulations don't create jobs we would be moving a long way down the path toward job creation. mr. griffin: can i interject that overregulation kills jobs? mr. yoder: that's correct. the regulations we're putting forward, the gentleman from arkansas is correct, they kill jobs. yet i hear folks on the house floor, i see folks in the left, i see folks in the media arguing repeatedly that these regulations are actually good for business. robert reich said there's no

necessary tradeoff between regulations and jobs. in fact, regulations that are designed well can generate innovation and innovation can produce more jobs. they spur more jobs in industry. regulations don't create jobs. they are a job killer. this is a commonsense principle that i know, the majority of americans agree with and this one is completely refuted day after day on this house floor. if we can come to an agreement that regulations don't create jobs we could get somewhere. they create additional burdens, additional hoops and additional challenges. in fact, just for unfun i brought down the stack of rules and regulations that have come out within the last week. those watching on the floor and at home, every day we have to deal with another one of these. there's last tuesday, there's last wednesday, there's last

thursday, there's last friday. a pile of new regulations for business owners. even if they don't affect them they have to read them and file them. you talk at folks at home and say, are you hiring at folks? we are hiring at folks in the compliance department. so you might create a new job but you're killing the jobs in innovation, entrepreneurship and free enterprise. the other principle i want to leave with the folks here is that taxes don't create jobs. taxing and spending doesn't create wealth. that's something that's in dispute on this house floor. if we can get an agreement with both parties that regulations don't create jobs and taxing and spending doesn't create jobs we would be going a long way to solving this debate. when folks at home wonder, why are we arguing so much, why aren't they moving forward? because we're arguing basic commonsense principles of the free enterprise system. hey, these new tax increases, these will create new jobs. we are not going to get the free enterprise system going.

we're smacking with them with new regulations every day. i appreciate the gentleman from arkansas and the gentleman from colorado having this debate. it's essential in this free enterprise system. i yield back. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman. i want to use a little analogy and have a little fun for a second. if you have two runners and they're lined up ready to race and one runner is simply going to run straight to the finish line and the other runner has to run through an obstacle course, who do you think's going to win? well, i think we would all agree that the one that's going to run straight, not going to have to jump over everything, not going to have to swim or climb a rope, just run straight to the finish line, that runner will have a big advantage over the other runner. the other runner will have to

climb a rope, go over a wall, go through the tires, do all the things that you do in an obstacle course. well, the obstacle course, that's regulation. and we need basic fundamental regulation to keep us safe, keep our kids safe. i understand that. but that shows you what we're dealing with. you have some countries who have little or no regulations so their runners are just running down that track straight, unimpeded and we're putting up walls for ours and then we wonder, why can't we compete? why aren't people investing? why aren't they creating jobs in the private sector? well, it has a lot to do with washeds, my friend. yes, sir -- washington, d.c., my friend. yes, sir, the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: people that chase

economics will not work. it's when you remove barriers, that's when we can create jobs. if you're making people jump over walls and through water hazards, i mean, people have proven time and time again that they are failures. our colleague from kansas has shown a great visual aid of what every business owner in this country is facing when it comes to their own business, when it comes to creating jobs, when they have to decide where they're going to invest their hard-earned capital, they have to go through pages and pages and volumes and volumes of tax codes and regulatory decisions and court decisions about what it is that they can or cannot do in their business. making this economy so that it actually unleashes the innovators and entrepreneurs. mr. griffin: and i'd make a quick point on that if i could. some folks that want to invest, they had the dream all their life to create a small business, a little shop, maybe it's a bike shop, but to create that business, a lot of them are going to look at the

metaphorcal race, see the obstacles and refuse to enter the race. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman for joining me tonight here on the floor. thank y'all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to recognize the member of the minority party for 30 minutes. 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. i appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. i certainly appreciate my friends enlight -- anymy friends enlightening the chamber and those that may be prone to listening, mr. speaker. i want to add a little bit to the enlightenment as we've seen that the president is out there saying, here's an article from the a.p., dated october 4,

saying that president barack obama is criticizing house majority leader eric cantor for saying the $447 billion jobs bill will not get a vote in its entirety in the republican led house. the president singled out mr. cantor, according to the article, it says, quote, i'd like mr. cantor to come down here to dallas and explain what in this jobs bill he doesn't believe in, unquote. it says, obama said in remarks prepared for delivery tuesday at a texas community college. as we know, the president would have been reading those remarks because he wouldn't want to stray far from the teleprompter with remarks, we've seen what happens on those occasions and it isn't pretty. but the article says, three

weeks after obama sent the legislation to congress, the proposal has run into resistance from republicans and even some democrats. well, see the article is not quite accurate on that. because we know that the president came in here in this very body after he demanded to come speak, which requires an invitation, you can't just come speak on the house floor unless you're recognized by the speaker, you're a member of the house or if the house votes to allow someone to come in who is not a member. some people are surprised when they come in, mr. speaker, that the president is not up there where you are. but the rules make very clear, this is the people's house. and so the president can only come, just like any other leader that's invited, prime minister netanyahu, they speak

from the second podium, they're invited guests. it's a little rude to demand to come speak in someone's house and then you come in and lecture them and you state things like, repeatedly saying, you've got to pass this bill right away, right now, pass this bill, and it turnsout you didn't even have a bill, you have the gal to come -- the gall to come in and demand we pass a bill and you done have a bill. on friday, the president hit the campaign -- maybe not the campaign trail. whatever you want to call it, he was out there spending millions and millions of dollars to go to different places around the country and demand we pass this bill. tell congress pass my bill. and he didn't have a bill. saturday, sunday, he's out there saying, pass my bill. right now, pass it right away. people go to work immediately. never mind he had to take a vacation before he could get around to producing a bill that was that important.

never mind he's going around telling everybody, we should make congress pass a bill that doesn't exist. well, on monday, my office, i was little bothered that we were being condemned for not passing a bill that didn't exist. so we were pushing to get a copy of this phantom bill. and late that afternoon we finally got a copy, emailed, i printed it out, that monday night around 11:00 p.m., i started going through the president's bill, now by wednesday, when no bill was filed, and the president was still running around spending millions of taxpayer dollars condemning congress for not passing this bill when he was so busy out there telling people to make congress pass my bill, he forgot to have anybody

file the bill. six days we were condemned here in this chamber for not passing the president's bill. he was so busy condemning congress for not passing this bill, he forgot to ask somebody to file it for him. well, by wednesday, i got tired of being condemned for not passing the american jobs act, so i filed an american jobs act. min is two pages. h.r. 2911, and it would create more jobs in america than anything that the president has ever even talked about because though you have businessmen, very successful, like donald trump saying we should slap a 25% tariff on everything we buy from china, that starts a trade war, i'm sure we don't win, i don't think china wins, i don't think anybody wins.

but it would be messy. and china owns so much of our debt, unfortunately, that's probably not a smart move right now until we get out from under this debt. the bible talks clearly about what happens when you become -- when you allow somebody to own your debt, basically, you become a slave to them. so i'm looking forward to the day we don't owe china, we don't owe foreign country, we get out of debt because we balance our budget, looks like it'll take a balanced budget amendment to do that. in the meantime, there's no treaty that would be violated, no trade agreement, no court order anywhere in the world that would prevent us from eliminating the 35% tariff that we put on all american-made goods before they're able to sell them abroad. it's caurled a 35% corporate tax, largest corporate tax in

the world. number one reason that i've heard from c.e.o.'s as to why they moved their businesses to other countries. so my two-page bill, the american jobs act, and i do appreciate the president promoting the american jobs act, that's my bill, it reduces the 35% corporate tax to 0%. now there are some people that never really got economics and they don't understand the way the real world works. they think the real world works like c.b.o.'s archaic rules that say you can't take actual historic precedent to figure out what effect a bill will have. never mind even if the same result always occurs after a certain thing is done, you can't consider that because the 1974 liberal congress that ran

us out of vietnam and left all our ally there is to be killed by our enemies that same congress put in the rules for c.b.o. to score bills. so you don't get a fair look at what really happens with c.b.o. rules and there are some people that think those rules are the way you have to look at things. but the fact is, that if you reduced the corporate tax, especially to zero, jobs would come flooding back into america. now, i would think unions would love this bill. if you really want union jobs back in america, if you really are willing to say you know what, forget this business about america being nothing but a service economy, let's get manufacturing jobs, you really want manufacturing jobs back, eliminate the 35% insidious

tariff we put on american-made goods before they can be sold abroad. but as i've said here on the floor, i'm willing to negotiate. be bipartisan. the president can't bring himself to get to zero, then let's negotiate somewhere in between. we could do that. someone's talking about 9%. but to have the president out there demanding that we pass his bill and then he's saying things about it that simply are not factual, not factual at all, and i know because i read the bill. and i'm very irtated with people who think the president is lying about his bill because i believe i can prove he's not lying about his bill, he's just -- he doesn't know what is in his bill. you can't lie about something you don't know. i believe i can prove the president is not a liar.

absolutely not. he gave that speech in here on thursday night, the next day he's on the road condemning congress for not passing his bill. there was no bill yet. saturday, on the road, condemning congress for not passing his bill, keeping that up all daymond. it wasn't until monday that his bill got finished. there's no way he could keep giving those speeches every single day all over the country and have had the six or seven hours i did between 11:00 p.m., 5:00 to 6:00 a.m., i said 5:00 but i was still going a while, but at least six hours i had to go through the bill. he hadn't had that time. there's no way he could work that six hour time in his schedule to go through the bill like i did. there's no way to condemn the president for not knowing what's in his bill when he hasn't had time, he's been too busy condemning congress for

not passing it. how could he know what was in it. and then today, of course, we see that the president's knocking the g.o.p. leader shp and he's -- leadership and he's telling people on the campaign trail, this is an article from yahoo news by chris moody, president obama, it says here, president obama is in dallas today urging americans who support the american jobs act to demand that congress pass it already. though it's been nearly a month since he laid out his plan, or this plan, house republicans haven't acted to pass it. and house majority leader eric cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote, ever. it's not clear which part of the bill they now object to, building roads, hiring

teachers, getting veterans back to work, they're willing to block the american jobs act and they think you won't do anything about it. apparently, those are the president's words, according to the article, best i understand this. oh, this was the president's re-election campaign sent out an email blasting house republicans for not voting on the proposal. well, as of -- just in the last hour, while the president is condemning the republicans for not passing this bill, senate minority leader mitch mcconnel, republican, of kentucky, tried to force a vote on the president's plan in the upper chamber tuesday afternoon but reid used a procedural tactic to block the bill from coming to the floor. he called the republicans' insistence on a vote a publicity stunt. so the president, he hasn't had

time to read the bill, he hasn't today had time to find out who is blocking his bill, turns out it's harry reid in the senate and based on the things the president has said, i know he hasn't read this. because i know the president would not be dishonest. when he's out there and has repeatedly said, we're going to make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, i know he wouldn't go out there and say that if he knew the truth about what was in his bill. because in his bill, at page 134 and 135, it gives the definition of who is rich and who is going to get it socked to them, the president has been saying repeatedly millionaire and billionaire. but bless his heart if he had time to read the bill and i hope somebody will carve out some time for him to do that, i know his speech schedule out

there condemning congress has kept him tied up, but if they can work in some time for him to read his own bill and just stop condemning congress for just a little bit, he could finally, if he has enough time to get to page 135, he'll find out that the people he's going after, that he says are millionaires and billionaires, in his bill, it's not a jobs bill, since i've used the name that the president was originally plugging, i think it's -- his bill would be better called the saving obama's job bill, but that may not be fair either because if people really find out what's in this bill, i don't think they'd be very happy. i'm not sure it saves his job. but he defines millionaire and

billionaire right here on page 135 as any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income is above and -- let's see, $125,000 in the case of a married, filing separately return, and that's $250,000 in the case of a joint return, married filing jointly, but -- and here again this may be something nice he's throwing out for gay folks that are living together so he can tell them actually, your better off not getting married because there's a marriage penalty here, you're the head of a single household, you've got an exemption of $225,000. if you're all other cases, $00,000. it penalizes married individuals and apparently according to this bill, a

millionaire or billionaire is somebody that makes $125,000. but the good news, if you think this is good news, if you want to get divorced it is good news for you because if you're married and you're filing a joint return and two people get $250,000 exemption or you're married filing single and you get $125,000 exemption, the good news if you're thinking about divorce is you can get divorced and have $75,000 to $100,000 exemption. this is the president's proposal. live together and you get a whole lot more of an exemption than if you get married. of course, the founders, they all understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. and that's the way the history of the country's been.

and study after study have shown that children, the odds are children will be better adjusted if they have the two-parent home, the traditional two-parent home. obviously there are some homes that aren't good and children are not well served there, but this president by virtue of the power -- as the old saying -- the power to tax, the power to destroy -- takes a shot at traditional, conventional marriage. oh, and then there's an additional a.m.t. amount. that's subsection little c. because if you're a millionaire or a billionaire and you're making -- which means you make more than $125,000 and you're married, there's an extra penalty for you that the president's got lined, waiting for you in his so-called jobs bill. i don't know if he's aware.

i just don't see how he could be because he's been so busy out making speeches everywhere, but if you were to look, mr. speaker, at the stuff in here, well, he says it's about jobs so i bet the president does not know that here at page 75 we got a new federal entity -- although it's defined on page 76 as a private, nonprofit corporation called the public safety broadband corporation. because this president believes there's danger in people having broadband in their home. can you really trust the american people? has to be the theme of this part of the president's so-called jobs bill. apparently he thinks there's a public safety threat in broadband that people have coming into their home and

business, so he's created this private, nonprofit corporation. you may say, good, thank goodness it's not government, it's a private-nonprofit corporation that will control everybody's broadband. good news, is it? because when you look down at section 285, halfway down page 76, you see who's on the board of directors. and even though it's a private, nonprofit corporation the board of directors is comprised of the -- the federal members are the secretary of commerce, secretary of homeland security, attorney general of the united states, the director of office of management and budget. i believe those are all appointed by the president. how about that? but it's a private, nonprofit corporation. so surely the federal government wouldn't try to control it. but the secretary of commerce

in consultation with the secretary of homeland security and attorney general shall appoint 11 other individuals who serve as nonfederal members of the board. well, isn't that happy news? they really aren't federal even though the president's appointees will be on the board with those folks. they'll have their appointment to them. it's interesting. i bet the president has no idea. of course -- i know the president's aware of what a fiasco to our federal budget fannie mae and freddie mac have been and the danger that it posed to our federal economic system. well, he's probably not aware that in here he creates -- his bill does. there's no way he knows what's in this bill. no way he could have spent six

hours reading this. six to seven hours like i did. but, anyway, if he'll double check he'll find, mr. speaker, that page 40, whoever wrote this bill thinks fannie mae and freddie mac were a wonderful, wonderful thing. federal government. insuring all those home loans and then, of course, we pass laws, and i do remember our friend from massachusetts, mr. frank, assuring everybody it's in good shape, not a problem. turned out they weren't in good shape. he didn't know. mr. frank wouldn't come down and misrepresent something like that. i know he wouldn't. he just didn't know. just like the president has no clue what all is in this bill. but if he'll check at the bottom of page 40 he'll find the american infrastructure

financing authority. says it's established as a wholly owned government corporation. so if you liked fannie mae, freddie mac, if you think they did a great job, you'll love this bill. it's like both of them combined, exponentially increased and put on steroids because we know houses compared to infrastructure don't cost all that much. but, boy, you compare them to infrastructure, man. and wouldn't it be great -- this has to be the thinking of whoever put this bill together. i know it wasn't the president because he couldn't have put this together and gone around telling people things that are in it not knowing this kind of -- this kind of stuff is in it. but the american infrastructure financing authority -- and we could do that like we did the flood insurance. you know, the federal government said, we need a federal player in the insurance

business, and so we provided a federal option. well, guess what, the federal government runs in the red on the flood insurance. private companies can't keep up with that. and so people quit providing -- insurance company quit providing flood insurance in those parts and the federal government became the flood insurer. same way with stupet loans. banks, lending institutions could lend money for student loans and they were backed by the government, but under speaker pelosi and this bill, harry reid, the federal government decided we're going to take over all the student loans. well, that creates a concern for some because if you are as outspoken as some of us are, i'm just grateful my daughter has just finished her college degree so i won't have to come begging to the president for a

student loan so my children can go to college. is that what we want? is that where we want the infrastructure financing to go, every school district, town, county, state has to come begging to the federal government because we run everybody else out of the business like we did student loans, flood insurance? surely the president doesn't know this is in here. this is not a jobs bill. it's a government takeover. same with the public safety broadband authority or corporation. and how about this -- i bet a lot of folks don't know about the shorttime compensation program. it's a new program. never created before, but it's in the president's bill. if -- and the participation says it's voluntary but if an employer under this program reduces hours work by employees instead of laying them off, then -- and that's anybody

that's been reduced by at least 10% -- then it says they're eligible for unemployment compensation. gives out the terms for that. i bet the president didn't know that's in there. now, i have to agree with him, it is a jobs bill for plaintiffs' lawyers because we have seen over and over, a lot of states doing tort reform. it's more and more difficult to sue people. and so we have got a new program here that will help with lawyers that are out of work because here in the bill if you -- we created a new class of protected individuals so that if you're unemployed and you get laid off, you have -- you ought to see a lawyer if you feel like you weren't hired because you're unemployed because you can see, you can file a claim at least against the employer that didn't hire

you. now, a practical look at that provision allowing employers to be sued if they fail to hire someone who's unemployed would make employers -- i've already heard from it. if that ends up in the law, i'm not going to be hiring anybody. i can't take a chance on being sued or having claims filed against me because i didn't hire five people unemployed come in, four of them don't get the job and they all four file claims against me. i can't deal with that. if the president looks at his bill then he'll understand this is not what he's thinking it is. and then he promised america we're going after major oil companies. there's no way this president could know that page 151 through 154, the part that goes after oil companies, will not affect his friends at british petroleum, the exxon, shell,

they won't be affected because the most important deductions that are repealed here are only for smaller producers, the independent producers who drill 94% of all the oil and gas wells on the land in the continental u.s. he's -- there's no way he could know that unless he read this unless he really understood the oil and gas industry. so what he'll do, he drives up to the capital for companies trying to drill wells and this will be a disaster unless you're a major oil company. in which case you'll make more profit because you'll kill off more of the competition. this is what his bill does. i'm sure he doesn't know that. and out there blaming republicans for increasing debt. this was in an article. we got it up on my website. the house website so people can really see what has happened. it's a great article from "the

atlanta journal constitution," and this is one of the diagrams. it shows who really increased the debt. we know from the constitution that it is the congress that holds the purse strings. so really the one responsible, most responsible is the congress and who's most responsible, the biggest most powerful body is controlled by the speaker. you, mr. speaker. that is while you're the pro tempore. this shows the increase in debt as a percentage of g.d.p. and we see what happened under speaker o'neil. we see what happened under speaker jim wright. didn't really increase much in debt as a percentage of g.d.p. under speaker foley it increased a great deal. and under speaker gingrich and speaker hastert as a percentage of debt as a percent of g.d.p.

went way down. and then we got the last four years with speaker pelosi and it went through the roof like it's never happened in this country's history. well, i hope i provided an adequate defense to those who would say the president is misrepresented because i think i have proof, the president didn't lie about any of this stuff. he hadn't had time to read it. he doesn't know what's in it and i hope and pray that he can accurately represent the saving obama's jobs bill. and i appreciate, mr. speaker, the president's support for the american jobs act, which bill is mine. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, for 30 minutes. .

mr. barletta: mr. speaker, on september 7, 8, and 9, the us is qua hanna river and some of its tributaries, swollen by remnants of tropical storm lee, overflowed their banks. this happened shortly after northeastern pennsylvania was soaked by hurricane irene, which brought local rivers and creeks to their banks. so when tropical storm lee moved in over my district, the results were catastrophic. in some communities, the flood waters came quickly. creeks raged out of control. homes were swept off their foundations, and toppled into muddy pits. roads were washed away. in other communities, the water rose my slowly. but it did no less damage. i was there in the town -- in a

town in pennsylvania when the lackawanna river topped the levee and began flooding homes. it was like watching someone fill an aquarium only much, much more destructiveful. i spent many days in my district seeing the damage caused by flooding. it's hard to describe what it looks like. think of everything on the first floor of your home, couch, reclining chairs, refrigerator, stove, dishwasher, television, maybe a bedroom on the first flooring your ma cress -- ma dress, your dresser. think of everything you have in your basement a washer a dryer, your furnace, our hot water heater, your winter clothing. now imagine all of that on the sidewalk. ready far dumpster because it is soaked with river water. it's dirty, with river mud. and it's contaminated by

whatever else flowed into the river when the water rose. go beyond these possessions. think of the photographs on your walls and on your end tables. think of your children's toys in the basement. think of the mementos, family treasures handed down by your parents and grandparents. imagine all of that on the sidewalk too. but it's not just your house. it's your neighbor's house next door. and the house across the street. and all of those houses up and down your street. imagine entire neighborhoods, block after block of destruction, and imagine the smell of it. wet fabric, spoiled food, spilled fuel oil, raw sewage, and mud. mud two feet deep in basements and covering lawns and filling swimming pools. that is what i experienced. that is what my constituents experienced.

it's what they're continuing to cope with as they try to rebill. i will never forget standing in a living room with a woman in one town, most of her belongings were piled on the street in front of her home. she wept as she told me that both her husband and her son died in the last six months. during this flooding, she lost almost everything she owned. think about that. she lost her husband, she lost her son, she lost most of her belongings, she lost her home, all in six months. the loss is just incredible. i've seen children console their parents, saying mommy, don't cry. a mother pointed to a leather jacket and remembered the first time her daughter wore it. she broke down as she told me she hoped her grandchild would wear it someday. it, too, was ruined and had to be thrown away.

an old black and white photograph of a woman sat on a pile of belongings in front of a home in west pitston. the surface of the photo was covered in muddy streaks, as if the own e-- owner tried to save it. but she couldn't save it from the mud, it has to be thrown away. another memory lost. in bloomsburg, a family stayed in their home to move their possessions to an upper floor. but the creek rose too quickly. the house next to theirs was knocked from its foundation. water started gushing through their front windows as they called for help. they had to be saved by helicopter. the woman there told me that she can never live in that home again. a woman near orangeville cried as she told me her neighbor's house, carriedy the same raging creek, smashed into hers, demolishing a lifetime of memories. an elderly man broke down as he

told me how much time and money he put into making his house a home for his family only to see it ruined by high water. in exeter, borough officials made a gut-wrenching decision. they hauled in 200 truck roads of dirt and created a makeshift dike right down the middle of a residential street. several dozen homes were saved but dozens more were ruined. seems like this -- scenes like this were repeated hundreds, thousands of times in town after town in northeastern pennsylvania. in all of these damaged homes and businesses, if all of these homes and businesses were in one city, it would make the evening news every day. but the damage sustained by my constituents is spread out over miles of the susquhanna river basin. the scope goes far beyond what local and state governments can fix on their own. the federal government must step in.

mr. speaker, i ask, what are we going to do to make these people's lives whole again? officials from the federal emergency management agency told my constituents what they will receive for their losses. it's about what it costs for an american family to buy a decent car nowadays. that's for all of their furniture. that's for all of their clothes. for all of their treasured belongings. for many of my constituents, it's not nearly enough. i remember standing in front of one family's home which had river water flowing more than a foot deep on its second floor. most of this family's possessions were piled onto the sidewalk. some were dripping wet. the mother looked at her children's toys, ruined by the flood, she pointed to one little toy and said, how can the government put a price on that? my son played with that. those are memories. how can you put a price on

that. she's right. we cannot put a price tag on memories. but the federal government can and should do more for our neighbors. i know that in these budget conscious times we worry about offsets to increases in any other spending. i also know we can find some duplicative program, some excessive spending, some additional funding, somewhere in the vast federal budget and provide more help for flood victims. the united states of america is one of the most generous, compassionate countries when it comes to providing global aid this government has no problem sending money overseas to build roads and bridges and hospitals and schools in foreign countries. when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, the united states is the first country to help rebuild.

but now that a disaster occurred right here in our own backyard, we need to start rebuilding here first. let's help americans first. we must restore american lives, save american businesses, and protect american jobs. at a time when we're so focused on creating jobs an helping businesses, the united states small business administration will offer disaster recovery loans at 6%. that's right, 6%. and that rate, is if business owners can get credit elsewhere. that's not acceptable. i've talked to dozens of business owners who have lost everything. their shops, their inventories, their fixtures, their equipment. a small business own for the jenkins township said he's not sure he can recover after suffering more than $7 million

in flood losses. he doesn't know if he's going to rebuild and reopen. or maybe close his doors forever. i don't know any business owner in my district who thinks a 6% government disaster recovery loan will help them get back on their feet. my district has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. and a rate higher than the national average. the people of the 11th district in northeastern pennsylvania need their jobs. we can't afford for these businesses to close. for the s.b.a. to offer ridiculously high interest rate in the name of disaster relief to these business owners is down right insulting. what rate do we charge foreign countries when we rebuild their infrastructure? the answer is zero. we don't charge foreign countries any interest. the money they receive from the united states is a giveaway.

this government gave $215 million interest-free for flood relief to pakistan. a country that harbored osama bin laden. and it's charging american homeowners and business owners interest rates on loans they're using to rebuild. that's wrong. we must take a serious look at how the interest rate for s.b.a. disaster recovery loans are calculated. that's why i introduced the disaster loan fairness act of 2011, h.r. 3042. this bill would set the interest rate for all recovery loans, home disaster loans, business physical disaster loans and economic injury disaster loans at 1% for the life of the loan up to 30 years. the rate would be effective for presidentially declared major disasters. and a 1% interest rate is retained merely to pay

administrative costs for the program. this bill would not cost -- would not cause the government to spend any additional money. it would mean the federal government takes in less in interest from disaster recovery loans. but can anyone honestly say that providing disaster recovery loans for american homeowners and american businesses should be a money making operation? i strongly encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 3042, the disaster loan forgiveness act. give americans a low interest rate and help them recover. while my neighbors in northeastern pennsylvania recover and rebuild, they're also asking what steps are being take ton protect them in the future. this is the -- are being taken to protect them in the future. this is the role of the federal government. we must make sure that disaster on this scale doesn't happen to these people again. first the army corps of

engineers must complete a comprehensive study of the river basin in my dict. after the flooding caused by hurricane agnes, in 1972, the corps built massive levees to protect the most populated areas of the 11th district. those levees protected thousands of homes and businesses, but many people believe they also funneled walls of water, of floodwater, into unprotected areas upriver and down river. some of those residents were told they didn't need to buy flood insurance because they don't live in a floodplain. as these people struggle to rebuild their lives today, they want to know if the floodplain has changed. my constituents deserve to know what role, if any, these new floodwalls played in this event. what is known is that some communities were devastated because they lacked adequate flood protection. for 40 years, the town of

bloomsburg has been asking for flood protection. there is a plan to provide it but the corps of engineers will not fund it because it does not meet an arbitrary benefit to cost ratio, the b.c.r. now because of the welcome of adequate flood protection in bloomsburg, 1,000 jo -- 1,000 jobs are on the verge of being lost. two of colombia -- columbia county's largest employers sit in the floodplain. when fishing creek and the susquhanna river flood, these employers have to not only shut down production but move equipment that costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars. during this flood event, more than six feet of water poured through their shops, destroying equipment and inventory. at a time when we're talking about how to create jobs, we're not doing enough to protect not doing enough to protect these.