fundamental and damaging changes to the clean air act and would ensure that future standards do not meaningfully reduce emissions into the air. so, mr. speaker, i must offer an amendment that will clarify that section 5 of h.r. 2250 is intended to supplement the provisions of and shall not be construed any requirement, limitation or other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the clean air act. . this single provision in section 5 will have the effect of

eliminating incinerators, boilers and exempting cement plants from maximum reductions in toxic air pollutions emissions. in contrast to any other major industrial source of air pollution in this nation. the majority even asked their -- asked repeatedly over and over and over again to explain why congress should carve out exemptions for the nation's dirtiest polluters and those exemptions are to the public health of the american people and at the expense of those very companies that have already invested in the technology to

meet the minimum requirements of this law. it is the majority's intent to clarify the rules and provide certainty for business, then this amendment will accomplish that purpose. but i don't believe that that is their intent and i don't believe that is what their goal and intentions are. they have a single purpose in all of these bills that we have been debating on this floor that relate to the clean air act, and that is to completely nullify and gut the clean air act so that the polluters in this nation can keep on polluting the very air that we breathe. so, mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. i yield to the ranking member.

mr. waxman: i thank you for yielding to me. i want to join you in surging support for this amendment. whatever the motivation is of the republican -- i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. waxman: whatever the motivation is for the legislation i can understand your reason for being very skeptical. i share it. but the industry, what the industry should want is regulatory certainty. and this bill adds more confusion to what is already a long overdue effort to reduce toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. no timeline for implementation of new emission standards. the bill creates significant questions about how the e.p.a. would set limits for toxic air pollution. if they think it's regulatory certainty they don't have to do anything for years, they better not count on it. if they want regular certainty, they better come forward and work something out. in the meantime your clarification provides the certainty and i urge members to support it. yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: the gentleman's amendment would simply add an additional paragraph at the end of section 5 of our bill and basically it would say that section 5 in our bill would not be construed to supersede any requirement limitation or other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the clean air act. and because his amendment would say it does not supersede is the reason that we want to oppose the amendment. now, section 5 says this, and this is what we want to supersede section 112 and 129 of the clean air act. in promulgating rules, the administrator shall ensure that emission standards for existing

and new sources established under section 112 or 29 can be met under actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently with emission standards for all other air pollutants regulated by the rule for the source category taking into account vare yibblet and actual source -- varibility, actual source requirement, fuel input, controls to measure pollutant conditions and operatings conditions. in other words, we want to be sure that can be met under actual operating conditions. and in the second part of our section 5 that we want to be sure supersedes, which this amendment would not allow, is that we put in section 5 the president's own executive order

in which he says that the administrator shall impose the least burdensome regulation consistent with the purposes of the act. so all we are doing in section 5 is saying we want to make sure that it is the least burdensome pursuant to the president's own executive order, and that we want to be sure that it can be met in actual operating conditions. so for that reason we would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. the gentleman, mr. rush. those in favor will vote aye. mr. rush: on that i ask for a roll call vote.

the chair: friction, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. chairman. today i'm offering an amendment that will preserve the critical air pollution protections for the places that they are needed most. for the people in my district, air pollution is a major health problem. the los angeles region always is near the top of the nation's worst air quality rankings. unfortunately the people in my district don't need to read the statistics from the american lung association to know that there's a pollution problem in our community. they see it in the dark soot that seeps into the homes of

families living near the port of wilmington. they see it in the labored breathing of a little girl in la meeta staying home from school because of asthma. they see it in the tears of loved ones in an pedro, recall losing someone before their time to cancer or lung disease. but the statistics are there, too. in los angeles 6% to 7% of all children have asthma. higher than the national average. and disproportionately impacting minority children. when our kids can't run around outside to exercise, when they are missing school with asthma, we are creating all sorts of other health and educational deficits. los angeles has recognized its air quality problems. since the clean air act amendments of 1990, we have made dramatic air quality improvements. in the last decade, we have managed to reduce particulate pollution levels in los angeles by 40%. we cannot afford to go

backwards. that's why i'm offering this amendment today. my amendment would ensure that the environmental protection agency will keep their hire standards of clean air protections for the 10 metropolitan areas with the worst air quality. the american lung society lists the 10 worst regions with year-round particulate matter. they are bakersfield, delaneo, in california, los angeles, long beach, riverside in california, port-of-vill in california. phoenix, lynndale in arizona. fresno, maderia in california. pittsburgh, new castle, pennsylvania. birmingham, hoover in alabama. cincinnati, middleton, wilmington in ohio. kentucky, indiana. modesto in california.

and louisville, jefferson county, elizabeth town, scotsburg, and kentucky and indiana. i believe that the underlying bill is a giant step backwards for those communities and for the air quality and environment of people living in this country. my amendment solely focuses on trying to continue to protect people in communities with the worst air quality standards. these communities cannot afford to have lower standards that will result in more asthma, more cancer. by protecting our public health, we will not lose jobs. it's a false premise that to create jobs we need to hurt our nation's environment and health. for example, the ports of los angeles and long beach were able to improve air quality and create jobs and industry. these ports are the economic engine of this country. i call them america's ports.

they take in about 44% of all the cargo in this country comes through those ports. a lot of people said you can't have clean air and good jobs. but let me tell you what really happened. we cut port pollution by 70% since 2005 without losing a single job. i'll say that again. a 70% reduction in pollution at the cost of zero jobs. in fact, the green industry jobs were spawned creating more jobs. our more vigorous environmental standards in california aren't stopping the facilities in my district from thriving. that's why i find it so upsetting that under the banner of protecting jobs, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are moving to delay or destroy the protections that ensure our children can grow up breathing clean air. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim making our

air dirtier is a way to stimulate the economy. but a peer reviewed cal state fullerton study found that dirty air in the los angeles air basin costs residents $22 billion a year in health costs, premature deaths, lost days of work, lost days at school, $22 billion a year wasted because of dirty air. i reject the false choice between good jobs and clean air. we have already proved that they can go hand in hand with clean air action plan at the port of los angeles. i also want to add that environmental regulations are not topping the list of problems that small businesses in my community are saying. last week i met with over 50 small businesses and they said they need more access to capital not less regulations. i yield back my time the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: the gentlelady from california may view this argument about jobs as a false choice. but we do have letters from over 300 organizations concerned about the impact on jobs that these e.p.a. regulations will have, including letters of support from five of the largest labor unions in the country. the gentlelady's amendment would basically say that in the 10 metropolitan areas chosen by the american lung association that the current boiler rules would be retained regardless of what our legislation may do. so we are opposed to our amendment for two reasons. one, we don't want the

legislation to be changed because we think it's necessary to have the balanced approach throughout the country and not to exclude 10 metropolitan areas, but the second reason we would be opposed to it is that to allow one private entity, even if it's the american lung association, an organization we all have respect for, but we don't think that they should be determining what should be in this legislation. and so for that reason we respectfully oppose the amendment and ask the amendment be defeated and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: coip the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i support this amendment and i want to congratulate the gentlelady from california for offering this amendment. her constituents should be rightfully proud of the fact that she's fighting for them and

for the good health. american -- health of the american people. her amendment recognizes the fact that we have made great progress on air pollution in this country because we have had a strong clean air act and because we have let e.p.a. do its job under both democratic and republican administrations. but let's not pretend that the job is done. in the 10 worst polluted areas, these are the worst polluted nonattainment areas in the country, every day people are breathing unhealthy levels of air pollution. and they are going to emergency rooms because of the air outside is making them sick and every day some are dying before their time. in the summer cities and towns across the country have red alerts, and moms are afraid to let their kids play outside. there's something fundamentally wrong with that. . despite the progress we made we need to make sure we cut these air pollutants that are very, very harmful. we've been talking a lot today

about mercury. the e.p.a. emission -- particle s can deepen the effects. living in the united states should not be a health risk, and i hope that we will not vote to nullify these e.p.a. boiler rules and also nullify the health benefits in these various polluted areas. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16

printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, it's my hope that we can all simply agree to this amendment. it would simply add a finding to the bill illustrating the health benefits of e.p.a.'s mercury and air toxic cleanup standards for industrial boilers and incinerators. opponents of these cleanup standards argue that they cost too much and will lead to job losses. i don't agree with that assessment. over the past 40 years, the clean air act has fueled american innovation and has created jobs and it's made the united states a leader in the multibillion-dollar environmental technology sector. mr. chairman, the health benefits of e.p.a. safeguards are not in dispute and that's why those stats should be included as part of that bill. for decades industrial boilers and incinerators have been some of the largest pollution emitters in the united states.

they're responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants we have in this nation including mercury, lead and cancer-causing dioxinning and that's why e.p.a. took action last year to require that industrial boilers and incinerators cut their emissions and simply follow the clean air act. but instead of supporting e.p.a.'s action, the bill before us would delay their standards by at least 3 1/2, four years. it would eliminate any deadline by which industrial boilers and incinerators must comply with e.p.a.'s safeguards. it could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into our air each year. now, proponents of this legislation are quick to say e.p.a. safeguards to cut this pollution would, and now comes the drumroll, cause economic ruin and job losses. paid for studies provides

evidence but definitely delaying e.p.a. regulations will not lead to job losses. it will put the lives of americans at risk. failing to implement the e.p.a.'s air pollution standards for boilers and incinerators will have 6,600 premature deaths, 4,400 nonfatal heart attacks. 4,400 hospital and emergency room visits, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma and over 320,000 days of missed work and school. for every additional year of delay that h.r. 2250 allows, these numbers only continue to grow. and we know this because e.p.a.'s analysis must follow the criteria set out by the office of management and budget. their analysis is based on peer reviewed studies. the analysis is transparent, it's subject to public comment and it has to be reviewed again

by the office of management and budget. the industry studies meet none of these criteria. mr. chairman, it's true that e.p.a. it examining aspects of these safeguards. they sut -- south a timeline to weigh in before refinalizing the rules by next april. e.p.a. has said it does not need nor want additional time for congress. delays only hurt america's health. again, it's worth repeating, hundreds of thousands of jobs are not at risk from these safeguards like some of my colleagues say. e.p.a.'s analysis reviewed by the office of management and budget economists project that these standards will have a net positive impact on e.p.a. that's e.p.a.'s analysis reviewed by the office of management and budget. and they will achieve enormous health benefits that will allow americans to go to work and school and lead healthy lives.

for every dollar we spend to clean up one industrial boiler or incinerators, americans get up to $24 back in health benefits. what other investments results in this astonishing return for the american people? and that's why i'm offering this simple amendment today. it would remind us all of the tremendous health benefits that e.p.a.'s mercury and air toxic cleanup standards will achieve, and they should be included in this bill. so i urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: the gentlelady made a comment that she genuinely questions whether jobs are at risk and i would simply say that, as i said earlier, we received over 300 letters. we received phone calls. we received emails. we have five major labor

unions, national labor unions supporting this legislation, and the people involved in these businesses are telling us that they are going to have to cut off people from work. they're going to terminate people's employment in some instances. and as i said, the university of notre dame said they spent $20 million trying to comply with the old rule that was invalidated and now they're going to have to spent another x millions of dollars to meet these new rules. i would oppose the amendment because basically the gentlelady from california is asking us to put into the findings the environmental protection agency's calculation that for every dollar in cost the rule will provide at least

10 -- $10 to $24 in health benefits. that's over a 100% variety there, flexible zone there. it's not very precise. and then she says it's going to avoid either 2,600, up to 6,600 premature deaths a year. so many nonfatal heart attacks. so many hospital emergency room visits. so many cases of aggravated asthma. so many missed days at work and school. a lot of people said at these hearings -- there is no agreement on any of these numbers. there are questions about the assumption. there are questions about the modeling. there's questions about the lack of transparency. and different groups comes up with different numbers.

mrs. capps: will the gentleman yield? mr. whitfield: i'd be happy to yield. mrs. capps: are you aware that these numbers have to be peer reviewed so scientists and organizations have evaluated them and made comment and they also have to be screened by the office of management and budget, o.m.b., and then they're sent back to e.p.a. so they've gone through quite a wide variety of verifications. would you disagree with that fact? mr. whitfield: no, i agree it's been peer reviewed and i can also give you a long list of scientists who also have peer reviews that do not agree with these numbers. i can also give you a list of names of people at o.m.b. who question these numbers. i can also give you a list of academics at universities that question these numbers. mrs. capps: but they did go through the process? mr. whitfield: oh, yeah. they went through the process. and our analysis went through the process too. but the question is, they come up with different numbers and so, therefore, because of that we don't think it's right to

put these particular numbers in there when there's so much disagreement on the numbers. so for that i would respectfully ask members to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. we've been debating this bill, h.r. 2250, for several months now in the energy and commerce committee, and as we heard from

the bill's supporters, it is intended to address the boiler mact rule finalized in february of 2011. many of us here know that when the boiler mact regulation was finalized, e.p.a. asked for 15 months to issue a reproposal. the courts rejected that request and thus e.p.a. was forced to issue the rule on time in february of 2007. however, -- february of 2011. however, they had an administrative stay on the regulation saying they would begin reconsideration with new information that had been made available. in the last few months, i've met with many industries and companies that have expressed concerns with the provision in this final rule. i've listened and even helped foster ongoing conversations between those industries and e.p.a. as they work toward a reproposal of the boiler mact rule. then, we were offered this

bill, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act. we were told that this bill would simply give e.p.a. the time that they had already asked for to work on the rule and repropose a new final rule. after the conversations i have had with companies in my district, i thought this would be a good solution. the problem is when you dig a little deeper, i've said for a long time, this e.p.a. boiler mact rule is far from perfect. but the trouble is the bill we have before us today is even further from pacific northwest because it doesn't just give e.p.a. time to reconsider the rule. it tells e.p.a. they can't issue a new rule for at least 15 months, but there's no deadline for final action. further, it practically rewrites sections 112 and 129 of the clean air act by eliminating the need for knew marek emission limit for mact standards. but perhaps the most egregious auto to me was section 3 of the

bill. it once again rewrites the clean air act. the clean air act provides for three years for compleens with mact standards with the possibility of a -- compliance with mact standards with the possibility of a fourth. this throws this out. it says for the boiler mact rule compliance cannot be required for at least five years. however, it then says to the e.p.a. administrator, it gives the administrator the ability to establish compliance so depending on who the administrator is at the time these rules are finalized, compliance could be required in five years, in 10 years, in 50 years, in 105 years. that's just unacceptable, and that's why i'm offering this amendment today. i support many of the things in this bill, and i recognize the need for a reproposal of this rule. but i don't support five years to infinity for compliance, and so this amendment will simply require that we go back to the

sfeashed compliance timeline -- established compliance timeline in the clean air act. it even gives the possibility for an additional year of compliance if a compelling reason is found. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a bill that we can all support when it comes for final passage. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, we all have great respect for the gentleman from pennsylvania, and you could make some very good arguments for his amendment. basically the amendment would set a three-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to two years if the administrator of e.p.a. determines that there was a compelling need. and that's reasonable. but one of the problems that we continue to run into on these

boiler mact rules and all the hearings have pointed this out, the fact that lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on at e.p.a. and consent agrees are being enter understood and it's an after changing situation over there on the exact rule. so one thing we continually hear from the affected groups is that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100% certainty that we really want. . and so our legislation does say that within 15 months they have to come back with a promle gation of a new -- promilgation of a new rule and it shall establish a date for compliance

no earlier than five years after the effective date of the regulation, and it does say that the e.p.a. administrator may provide additional time if he or she chooses to do so. . now just looking at the track record of e.p.a., i don't suspect they do that but they might. but they do have to set a compliance date. we say you must set a compliance date not earlier than five years. eep though there are very good argueles on behalf of this amendment simply because -- yes, sir, i would be happy to. mr. doyle: i would say to my friend, this is my good friend, i'm with you all the way right to the very end. the one concern that we have is you say that the compliance they can't be any less than five years. so you're basically setting -- if you would have just said compliance shall be at five years, there's a date certain.

the problem is your legislation doesn't do -- there's no date certain. it sort of says to the administrator, it can't be sooner than five years, but it could be as long as you determine that you want it to be. theoretically it could be 100 years, aim not saying it would be 100 years, but theoretically speaking. i think what concerns some of us who want to be supportive of this bill because we realize that the proposed rule has flaws and it needs to be reworked. i'm with you on the 15 month rewrite. we are working with industries in pittsburgh with e.p.a. on this as we speak. what concerns many of us is, is that there's no timeline, there's no end line for compliance in your legislation. you say no less than five years, but you never say when is the final deadline. all this amendment asks for is to go back to the clean air act where there's some definition. it's three years with the possibility of additional time if the case calls for it. i think if we could get some sort of a finalized deadline on

compliance, that you could get a lot of support on this side of the aisle and possibly even pass this bill. as it's written today, it makes it impossible for those of us who are sympathetic to a lot of what is in this bill to support it. i think it makes it difficult for the president to sign it and pass the senate. i would just ask my friend as we consider this legislation that we at least give some certainty to the folks who want their air cleaned that at some point there's going to be a line that says, this is the end date. this is when you comply not some date in the future that's not defined in the bill. mr. whitfield: i thank you for your comment. those are very good thoughts, very good ideas. as you know a similar bill's been introduced in the senate. we don't know if it's going to pass or not, but we want to -- if it does pass, we want to be able to go in conference with as

much flexibility as possible. that's why we chose a five-year rule -- period, instead of a three-year period recognizing that there's some uncertainty in both of the three year and five year because then your situation if there is a compelling need on a case by case basis they could extend it. and hours the administrator under certain circumstances could extend it. we do have some democratic support. we'd love to have your support. if we get into conference that is one of the parts of this bill that we hope that we can negotiate with the other side and come up with something that's satisfactory for both. i appreciate your bringing it to our attention and offering your amendment. and as i said with as much reluctance as i have, i still have to he -- oppose it and hopefully work it out in conference. mr. doyle: if your bill simply had a five-year compliance

deadline and the clean air act said three years with the possibility of an extension, i think you would have something that many of us would consider because you have a five-year deadline. you don't have a deadline. that's my problem. you have a no sooner than but not a deadline. thanks. mr. whitfield: thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i would have to rise in opposition to the amendment. i agree with many of the comments made in regard to everybody trying to be reasonable and work some things out on this, but one of the concerns i have and the reason the language is as it is in the bill, which says that it's five years unless there is an extension by the administrator, is that many in the real world sense of things, many companies find it difficult to hit the target. mr. griffith: i would hate to see us losing jobs because we had five years and one month. under this amendment if they needed five years and one month or five years and six months to comply, then they would not be

in compliance and it may very well cost jobs and cause a company to make a decision they don't think they can make. real world examples everything is not perfect. and i have discussed this several times, but one of the factories in my area, they had to see what the regs look like and see if they can retool for using coal. that takes time to find out if they can retool their facility to make the complinets. what about natural gas or some other fuel source? guess what? they don't have a natural gas line coming into the community where they are located that would have enough natural gas for any industrial purpose. so as a result of that they have to try to figure out how they are going to cross rivers and mountains to get natural gas into that community, in order to keep those jobs available. and the problem with this amendment is, it is a solid five years, you're done. what we are trying to do with the bill overall, while we want to be reasonable and work something out, we want to also

have the e.p.a. administrator in a position that in real world circumstances with real world jobs not in the ivory towers of the universities necessarily or even here in the ivory towers of washington, but out there the real world jobs have to be taken into account and sometimes it takes five years and one month or five years and six months and that's why i would urge we defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is often the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. doyle: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania mlb postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2250, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee upon the whole house of the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2250 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i offer the resolution previously noticed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas on october 2, 2011, "the washington post" referred to a story called rick perry and words set in stone. whereas upon reading that story the vast majority of people in the united states were morally outraged. whereas most of the facts in this resolution come from that "washington post" story. whereas, governor rick perfect require described a childhood in haskill county in paint creek, texas, as centered on boy scouts, school and church. whereas texas governor rick perry is from west texas and was originally a southern democrat often donne as dixicrats, who switched parties in the late 1980's to become a republican and is currently a leading

republican presidential candidate. whereas, ranchers who once grazed cattle on the 1,070 acre parcel on the clear fork of the brazos river near where governor perry was raised in paint creek, texas, it has since become a hunting ground that was called by the name nicker head well before governor perry and his father began hunting there in the early 1980's, even though there is no tea finive account of when the rock first appeared on the property. whereas the use of the term nigger head to describe a hunting retreat is morally offensive. whereas ronnie brooks, a local resident who guided a few turkey shoots for governor perry between 1985 and 1990, said he holds governor perry in the highest esteem but said of the rock at the camp, it kind of offended me, truthfully. whereas haskill county judge david davis sitting in his courtroom and looking out a window there said the word was

like those of vertical blinds, it's us what what it was called. there was no significance other than a hunting deal. in other words, the judge was morally vacuous. whereas the name of this particular parcel did not vange for years and for many remained the same after it became associated with rick perry, first as a private citizen, then as a state official, and finally as texas governor. whereas some local residents still call it by the morally repugnant name, nigger head. whereas recently as this summer the slab like rock lying flat, portions of the name still faintly visible beneath the paint remained at the gated entrance to the camp. whereas last week asked last week about the name governor perry said the word on the rock is an offensive name that has no place in the modern world, implying it may have been ok and had an appropriate place in that community when he was growing up. whereas, mary lou adal has lived

in haskill county, texas, for 70 years and recalleder recalls the racism she faced in 1950's and 1960's in west texas when being called an offensive name like white screaming blacks with morning, nigger warks a broken record. whereas where the hunting cam is low accounted near haskill county was for years considered a virtual no-go zone for african-americans because of old stories told by locals about the lynching of a african-american man there. whereas haskill county began observe martin luther king day just two years ago according to cupetty commissioner in haskill county. whereas governor perry grew up in a segregated era whose history has defined and complicated the careers of many southern politicians. whereas governor perry has spoken often about how his upbringing in this sparsely populated farming community influenced his conservatism. whereas governor perry says he mentioned the offensive word on the rock to his parents shortly

after they had signed a lease and he had visited the property and they rather immediately painted over the word during the next july 4 holiday. but seven people interviewed by "the washington post" said they still saw the word on the rock at various points during the years that the perry family was associated with the property through his father, partners, or signature on the lease. whereas in other local resident who visited the property with governor perry and the legislators he brought there to go hunting recalled seeing the rock with the namer clearly visible. whereas how, , when or whether governor perry dealt with it when he was using the property isn't clear and adds a dimension to the emerging biographer of governor perry who quickly moved into the top tier of republican presidential candidates when he entered the race in august. and whereas herman cain is the onlyble presidential candidate to criticize governor rick perry for being insensitive when the word was not immediately

condemned. though he would remind herman cain that the word is not only insensitive but it is also offensive. now therefore be it resolved that the house of representatives, one, calls on governor rick perry to apologize for not immediately doing away with the rock that contained the word nigger head at the entrance of a ranch he was leasing an on which he was taking friends, colleagues, and supporters to hunt. two, calls on governor rick perry's presidential rivals who have not yet made strong statements of outrage over the rock that contained the word to do stow. three, calls upon governor rick perry to condemn the use of this word as being totally offensive and inappropriate at any time and any place in united states history. and four, calls upon governor rick perry to list the names of awe lawmakers, friends, and financial supporters he took with him on his hunting trips at nigger head.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from illinois wish to present argument on why the resolution is privileged under rule 9 to take precedent over other questions? mr. jackson: very quickly just before you do rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jackson: the house of representatives does have a history of passing resolutions that have been privileged in the past on questions that are offensive and morally repugnant to many americans. there was a minister on the south side of chicago, for example, for which this house took up a particular resolution and denounced that minister for language that he used on numerous occasions against minorities in the united states. . and consistent with the language with this resolution that i have offered, the house has taken a position in the past that allows members of congress to express their conscience and their sentiments about the matters that are in

front of us. now, as a member of congress and a member of this institution, my final argument is that each one of these presidential candidates, whether they are on the democratic side or republican side stands a chance to stand in front of us and provide us with a state of the union address, a state of our country's fiscal health, its social health, its mental health, its physical health and protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. if my motion for someone that might stand in front of me as a member of congress and share with me their figures intentionally of the united states fails today, it simply suggests that the congress of the united states is painting over a profound problem that exists in this nation. and i personally, mr. speaker, i know that my time has expired for making my argument. i personally would be offended. the congress of the united states would not understand the gravity of this resolution by

granting members an opportunity to vote on the specific arguments laid out by "the washington post" for which they have offered their story. mr. speaker, nigger is offensive. nigger head is offensive. and for a governor of one of the great states of our nation to hunt at nigger head camp, it's offensive, and i think that i'm expressing the moral outrage of all americans and i thank the gentleman for allowing me to make my argument. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the resolution offered by the gentleman from illinois makes several assertions of the governor of the state and calls upon the governor and others to take certain actions. in order to qualify as a question of the privileges of the house under rule 9 the resolution must address, quote, the right of the house collectively, its safety, dignity or the integrity of its proceedings, end quote. the resolution seeks to express

the position of the house toward the actions of others outside of the house without any changeable connection to the house or its proceedings. a resolution merely asserting the position of the house with regard to an external issue cannot be used as a question of privilege. most recently on september 23, 2010, according privilege to such resolution would allow any member to place before the house at any time whatever topic he or she might deem offensive. nothing would enjoy true privilege. the chair finds, therefore, that the resolution does not affect, quote, the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity or integrity of its proceedings, end quote, within the meaning of clause 1 of rule 9 and therefore does not qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i appeal the ruling of the chair and i hope my colleagues would support the appeal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall it stand as

judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i move to table the gentleman's motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on to lay the appeal on the table. those in favor say aye. those opposes, nay. the ayes have it and the motion passes. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i'd like to call 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. 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 231. the nays are 173. the motion is agreed to. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2250. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2250 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier a request for a recorded vote for amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 9 by mr. waxman of california, amendment number 6 by mr. rush of illinois, amendment number

15 by ms. hahn of california, amendment number 16 by mrs. capps of california, amendment number 4 by mr. coil of pennsylvania. the chair -- doyle of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two-minute time after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 167, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 156. the nays are 242 and the amendment is blocked.

-- lost. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number -- amendment offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 151. the nays are 255 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 153. the nays are 253 and the motion is -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 153. the nays are 254 and the motion is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 147. the nays are 251 with one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2250 direct me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2250 and has come to no resolution thereon. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker.

mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the speaker for a moment and on "roll call" 765, i along with mr. hoyer, congresswoman wasserman schultz, mr. crowley and mr. smith, other were at the decommissioning ceremony of commander mark kelly. we were there with his wife, our colleague, gabby giffords. and for that reason we missed that roll call vote. for myself, had i been present i would have voted no on the motion to table the resolution. i would have voted yes on the waxman bill to protect our children from mercury. ms. pelosi: and would have voted yes on mr. rush's -- that would be 766 for mr. waxman,

767 for mr. rush's amendment for which i would have voted yes. with that -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: the distinguished democratic whip says that he and ms. wasserman schultz would have voted similarly. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be noted in the record. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 425. resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2832, to extend the generalized system of preferences and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3078, to implement the united states-colombia trade promotion agreement. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3079, to

implement the united states-panama trade promotion agreement. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3080, to implement the united states-korea free trade agreement. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader for the purpose of the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor from virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session in observation of the columbus day holiday. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m.

for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. friday. on tuesday the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. also on tuesday, the house will complete action on h.r. 2250, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act, and take up the rule for the three trade agreements and trade adjustment assistant bills. therefore, the 6:30 p.m. vote series will be longer than usual. on wednesday the house will consider h.r. 3078, the united states-colombia trade promotion agreement implementation act, h.r. 3079, the united states-panama trade promotion agreement implementation act, h.r. 3080, the united states-korea free trade agreement implementation act, and h.r. 2832, extending the

generalized preference system. on thursday the house will consider h.r. 358, the protect life act, sponsored by representative joe pitts. and finally on friday the house will consider h.r. 2273, the coal residual and reuse act, sponsored by mr. mckinley of virginia. the three boiler mact bills are all part of the house republican plan for america's job creators. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. before i talk about the american jobs act, does the majority leader have an estimate from either c.b.o. or any economists on how many bills -- how many jobs over the next 24 months the bills to which you refer as the house republican plan for americans jobs creators, do you have any

information on how many jobs might be created in the next 24 months as a result of passage of those bills? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, i am very entertained by the nature of his question since i guess it starts from the fact that some might believe that congress creates jobs. but i would say in general to the speaker that what we need to be doing here is to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses and investors can actually feel confident again to put capital to create jobs. i would say to the gentleman further that the administration itself has accepted the notion that passage of the three free trade agreements will have the potential -- there's no guarantee -- but potential of the creation of a quarter of a million jobs. again, there have been a lot of promises made in this town, mr. speaker, about how we're going to control the level of unemployment, make sure it

doesn't go beyond certain points, connected with the stimulus bill, and i think the american people have had just about enough of broken promises. so we're proceeding with a focus, focus like a laser on creating an environment for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs without making promises, mr. speaker, that will then let people down. we're trying to regain the confidence of the people, put some sensible regulatory policy in place, lower tax environment so we can see growth return to a badly needed macroeconomic environment and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that answer. what i took from that answer is there is no estimate of jobs that might be created in the next 24 months. that's what i took from your answer. in terms of not creating jobs but creating an environment, i agree with the gentleman, we

need to create an environment for jobs but i don't believe that i've seen any estimates that your agenda will create jobs. as a matter of fact, i've seen the opposite. mr. bruce bartlett, former advisor to ronald reagan and george h.w. bush and was quoted just a few days ago. i know the gentleman is smiling because he knows this quote. and i quote, republicans have a problem. people are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but republicans have nothing to offer them. mr. bartlett said, not me, g.o.p. opposes additional government spending for jobs and in fact favors big cuts in spending that mr. bartlett said would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government. he goes on to say republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations but these had no stimulative effects during the george w. bush administration.

we lost jobs during that period of time. and there's no reason to believe we'll have any more of them today. he also goes on to say, it makes tax cuts a hard sale. on august 29, the house majority leader, yourself, mr. cantor of virginia, sent a memoranda to members of the house republican congress telling them to make the repeal of job-destroying regulations. this is mr. bartlett, former reagan aide and former aide to george h.w. bush, both republican presidents, goes on to say, evidence supporting mr. cantor's contention that deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak, said mr. bartlett. one can see the number of layoffs -- is minuscule, according to mr. bartlett, and shows no evidence of getting worse during the obama administration. . mr. reagan was quoted, we have a nice quote, i'm sure you've seen it, that indicates that people

ought to pay their fair share of taxes as well. the president has offered the american jobs act. he's offered the american jobs act and economists -- economist after economist after economist says that it will create jobs. it will create jobs by creating an environment, by giving more money to small businesses, giving more money to consumers in their pocket, i know your side's talked a lot about that. and that as a result of both businesses having more money in its pocket and consumers having more money in their pocket, that that environment that of which you speak will be created and a number of people think that there create significant numbers of jobs as a result. as a matter of fact, the macroeconomic advisors projected the plan would roughly -- add roughly 1.25 percentage points to g.d.p., to gross domestic

product, and create 1.3 million jobs. jpmorgan chase estimated the plan would increase growth by almost two points and add 1 1/2 million jobs. moody's analytics forecasted the package would add almost two million jobs, 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point and increase growth by two percentage points. now, i know my friend may disagree with those figures and may disagree with mr. bartlett's comment. i'm sure you do. my point is this. we don't have any bill on the floor that we've had over the last nine months or that is projected, that is projected to increase jobs in the short-term. now, the gentleman knows he and i agree on the trade bills. i think long-term that's correct. but the american people, as president obama observed, can't wait 14 months for the next election. they are struggling, in pain,

and at risk today. and the gentleman last week in -- or two weeks ago in our colloquy said that there are a number of things, items in the jobs bill, of which the gentleman agrees or his party agrees. bonus depreciation, incentives for scretrans jobs training, programs, infrastructure, small business tax cuts, unemployment insurance reform. the gentleman referenced those on the floor. clearly there ought to be some areas where we can get agreement. yesterday as the gentleman may have noted on the floor -- on the debate i asked that -- we were debating a regulatory bill that would have no immediate effect on jobs, your contention is it would depress jobs in the future if that rule were adopted but i don't think there was any contention during the time of the debates that would create

jobs. having said that, i am wondering whether the gentleman has any intention of bringing either the president's jobs bill or a jobs bill that your side would offer or a jobs bill the president has offered to the american people and to this congress, which would be open for amendment and change by your side and by our side in an effort to respond to the american people's great concern that we are not taking actions which are effectively growing jobs in this country. and i'll yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for all that information. and when -- mr. hoyer: i knew you'd be happy to receive it. mr. cantor: and just say to the gentleman in quoting moody's analysis perhaps of what he portrays as our way forward, moody's chief economist was also the one that made the prediction of an unemployment rate that would not exceed 8% as a result

of passage of the stimulus bill and it makes my point, mr. speaker, that the people in this country are tired of washington making promises it doesn't keep. and we're trying to abide by the trust that the people put in us to try and deliver results and right now as the gentleman correctly points out, the economy is in bad shape. we are trying to do all we can to not only put money in people's pockets, because if there were unlimited money that would be fine. but what we're trying to do is to encourage investments, we're trying to encourage economic activity so we can see growth happen and occur and jobs created. that's the way it's done in america. is that we need the private sector to take hold of a signal from washington that we do believe in free enterprise. that we're not about this government dictating where activity must occur, where and

who is deserving of government support. i mean, this is the essence i think of our difference, mr. speaker. and we're trying to set aside the divide. because clearly we don't agree with the president's approach thus far. we didn't agree with his stimulus approach and i think the facts have born out that we were right. that stimulus spending out of this government did not produce the results that the administration promised. we believed then and we believe now the key to economic growth going forward is to -- is to increase the confidence, is to bolster the entrepreneurial private sector in this country, it's about innovation, from innovation comes jobs, comes manufacturing. but we need to get washington out of the way and out of the business of creating harm. and, you know, the gentleman, mr. speaker, quotes all kinds of people but i can quote my

constituents as i'm sure many of his go to him and say, you can stop making it so difficult for us to run our create a business? we need to be a startup country again, mr. speaker. and we need to see that type of economic activity, that's what will bring on growth. and so what we've said is, no, the president's all-or-nothing approach sun acceptable, it has been rejected by the american people, they don't want the my way or highway kind of conduct. and what we see out there, mr. speaker, is some conduct on the part of the administration that is just not becoming of a helpful mode. how is it helpful out there to -- to aim at particular sectors of industry, to aim at business in general when we want -- we're wanting the businesses to create the jobs?

so what we said is, no, we're not for voting on tax increases in this house, which is what the president's proposal's about. we're not for accepting his desire to make it more difficult for charities to be successful, that's what's in the president's plan. i'm sure the gentleman would not agree that we ought to limit deductions to charity. and that's what the president's bill does. something that's not very helpful in today's economy, but when people are so in need of help, by charities. so we said, fine, set aside those differences and let's work on where we can agree. so we said, we'll bring the trade agreements to the floor. we've been asking for that, as has the gentleman. and i will say, mr. speaker, he has been a stalwart of trying to help get those bills through and i appreciate that, as do many of the members on both sides who support free and fair trade. but i would say, we also take note of the president's remarks in his speech to the joint session where he said he would

support our efforts in regulatory relief so that we can make it easier, we can make it easier for people going into business in a sensible way. we continue to bring bills forward on that note every week. we brought two forward this week and as i indicated earlier, we'll again next week. we will also be bringing forward the 3% with holding bill at the end of october that the gentleman well knows is a bill concern to not only -- to not only the private sector, but also to institutions like public universities who have already come and approached me and said, you know what, if you don't do something to remove that requirement, we're going to end up having to pay more for our contracts to our venders. so we're bringing that bill to the floor. we also are having bills that will come out of the financial services committee, that echo what the president said in his speech to us, that echo the president's desire, stated desire, to want to help small

businesses access financing. we've got to make sure we're doing everything there so it's not so difficult. we also intend to bring forward measures towards helping small businesses take advantage of their expenses, so they can expense the cost that they incur to grow their businesses. and take advantage of that, to see if we can grow. and lastly, mr. speaker, you know, the gentleman indicates we need to have hearings and we need to do things on the president's jobs bill. i think we've indicated again, the ways and means committee today had hearings related to unemployment insurance reform. something the president indicated he wanted to do. so, mr. speaker, no, we're not going to bring up the president's bill in whole because we don't believe in raising taxes and in more stimulus spending. but we are going to take the parts that we can agree on and we have taken that posture again and again. it's a reasoned approach when

you have two sides that have du disagreements to -- have disagreements to say we're going to focus on commonality and transcend those differences. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. first of all, let me say that the gentleman knows full well that the president's jobs bill does not include revenues. the president suggested in the short-term, we ought not to raise revenues, as a matter of fact. in the short-term what we need to do is put more money back in people's pockets. the jobs bill he did suggest ways to pay for that and he suggested, as did bowele -- simpson-bowles that that be paid for in the coming years so that we do not dampen down the economy at the same time we are trying to stimulate the economy. the gentleman says that the bill , the american recovery and reinvestment act, didn't work and he comments was, the economy's in bad shape.

yes, the economy is in bad shape. it started to be in bad shape in 2007, as the gentleman knows when we went into the deepest recession he and i have experienced in our lifetime. and it remained in place and the year that this president took office we lost 786,000 jobs that month. after we passed the recovery act, as the gentleman knows, i'm sure, we created two million jobs. over the last 24 months. the fact of the matter is, it worked. unfortunately almost no economist understood the depth to which the recession had taken us. so that the gentleman didn't support the recovery act, i understand that. nor did his party. perhaps those two million jobs would not have been created. in fact, there was another bill, of course, the gentleman hates

history, i know, that was passed -- mr. cantor: what? mr. hoyer: that creates 22 million jobs that no republican supported. so i tell you, my friend, that when we compare economic performance policies, one has created a lot of jobs and one lost a lot of jobs. in the last decade. and i will tell my friend, when the -- when he says the american people don't support the jobs bill, in fact i want to tell my friend, the washington post-abc news poll says 52% of americans support the american jobs act, 58% of americans believe the american jobs act will improve the jobs situation, including in that number 52% of independents. in the gallup poll americans support obama's plan to pay for american jobs act, 70% of americans support increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain deductions. i think that some of your

republicans have said the same thing. 66% support increasing revenues on individuals earning at least $200,000. now, again, the president did not suggest doing that. now, as the gentleman snows, just as the commissions did not -- knows, just as the commissions did not suggest doing that now, but what i have said to the gentleman and what i believe to be the case, he says ways and means had a hearing today. that hearing was not on a comprehensive jobs package, it was on a -- an important issue, no doubt about that. but there has been no comprehensive effort to put together in the short-term a bill which will bring jobs to americans that they need now. the president's bill we believe will do that. we understand that there may be opposition. we also understand that there may be change. but there's been no vehicle brought to this floor since the

president spoke over two weeks ago to allow this house to work its will, you may have the majority of votes on it, but let the american people see who wants to create jobs and the gentleman says, we don't create jobs. he is exactly right in a certain sense, but in another sense, as he says, we create an environment in which jobs are created. in which the economy grows. and in which people feel comfort -- comfortable. one of the things i want to say to my friend that i hope he would be for, my own belief is that one of the things we can do will most raise confidence will be to have the select committee of 12 come to an agreement on cutting $4 trillion over the next 10 years so that we can get the fiscal house in america in order and to do so by a balanced approach with everything, all of

our expenses, all revenues on the table. i would hope my friend would join me in that -- in urging the select committee to do that because i frankly think that is the thing, the one thing we can do that would raise the most confidence, not only here at home among americans, but around the world in america's ability to do a -- to address tough questions. so i would urge my friend to, one, to try to come to an agreement with his committee chairs, to have a comprehensive jobs bill brought to the floor, whatever you think that jobs bill may be, and then allow us to offer amendments, have the house of representatives work its will on that and then, secondly, to join in urging the select committee to work on getting -- getting us back to where we were in 2001 with a projected surplus in this country.

mr. cantor: if i could respond to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i need to correct the gentleman's statement that i don't appreciate history, i do appreciate history. mr. hoyer: is there anything i said you believe is factually inaccurate? mr. cantor: without getting into specifics, i think the gentleman and i do have a different view, perhaps, of history, at times, not always, but again, i would say this -- mr. hoyer: i take that as a no. i yield back. mr. cantor: i will say this. the gentleman well knows that the president's jobs bill, as submitted by mr. larson, has been referred to many, many

committees. and there isn't one committee that's going to have a comprehensive hearing on the bill. so as i said before, we intend to take the areas that we can agree on, to work together toward forging a solution. so we could actually, as some would say, put a win on the board for the american people. i would say also, mr. speaker, it is interesting to note that there are no co-sponsors on the bill that's been submitted as the president's jobs bill. there were no co-sponsors. so if there is such support on the other side, i would guess we'll see a lot of people, a lot of members signing up for that bill. i would say, though, to the gentleman, the reason why we don't believe that bill is helpful right now is because we don't believe that raising taxes is something you need to do to grow the economy.

in fact, it's harmful to grow the economy. as far as the gentleman's admonition or statement about the joint select committee, again, if he says balanced approach, that's a nice way of saying, we want to raise taxes. we don't want to raise taxes. and as the gentleman knows, he and i have been at the process of trying to forge a solution. both he and i do want to see outcome and success because i don't feel that it is in any way helpful to anyone to see the joint select committee fail. the committee is charged with coming up with commensurate savings in order to increase the nation's credit limit. so that means we've got to get the cuts. but when the gentleman talks about big deal, i am all for trying to fix the entitlement because we know that is the

problem facing this country, that the disproportionate driver of the deficit is the entitlements. we know how to fix them. in fact, our side is the only one who has proffered a wholesale formula to address reform that would last a generation. that's the kind of certainty i think will help in terms of increasing investment and the appetite for risk in this country to help entrepreneurs grow. the gentleman in his -- and his party and the president have rejected our approach and failed to offer a single formula that will fix the entitlement problem. unstead, they want this so-called balanced approach that will simply take money out of the private sector, out of the people who have earned it, the small business owners, to continue to fund washington, let washington spend money. and we say if you're not willing and courageous enough to fix the problem, why should

we go and make prospects for economic growth that much dimmer by raising taxes? so, yes, i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, i am all for, as -- i'm all for as much savings as we can actually accomplish and reform that we can complete, but clearly we demonstrated there are a lot of differences. so instead, ill look to the joint select committee to do its work. i have the full confidence in the appointees by our speaker that we can see it do its work without a lot of hyperbole and fanfare to continue to focus on how we're going to get americans back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back the time. mr. speaker, we have seen, i think, in that last discussion, a significant difference between our two parties. indeed, the republicans did offer a budget bill, which

privatized social security. they call it a premium support program. it eliminated the guarantee that people would have access to affordable health insurance coverage. we don't agree with that. the gentleman is absolutely correct. we rejected that. i would suggest that the voters rejected it. but i will tell the gentleman that we also reject the notion that you can spend great sums of money, as we did in the last decade when your party was in control of the house, the senate, and the presidency, and not pay the bill. that's why we went from $5.6 trillion of projected surplus to a $10 trillion debt when this president took over. i will tell the gentleman that paying for what we buy san francisco the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren.

and the way you pay for that is called taxes. we're not for raising taxes. however, we are for paying our bills. if we want to buy stuff, if we want to confront terrorists in iraq, which i supported, if we want to confront terrorists in afghanistan, which i supported, if we want to make sure that seniors have prescription drugs, we'll pay for those, not pass those along to my grandchildren, and you don't have grandchildren yet, but at some point you may have, i hope you do have grandchildren, it's a wonderful joy. we're simply passing the expenses to them. as the gentleman know, we're collecting somewhere near 15% of revenues, 3% below average for the last 40 years, but we continue to buy things. and we bought things at a greater rate in the decade that has just passed than we did in the 1990's. we increased spending at a greater rate. the gentleman knows that. that's not history.

those are facts. maybe historical fact, but they are facts. what i'm telling the gentleman is, with respect to a balanced approach, he then says, all that means is you want to raise taxes. no, what it means is, i want to make sure we put everything on the table that is giving us the challenge that we're seeing all over the world of balancing our budget, getting our expenditures in line with our revenues, and that we do so in a way that does not undermine america's national security, its economic well being, and the welfare of our people. that's what we believe in, that's what we hope the select committee will do we blev that everything needs to be on the table. and if that is not consistent with what your view is, it is consistent with the views of every bipartisan group, the big

three, if you will, the domenici, pete domenici, former republican chairman of the budget committee in the united states senate, alex rivelen, former c.b.o. director, alan simpson, former u.s. senator from wyoming, and the gang of six that now has over 18 or 19 republicans and 18 or 19 democrats, are saying we need to do. i hope we can join together to do that. i personally believe that is the most important effort that we could make in bringing confidence back to america and to the perception of america around the world. i'm prepared to yield back. mr. cantor: just one minute. we should stop buying so much, mr. speaker, that's my point. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow and when it adjourn that day it shall meet at noon on tuesday, october 11, for morning hour the bait and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the future of electric aviation is upon us in the center region of pennsylvania. an aviation company in state college, pennsylvania, won first place in nasa's green flight challenge which they took first place on september 25, at charles st. rosa in

california. sponsored by google, the green flight challenge was created to increase aviation fuel economy. the winning aircraft had to fly 200 miles in less than two hours and use less than one gallon of fuel per occupant or the equivalent in electricity and would be awarded a $1.35 million grant. the aircraft achieved twice this requirement, flying 200 miles using just over half a gallon of fuel equivalent per passenger. the team was led by dr. jack langevin, assistant professor of aerospace engineering and supported by engineers and faculty from numerous departments and local businesses and facilities. it truly was a team effort. i want to congratulate them, penn state, and all those involved in this project. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the recent -- mr. van hollen: to those who question the united states solidarity with -- mr. sarbanes: the arab spring is dramatically altering the dynamic os they have israeli-palestinian conflict and the wider region. familiar antagonists are seizing on a new populism to stir up anti-israel sentiment. it's no surprise that countries like iran would seek to hijack the sentiment of the arab spring but who would have predicted that nato member turkey would turn against its former ally israel with such ferocity. turkey's behavior appears calculated to achieve dominance of the eastern mediterranean by

putting pressure on the israeli-american alliance. one critical way to discourage this adventurism in the region is to continue to affirm its unbreakable bond with the state of israel. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, mississippi lost four of her native sons to an explosion and over the course of three months, nearly five million barrels of oil gushed into the gulf of mexico causing extreme economic and environmental damage. yesterday the bipartisan restore act was introduced to put the gulf states on the right path to economic recovery. it will send 80% of the fines paid by b.p. to areas most affected by the tragic events and allow the gulf states to

invest in programs designed to rehabilitate the region economically and environmentally. mr. palazzo: it allows states to address their own unique and specific needs with accountability. once b.p. is held accountable for its actions, it's only fair that those hardest hit will receive the relief they desperately need and deserve. i urge my colleagues from across the country to do the right thing and support the bipartisan restore act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields, the chair lays before the house the following requests. for what purpose does the gentlelady -- the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. poe of texas after 1:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the request is granted. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, there is something about having a heart and a philosophy that americans who are not working want to work, americans who are

not rich simply want an opportunity to provide for their families. i want to congratulate the president today for acknowledging that this economic downfall is not attributable to his actions as a president that happens to be a democrat. i thank him for mentioning the calamity in china, dealing with the manipulation of currency. it is something we have to address, it is something that has not benefited the united states. and i believe as individuals run for the presidency they have every right to do so. but every time they make a statement of insult to the american people i'm going to address it. mr. cain seems to want to continue rather than to talk constructively how we can bring people together. today he announced that those who are on ralies around this country, some in my district, as we speak, he callsed them that if you did not -- were not

employed and you were not rich, it's your fault. mr. cain, you need to understand what the common people and person is going through. understand the common man and stop being high and mighty. i don't know how you can represent all of the people. you need to get a grip and understand what america's all about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. sewell, is recognized as the designee of the minority leader. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. during this c.b.c. special order hour we're going to honor the life and legacy of reverend fred shuttlesworth and i rise today to pay tribute to a great civil rights leader, reverend fred lee shuttlesworth. who passed away yesterday at the age of 89. dd he was a leader of the civil

rights movement in birmingham, alabama, and a co-founder of the southern christian leadership's conference, sclc. martin luther king considered reverend shuttlesworth's one of the most courageous fighters in the south. born in alabama on march 18, 19 22, reverend shuttlesworth was raised in birmingham, alabama. brought up by his tough-minded mother, mrs. alberta, robinson -- alberta robinson shuttlesworth webb, she developed a very powerful personality that prepared him for his civil rights leadership in alabama. reverend shuttlesworth whereas a bright student and -- was a bright student and graduated valedictorian of his class at rosedale high school in 1940. shuttlesworth was compassionate, he was captivating, both as a student and then later as a minister. he captivated the -- the -- the baptist denomination and felt called to the ministry. he graduated from alabama state

college, now known as alabama state university, in 1952, and became the pastor of the historic first presbyterian church, first baptist church in selma, alabama. in 1953 reverend shuttlesworth took over as pastor of bethel baptist church in north birmingham, alabama. reverend shuttlesworth soon became the most publicized crusader in the history of birmingham, alabama. he became active in the voter registration efforts of the naacp and in the civil league's attempts to clean up is a loons. in 1955 reverend shuttlesworth supported the montgomery bus boycott that was set in motion by rosa parks' refusal to give up her seat. when an alabama circuit court injunction stopped the naacp in alabama, reverend shuttlesworth founded the alabama christian movement for human rights in

june of 1956. the weekly meetings of this wonderful organization became the mouthpiece for the mass movements of african-americans in birmingham, alabama. for over a decade. and in 1957 reverend shuttlesworth helped fellow ministers and civil rights leaders martin luther king and ralph david abernathy to found the southern christian leadership conference which became the most important civil rights organization in the south during the 1960's. reverend shuttlesworth was an inspiration to other activists because of his strong commitment to the fight for equality. which often put him and his family in harm's way. he was a target of two bombings. when shuttlesworth and his wife attempted to enroll their children in a previously all-white bimpling ham big -- birmingham public school in 1957, a mob of clansmen attacked him. shuttlesworth was beaten with chains and brass knuckles in the streets while someone stabbed

his wife during this altercation. his personal currently and sacrifice encouraged others to join the movement as well. shuttlesworth participated in the sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in 1960 and took part in the organization and completion of the freedom riders in 1961. reverend shuttlesworth willingly stood up against the brutal tactics of public safety commissioner eugene o'connor, as he was known, in the fight for civil rights. the civil rights movement climaxed in 1963 when shuttlesworth convinced martin luther king jr. and the sclc to come to birmingham, alabama, for a massive campaign against segregation. in response to the campaign, bull conner released police dogs on activists and had activists sprayed with intense fire hose, streaming of water. so powerful that they were knocked down to their feet.

these egregious actions were captured on national television and published in newspapers across this country. the national attention led to the federal intervention and the signing of a civil rights bill of 1964 and then later the voting rights act of 1965 by president lyndon baines johnson. rev rnd -- reverend shuttlesworth was the heart of this monumental victory as he poured his soul into the civil rights movement. although shuttlesworth remained active in the movement in alabama and regularly visited, he did move in 1961 to cincinnati, ohio, where he was a pastor for most of the next 47 years. in cincinnati shuttlesworth became the pastor of the greater new life -- new light baptist church in 1966 and worked to continue his work to fight against racism and for the alleviation of a problems of the

homelessness until he retired in 2007. upon his retirement reverend shuttlesworth moved back to birmingham, alabama. i know that the city of birmingham is very proud of its native son and the role he played in the civil rights movement. in 1988 the birmingham city council approved an order to rename a four-mile stretch of land, the f.l. shuttlesworth drive. in addition, the city of birmingham erected a statue of reverend shuttlesworth outside the civil rights institute when it opened in 1992. the birmingham, alabama, airport authority also renamed the airport the birmingham international airport is now known as the birmingham shuttlesworth international airport in his honor. on behalf of a grateful nation, reverend shuttlesworth was presented with the presidential citizen's medal by president

bill clinton on january 8, 2001. mr. shuttlesworth was married to safara bailey shuttlesworth and he was the proud father of four, patricia, ruby, fred jr. and caroline. he was also -- he also leaves behind 11 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. now, over the years reverend shuttlesworth has been -- has distinguished himself and been honored by numerous awards. his leadership that he showed this nation in fighting against racism is second to none. the people of the seventh congressional district of alabama that i am so grateful to represent commends him for his wonderful efforts and as the first black congresswoman elected from the state of alabama, i know i stand on the shoulders of reverend shuttlesworth. i would not be here today had it not been for his sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many.

his commitment to the racial equality and justice for all is a message that has inspired people for generations to come. i therefore, representative to this u.s. congress from the seventh congressional district of alabama, do hereby recognize reverend fred lee shuttlesworth for his numerous contributions, not only to the seventh congressional district and the state of alabama, but to our wonderful nation. i ask those present today to join me in honoring reverend shuttlesworth and commending him for his many achievements on behalf of a grateful nation. i know that many of my colleagues will join me during this hour to commemorate his life and legacy and now i yield minutes to our c.b.c. chairman, the gentleman from missouri, emanuel cleaver, for his comments on reverend shuttlesworth's wonderful life.

mr. cleaver: let me first thank the gentlewoman from alabama for her vision in speaking of one of america's great men. shortly after martin luther king was killed in memphis, tennessee, i, just leaving college, became very active with the southern christian leadership conference. at that time ralph abernathy had taken over leadership of the organization and joe lawrie had become the chair of the board. and a short while -- a short time after that walter frontroy, who serves as the delegate for the district of columbia, became the chair of the board and prior to that he was martin luther

king's or the washington bureau chief. so i became actively involved. i considered fred shuttlesworth as a mentor. fred shuttlesworth had a -- a remarkable life in that he was a great preacher but as people who knew him will tell you, he was not afraid of anything and sometimes that did not work to his -- to his benefit. fred shuttlesworth was in his home when the clan blew it up, reverend shuttlesworth ended up down in the basement but if the clan had believed that blowing up his home would get him to back away from a movement to bring dignity and civil rights to people in this country, they

were -- they were wrong. and fred shuttlesworth was so tough that it was often said that when god allowed bull conner to be born, that he also made fred shuttlesworth to serve as his even change. fred shuttlesworth was in many confrontations with the legendary and infamous bull conner. one of the things that i think people need to remember is that of the people involved in the founding of the southern christian leadership conference, which is martin luther king, ralph abernathy, fred shuttlesworth, some people include c.k. steel, is that shuttlesworth was perhaps the roughest of the group. he went to college late, he was

a man whose physical stature was almost amazing, even when he went into his 80's fred shuttlesworth could put on -- slide on a pair of pants and shirt and there would be no bulge. he one of those amazing bodies where he always looked fit. even into his 80's. but the thing that -- that -- that i want to -- to say about reverend shuttlesworth is that there was never a challenge that caused ray shuttlesworth to backway. there was no threat strong enough that fred shuttlesworth would seek cover. he was always out front, willing to take whatever came his way in order to pursue the fight for justice. when i was elected mayor of kansas city, one of the highlights of my time in office was fred shuttlesworth visiting

kansas city and coming into my office and getting excited because on the wall in my office hung a photograph, an enlarged photograph which showed fred shuttlesworth and a large number of other civil rights leaders and giants who i was just pleased to be around hanging on the wall, prior to a march we had done in green county, alabama. i was so thrilled he could come to my office and see his photograph hanging and know how much i -- how much i appreciated him. let me say this. i will pass this on. he preached at the church i've been fortunate enough to pastor over 40 years and each time he'd come in and say, now,

cleaver, i want to show you how you can preach a long sermon. his strategy was this. after about 30 minutes, he would say, and wink at me, i'm about to wrap up now. and he said, then people would listen to him, because they knew he was about to wrap up. then 10 or 15 minutes later, he'd say, i'm on my way out now, i'm closing out system of he could easily preach an hour and trick people two or three times and that was what he called training me in how to preach a long sermon. and he preached at our church many times, in fact, the last time he preached there, it was probably two years ago, he was a little frail for the first time that i had ever been around him, and he was still fiery as our colleague john

lewis will tell you. there was never a time that he did not have fire. in fact, his autobiography, "fire inside my bones," which i have in my office, and he, i think, was the epitome of the civil rights struggle. he did a lot of struggling, never made a lot of money, never got a lot of publicity, there are probably people in the country who hear the name fred shuttlesworth and didn't know who he is this morning, i turned on msnbc and saw his name across the bottom of the screen, it said, fred shuttles worth, aged 89, died in a nursing home in alabama. probably thousands of people

saw that and didn't know who it was. if he wasn't there, there wouldn't have been a birmingham movement, and without that, there would have been no sclc, and martin luther king would have gotten his ph.d. and preached in a church and nobody would have heard of him. i thank you for this opportunity to talk about fred shuttlesworth and i yield back. ms. sewell: i remember so many commemorations of the march from selma to montgomery, always culminated on that sunday when they commemorate bloody sunday at my church. i can remember often seeing rev repped shuttlesworth at brown chapel, crossing the pettus bridge that he did so often in

those commemorations. my last time seeing him, he participated in a faith and politics luncheon we had this past year. this past march. when i was so honored to co-host that faith and politics pilgrimage back to alabama with congressman lewis. i know many that my generation owes a debt of gratitude to the freedom riders, the folk the civil rights activists such as rev repped shuttlesworth and john lewis, we owe so much to them. we not only stand on their shoulders but pay honor and tribute to them always. they fought the good fight so people like us could go to ivy league schools and walk the halls of congress. i'm forever grateful for their courage and their sacrifice. i am equally thrilled to now

yield minutes to congressman john lewis of georgia. the gentleman from georgia is not only one of my own personal heroes, and will not only speak to knowing fred shuttlesworth personally and talk of the times in the 1960's they shared together, i am just immensely honored to be able to call congressman lewis a friend as well as colleague. i yield you time. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend and my colleague, congresswoman tara sewell of birmingham for holding this special order. thank you. thank you for representing the people of the seventh congressional district of alabama, especially birmingham and selma.

i grew up reading and hearing about reverend fred shuttlesworth, the man from birmingham, alabama. i grew about 150 miles from birmingham, outside of a little town called troy. in the words of fred shuttles worth, the action of this man, was so inspiring, i probably wouldn't be standing here today, i know i wouldn't standing here today as a member of congress representing the good people of the fifth district of georgia if it hadn't been for individuals like fred shuttlesworth. the reverend fred shuttleworth is the last of a kind. he was a fearless, determined, courageous leader for civil rights and social justice. when others did not have the courage to stand up, speak up,

and speak out, fred shuttlesworth put all he had on the line to end segregation an racial discrimination, not only in birmingham put throughout the state of alabama and throughout our nation. as has been said so well before, he was beaten with chains, his home was bombed, his church was bombed, and he lived under constant threat of violence and murder. but he never, ever lost faith in the power of love to overcome hate. he escorted brave young children to desegregate public schools in birmingham. in 1961, and i will never, ever forget it, i was only 21 years old, during the freedom ride,

50 years ago, when others were immobilized by fear, he was fearless and met us at the greyhound bus station in birmingham, alabama, and welcomed us into his home. when we were trapped in the first baptist church a few days later, pastored by the reverend ralph abernathy, after we'd been beaten by an angry mob and the church was surrounded by individuals who tried to burn the church down, he stood up and he spoke. he gave us courage. he told us not to be afraid. he was tireless beside dr. martin luther king jr. and others as he led the birmingham movement. in 1963, when bull connor, the commissioner of public safety, used dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protesters, including young children and women, fred

was there. i will never forget congresswoman -- i will never forget, congresswoman sewell, when we went back to selma in 2007, fred shuttlesworth wanted to cross that bridge one more time. he was unable to walk, he was in a wheelchair. the inestimable barack obama -- pushed the chair across the bridge. former president clinton came and kneeled down at the chair. in front of fred shuttlesworth to pay tribute and homage to him. this brave and courageous man must be remembered. in my estimation, he is one of the founding fathers of the new

america. he helped liberate not scrust the state of alabama, not just the south, but he helped liberate america. that's why we honor him. he changed and made us a different people. made us stand out -- stand up, walk, run, and march with pride. we owe him a debt of gratitude. he would be -- he will be deeply missed. and when we go back to birmingham to montgomery, to selma, or any part of the american south, we may see a statue at the civil rights institute or museum in birmingham, we will see fred shuttlesworth all over the south and all over the nation because he helped bring down those signs that said, white men, colored men, white women, colored women, white waiting, colored waiting, america is different. america is better, and we are a

better people because of this one brave, courageous man who had the audacity, the ability tork capacity to stand up and say, we will be free. he said over and over again, emanuel cleaver, before i'll be a slave, i'll be buried in my grave and go home to my lord and be free. that's the message of fred shuttlesworth. i hope all our young people, black and white, latinos, asian american and native americans, will study the life of fred shuttlesworth. thank you, congresswoman sewell. ms. sewell: thank you, congressman lewis. i also am constantly in awe of our next presenter. i yield time to not only a wonderful sister in congress but also a real leader in

congress, my mentor, the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: congresswoman sewell, thank you so very much for allowing us to come to the floor of the house and be joyful, even though someone has passed. i thank my previous speakers, john lewis, we salute you always for continuing to be our chronicler, our voice, our steady, you will, encyclopedia of today, yesterday, and tomorrow, what we should be aiming toward as a nation and as a people, but also what we came through. and to stand next to this picture, thank you for allowing me to stand next to such a symbolic statement about

reverend dr. fred l. shuttlesworth. can i just stand here and say that i knew him, and can i say as well, i had the privilege of following way behind john lewis' footsteps in working in the southern christian leadership conference, at the time when reverend dr. abernathy was alive, and certainly fred shuttlesworth was still on the battlefield in places arn the nation. i want to say to his children and his wife and all his great legacy in alabama, that he has given birth to much this picture depicts a monumental statement, both of his status as an american and patriot, both of what he cree aited, whether it was a young senator to be president, president

barack obama, pushing this icon's wheelchair, as we commemorated the legacy of john lewis, and that is the crossing of the edmund pettus bridge, the time when those who spoke loudly on behalf of those who could not speak, were brutalized and beat ton unconsciousness, simply for the right to vote. fred shuttlesworth was known as a man that did not run away from danger. fred shuttlesworth joined dr. ralph david abernathy and martin luther king and himself in pushing and shoving and pushing the movement in alabama and around the nation. at his side, the young man, president, who served this country for eight years, a southerner, william jefferson clinton who acknowledges that part of his great legacy, or

great opportunity, was not only the meeting of john f. kennedy, president john f. kennedy, but during his lifetime or his presidency, correct many of the ills that occurred to african-americans and people of the slave history in this nation. from the establishment of the african-american museum, to the honoring of so many, such as the tuskegee airmen, in terms of generating that as he spoke, to the honoring of civil rights leaders, to the bestowing of recognitions on rosa parks, so many things that this president clinton attempted to do, because he got to know and he could understand the walk and the talk of reverend fred shuttlesworth. i am grateful that we have the first african-american woman congressperson from alabama and i know that she told you of her family's legacy but also the

salt of the earth that they are, alabamans, who knew of reverend fred l. shuttlesworth's work. what i'm most moved by is the fact that he acknowledges that his beginnings were on a farm, raised by his stepfather and his mother. came tifert to be a truck driver and then got the word that he should go to a school, seeder grove academy, and a local bible college. and begin the seeding of understanding that in the scriptures of much of what we who happen to be christian believe in but can be font found in so many faiths, from judaism to islam, to buddhism and to many other fakets, this whole charitable role that you must take, that it is better to give to others than it is to give to yourself. even though reverend fred shuttlesworth was a feisty man, he will tell it to you, don't

get fooled by a wheelchair. he was a feisty man. didn't take much to being offended. and as john lewis has taught us over the years, as we've traveled back to commemorate bloody sunday, how entrenched the movement was of nonviolence. fred shuttlesworth was willing to in essence concede his feistyness to be part of the movement established first, the alabama christian movement for human rights, and of course then to overcome its declaring of being unconstitutional and moving on to other creative ways to create and continue the movement. what i like most about since john lewis told us of the freedom rides and that is an emotional experience, an emotional set of words to listen to. because of the loss of life that attended to those college students and others who got on

buses from ohio to illinois, new york, places far from the south. they got on because they were driven by the rightness of the morality of those who were standing for the empowerment of the brutality, empowerment of those who had been brutalized. they came from far and wide. and i don't know how one could stand by and watch buses be burned to a crisp or to watch those innocent americans, young and with a great deal of hope, come to the deep south and be bloodied and to be attacked and spit upon and to note that a tragic moment when they were brutalized so badly, as they came into the area of reverend shuttlesworth, they were brutalized as a result of a famous name, though a name of great damage, sheriff bull

conners -- connors, the violence that he evidenced that woke up america. these brutalized freedom riders were against temporarily taken john to a hospital, reverend shuttlesworth was concerned about their safety. didn't concern himself about his safety. but was concerned about theirs. and so for a few deacons and those of who -- of who you understand our church structure, deacons are close to the pass ter, they're men who go with him through fire, storm, rain and devastation, went with him to carry these broken bodies out of the hospital, fearful for their lives and took them to his chump where as many knew in the south was not a place that was immune to violence as evidenced by the birmingham bombing of a church that killed four little girls in a sunday school class.

the reverend shuttlesworth was not fearing his life, he wanted to make sure that those who had come to help them and us could be safe and would not be bombarded in the hospital and be threatened or in fear of their lives. reverend shuttlesworth, i want to thank you for allowing me to know you. i want to thank you for staying alive, to be able to see the election of the first african-american president of the united states. i'm grateful that you stayed alive to see america at her best, when in 2008 she came together and unshackled the devastation of race, the ugly ness of race, and -- ugliness of race, and began to accept that strength and rightness of anyone who -- desired to be president. rev rabid shuttlesworth, as you lay in -- reverend shuttlesworth, as you lay in rest, let me thank you for giving us courage, for being a friend to john lewis, a friend to martin and ralph david

abernathy and james orange and many of the freedom riders and song singers that i get to see when i go for that commemoration. but what i would say in closure, dr. shuttlesworth, is that you wanted us to be engaged in fighting for people who could not speak for themselves. i would imagine that you would want us to pass and vote for the american jobs act. i imagine that you would not be accusatory as to why people are unemployed and are not rich. i imagine you would be sympathetic to the people who are in the streets today, now thursday, october the 6th, 2011, and i imagine you would say, keep on keeping on. i imagine you would say, have no fear, because our great friend, dr. martin luther king, told us of a mountain top. and he said, the pathway to the promised land would not be easy. and he said in his dying days or the last hours toward the end of his life that he had seen the promised land. you still lived at that time.

and he told us that he might not get there but he knew that as a people, as this nation we would get to the promised land someday. reverend dr. shuttlesworth you have gone on -- shuttlesworth, you have gone on and we recognize that our people are hurting and they're in the streets and they're all colors and backgrounds, religions and all areas of this country, you realize that we're lucky enough to have congresswoman sewell and john lewis out of alabama, now atlanta, and you recognize that you've passed your mantle on but you're hoping that we are not giving up and that we will always stay fed fast and that we'll fight for -- stay steadfast and that we'll fight for those who cannot speak and are unborn. for you, reverend shuttlesworth, i will be courageous enough to take whatever comes, whatever comes life's way, whatever threatens my life, for it is important to note that there is something greater than life and it is to make sure that people have an opportunity.

i hope someday we'll have the ability to bring this nation together again and not be wallowing in the divisiveness of tea parties and no parties and people who don't recognize what america is all about. reverend shuttlesworth, you saw only what was right and what was just. i bless you and with will say to you, you are a warrior that has fought a good fight. thank you for that fight. may you rest in peace and to your family. god bless you and god bless this warrior and god bless the united states of america. i yield back to the distinguished gentlelady from alabama. ms. sewell: i would like to thank all of my colleagues for participating in this special order hour. celebrating the life and legacy of such a great alabaman, such a great american. reverend fred lee shuttlesworth. to his family, his wife and children and grandchildren, i

want to say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation for the sacrifices that you as a family had to make in order for this wonderful man to be able to lead a movement from birmingham that affected the whole world. i am eternally grateful, personally for your friendship, mrs. shuttlesworth, as well as for your enduring sacrifice. know that we here in congress understand how important his life's work was, that we take seriously the mantle that he left helped -- behind, commitment to equality, commitment to justice for all. i know i am personally so grateful for the opportunity to have met him before he died and to be able to tell him personally thank you for what he did for me as a little black girl growing up in selma, alabama. to be able to even dream of someday being in this you a gust

body. you know, -- agust body -- august buddy. you know, it was shirley chisholm who said, service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth. i know that reverend shuttlesworth has made more than just a deposit toward that rent. he's opened down the doors, so many doors, for so many of us to walk through, and for that i just want to say thank you. thank you, we are awesome and awfuly humbled by the fact that -- awfully humbled by the fact that we have the opportunity to pay tribute to such a wonderful man. and so in closing i just want to say thanks to this august body for allowing us the opportunity to celebrate the life of such a wonderful american. and we say in closing, while we may say farewell to reverend shuttlesworth now, we in america know that it was because of the work that he did that we have

held fast as america and made sure that we held up to the ideals of what it is to be american, that is the ideals of equality and the ideals of democracy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentlewoman yields back her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. burton: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: you know, madam speaker, this year we're going to go $1.6 trillion in debt. most people can't comprehend $1.6 trillion. it's a lot of money. the national debt we just found

out recently is going up to $15.1 drl. -- trillion. the reason i bring that up today, madam speaker, is because we've got terrible problems that we're facing here at home and there are terrible problems that are being faced in europe. as a matter of fact, i was in greece last week and they're cutting salaries in greece by 40%. they're cutting retirement benefits by 40%. they're cutting health benefits by a large amount. and they're raising taxes because that country is a socialistic country and it's about to go completely bankrupt. in addition to that, itsly has the same kind of problem -- italy has the same kind of problems, spain has the same kind of problems, portugal has the same kind of problems and ireland is suffering from similar problems. the reason i bring that up is because the united states is part of what they call the international monetary fund and

most americans don't know, madam speaker, that we put 18% of the money in the international monetary fund into that fund to deal with world financial problems. now, the international monetary fundering according to their european department director, antonio bourgeous, stated that the i.m.f. would definitely participate in a second bailout package for greece. now, that could be up to $200 -- 200 billion euros, 200 billion euros, and when you talk about american dollars, that's about $280 billion. and the united states would be responsible for $36 billion of those dollars. that's american taxpayers' dollars that would be going to europe to deal with the problems that italy, spain, greece and those other countries face. but in addition to that, there

was a recent announcement by the i.m.f. that it was expanding its bailout fire power to $1.3 trillion. and there's a potential that the international monetary fund could create what they call a special purpose vehicle to buy the embattled bonds of failing european countries like greece, spain and italy. when you boil all that down it means the united states could buy a great deal of the $1.3 trillion in bonds that would be purchased to keep those countries afloat. now, the i.m.a. -- i.m.f. is not the primary vehicle of the greek bailout. if they can't use that they can use the federal reserve board, the fed, which has the authority to provide foreign central banks with an unlimited amount of dollars for an equivalent amount of currency. in september the 11th of this year, september, 2011, this

year, the fed did just this. it swapped american dollars for euros in order to provide the european central bank with liquidity to calm capital markets. now, i don't think i need to go into a great more detail in order to say the united states is about to be involved in bailing out europe. we do not have the money. as i said at the beginning of my remarks, we're going to be $1.6 trillion debt this year. if the fed and the treasury department and the white house decides to try to bail out europe, these countries that are about to go belly up, it's going to cause even more economic problems in america. we have 9.1% unemployment right now and can you imagine, madam speaker, what would happen if we started trying to bail out europe as well? we cannot and must not do that.

if i were talking to the president tonight, madam speaker, i would say, mr. president, let's deal with the problem we was here at home. let's don't take on more responsibilities that are not of our doing. we should not try to prop up governments that have been socialistic for a long, long time to the point where they have to cut salaries by 40% in order to try to keep their country afloat. that's a problem they created. we have enough problems here at home and shouldn't be using american taxpayers' dollars to try to bail out european country that was gone down the wrong path. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. burton: madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to ad journ. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned

one hour earlier, and homeland security subcommittee looked at cyber security issues with a focus on the clouds computing phenomenon.

all these events tonight on the c-span tv networks. >> congress is back in session this week and the house passed a spending bill that will keep the federal government funded through mid-november. the senate continues on a bill dealing with china's currency. use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about your elected officials. it includes a video of every house and senate session, the daily schedules, committee hearings, and more. it is washington it your way. >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, at a two-term governor of new york.

his impact on political history remains. serving as a postwar secretary of state and chief justice of the u.s.. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the contenders." for a preview, what a number of videos about him and our special website for the series. >> marco rubio is not seeking the vice-presidential nomination and will not accept any offers from the potential gop candidate. the senator's remarks were made an interview wednesday hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. william daley took partial responsibility for president obama struggles with john boehner. washington politics are a reflection on american and

civility. this is about 40 minutes. >> i go on line and i began to read "the times." just to make sure i can watch what my predecessor is doing. so that when he calls 10 minutes later, i can harass him. >> does he call you a lot? >> we talked a lot. >> what does he say?

[laughter] >> this is being recorded, it isn't it? i am usually in by 7:00 and i start with a 7:30 meeting with the senior staff. we do when 8:30 meeting with about 50 people. and then the day begins. i'll leave somewhere around 7:30. >> he joined the white house in january. how would you say president obama and president clinton are different? >> let me think about that. there are lots of ways they are different. the times are very different. when you look at -- it is not just their personality. president clinton was a very --

he was somebody you expressed himself quite a bit. and robert oakley. he was very -- and rather vocally. he was very open with his emotions and the way he conveyed his feelings to people. president obama is very steady, controlled, constantly searching for more information. bill clinton also was, but stylistically, they are very different. the times really impact how they operate. >> you were brought into the white house and there was a lot of discussion that you would strengthen ties with capitol hill, the business community. how is that going? >> it is going great. [laughter] can you tell? things are really great.

the community loves us. no problem. these are tough times for the american people. the difficulties in this town -- it is much more reflective of what is going on out there in america. what happens in this town is much more reflective of sometimes we'd like to admit. difficulty politically, we have been a divided nation for a very long time. if you look back at the elections of the last number of years, to some degree, it was an aberration in 2008. 2004 was a relatively close election. 1996, bill clinton got less than 50% of the about. -- of the vote. for the last couple of years,

america has been divided. the american people are stressed out, but it is an extremely volatile political season right now. >> what would you say about the state of the relationship between the white house and republicans on capitol hill? >> i think the republican mantra, starting in 2009, we will take a hard-line position of "no." when the minority leader of the senate says my number one goal is to defeat the president, that is an amazing statement. we all believe them. that is his goal and is objective. he is trying to accomplish this objective. that puts a certain different twist on trying to get to a

combination -- to have a different voice, a less shrill voice. it has proven to be much more difficult than he or anybody else thought it would be. >> i was in the press briefing room with you this summer when the president came in and gave us about a five minute notice, came in at 6:00 to announce that he had received a call from john boehner that they were breaking off talks on the debt ceiling. the question i asked at that time to the president, it seems like there has been an extraordinary breakdown of trust. are you guys even talking anymore? >> i have talked to the speaker. the president speaks to the leadership. there is no question that -- this happens every cycle.

the presidential elections began earlier than anybody likes. every cycle, we all complain about it, but we all participate in it. that impacts the politics. we do not have a primary going on, said that is a little different. there is a struggle within the republican party as to what is the heart and soul of the republican party. you had an election in the fall that was driven by a wing of the party that became much more energized, much more aggressive. the leadership that came in on that wave, and so that present a struggle. we watched that played out in the debt ceiling and that continues to play out. >> the president has been out on the road to blaming republicans. he is not naming names, he

talked about mr. cantor yesterday. isn't there an issue with the democrats on the hill? there are no co-sponsors of the present cost jobs bill. jobs bill.t's harry reid has been reluctant to schedule a vote. >> the vote will be -- there is no question in my mind. we did not think it would be before the end of october. we are dealing with the trade agreement, the congress has a light schedule likely. they have a lot of things on their plates. it is very difficult considering the schedule. i think the house takes a week off.

i do not mean to imply that it is a vacation, but they take about every third week off. >> what do you think has happened? a senator said to me the other night -- what has happened? >> i am one who believes that our politics -- a lot of people say, it is not as simple as it used to be. the truth is that our overall society has gotten less civil to each other. what is most popular on tv? generally reality tv were somebody is doing something are outrageous or obnoxious. we cannot think that politics is separate from that or that a separate from politics. i often think of the incivility that is in politics may be reflective of what is going on

in general society. that is not a positive thing to say. there is not the engagement anymore that there used to be. senators go home much more now than they used to. congressmen running every two years and the cost of it. the fear of being out of a job as opposed to if you lose your job, you will get another one. it has created a very different climate than even 10 years ago when i was here under clinton. >> i want to move onto other issues about the economy and foreign policy. do you take some responsibility for the relations with capitol hill and speaker boehner? >> there is no question. and i would take some responsibility for the

relationship. it is part of my job. everybody in media. everybody in this town has to take some responsibility for the way our political system has gone. it is unfortunate. it has not only got less civil, there is a whole bunch of changes that have occurred very recently. how people get their news and what is news anymore is debatable. is jon stewart news or entertainment? lots of people watch it and think it is news. i would say it is entertainment. the impact on the political system is enormous. >> ben bernanke made news when he said -- he told congress that the recovery is close to faltering. how do you respond to that?

>> it is obvious that the expectations in the first half of this year for a stronger second half and a stronger 12 are not going to be fulfilled. that is one of the reasons the president put together the american jobs act. if the predictions that through most of the spring had been fulfilled, i do not think he would have the pressure, or the impetus to feel so strongly that we have to do something to create jobs and economic growth. he was trying to get a vote in the senate next week or the week after. the house will deal with a job- creating bill to create some

buffer. we have some offer to stop that. most independent analysts that analyze the president's job package say that it would add 1.5 points in gdp growth. >> there is no expectation that the full bill will be passed. >> to say that it is dead on arrival, that maybe somebody's political judgment. if it is, what is the plan of other people? nobody else has put a package for decem be independently analyzed as to whether it will be -- create jobs or economic growth. do not just say no. have something that is real, not just talking points. something that can be done by

analysts. not just think tanks that are in the tank. there are many in this town. what are you going to do for the economy as opposed to just talk about it? outside analysts will say that it will be positive. let's get into that. let's call the question and have the vote. if it does not pass, there is the responsibility of those that vote against it to have something. >> how worried are you about another recession? >> the general consensus is that we will not have another recession, a double dip or a new dip. what is going on in europe

creates great concern. the president speaks to the european leaders quite often. the expectation is that they will take action to prevent serious negative results that would cause the world to slip back further than where we are. we are concerned about the possibility. the expectation as of right now is that we would not see a double dip. >> i hope you know the white house press corps is hanging on every word you say. it is a real treat. we are just getting started. the super committee, as many people know, they have to come up with those cuts on the debt ceiling deal. they have to come up with it by

thanksgiving. how likely do you think it is that they will get their work done? a 50-50 chance? >> i have gone through the debt ceiling negotiations with the speaker twice. i know how hard it is to come up with a balanced package. if it is not a balanced package, you will have a sequester in 2013. the present -- president put 8 $3 trillion package forward. people can say that it is real or not. more entitlement cuts we have seen in a very long time in actual dollars. if that is not going to be acted on and the committee is going to come up with $1.20 trillion, that theyeemthe middle

should come up with. bold,y can't do something that would be another damnation of the system. that would be unfortunate. they know it. i have talked to almost all of them. they are sincere, but they are finding out how difficult it is. to build a coalition to get 7-5 or 8-4. i do not think it is one member of the republican party jumps over, but one democrat jumps over to the republicans. there has got to be a broader consensus. our analogy is, let's all hold hands and jump off the edge. at least your holding hands with

somebody when you hit the floor. >> i do want to ask you about al qaeda following the killing on friday. back in july, the secretary of defense said that the strategic defeat of al qaeda is within reach. how close are we to that goal? you were there for bin laden. >> i think the friday action was a very substantial and has a very substantial impact on al qaeda and those that wanted to do harm to the homeland. there are lots of people around the world who are terrorists. close to strategic defeat? >> we are very close. this is not the sort of organization that we will be vigilant as long as we are all

alive. they can rear their heads in parts of the world in ways that we historically have not been used to. the aggressiveness over the last three years by this president that lots of people when he ran, many people said that he is a community activist. what does he know about complex foreign-policy and military issues? this president has proved, without using techniques that made america less popular in the world in a way that has been aggressive far beyond any administration that has had this office in recent times. >> liz cheney is sitting over there. she will have a moment to respond. 2012, which republican are you worried about running against?

>> chrissy. is he not in? >> what do you think of mitt romney? >> i have never met him. whoever the republican party nominates will be a formidable candidate because the nation is very divided. we are in a very difficult time. people are nervous about the future. we have seen an enormous swings. we have seen them all over. this is a difficult time for america. if you are in any incumbency, if you are a ceo of a company or an anchor at a network, you have to worry about your job every day. it is going to be a tough, close

election. that is how we approach it. that is how the president approaches it. bring it on. >> you played golf, president obama played with president clinton. you were part of that foursome. who won? >> i do not know. you do not keep score when you play with bill clinton. they played pretty well. it was a fun day. president clinton look great. -- looked great. that was as much time as they had spent together. all of us hacked around the

course for four hours. >> how many mulligans were there? >> i do not play for money. if somebody wants to say they shot a 40, they shot a 40. >> thank you for coming. what has been your best and worst day so far? not in your whole life. i think just in the white house. you could do your whole life. he sue best day was te nday of osama bin laden. i may have been the only non national security person in the white house that knew about this. it was mentioned --

>> you can do it. >> it was mentioned, this compound. that sunday, seeing the thing progress over the months and the dedication and focus of the military agencies and the way they work together to pull that off, there were people that work together in that room that had been working 10 years to find the fella. that would probably have been the best day in the nine months i have been there. the worst day was when we thought we were so close on a deal that would have made an impact on our country. then it fell apart on the debt

ceiling. >> we only have a minute left. one of the questions it wanted to ask, how do women get along in the white house? how is it in the white house? >> i am not a woman. i have not sensed any problem. speaking to both valerie and melanie will be there later on and can answer that. we have a great relationship in the senior staff and throughout the administration. the president through his campaigns and through the issues he has fought for, he has obviously fought and then on the edge on women's issues.

i did not even read the book. i did hear that there were some issues under the predecessor. >> you phone him tomorrow morning. >> he will phone me. >> thanks to the present chief of staff for being here. >> fine books for your fall reading list on "book tv." james garfield is near death. he was wounded two months earlier by a gunman. the aclu claims the patriot act and other terrorism laws for damaging the lives and liberties of american citizens. she is interviewed by the former bush attorney-general.

also, a concentration camp survivor with a message to america's youth. freedom is worth fighting for. during deliberations, the only people allowed inside the supreme court's east conference room are the judges. who gets the door? >> i was paying very close attention to the discussion. i fail to hear the knock on the door. bill rehnquist on my right and the other got up and answered the door. it made me feel about two feet high. it is one of the most important jobs of the junior justice, that you are a doormen. john paul stevens on the the "5

chiefs." >> president obama held a news conference at the white house to challenge congress to pass the jobs plan. he would support a new proposal by democrats to tax millionaires to pay for his jobs plan. >> good morning, everybody. i will take your questions in a second. i want to say a few words about the economy. next week, the senate will vote on the american jobs act. by now, i have made my view is well known. some of you are keeping a tally about how many times i have talked about the american jobs act. the reason i keep going around the country talking about this

is because people really need help right now. our economy needs a jolt right now. this is not a game. this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. the problems that europe is having could have an impact on our economy at a time when it is fragile. there could be another downturn if the situation in europe gets worse. it will boost economic growth and put people to work. this is not just my belief. this is what independent economists have said. not just politicians. independent experts that do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect on our economy and on middle-class families all across america. what these independents have also said that if we do not act, the opposite will be true. there will be fewer jobs.

there will be weaker growth. as we look towards next week, any senator that is thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, they need to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and businesses. congressional republicans say that one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. then they should love this plan. the jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you are a small business owners that hire somebody or raises wages, you would get a tax cut. right now, there is a small business that does high-tech manufacturing. they have been expanding for the last two years. they have been thinking about hiring more.

hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. it has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their jobs. i had a chance to meet a young man named robert. he is an english teacher in boston. he came to the white house a few weeks ago. he has two decades of teaching experience, he has a master's degree, he has an outstanding track record of having his students make huge gains in reading and writing. in the last year, he has received three pink slips because of budget cuts. why would we not want to pass a bill that would put somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids. some of you talked about a

bridge in kentucky that has been classified as obsolete. that is a fancy way of saying it is old and breaking down. we have heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart. that is true all over the country. in maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were falling off the other day. we have millions of construction workers that could be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. this gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding america. why would you vote against that? the proposals in this bill are not just random investments. they are steps that we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts. we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs to

restore a sense of security to middle-class families. to do that, we must have the most educated workers. we have to support innovative small businesses. we have to support innovative manufacturers. what is true is that we also have to rein in our deficits and the within our means. that is why this jobs bill is fully paid for. i asked the millionaires and billionaires to pay their share. some see this as class warfare. i see a step -- see this as a simple choice. we can fight to protect tax cuts for folks that do not need them. or we could cut taxes took from

virtually every small business in america. we have a responsibility for those sending us here. i hope that every senator thinks long and hard about what is at stake next week. with that, i will take your questions. i will start with the associated press. >> i would like to ask you about two economic matters. do you agree that the economic bill is close to a faltering? they said that they want results.

what did not be productive to work with republicans on a plan that you know will pass congress instead of going around the country eighth talking about your bill and calling on republicans by name? >> there is no doubt that the growth of the economy has slowed. the combination of the japanese tsunami, the arabs bring, -- arab spring, as consumers and businesses service. we did not help in washington with the debt ceiling debate that took place. that is unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities in washington. there is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. every independent economist who has look at -- looked at this

question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to boost consumer confidence, put money in their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and it makes sense to put people back to work, doing the work that needs to be done. that is exactly what this job bill does. with respect to working with congress, it is fair to say that i have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril, sometimes with the frustration of democrats, to find common ground with republicans to move this country forward. in every instance, whether it was during the lame-duck session, when we were able to get the agreement, to make sure

that payroll tax was caught and unemployment was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get the grand bargain. in which we have a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that would not hurt our recovery. each time, what we have seen games playing, a preference to try to score political points rather than get something done. that has been true, not just over the last six months, but over the last 2.5 years. our doors are open. what i have done over the last several weeks is take the case to the american people said that they understand what is at stake. it is up to all of these senators and all of the members of the house to explain to their constituencies why they would be

opposed to common sense ideas that have historically been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. why would you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for american workers? my understanding is that for the last decade they have been saying that we need to lower taxes for folks. why would we not want to do that for this jobs bill? historically, republicans have not been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. why would they be opposed now? the biggest problem in terms of unemployment has not been in the private sector. it has bill layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. we have created over 2 million jobs in the private sector.

in the public sector, we keep seeing these layoffs having an adverse affect on economies in states all across the country. why would we not want to make sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids? my expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that have been traditionally supported by democrats and republicans. if it turns out that there are republicans opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me and their constituencies, why they were opposed to what they would do. we know that this jobs bill based on independent analysis could grow the economy almost an additional 2%. additional 2%.