heavy equipment dealers and other businesses across the country. compliance costs would move capital that could otherwise be used to hire additional workers to the government. many of my fellow virginians in the county which i live will be severely impacted. for example, if this law had been in effect in 2000 and 2010 in the counties i live an estimated $15 million would not have reached small businesses that are already operating within small margins of profit. . mr. speaker, this is not the time to be adding additional costs to job creators. my county manager stated that the effect of this law may also be harmful to the economy with a significant amount of money being directed to the federal government instead of to businesses that will potentially use those funds to create jobs and grow their business. by passing another bill,

another jobs bill, house republicans are helping companies cope with this era of uncertainty. this is another bipartisan and commonsense solution to support the small business men and women of our economy so that they can support and begin to regenerate our ailing economy. in this past week, mr. speaker, we passed a long-awaited free trade agreements, the veterans opportunity to work act, and next week we'll help entrepreneurs access capital with the access to capital job creators act. the president says we can't wait. we agree. it's time to get america working again, and we call upon the senate not only to act on this jobs bill but the other 16 that currently sit idly in the senate, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. levin: yes, i yield to the gentleman. mr. crowley: i just want to recognize for the record that the majority leader did not challenge my point, if this bill passes that it will in fact increase taxes on the middle class. i yield back to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> and i'm here to speak on my bill, h.r. 2576, which will save $13 billion by ensuring that medicaid dollars will go to those most in need. mrs. black: it created a new income formula that determines eligibility for government subsidized health insurance. the modified adjusted gross income, or commonly node as modified adjusted gross income, deviated from other federal

assistance programs failing to include social security benefits as income. let me repeat that. the new income formula for medicaid, championship and enchanged subsidies -- chip and eng changed subsidies deviated from other federal assistance programs. supplemental security income, supplemental nutrition assistance programs, also known as food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, and public housing all include, all include the social security benefit as income. congress didn't know that then, but we know now that the affordable care act had the unintended consequence of allowing a couple with close to $60,000 in income to qualify to receive medicaid benefits. let me put it in more stark terms. changing the income formula could result in individuals whose incomes are up to 400% of the federal poverty level

receiving medicaid. this is unacceptable, and i very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce medicaid resources are there for the most in need. it is incorrect to assert that this legislation unfairly targets widows, survivors or the disabled. this is the equivalent of asserting that the public housing or the snap unfairly target widows, survivors or disabled simply because when accounting for resources these programs consider the source of income. the health care laws daveiation from the typical -- daveation from the typical method -- deviation from the typical method of those who don't meet the standard of low income. a couple who both earns social security benefits and have a total income of $22,000 a year

would have a higher income than a couple earning $58,000 a year for the purpose of determining eligibility for federal subsidies in the exchange. i am not the only one who thinks so. at the july 14 budget committee hearing, i asked richard foster, the c.m.s. chief actuary, about the income eligibility issue and he said, and i quote, i don't generally comment on the pros and cons of policy but that just doesn't make sense. end quote. foster had previously compared the magi glitch to allowing middle class income americans to qualify for food stamps. additionally, richard sorian, who is the h.h.s. assistant secretary for public ahairs, conceded that, i quote, as a matter of law, some middle income americans may be receiving coverage through medicaid which is meant to

serve only the neediest americans, closed quote. so primarily my bill is about fairness. we must accurately account for poverty in federal assistance programs. my commonsense, bipartisan solution has a companion bill in the senate sponsored by health committee ranking member mike enzi, and h.r. 2576 passed out of ways and means with bipartisan support. as has already been supported, president obama recognized the problem on page 41 which he explicitly opposes the entire amount of medicare benefits being included in the definition of income. mr. speaker, we must bring medicaid back into line with other federal assistance programs and limit improper payments to those who should not receive medicare benefits.

thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: i thank you, mr. speaker. will the gentlelady yield? will she answer questions? mrs. black: under your time. mr. crowley: you suggested this change in magi as it pertains to tax credits that are eligible to the middle class under the affordable care act, is that correct? mrs. black: that is correct. mr. crowley: are you going to make the same suggestion that we change the adjusted gross income for eligibility for the purposes of i.r.a. contributions? mrs. black: sir, we're talking about social benefits. mr. crowley: we're talking about tax credits for health care, you don't want to make

certain individuals eligible for those tax credits, is that correct? your attempt here is to not make certain people who under the affordable care act today would be eligible for certain tax credits uneligible, is that correct? mrs. black: as the bill proposes, this would put into alignment with other federal assistance programs. that is the intent of the bill. mr. crowley: you can answer your way but it's a simple question. would your bill, if passed today, deny people who under the affordable care act today that can receive tax credits, would they be denied those tax credits if your bill would to have passed? mrs. black: i have answered your question. mr. crowley: would you then suggest that we now do that for other areas of the code, not pertaining to the lower class or the poor in this country? i'm not suggesting we do that. i'm talking specifically of the

middle class, should we extend that logic or maybe enhance your bill to include i.r.a. contributions, student a lot interest and adoption tax credits which are focused on the middle class. -- the middle class? we are not talking about the poor. we are talking about individuals who are struggling to survive right now in this economy, struggling to put food on the table, pay for their student loans or their children's student loans, put away money for retirement and maybe have the opportunity for the first time in their lives to afford health insurance. and under your bill, you would take those credits away. are you suggesting that we take them away? it's a slippery slope. you start here. let's look at the tax code. we'll change major portions then. what about the i.r.a. contributions that that person would be making?

what about the student a lot interest, the adoption tax credits, should we also limit their ability to take advantage of those provisions in the law? the silence is deafening. i take back -- i will -- we take my time, mr. speaker. the silence is deafening because the reality is, mr. speaker, this is a slippery slope. you take away opportunities for the middle class to afford health insurance under the affordable care act by windling away at it. it's -- windling away at it. it's the middle class who are hurt here. we are not talking about the poor. we are not talking about the least amongst us. we are talking about the middle class which under the affordable care act would be able to afford insurance for the first time, and this legislation, this legislation, i can't even say as well-intentioned as it may be, it is not well-intentioned. this is not about this bill that is well-intentioned. it is simply to take away a

provision that this congress and our president made available for the first time in people's lives, they want to take it away from the middle class. let's put everything else aside. that's what we're doing today. and i'm suggesting that maybe this is the first step, that maybe the next step will be limiting the ability of individuals to put away money for retirement in their i.r.a. limiting the availability of students -- the parents to pay for a college education and lastly and probably most egregious the adoption tax credits, taking them away. i mean, that's where this is going. i thank my colleague from michigan, once again, for yielding me the time and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time is reserved. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr.

speaker, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: it is difficult to recognize the argument on this when we have bipartisan support. once again, i want to read the statement of administrative policy that came out on october 25 from the executive office of the president and it reads -- the administration supports passage of h.r. 2576 which would change the calculation of modified adjusted gross income as defined in section 1401 of the affordable care act to include both taxable and nontaxable social security. beginning in 2014, this income definition will be used to determine financial eligibility for medicaid and state children's health insurance program and for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through the affordable insurance exchange. the administration looks forward to working with the house to ensure the bill achieves the intended results. i think that speaks for itself.

i yield back the balance of -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: does the majority have additional speakers? so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has reserved. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. herger -- excuse me -- the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: i applaud my good friend from tennessee for her leadership. this should not be a difficult question. even the president supports this. i believe the medicaid expansion and premium subsidies in last year's health care overhaul are wasteful and should be repealed, but even for those who support these policies, there's no reason to

ignore an entire category of income. under current law, a person with $30,000 in social security benefits and $20,000 in other income would get a much larger health insurance subsidy than a person who earns $50,000 in wages. that makes no sense, and it's a disincentive to work. let's treat everyone fairly and vote for this bill. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, his time is reserved. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield as much time that he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank congresswoman black for her leadership on this very commonsense issue, so

common sense the time where it seems like democrats and republicans and the president in washington rarely agree on anything, we agree on this, on closing this loophole in the president's health care plan that really should never have been there in the first place. we got good news last week when the president rescinded another big flaw in the president's health care plan when he gave up on the class act. it was a plan for nursing home care and later care for elderly that was financed in a way that even senate democrats labeled it a ponzi scheme. thankfully that's been repealed. today we're here to repeal another loophole and really nonsincecal part of the president's health care plan that would allow couples who make more than the national average in income, $64,000 a year, today under the law they can qualify for medicaid. that's a program for the very poor in america. that's a program we don't have enough money for as it is, and

at a time when 25 million people are out of work, can't find a full-time job, those hard-earned tax dollars should go to those who can't afford anything rather than those who make more than $5,000 a month to make ends meet. it seems to me that a couple making four times the poverty level shouldn't drawdown the dollars you and i pay to help those needy in america, which is growing every day. i say to the gentleman from new york, who is passionate about this issue, and i appreciate his passion, but this isn't about young kids paying off college student loans, this isn't about a couple struggling to make ends meet. this is about making sure couples making as much as $64,000 a year don't use the money that we reserve for our poorest in america. .

i appreciate mr. crowley's effort on this. this is not about taxes millionaires and billionaires. let me yield, i'm sorry, let me yield for a moment. mr. crowley: i appreciate and in friendship. the gentleman's a fair member on the other side of the aisle. we work well together on other issues. you make a point about $64,000 a year as being -- i won't say wealthy, but you are suggesting that maybe on $64,000 a year that people living a little bit on the high life -- will the gentleman continue to yield? >> maybe we could continue this conversation off the floor. mr. crowley: in my district in queens new york, in the bronx, $64,000 don't get you far. it just doesn't. >> well, those who are making $20,000 a year, it goes even less far. it seems to me -- mr. brady: we

have had great discussions about this. but again, medicaid, for those -- should for those who are very poor. this loophole's being closed. thankfully the president agrees with us. the senate democrats and republicans join with us to close this loophole. that has to tell you that this is a loophole that republicans and democrats, the white house, all agree needs to be closed. and again i thank congresswoman black for her leadership on this commonsense issue. i urge support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: is the majority ready to close? mrs. black: we are ready to close. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from new york and then i'll close and then you'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from michigan once again. it's been said on the floor once again, this bill has bipartisan support. i don't doubt that it probably will at the end of the day. but somehow that's the magic

formula for doing the right thing. i would suggest there are many things that were done on this floor that enjoy bipartisan support. the iraq war unfortunately had bipartisan support. i was one of those who supported it. i think maybe today would suggest maybe that wasn't the right thing to do. just as an example. the point i was making with the gentleman, my friend from texas, on the floor, about this magic number of $63,000 or $64,000 as being a wonderful income. not if you live in queens or the bronx. you are barely making it. i'm not talking about people who are destitute. i'm not talking about people who are suffering. we know they exist. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do away with the medicaid system. many of my colleagues would like to do away with the medicare system. i'm not suggesting you are talking about this in the bill. what i am suggesting, though, is that you think that people making $63,000 or $64,000 are

living high on the hog. they're not. not in my district they're not. and they can barely afford their homes. they can barely afford to send their children to school. they can barely afford to put food on the table and many of them cannot even afford ownership of a health insurance policy to take care of their children. let alone themselves. and that's what i'm talking about. giving people that opportunity. i don't care if the president is going to sign this bill. it doesn't make it right. it doesn't make it right. we should not be degrading. we should not be degrading hardworking americans, middle class americans, who are trying to do the best for their families. this bill never should have gotten out of committee and it shouldn't be on the floor in the matter that it is. with that i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: so we are ready to

close? i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is that? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 14 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i won't use that. first of all i'm glad the majority leader came to the floor to talk about jobs. this set of bills is not a jobs bill. to call it that is a pure smokescreen. i quoted mark zandi before. i don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. it's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up. that's the 3%. he's called upon the senate to act. to act on bills that would essentially allow mercury to continue to be accessible. and other bills that are called

a jobs bill, deregulation where it's necessary to regulate is a jobs bill? and he called again on the senate to act. we haven't had a single hearing here in the house on the president's jobs bill. not a single hearing. he has proposed to cut the payroll tax cut in half for 98% of the businesses. a complete payroll tax holiday for workers. extending 100% expensing. not a single hearing on that. preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs. not a single hearing on that. don't call on the senate. the majority leader should call on the house himself and the committees to hold hearings on these bills.

the infrastructure bill, a bipartisan national infrastructure bank, nothing a single hearing. then unemployment insurance he ended this year. the next month a million people will lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act and extend the federal program. and a million and a half by mid february. so i call upon the house to act. $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed. not a single hearing. no action. i suggest to the majority they not look to the other body but look to themselves. i'm glad he came here. now, i want to say just a word about the bill right before us.

mr. crowley has suggested that we look at the facts and i think we should. before we vote i think all of us want to know what we are voting on. and essentially this revision of the adjusted gross income provision in terms of potential impact on health care according to the joint tax committee and the c.b.o., will likely have this effect. i want everybody to understand it. between 500,000 and a million individuals will no longer be eligible for medicaid. that's their estimate. there are those who no longer eligible for medicaid. about 500,000 will be eligible

for tax credits unless the republicans ever succeeded in eliminating them. but of that additional number between 500,000 and a million, about 500,000 people as a result if this bill becomes law will likely lose their health coverage all together unless they had available to them insurance through their employer. that's the estimate of the joint tax committee. we are talking about vulnerable populations here. we are talking about early retirees. and we are talking about the disabled. and we need to understand those facts as presented by the joint

tax committee and by c.b.o. the second problem here is that essentially we are using a provision relating to health to address a problem and it is a problem for the government and the business community in the 3% provision which we should repeal. but we should understand the implications. the ways and means committee has traditionally said, don't do it that way. and let's also remember that we are going to have before us a provision relating to physician reimbursement and we are going to have to find the funds to pay for it. and essentially what would be done now is to use up a provision that impacts health and lose the possibility of using it in terms of physician reimbursement. and the last point i want to

make is, we tried to present an alternative, an alternative within business taxation, it relates to the taxation on oil and the gas industry. mr. blumenauer earlier talked about things that were kind of done in the dark of night. and this provision, the %, if it wasn't the dark of night, it wasn't fully in the daylight. but the oil and gas provision in section 199 was added, indeed, in the dark of night. and it provided some relief to the oil and gas industry in a bill that related to manufacturing. when oil and gas did not fall within that purview. and it was essentially put in in the dark of night, and it would

be much preferable to address that issue and pay for the bill that needs to pass rather than essentially starting on a path that mr. crowley has described, and according to c.b.o. and the joint tax committee, is likely to lead to a half a million people having no health coverage at all. everybody should understand that price. and everybody can make up their own mind. but they should understand what's involved here. this is not a technical change. it isn't a glitch. it is a tax definition, by the way, as mr. crowley has pointed out, also applies to other areas where i think we need to be very careful in terms of its application.

so those are the facts. and everybody can make up their own mind. but let's not pretend this is a jobs bill when the majority here essentially had a deaf ear to bringing up the jobs bill presented by the president. and let us not pretend that this will have no impact on health insurance and health coverage for lots of people who are the early retirees and the disabled. the early retirees and the disabled. these by and large are not wealthy people. and there are examples given that are true in the extreme. but for the mainstream in this country, the early retirees and the disabled, they are not on

the fringes in terms of income, in terms of wealth. these are the facts and i hope everybody as they come to vote on this bill, this second bill, will look at the facts and make up their own mind. . i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: can i ask how much time i have left? thank you, mr. speaker. i also ask -- request unanimous consent to include the statement of administrative policy in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. this bipartisan solution would bring medicaid back into line with other federal assistance programs and ensure that the program is there for those in most need. furthermore, according to the c.b.o. and the joint tax committee estimates, this bill

would save taxpayers approximately $13 billion over 10 years and considering our $14 trillion in national debt, closing this loophole as soon as possible is a good policy on a number of levels. i am delighted that both the president and other members across the aisle support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. pursuant to house resolution 448, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain health care-related programs. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. levin: i ask for 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 is 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 262. the nays are 157. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 674 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 169. h.r. 674. a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal

the imposition of 3% withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. would all members please take their conversations from the floor. clear the aisles.

the house will come to order. the house will come to order. will members take their conversations from the floor. clearly the aisles. -- clear the aisles.

the speaker pro tempore: once again, will members please take their conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? dreesdrees -- mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. andrews: yes, i am, in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. andrews of new jersey moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 674, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for the with with the following amendment, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, denial of relief to companies found delinquent in paying their federal taxes, a, in general. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the motion be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion.

without objection, so ordered. the house will come to order. let the house be in order. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this ends yet another week for the house of representatives without consideration of a meaningful jobs bill. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. mr. andrews: more meaningfully, though, this concludes another week where a nightmare is about to come true for our constituents. this is another week without a paycheck for a lot of americans , it might be the week that

their unemployment benefits expire, this might be the day that someone shuts down their small business and closes the doors for the last time. this might be the week that the foreclosure notice is executed and someone loses their home. this has been a bad week for a lot of americans. it's been a bad time for a lot of americans. but what they have lost is not simply their job, not simply their business, not simply their health insurance or their pension. many of our neighbors have lost their basic faith that america's fair. mr. speaker, 50%, 50% of the american people recently surveyed said the american dream was either dead or on life support. they see in the halls of big

institutions, they see on wall street and they see on the halls of congress a basic sense that america's not fair anymore. that the basic deal that if you work as hard as you can, give as much as you can and do as much as you can, that you can go as far as your abilities will take you, too many of our constituents no longer believe that. my motion makes what i believe is an improvement to a good bill. i'm going to support this bill that says that no small business person should have to make an interest-free loan to the federal government to do business with the government. i think that's exactly right. but here's the improvement it makes. it recognizes that some who would take advantage of that provision are taking advantage of our tax system and not paying their fair share.

when i say not paying their fair share, i'm not talking about a policy arguing about tax rates, i'm talking about someone who is drink went on their taxes and -- delinquent on their taxes and cheating the rest of us. so when someone looks at their pay nfl this afternoon and looks -- envelope this afternoon and looks what's taken out, they're paying their fair share. some like it, many do not. but they're paying their fair share. why should it be that someone who's not paying their fair share to support this country should take advantage of this very good bill? i say they shouldn't. so my improvement to this bill is very simple. if you run a barber shop or a software company or a manufacturing plant, you no longer have to make an interest-free loan to the government to do business with the government. i agree with that. and i salute the authors of the bill. but if you are delinquent on your taxes, if you haven't paid

your fair share, if you're cheating the rest of the community, then you may not take advantage of this opportunity. this amendment is not just about improving the revenue flow of the federal government. it's about making the country a little more fair again. it's about saying that those who follow the rules are small businesses, are middle class citizens, those who follow the rules can take advantage of the law. but those who do not follow the rules may not take advantage of the law. i think the american people want to see that in big hospitals and insurance companies, i think they want to see that on wall street and i think they want to see it right here on the floor of this chamber. so let's cast a vote today not just for an improvement to this bill but let's make america a little more fair. let's make the american dream a

little more alive. let's stand for the proposition that those who play by the rules benefit from the rules but those who break the rules do not. the question raised, colleagues, by this amendment is this, where do you stand? do you stand with small businesses and middle class people who follow the rules? or do you follow -- fall with those who would vie late the rules and pillage the american system? the american people have had enough of this. we need to do far more than this to restore fairness to our country, but this is a good start. i would urge a yes vote on this motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. the underlying bill that we're talking about here today which repeals the 3% across the board d -- across-the-board rule is co-sponsored by 2/3 of this house. mr. camp: this bill has been endorsed by the president of the united states, as is. and when the current minority was in the majority and the stimulus bill, they offered this exact legislation, full repeal without any complications. and then when the final version came over, it was full repeal for one year without any changes or complications. i obviously am in strong opposition to this motion to recommit. then we get the analysis from the joint committee on taxation which says in typical understatement from the joint committee, your proposal poses some administrative difficulties. some? the burden is going to be on

state and local governments to figure out which contractors are or are not delinquent. and either there's a violation of taxpayer privacy, which i don't think anybody in this house would support, a violation of rule 6103, or very complex procedures are going to have to be put in place for government to figure out which contractors are in compliance and which aren't. as the joint committee on taxation says, goes on to say, the i.r.s. would need to build the infrastructure to handle the volume of requests from state and local government entities, implement -- implementation difficulties limb somewhat the revenue gain -- limit somewhat the revenue. this is more complication in the tax code, it goes against what a majority of this house wants to do, it goes against what the president of the united states wants to do. vote no on this motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is 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 expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 183. nays, 235. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the bill --

passage of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say nay. mr. levin: i ask for 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. [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 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405, the nays, 16. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: mr. speaker, i have sad news for the house today. i rise to inform the house that we lost a former member of this great institution. he was our friend who served in this body for 14 careers and was particularly known for his concern for the poor, unfortunate and his concern about peace in the world. he was a true patriot, a devoted teacher and a fine statesman. he was a dear friend of mine and many others with whom he

served. he shared his -- he shared our collective love for this great nation and for our state of michigan. he had enormous impact upon public policy in michigan and our country. across the world, which was a positive one. he contributed most of his life to bringing civility to government relation and to making this world a better place. a passion that i was able to witness during his long and distinguished service here. he served michigan ably and honorably and went on to serve the presidential special envoy to africa's great lakes region. where he initiated peace talks and helped end civil wars in the democratic republic of the congo. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 1:00 p.m. on monday next.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to honor the life of roy rude who passed away on october 8. mr. rooney: roy was a long time resident and founding father of my hometown. he was born in 1918 on a farm in jew pitter, florida, one of 11 children. he spent his earl years on the family dairy farm where he learned the value of a hard day's work and love for working outside. the post office was located on his family's property and was placed on maps of that area as a settlement called rude. following the attack on pearl harbor roy joined the navy where he served with honor in world war ii as an aviation mechanic that was part of the fleet that participated in the battle of guam. following the war, roy returned

home to florida where he started a landscaping business that continues today. over the past 60 years, roy rude helped found the american legion post 271, the local kiwanis club, the first bank of jupiter, and the jupiter christian school. we are lucky to call roy as our founding father. he will be missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. tonight's going to be the 6th game of the world series. and sports means money and business and jobs. st. louis economy has been spurred on by the world series where they are able to give their employees pay increases or not cut employees because they have had increased sales tax. the same way with college sports. i want to encourage all the big east presidents to consider the university of memphis for membership. memphis is a major city, home of

federal express and international paper, and other major companies. we don't have a professional football team in memphis. if we get in the big east in essence you are our professional football team and the city would rally around it unlike dallas and houston where they have professional teams. the big east is known for basketball. and rick pitino, the coach, should be in the conference to keep the big east as a primary basketball conference. what a great thing to see memphis and louisville again in a conference game. we ought to be beyond just dollars although memphis can bring them, but also competitive rivalries that make sport what it has been in the american appetites. i encourage the big east to include the university of memphis in its expansion plans. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it is a great

privilege to rise in commendation of sergeant robert b. coudry who served our country with great honor and pride. he gave his life for our country on october 13. while attempting a helicopter rescue of his fellow soldiers under fire. he was raised in colorado. he graduated from high school in 1990. he was a devoted outdoorsman and familyman who enjoyed hunting. he enlisted in the army in 2003 serving his third tour of duty in afghanistan at the time of his death. mr. tipton: his duties included flying into active combat zones to provide medical assistance rescue troops under fire. he was highly decorated for his service, earning the bronze star and two army commendations for valor. mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to him, a selfless

american hero whose brave sacrifice for our country is an example of what makes this country great. my thoughts and prayers are with his wife, jill, and their three sons, justin, jacob, and nathan, and the entire family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am delighted to rise to indicate that we have an opportunity to be good americans and to be the kind of resilient, strong, patriotic nation that all of us love. we love this country. and i gathered this morning with a group of leaders who addressed the question of working issues, union leaders, every last one of them said, let us create jobs. jobs in america. part of it could be passing the jobs bill that the president's

introduced dealing with the question of infrastructure. one member who was coming to the meeting said i was late because of our infrastructure problems. this would create jobs. bring back our law enforcement, police officers, and teachers where classrooms are going up and up and up in size because we don't have enough teachers. and as you well know the president announced we'll bring home our valiant troops from iraq. 150,000 of these young people that will need jobs. let's get them in a training program where they have to get a stipend that will help support them. legislation that i have introduced. this last bill that i had to vote against is sad that we would take medicaid to help our small businesses and our vendors. whereas two years ago i voted on it because we used the stimulus funds to do so. there are many pay-fors to help small businesses, but what we need to do is focus on paying and creating -- paying people, americans, so they could eat and put food on their table and we need to create jobs and stop taking money from medicaid, medicare, and social security.

let's all work together, pull together. balance this budget on the basis of the facts that the nation is not broke. we can do this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, not only can we not wait, we can't afford to wait and here in the house we haven't waited. with this week's passage of h.r. 1904, the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act of 2011, and h.r. 674, the repeal of the 3% withholding roll on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, the house chamber now has passed more than 17 job creating bills in the 112th congress. h.r. 1904 will boost the copper resources, generating billions of new revenues and creating new environments for economic growth. much like the costly 499 requirements that we succeeded in repealing earlier this year,

the 3% withholding rule would impose substantial new burdens on cash strapped employers, impeding cash flows, and further undermining job creation. passage of h.r. 674 will not only create jobs, it will relieve federal, state, and local governments of the need to comply with unfunded administrative burdens that the rule would impose. mr. speaker, not only can we not wait, we cannot afford to wait and here in the house we haven't waited. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on october 12, 2011, the house took an important step in addressing the alarming number of unemployed veterans currently living within the united states by passing the met rans opportunity to work act. mr. nugent: this legislation will confront the rising unemployment problems that our veterans in the u.s. are facing. providing veterans of past err

roars with additional training benefits ensuring they go into a program and by strengthening protections under usera for our national guard and reserve troops. as a father of three sons currently serving in the united states army, i have a deep appreciation for the service our men and women in uniform have given to this conadditionally, one of my priorities when i came to washington was to ensure when our troops returned home they have jobs and a strong economy to come to. this legislation is a great first step in fulfilling our responsibilities to all veterans who have sacrificed much on behalf of this nation. with that in mind i was proud to support the passage of the act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 448, h.r. 2576 is laid upon the table.

the chair is prepared to recognize a member of the majority party for one hour. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prepared remarks today but i want to talk about yucca mountain. e heard a lot of talk this week about the presidential candidates and yucca mountain.

america needs to real size that south carolinians is certainly holding all the legacy weapons and material that came out of nonproliferation treaty. plutonium, sitting in my state, in my district, that is slated to go under past agreements to yucca mountain. it's the right place, america needs to bring yucca mountain back on line, and let's take the legacy weapons products out of south carolina and put it in a long-term storage facility. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. for going on a couple months now we have been hearing the president say we need to pass his jobs bill. pass his jobs bill, right away, right now. pass his jobs bill. and it was so ironic to have a president of the united states who says he wants to work with members of congress but members of congress won't work with him. and in his purported effort to work with members of congress he doesn't ask to sit down with congress in a private meeting and talk about these issues. oh, no. that would really show an intent to work with congress. to sit down in a room where we can visit about the issues, that

would be really working with congress. instead, what we have from the president of the united states is a demand. now, i'm not sure historically, mr. speaker, how many times a president of the united states has just decided that just a little ole hisy fit, and i'm going to come talk to congress. well, we know that he was an instructor, he wasn't a professor, but instructor. you can be an instructor in law school if you practice law on the side or community organizer on the side, whatever, they'll let you come teach a course or two, and so anybody who has been involved in law school you would think, even as a low instructor, would know that the constitution makes very clear the president of the united states has no right nor moral authority to

demand to come speak in the house. now, the president would never give credit to the willingness of this congress to vote unanimously to allow the president after his little hissy fit to come speak in the house, but we did. he demanded to come speak to the house. he has to have an invitation to do that. and social circles if somebody demanded to come to someone's house, i demand an invitation to come lecture you in your house, most people would say, forget it. but this house controlled by republican members, majority here republican, democrat majority down in the senate, we voted unanimously, there were no objections to inviting the president to come lecture us rather than sit down and try to

work with us. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. gohmert: i certainly will yield to my friend from texas. mr. barton: i want to thank you for taking this time to speak on this subject. i think it's commendable you would do that and i think you are exactly right and i would encourage you to keep telling the truth as you know it and how proud we are of you and the texas delegation and certainly in east texas where you represent that part of the state so well. keep up the good work. . mr. gohmert: well, that's so unexpected and unnecessary and it actually means a great deal. thank you. well, somebody who's been here shrugging it out longer than i would ever be able to handle, but, mr. barton from texas came as a young man and he's been able to endure the slings and arrows through many, many years of being in the minority and

we're back to dealing with a white house who want, he says, to negotiate, to work with congress and does so by demanding to come talk to congress and comes -- did we have a warm, friendly meeting here as the president stood here on the second level? well, actually, we got lectured. we were lectured that we needed to pass the president's jobs bill right away, right away. 16, 17 times. just got to do it now. during the speech i don't recall the president ever saying, i really don't have a bill. i don't have a bill. and in fact if you want to sit down and work with me, you

won't be able to because in the morning i'm getting on air force one, funded by the taxpayers, and basically hit the campaign trail and i'm going to be beating up on you guys in the house of representatives for not being willing to negotiate with me even though i'm not around and by the way i'm not going to negotiate even if we sat down because you've got to take my bill completely, pass the whole thing, not going to compromise on anything. that was the message for a number of weeks. take it, pass it as it is. never mind the fact that he didn't have a bill when he hit the road and was condemning congress for not passing his bill. that's just strange. you would think if somebody really wants to work with congress, really wants to do something for the people of america that are hurting, i've

had four job fares in east texas -- fairs in east texas and i've gone to each one and it breaks your heart. there are people in their 50's and 60's with --, a -- 60's, a lot of young people, but older people, tremendous experience, tremendous education and training, been laid off because of the bad economy and it's heartbreaking even more so because this congress and this president have to take responsibility for continuing to put more and more laws, regulations, burdens on business that keep them from being able to retain jobs, keep them from being able to expand and create more jobs. and when you hear from people who have lost their job and

they're not only brokenhearted but they're upset, because then they find out that this administration has done things like throw $600 million at solyndra, has spent millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars to create jobs, one giveaway program, seems like i read, we spent $8 million per job that was created. different amounts resulted in different number of jobs, but one of the things i've seen in talking to people in texas who are involved in the education system is that when the president's so-called stimulus bill in january of 2009 was passed, and it was done, rammed

through like the obamacare bill was, it didn't have -- didn't see the full support of america, but it had a majority in the house, it had a majority in the senate and so it passed. and i like to think i'm objective enough that i certainly acknowledge it didn't start in january of 2009 with president obama. a good man, a smart man, he's not given credit for that, made a mainly mistake when president bush trusted hank paulson. paulson says, we're about to have a catastrophe, give me $700 billion and i'll keep things on track, get things back on track. we don't give $700 billion to one man and say, go fix things. you don't do that in america. that's not what the country was founded for. but it was done.

and as i understand it, about $250 billion of the $700 billion is around the amount that hank paulson squandered of the so-called stimulus or the bailout, tarp, whatever you want to call it. and ironically if one wishes to look at things from a political standpoint, it was pretty amazing because a republican administration provided $700 billion to mainly bail out people on wall street who had donated to democrats 4-1 over republicans. so what's so amazing is to hear people talk about these rotten republicans on wall street when the fact is that they give to democrats 4-1 over republicans.

so, not only was it absolutely in my mind an immoral thing to do, to take people's hard-earned money and add it to money we borrowed from china and others to bail people out on wall street, that's not the america that was founded that so much blood and treasure has been spent to establish. wall street executives, i got no problem, as long as they're playing by the rules, they're not cheating people, if they make $100 million a year. i have no problem as long as they're playing fairly. but when they get greedy and end up being broke i do think it's appropriate for them to do what americans are supposed to do and what is set out in the constitution to do, called

bankruptcy. and a.i.g., sounds like they were making money in every department except the credit default swaps, well, gee, that's what happen when is you sell what is in effect insurance against a catastrophic event which would be the failure of the mortgage-backed securities, to have the value that was paid for them, you insure against that, you take what amount to premiums, you put no money in reserve to ensure against the event you took money to insure against, and then are shocked someday when people want to make a claim you understand that insurance and you've done nothing but take profit, what a great business that was. selling insurance to insure against mortgage-backed securities, not have the value paid for them, and not having to set aside a dime of that in a reserve account so that if

somebody ever makes a claim you got to pay it back. now there had to be a fun business. but, again, it was immoral, it was irresponsible and they should have been under the rules of insurance. if you're going to sell insurance, you've got to insure against the event you took money to pay off for. if that ever happens. it didn't happen so a.i.g. should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. if they had enough assets and thought they might, they were certainly making a lot of money, they had enough assets, they could reorganize the creditors to agree -- reorganize, get creditors to agree, and come up with plan for reorganization. the law is very clear. at least it used to before the auto bailout. but that's what should have happened. goldman sachs, even though those were the dear close friends of hank paulson, the

worst secretary of the treasury this country has ever had until we got tim geithner. but now it's a close call. i'm not sure who's worse. but he bailed out his buddies at goldman sachs, they should have been allowed to go through reorganization if they could and if not then liquidation and bankruptcy. that is what the constitution provides for. and it should have been allowed to happen. and i realize if that had happened then those massive donations that the democratic party and president obama normally are -- that he got from wall street wouldn't have come through for him. i real as i into -- i realize that. but this is more than about political parties, more than about political donations, it's about the life and the existence of this country.

nobody should be too big to fail. if you can get big enough that the failure of your company or your bank hurts a lot of people , then it's going to hurt a lot of people. but that is the problem when the government becomes a player. we start becoming the lending institution, we start becoming the player in insurance, where we're going to be selling the insurance, like we do with flood insurance. we're going to be guaranteeing all the home loans, where people have to be in the good glance graces of the government if they're going to be able to get what they want because the federal government becomes the player, selling the insurance like flood insurance, selling -- or backing home mortgages. and then you have a catastrophe like we witnessed for the last three years, it didn't have to

happen, but it is what happens when a country moves toward being more socialistic, where the government runs everything. the g.r.e. government running everything. and that's what obamacare was about, the g.r.e. that's what the president's stimulus bill in january of 2009 was about. we were told it was $800 billion. turned out it may be more like $1 trillion. it's about the g.r.e. the government running everything. we heard with the president's stimulus bill in 2009, january, that if we did not pass the president's stimulus bill, the president told us, he made very clear, if you don't pass this bill, i'm warning you, unemployment could go as high as 8.5%. well, 2 1/2 years later that $8.5% looks pretty dog-gone

good. that would have been nice. but it got up to 10% and we're back at 9.1% for months now. the numbers are bad, but what is worse is all those people that cannot find jobs and the biggest reason is because we have a government that thinks it is the answer, when it's the problem. it's not the answer. when the government becomes the player and tries to be the player and referee it doesn't work. when the government is so busy being a player as well as referee, he can't do its referee job very well and so you have people like may daff who get away -- madoff who get away for years with bill ing people out of -- bilking people out of billions of dollars, life savings.

should never have happened. if the federal government were more interested in being the referee, making sure people play fair, madoff couldn't have gotten away with it for that long. when the government wants to run health care as we do with medicare, medicaid, it becomes the problem, not the solution. and now we have seniors who are scared to death because they see what's happening. the president passes -- gets his bill, the obamacare health bill passed, and it has provision for $500 billion to be cut from medicare. and then aarp, after supporting that bill that cut $500 billion from medicare, has the unmitigated gal to encourage --

gall tone courage people who are sending aarp money to notify their congressmen that we don't want any cuts to medicare. well, i've gotten those petitions. and my response is, that if you're part of aarp and you don't want cuts to medicare, then i am so glad you're now off the aarp team and you now support what i do. because aarp sold to seniors down the road, why would they do that? well, let's look. gee, they made, i believe it was in 2008, one big health insurance company made around $92 million clear profit. another $112 million or so profit. and then you have aarp that made over $400 million in clear profit from the sale of their

supplemental insurance. i had a proposal that would give seniors the choice, you can stay on medicare or give us the choice to buy private insurance that covers everything, you won't need any supplemental insurance, it will cover everything but it will have a high at the ductible, $3,500 was the proposal, but i'm not married to that. if there is another figure that would end up being better from an accounting standpoint, long run, could do that, but the proposal is $3,500. and then for that we will put the $3,500 cash in the senior's health care account for each of those 30 million or so homes that have people on medicare, medicaid, so then you have a debit code -- card coded to only pay for health care and the senior for the first time since the 1960's will finally be in control of their own health care, making their own decisions and we get the government out of the way of making decisions.

oh, no. you can't have that medication. oh, no, you can't see that doctor. oh, no, you can't have that treatment. and what we're seeing is the early stages of what ultimately happens when the government controls health care. it's lists and lists mean rationing. as i heard from people that lived in canada and england, one man from canada whose father -- he said he needed a heart bypass operation. they put him on the bypass list and two years later he had not gotten his bypass and so he died. he'd been in the united states -- if he'd been in the united states he probably would be alive today. one in my district talked about her mother having breast cancer but she had to get on the list to get a mammogram, had to get

on a list to get the treatment, get on the list for therapy, get on the list for surgery, all those things that came with it and as a result of all those lists she said, my mother died because she was in england. i was found to have cancer. i had immediate treatment. she's a secretary. she got treatment, she got the surgery and treatment and she says, i'm alive because i was in the united states. my mother died because she was in england. well, unfortunately there are people who love people but think that by the government running health care, which will inevitably lead to rationing of health care, that somehow that's a better thing. our health care system needs work. it needs to be fixed. but the thing we should be

doing is not having the government become the ultimate, the biggest player and referee in health care. we need to get the government out of being the player and get them back into business of being the referee. at the same time we need to get the health insurance companies out of the business of being health managers and back in the business of selling insurance, and you do that if we can move forward health savings accounts, the young people today in their 20's and 30's start putting away money in their own health savings account, let that build, there shouldn't be any limits on how much you can put in but it ought to be a requirement you can never take it out. you can give it to your kids, gift it to charities for a health savings account for those who can't provide it themselves, but once it becomes

a health savings account, cash, that's where it stays until it's spent on health care. leave it to your children when you die, leave it to other charities who have other people who need health care and go in their health savings account because once we do that, kids in their 20's and 30's, indications are by the time they're 65, 70 years old, not only will they not need -- they won't not only want medicare, they won't need it because they'll have enough money in their account they can do whatever they want to, have whatever health care they need. that's not the end-all solution . we don't have free market forces at work in health care. that's why costs keep going up, one of the reasons. another reason is the tremendous advances that have been made in medicine that are now slowing down. the great people who have been attracted to the health care,

brilliant doctors, nurses, people in the health care industry are so smart but we're already seeing the quality of people applying not at the level it once was. and why should it when this government intervenes and prevents people from being compensated properly? but until we get free market forces at work in health care, we're not going to fix health care, and you cannot have competition in health care as long as we have our existing system where nobody knows what anything costs. you ask, what does an m.r.i. cost? well, it all depends, you're told. what does a room with a single bed in your hospital cost? well, it all depends. we can't really say. do you have blue cross, do you have medicaid, medicare, are you paying cash?

it all depends. you can't fix health care when there's no competition. growing up in mount pleasant, texas, there was no secret, we went between two and three different doctors' offices. we loved our doctors. they were great doctors. my mother passed away in 1991 and my dad's still alive but i recall growing up, we'd go to one doctor. i thought we were going to this other doctor. well, they raised their price and they're both great doctors. yeah, i love them both. so we would go when we would raise their price we'd go back to the other doctor. you can't do that now. you don't know what a doctor charges. i've talked to doctors who would love to tell people what they charge but it all depends. whether it's medicare, medicaid, what insurance and then the most unfair cut of all is if you come in and you're too poor to have insurance and

you don't -- you're not eligible for medicare, medicaid , then they're going to sit down with you and work out a payment plan for an amount that is normally many times more than the insurance companies would ever agree to pay. well, that's not right. somebody comes in with cash, they ought to be able to get it cheaper than blue cross or cheaper than other methods of payment. they're coming in with cash. in a good scenario, that's the way it would be. and if everyone was -- had a health savings account that covered the high amount of the deductible of their catastrophic insurance, that's the way it would be because you would call up the doctor, the hospital and say, i need to come in. how much do you charge? under the bill i proposed,

they'd have to tell you. find it online. it would have to be posted. this is how much we charge. and have to know before they come. then you could get competition. you got your debit card coded only to cover health care and so you then care about how much things cost. you can't find a whole lot of people that care how much health care costs any more because they're not paying it. what does it matter if the cost goes up 10 times? and then you got seniors, many of whom are aarp members, they're paying their dues, they got their supplemental insurance and how tragic that aarp didn't mind $500 billion cut to medicare when, gee, let's think about that. if there's a massive cut to medicare and aarp sells

supplemental insurance to cover what medicare doesn't, i wonder if maybe they might think they would sell more insurance. maybe that's why they would support a bill that cuts medicare by $500 billion. the games that have been played around this town really need to stop. we have got this country in trouble, but they are not going to stop with the president spending every day traveling around the country, demonizing congress for not passing his bill, his law when he doesn't even know what's in his bill. i do. i read the whole thing. and i'm told there may not be anybody else in the house or senate that's read every page of the president's bill like i did. well, if the president would read it, he's obviously a smart

enough man, he'd see that a lot of his claims do not have the merit he thinks they do. or whoever's putting those words in his teleprompter thinks they do. on education, the stimulus bill, we're told it's going to create so many jobs, it was going to build bridges, fix bridges and it didn't do those things and so now 2 1/2 years later the president makes the same speeches. that's got to be good for the speech writers because they could go back and take the same speeches that the president gave in january of 2009, need to pass this bill. got to pass this bill right away and it will build these bridges, fix these bridges. it will hire people, teachers, police officers,. this is january, 2009. i don't know if we can't go

back to those speeches and see if they cut some of those speeches and pasted them. hey, it worked. it got congress in january of 2009 to pass the massive stimulus bill, but as i've talked to educators around texas, i've found something that was deeply saddening and a bit maddening. there was some very limited amount of the $1 trillion in the president's stimulus bill, so-called, in january of 2009 that went to hire teachers. i've met young people who were hired as teachers and i'm thrilled when young people are able to get jobs. it's a good thing. but then i've talked to different educators who said it's so tragic, you know, the stimulus money ran out so we had to let teachers go. if you don't keep paying the

stimulus money then we don't get to keep those same teachers. well, that ought to tell us something. the stimulus money was not. the stimulus money was not stimulus. if it had been stimulus it would have stimulated things to the point that those teachers that were hired 2 1/2 years ago would have stimulated enough in the economy that they would be able to keep those jobs. but the stimulus bill in january of 2009 was not. nor was the stimulus bill of january of 2008 under president bush. they did not work. they don't work. that's not the way to stimulate. so then what really breaks my heart is when i find out people my age in their 50's, people in their 40's who had been

teaching for 20, 25, 30 years and because they do and because of the payment structure in education they make a little more, little more as they go along and lo and behold the federal government comes in and says, here's a bunch of stimulus money, not like $1 trillion, but they hire new teachers, young teachers. they work cheaper than the older, experienced, well-trained teachers. so what happens when the stimulus money that didn't stimulate anything runs out? it's rather tragic. people who have families, who committed their lives to education have lost their jobs. i've heard from those people. good teachers. good educators. but when they look at it, geez,

the stimulus allowed us to hire these young, new teachers, these experienced teachers that have a heart for the students, well trained, well educated, they cost a little more. let's let them go. how tragic that this body would pass a bill under speaker pelosi intending to help education and as a result of the misguided attempt to help education we've driven out many of our best, most experienced, most caring teachers. i've talked to young people who have gotten a job. they don't intend to stay teachers all that long. they hope they can find something else. . so, we have people who committed their lives to education, losing their jobs because of a stimulus bill that

wasn't. -- wasn't for young teachers who don't plan to stay teachers, they don't like teaching, they want to do something else. this body needs to get back to the original purpose of the constitution. the focus of the constitution was to have a limited government and that government would be a referee. it would make sure people and businesses in america played fair, it would not guarantee equal results but it would guarantee opportunity, to be fair and equal. and it was a longway from doing that until the wonderful works that were accomplished by the efforts of martin luther king jr. so we were on track, more

equality of opportunity, but now it's as if some people think, no, dr. king wanted equal results. no he didn't. he wanted people judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. we made great, tremendous strides but when a government wants to guarantee equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity it becomes a tyrannical government. it becomes the player and not the referee. the other thing we're supposed to do is provide for the common defense. and that means not checking in our brain before we come to work every day. that means in every executive agency charged with providing

for defense, you don't suddenly declare that the only people who can advise us about that tiny percent of radical islamists, tiny percentage of the overall muslim population, the only ones that can advise us about those radicals are people that really understand that mentality. we want people from the muslim brotherhood who want to take over the country, take over the world, have a united caliphate under shari'a lawer to be the ones to advise us on how we deal -- law to be the ones who advise us on how we deal with radical islam although this administration has now made extremely clear, attorney general holder has made clear, secretary napolitano has made clear, we really don't want to offend those who want to kill us and destroy our way of life

by referring to them as radical islamists. let's call them violent extremists. but when you look at what they've said and you look at what they've done and want to do, it's because of their sick beliefs in what being a muslim means. and an even further tragedy is the fact that we have allowed people with organizations who have supported terrorism to be advisors to this administration , to this justice department, to this intelligence community, to this department of state. we've got fox's -- foxes in the hen house.

we don't need to pass the president's so-called jobs bill . this will do more to drive up the cost of oil and gas because this president doesn't understand that the four pages of deductions that he repeals in here will put independent oil and gas producers out of business. he doesn't understand that 94% of the oil and gas wells that are drilled on the land in the continental u.s. are drilled by independent oil and gas producers. he doesn't understand that when you eliminate their ability to raise capital, those wells will no longer be drilled, the major oil companies that the president demonizes and says he's going after will not only not drill all of those wells and produce all the oil and gas , they can produce the exact same amount and make massive

amounts more in profit. so the one thing the president says he wants to do that's page 151 through 154 of his bill has the exact opposite effect. it will increase revenues, profits for major oil companies because it will drive out the independent oil and gas producers. not to mention the millions of jobs that we'll lose by doing that. now, when i came to congress 6 1/2 years ago i was concerned that there was not enough natural gas to continue to produce electricity with it, even though it is the most clean-burning thing that we've got. it would be wonderful, i thought, if you could do that. we just don't have enough. because you've also got to have natural gas as a feed stock that you have to have in order to produce so many of the plastics, so many of the goods

that are now so important to all americans. and to health care. and to transportation. so if you're using natural gas to produce electricity, provide energy, then it's going to drive up those costs. well, then science and necessity being the mother of invention, we hone our ability to horizontally drill. hydraulic fracking allows us to get gas that we couldn't get otherwise. and now depending on who you believe, we have 100, 300 years of natural gas, some of us have been told that possibly the largest deposit of natural gas just may be off the west coast of florida and nobody's allowed to drill there. we find out that the shell up

in the northeast producing jobs for people, unless our friends across the aisle are successful in killing those efforts to drill for that gas, haynesville shale down in louis -- louisiana, east texas where i am, northwest texas, these other gas finds are so extraordinary i now fully support my democratic friend, dan boren's efforts, tone courage people to convert cars to natural gas -- to encourage people to convert cars to natural gas. to encourage manufacturers to produce cars that will run on natural gas. it will be cheaper than gasoline. some people identify greatly with the tea parties. i think they've been demonized when the people i see at those tea parties, all race, all ages

, but they seem to have one thing in common, they're all paying income tax and we're down to about 50% of the country that's doing that. people that come out of the tea parties, that's the one commonality. they pay taxes. they pay income tax. and as a result of that they'd like to see less government. so some have been surprised that i would support something that was not free market totally because i'm a free market kind of guy. but the overriding concern for this body, the oath that we take should be to make sure that we provide for the common defense. we have been sending trillions of dollars overseas when so much of that money finds its way into hands of those who hate us, want to destroy our way of life, they don't think

that people should have freedom to choose, because if you give freedom to choose, they think, their religious beliefs are that you'll slip into degradation and then you'll be part of a nation that needs to be destroyed. well, it happens. when you get people freedom of choice, just as i believe god did to start with, some are going to choose to do wrong. it's going to happen. we're all going to make mistakes, some are going to do so intentionally. that's when you need a government to enforce rules of fair play, to make sure that we provide for the common defense so that people can freely practice peaceful religious beliefs. but we've been sending all that money year after year, growing

more and more dependent on overseas oil. when president carter created this new monstrosity, a couple of them, one called the department of education, another called the department of energy, and every year that the department of energy has existed their goal has been to reduce the dependency on foreign oil and every year they fail at their job more than they did the year before. every year. no matter how many billions, hundreds of billions of dollars they throw at alternative energy rather than letting the free market play, it doesn't -- it's not working. but the reason i would support encouraging people to convert cars to natural gas, i'd like to buy a car from a factory in the united states that runs off natural gas. we do need infrastructure where

you can pull up to a gas station and get natural gas instead of gasoline. but i support it because if we do that i now see we could be 100% energy independent. it would save lives, of our most treasured possessions in this country, the american people. the men and women that go give their lives for their country, when we had funded terrorism, not intentionally, but by paying people who hate our own country for their oil when we could get off of it. and if we get on natural gas for 100 years, there's going to be time to develop, i know some people think it's not possible, i really do think we could eventually come up, somebody will, with a way to hold electricity, some laugh at that

. the late ted kennedy laughed about having a strategic defense shield of rockets. that's "star wars" and lo and behold, it's possible. it's happening. well, until president obama reneged on our agreement with poland that cost so many their political lives in poland who supported the missile defense that would stand between us and iranian missiles. and we turned our backs on them, stabbed them in the back. we're at risk and it's time to quit sending money to countries that hate us. as i've often said, you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll do it for free. you don't have to pay them. and yet we keep sending money to people who hate our guts and it doesn't cause them to like

us, it causes them to not only hate us, but to have total contempt because of how stupid we are, that we know they hate us and we still keep giving them money. bullies on a play ground who demand lunch money from another student don't develop admiration, love and respect for students who give them their lunch money. they still hate them. they still don't think anything of them. that's not the way to deal with bullies. the way to deal with bullies is to make sure that if you have to band together as a government, as an educational administration, and just decide, we're not going to let bullies prevail, then you do that. you can do it in schools, you can do it in the world, by having a government that is strong enough, militarily, but what it says, it can back up.

you don't do that when you make contractual agreements, as we did with mubarak, i'm not a president mubarak fan, i was not a gaddafi fan, but this administration had agreements with both of those people, they turned their backs on them and now it appears we have radical islamists that are taking over in those countries and they will hate us more than gaddafi did. because at least gaddafi was afray of us. and then we had a hearing yesterday in the judiciary committee, secretary napolitano came over. it's not made to mainstream media. they'll probably never touch

us. but it will rock people's lives they see what's going on with this administration. can't use the word radical islam. it might offend people that might want to kill us. when the fact is if we address radical islam we will protect the moderate, the vast majority of muslims who are moderate, who want to live in peace. the radicals take over, they're the first ones -- could be the first ones they go after as well as liberal reporters. they'll take them out. gays, they'll take them out. you would think that people for gay rights would be on the side of those of us who want to go after radical islam. but instead, seems to be strange fellows in combine against those who want to support and defend the constitution of the united states. so do some digging that most

sleepless nights doing research. we find out the homeland security department has people in its midst who are advising it. we find out -- there's an article about it, can be found on the internet -- we find out there was a seminar that was to be given by two of the leading experts on radical islam that was going to be given to law enforcement and care, a named co-conspirator, supporting terrorism, named as a co-conspirator in the holy land foundation trial, that should have been prosecuted but this administration says they're

friends. we're not going after them. care complains to the white house, to this administration and they can sell the briefing. and the word we're reading is that, gee, apparently they're rewriting the rules so that people in our intelligence of this administration, people in homeland security, people in the justice department, people in the white house can only be briefed. they're rewriting the rules and we're told what it will end up saying is you can't do the briefing if you're part of the government. so if you're in the government and you're not muslim and don't have sympathies for radical islam, then you'll be preventing from briefing others despite the fact you may have spent your whole adult life

since 1979 when it first came after us in iran when president carter proclaimed this man of piece, ayatollah khomeini has done more to create hatred, to create -- this man of peace, ayatollah khomeini has done more to create hatred, to create violence than anyone in the last 50 years. president carter thought he would be a man of peace. wrong. he wasn't. nor is the president the -- president khomeini, nor is ahmadinejad. and then you find out there is -- the president of the islamic society of north america who has ready access to the white house -- in fact, when the president was in the inner part

of the state department, when the president gave his speech to try to upstage netia hew when he was coming from israel to the united states and then to address this congress, the president of isna, 105 counts of conviction in which the name co-conspirator should have been pursued after those initial convictions, he's advising the president on his speech about israel. he is' giving remarks on how the president's doing. he's got the president's ear. he's got the state department's ear. he's got national security's ear. and in fact what we see from the deputy national security advisor's remarks that's on the

white house website, the deputy of national security advisor commends the president of this named co-conspirator to fund terrorism commends him for the i have tar celebration at the white house. al-awaki, that this administration killed with a drone just not that long ago was leading prayers for muslim staffers here on capitol hill. foxes are in the hen house. and they're giving more and more authority. we found out yesterday that, gee, it was homeland security that gave a secret security clearance to mohammed l. ibeari

from accounts a very nice gentleman but if you read his writings, he thinks the world of the muslim philosopher on whom osama bin laden relied so heavily for being barbaric, for killing innocence. the man that is part of the inner circle and now has been elevated to the national homeland security advisory council of the secretary of homeland security thinks that he was a man of peace. he was executed in the 1960's, but his writings fully supported what osama bin laden was doing.

they supported what radical islam is pointing and that's why they point to his writings from the 1950's and 1960's. i have a flier in some of my materials here that mohammed was one of the featured speakers for the tribute to a man of vision, the ayatollah khomeini. just recent years ago. and he's been given a secret security clearance and i found out he's working with the aclu to attack from the outside to demand materials that will tell them about the sources and methods of how we try to get some intelligence on the people that want to destroy and kill us and ruin our way of life and create a one-world caliphate

for some dictator like the ayatollah khomeini over there now in iran. and we're giving people like that access. and then i find out this week -- and it's written, it's now on the internet, you can read this story that this same man used his security clearance. he's allowed to access secured databases from his home computer, and he accesses a secured database called the state and local intelligence community database and he pulled off some material that said on it for official use only and then was shopping that

to mainstream media in this country to try to condemn people in texas for being concerned under governor perry as being islamaphobes. and then we find that the o.i.c., which has been so powerful, 57 states, that actually in 2007 they said that the most fearful terrorism that exists -- and these are their words -- is islamaphobia. they are donating hundreds of millions to our institutional centers, not about islam, not about the 95%, 99%, whatever it

is, of muslims who are peace-loving, but if you want to go after the 1% that wants to kill us and make this country into a caliphate under is arya law, you are an islamaphobe. the main street media will buy into it and say, look, there's a common thread that runs through those people who want to destroy our way of life, who want to take our young men and women in this country, radicalize them and have them help destroy the greatest, most freest country in the history of mankind. and this administration is bringing some of those foxes into the hen house. so not only has this administration given a man who admires the ininspiration for

osama bin laden who is a featured speaker for the tribute to ayatollah khomeini, he's given secret security clearance and now using that as a political weapon, not just to go after people concerned with radical islam, but also to go after an opponent of this president politically. it's time to wake up. it's time to be a referee, not a player. it's time to let the free market system drive the economy, create jobs while we do what we're supposed to do, provide for the common defense. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all members are reminded for refrain in engaging -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i guess that i

move that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on monday next. this is the last legislative work this week for the house, they're not in session friday. but they're back monday, october 31, in a pro forma session. the senate had the week off from legislative work, they return next week to continue work on federal spending for the rest of this budget year. the government is working with

temporary spending authority which runs out november 18. follow the house next week on c-span, the senate on c-span2. vice president joe biden will be the key note speaker at the florida democratic party convention tomorrow in orlando. c-span2 will have live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern. other speakers include democratic national committee chair representative debby waserman shultz. florida's u.s. senator, bill nelson, and rod smith. >> i don't want every story to be 1,800 words. there is a certain lack of discipline, sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a story or there are three quotes making the same point e