francis scott key, just words. and, mr. speaker, i would just say to my good friend i understand there are a few believe that in god we trust is just words. but i would say today it is far more than words. it is worth defending just as that pledge of allegiance is worth defending and that declaration of independence is worth defending and i am grateful we will have an opportunity to do just that today and the challenges he say done exist with court suits and public officials who are saying that it's not in god we trust as our national motto but something else, it's worth us standing today and taking 40 minutes to do what so many presidents, so many congresses have done support that to say they are different than the rest of the world and those words will continue to stand behind where you stand and, mr. speaker, i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york.

mr. nadler: nobody said that the national motto in god we trust is just words. nobody said any such thing. this resolution is just words. it's on our currency, on our walls, it's there. it's our national motto. nothing will change. it was our national motto yesterday, today and tomorrow. this resolution is simply words designed to distract attention from our real problems. there is no challenge to our national motto. there is no challenge to the foundations of this country. there is a challenge to our economy. and that we ought to be paying attention to. so, all the nice words that my friend from virginia talked about how important belief in god is, i agree. this resolution is a waste of time and a diversion and i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield four minutes to the chairman of the judiciary committee whose leadership helped bring this resolution to the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank mr. forbes for yielding me time and introducing this resolution. there are few things that congress could do that could be more important than passing this resolution. it ry affirms in god we trust as the official motto and provides congress the opportunity to renew its support with a principle that was ven rated by the founders of our country. in our declaration of independence, the founders declared, quote, we the representatives of the united states of america, appealing to the supreme judge of the world, do with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence pledge to each others our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor.

president washington declared, let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. this event is in the hand of god. james madon, the father of the constitution, declared a day of thanksgiving and acknowledgements of almighty god. madison said that no people ought to feel greater obligations to sell bait the goodness of the great exposure of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the united states. thomas jefferson, the author of the declaration of independence wrote, god, who gave us life, gave us liberty. and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of god. more recently, america's presidents have reafffirmed these same principles.

president roosevelt said in teaching this democratic faith to american child, we need the aid of those great ethical religious teesks which are the heritage of our modern civilization, for not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of god shall our democracy be founded. president kennedy said, the world is very different now and yet the same revolutionary beliefs are still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the general rossity of the state, but from the hand of god. during the civil war, abraham lincoln counseled americans to have a firm reliance on god who has never yet foresaken this favored land and recognized it is god's pleasure to give us to see the light. and ronald reagan told the american people, we are a nation

under god and i believe god intended for us to be free. thanks to the leadership of the the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, now, it is our turn to show that we still believe and recognize these same eternal truths. we can do that by approving a resolution that will allow today's congress, as representatives of the american people, to reaffirm to the public and the world our nation's national motto, in god we trust. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: in contrast to the suggestion that we don't need to have this' affirmation, we had a

lawsuit by an individual in my district about the words under god in the pledge of allegiance. that same individual is suing on this question, in god we trust. i had to fight strongly to get the words in place in the c.b.c. where it is now. and i think we have admitted one, the leader of the civil rights revolution, martin luther king, made it clear in his letter from the birmingham jail, that, in fact, we act out of the requirements by the god in whom we trust. that makes us a nation that respects the liberties, the individual worth of every single member of our society. if he had not, in fact, looked to our historic belief in god as a basis for those principles, that all americans abide by,

that is that we are equal in the eyes of god, and therefore, equal in the eyes of our government, he would not have been successful. this is an important message we need to reaffirm. it is under attack and we are not wasting time. how could we waste time in making sure that in god we trust is, in fact, enshrined in our laws and as our national motto? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i would point out that the lawsuit that the gentleman from california referred lost at the supreme court which adds to the point that of course, in god we trust our national motto is not under attack or under threat nor is under god in the pledge of allegiance under attack and this is an unnecessary resolution.

mr. lungren: the gentleman who brought that case to the supreme court has a case pending on the issue in god we trust and there is a federal action out of the district court in wisconsin right now attempting to get us to take out the words in god we trust in the c.v.c. mr. nadler: reclaiming my time. cases making these challenges occur all the time. they lose 100% of the time. and there's no reason to expect that that will change. so, again, in god we trust was our national motto yesterday, today. whether this resolution passes or not, it will be our national motto tomorrow. and we are wasting time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield to mr. miller from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. miller: i thank mr. forbes in bringing this he legislation to the floor. and there are attacks on our national motto in god we trust. we know it has been attempted to be taken out of the c.v.c. this country for many, many years, since its inception has relied on a faith in god. there are attacks every day. there are attacks on chaplains in our military services that are being told in some instances that they cannot perform religious duties in reference to their faith. we have the flag-folding ceremony that is under attack now on veterans' cemeteries where people are now being told they aren't allowed to do the flag-folding ceremony during the death of a person that has served time in the military. you know, i think the unfortunate thing is as we stand

here today, this is important. this is not a waste of time. it's important that we stand here and we renew our national motto in god we trust. ronald reagan said, in fact, that if we ever forget that we are one nation under god, that we will then be one nation gone under. i'm proud to stand with my good friend with mr. forbes, to reaffirm that our national motto is in god we trust, yesterday, today and tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. mr. forbes: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for introducing this resolution. in god we trust is an important part of american history and this resolution is necessary to

ensure that it remain a part of our history. today, some individuals argued that the constitution says america cannot have any mention of god in a public atmosphere. these folks argue that americans must be censored when they talk in public about god and even religion. i disagree with that contention and the supreme court agrees with that contention and using the writings of our founding fathers as a guide, i believe they would disagree with that contention. what makes us unique is the way we started as a nation. we had this concept in the declaration of independence that we are worth something as individuals and that we are worth something as individuals, not because governments gives us rights or men gives us rights but the declaration of independence says we are all endoweded by our creator with certain unalienable rights. in god we trusted then and in god we must continue to trust

now. the truth is that our constitution says that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and having the word god in our national motto does not establish an official religion for the country, but simply recognizes the role that faith and religion have played in our history. i believe as many other americans do that america is a special place, chosen place and even an exceptional place and america is more than just another country on the globe as some say. we serve as a beekcon of light and one reason is because of god we trust. unless the lord watches over the city, the watch men watch in vain. we should reaffirm it. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harper: in god we trust, for over five decades america has celebrated this phrase as our national motto. this pronouncement is part of or national anthem and engraved in both chambers of congress. but the united states foundation in god far outdates that the country has recognized. our country's first national document the declaration of independence spoke to inalienable rights given to us by our creators. there is collective reliance on god as they drafted the united states constitution. when congress included biblical

references and when the constitution was framed at the constitution in philadelphia, franklin reminded the delegates that god governance and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable the that an empire can rise without his aid. i ask my colleagues to support this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. broun: franklin wrote a speech urging the assembly to begin their morning session with daily prayer. franklin wrote, quote, i have lived a long time and longer i live the more convincing proof that i see that god governance in the affairs of men.

without god's aid we shall succeed in this political building no build better than the builders of babel and our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall be a by word down to future age. just as franklin suggested, we must continue to affirm that god has a place in blessing our government in guiding our lawmakers and he has the ability to lead our nation back to a path of righteousness and prosperity. in god we trust has great meaning in our nation. and we must encourage its display in all public buildings and government institutions. so i urge my colleagues to pass house resolution 13. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: i would remind us in a time in 1861 when our nation stood at the press pus of the civil war and the oratories stood in a bloodshed. the director of the u.s. mint was to create a new inscription to u.s. coins. he said no nation could be strong except in the strength of god. the director of the mint responded back with a variation of the phrase that he pulled out from the star spangled banner, so our motto is in god we trust. since it was a similar hymn and indicative of the american people, it was later put on a

two cent coin at the end of the civil war. it's not some isolated incident of the american dream. francis scott key, whether it was world war i or ii or the cold war fighting communism trying to set the united states apart from other nations around the world is unique, our founding fathers and our founding documents are based around this statement. we are given our rights from god including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. we believe it is in god we trust. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. i know that down through the ages there has been this great question that has occurred to mankind, and it is a similar

noll one. is god god or is man god? in god we trust or in man do we trust? i'd submit to you that the answer to that question, mr. chairman, is one of profound significance. indeed, christopher columbus' search for god was to search around the world and found this place called indeed. col nists wanted to worship god and wanted a way to worship god. the founding fathers did so in the name of god. their trust in god has had a profound impact on those that live in this day. i submit to you if we answer the question the other way, mr. chairman, if man is god then anate yist state is the brutal as the thesis that it rests upon and there is no reason for us to gather in this place. we should just let anarchy to

prevail because we are just worm food. indeed we have the time to reaffirm that god is god and in god we trust. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise today in support of this resolution, reaffirming in god we trust as our official motto of the united states of america. the motto is more than just a slogan. it defines the sentiments, i believe, of the founding fathers. while there never intended to be an official state religion they fully endorsed the idea of god. in the opening of the house and senate of prayer, to the private prayers of the founders, the fathers did put their faith in god.

i believe they knew in their hearts that god had a special place for the united states of america and this new nation. and while they knew that a christian and godly nation could never be achieved by any legislation that congress could pass, they knew it was the people of the nation who would individually receive god in their hearts for this for frule a godly nation. so today, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution that's before us, reaffirming our motto, in god we trust. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i'd like to ask the gentleman from new york if he has additional speakers. if not i am prepared to close after he finishes his remarks. mr. nadler: i have no additional speakers but i will speak. he gets to close. i'll speak then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker.

i've listened to this discussion. there's no question that most people in this chamber, maybe everybody in this chamber, agrees with the phrase, with the motto, "in god we trust." i certainly do. there's no question it's the motto of this country. we've adopted. it's no question that it's not threatened. no one's seeking to change it except for every so often there is a court case that gets thrown out and that's not new. there's no necessity for this resolution except really the only reason for this resolution, frankly, is to declare how good we are, that we're going to reaffirm what needs no reaffirmation. and to divert attention from the issues that we really ought to be dealing with. so let me say again, "in god we trust" is the motto of the united states. it was yesterday. it is today. it will tomorrow whether we

pass this resolution or not. we do have to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in this country believes in god and they are just as much americans as those of us who do believe in god. and i see no reason for passing this resolution to reaffirm what is already the case and what we affirmed before. so it's a waste of time. and i am not saying that "in god we trust" is a waste of time or that the national mott ore is words or symbol but this resolution is words which does nothing, is intended to do nothing other than to get up and say we're godly, we're -- we're good people and it's true, we are, i hope, most of us are, but we don't have to declare it. and we don't have to make people who may not agree with it feel that they are not as

american as we are and we don't have to spend the time in this house when we're not spending it on things that are important in terms of something that we can actually change, that we can actually do something about like creating jobs and affecting the economy. we can't change it. it's the national motto. it changes nothing. if this resolution says we are abolishing the national motto, you say, you can debate it one way or another. it diverts attention. it wastes our time. it is unworthy for that reason. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida -- from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, the gentleman from new york says that we are simply declaring how good we are. that we are wasting our time. that we have other things that are important. mr. speaker, i rise today and i

realize that there are some who don't see the difference between what we're doing and reaffirming "in god we trust" as our national motto from naming a post office or commending some athletic team that's won the last sports contest, but i happen to believe that when thomas jefferson stated in the declaration of independence that our rights came from god, he didn't think that it was irrelevant or not important. i happen to believe that when francis scott key penned that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i hope we support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 13. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. forbes: i ask for a recorded vote on this, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 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, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1002, the wireless fairness act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1002, a bill to restrict any state or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i first ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1002 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. franks: mr. speaker, congresswoman lofgren and i introduced h.r. 1002 with the broad bipartisan support of 144 original co-sponsors. we now have 36 co-sponsors, and i want to thank ms. lofgren for her hard work on this issue. mr. speaker, access to wireless networks represent a key component of millions of americans' livelihoods, providing the efficient communication and capabilities,

whether by phone, broadband internet or otherwise necessary to run a successful business. the exosh tent discriminatory taxes on wireless customers are not only unfair, they are counterintuitive, adding another costly impediment to the success of so many american businesses who are struggling in the midst of a prolonged recession and an already hefty tax burden. low-income and senior americans who frequently rely on wireless service as their sole means of telephone and internet access also bear the brunt of this discriminatory tax' impact. h.r. 1002, the wireless tax fairness act provides a balanced approach that protects the revenue needs of states and localities while allowing for a five-year hiatus on new discriminatory wireless taxes, encourages states and localities to develop a national tax regime that maintains the affordability of

a wireless service. mr. speaker, i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this constitutionally sound, pro-consumer bill and i'd yield back and yield -- and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: h.r. 1002, the wireless tax fairness act of 2011 will impose on states a five-year moratorium on taxes on mobile services, mobile service providers and mobile service property. this will deny states the flexibility to respond to economic downturn during the moratorium and thereby undermine the states to pay for essential services such as public health and safety, education and maintenance of state highways. the legislation is based on faulty information and will benefit the wireless services industry. further, legislation contains

vague language which will lead to increased litigation for both state and local governments and the wireless industry. because of these and other concerns presented by the bill, many organizations are opposed including the league of cities, national governors association, the american federation of state, county and municipal employees, the afl-cio, a.f.t. and n.e.a., amongst others. why are they opposed? because, first, this bill will force states to cut services and increase taxes on nonwireless taxpayers. in order for states and local communities to continue to recover from this recession, they need all tools at their disposal, to balance their budgets, to preserve and create jobs and to provide essential service like police, fire and education. in fact, demand for many of the essential services, such as unemployment payments and other social programs, has increased during the economic downturn. yet, this bill takes away one

of the tools to tax the wireless industry at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. the moratorium will exclude from possible state taxation millions if not billions of dollars in future revenue from wireless service taxes. thus, to balance their budgets, states will be forced to cut even more services and shift more of the tax burden onto other local taxpayers. as a former member of the california board of equalization, the nation's duly elected statewide tax board, i understand the unique fiscal challenges facing our nation today and believe we should leave local taxes in the hands of local officials and residents. finally, state legislatures and local officials who are elected by their constituents and accountable to them have decided to impose these taxes. by passing this legislation, congress impeds upon local elections and is telling local governments how to run their budgets. . a second reason, this is a

special bill for the wireless industry and benefits the wireless services industry at the expense of other industries. despite industry claims, this bill not lead to broadband development and competitiveness. current state and local taxes on wireless providers have not diminished adoption rates nor have they inhibitted broadband expansion. in fact, the wireless industry has not yet presented any data indicating that state and local wireless taxes have had any adverse effect on subscribership, revenue or investment. instead, the wireless industry continues to grow and profits remain high. if this bill becomes law, it would set up a dual tax system on telephone services by giving prenchshal treatment and this

will put a higher burden on those without cell phones. finally, vague definitions within this bill will lead to increased litigation. h.r. 100 will increase costs for wireless providers and courts will have to interpret the many vague terms that are contained within the bill. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. coble: i thank the gentleman for yielding. wireless communications have become the mainstay of america. there are over 290 million wireless subscribers in the united states. as mobile phones become more common and available, they have

become more critical to their users. you don't have to look far in washington to find someone talking or texting on a mobile device or for that matter in my home in greensboroo, north carolina, they are everywhere. while most of this is as a result of sheer demand, the federal government has taken steps to make sure access is available for everyone. some state and local taxing authorities have begun to impose higher taxes on wireless services than on other goods and services. these taxes are arbitrary and go unnoticed and passed on to consumers as another line item at the bottom of their wireless phone bill. state and local governments should not be prohibited from taxing wireless services, they also should not use wireless as

a revenue cow. the tax fairness act would impose a fire -- a five-year moratorium. tax rates even if higher on other services, would not be changed or affected by this bill. thus state and local revenue projections from wireless taxes will not be affected. this will would give states breathing room to reform their tax policies at the state and local level, which they have admitted they need to do. i'm pleased to support this legislation. and again, thank the gentleman from arizona for having yielded. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. chu: i yield to the the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, as much time as she would like to consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i have introduced the wireless tax fairness act in three successive congresses and i'm grat if i had fide it is being considered by the full house today. expanding broadband access is critical to the economic future of our country. as it is in the broadband plan, the u.s. must lead and take all appropriate steps to ensure that americans have access to modern, high performance broadband and the benefits it enables. i introduced the cell tax fairness act because discriminatory taxes on wireless services are not consistent. cell phone bills tax at a far higher rate than other goods and services and many jurisdictions,

the taxation of wireless approaches or even exceeds sin taxes like alcohol and cigarettes. before he was the president's chief economic -- economist, there was a study finding dead weight losses in society up to $5 for every $1. these taxes fall particularly hard on working class and lower-income americans who are most likely to rely on their cell phone for all communications including access to the internet and in fact, the pew study has indicate that had usage of cell phone for internet access among latinos and african americans in the united states is far higher than that among

other americans. and so, this tax burden troubles me especially in these economic times. before i was a member of congress, i served on the board of superviseors in santa clara county and i understand to balance the budget and get revenue. but this bill would not affect any existing revenues and in fact, it wouldn't prevent raising taxes on all goods. if you are going have a half cent sales tax on everything, include wireless. what this would do is prevent you from sing willing out wireless services for disproportionate taxation. ultimately, the moratorium for five years should yield to modernization of state and local telecommunication taxes. separate higher taxes on wireless services are an

outdated legacy of the days. a time-out from discriminatory tax increases will encourage states and localities to work on forms that work for all stake holders. i believe that state and local governments should set tax rates as they see fit and during the committee markup, we added an amendment that allows voter-approved discriminatory taxes if that's what the voters of a jurisdiction wish to do. but beyond that, there are exceptions when congress recognizes the need to protect in advance a national imperative and that's one of these instances. as the national broadband plan said national broadband is poised to become a key platform for innovation in the united states over the next decade. we should not let discriminatory taxes disrupt this potential. several years ago, we adopted a

prohibition on discriminatory taxes on internet access. at the time, i don't think we fully recognized that wireless was going to be the on-ramp for so many of our citizens to the internet and so we did not include it at that time. this is to correct that omission. i thank mr. frank for working with me and all of the 236 co-sponsors who are part of this effort and i yield back to the gentlelady and i thank her for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. frank: we have no additional speakers. does the gentlelady? then we would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: h.r. 1002 will restrict states to eliminate essential government programs and shift

burdens to other taxpayers. for all of these reasons, i oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. frank: many points have been made about discriminatory taxes and for all the reasons that were so eloquently put forth by ms. lofgren, we urge support for this legislation and i thank ms. lofgren for her tremendous effort in this area and this bill and we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1002 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker for the time and i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 1280. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1280, an act to amend the peace corps act to response training, the development of a sexual assault policy, establishment of a victim advocacy, establishment of an advisory council and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen and the gentleman from california plrks berman will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks

and include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise in strong support of senate bill 1280, kate puzey peace corps volunteer protection act of 2011. this is the culmination of bipartisan and bicameral efforts to remedy long-standing problems in the peace corps regarding the way that rapes, sexual assaults and other violent crimes committed against peace corps volunteers serving overseas are handled. senate bill 1280 incorporates structural reforms in the peace corps that i had proposed in my bill, h.r. 2699. these are based on recommendations made by the peace corps inspector general and also incorporates the essential provisions of representative poe's h.r. 2337

to bring best practices to the peace corps' response to victims of sexual assault. both of these bills, mr. speaker, were adopted by our house foreign affairs committee by unanimous consent. senate bill 1280 is named in honor of a brave peace corps volunteer from the state of georgia, who lost her life while serving in africa. kate puzey was brutally murdered when she tried to end the continuing rape of her students by reporting the assailant. earlier this year in an oversight hearing held by our committee on foreign affairs, we heard from kate's mom, who testified that the peace corps failed to protect the confidentiality of her daughter kate's report and this ultimately led to the murder of her daughter. we also heard testimony from

three former peace corps volunteers who were raped overseas and all relayed accounts about the treatment they received by the peace corps after they reported their rapes. without the chilling testimony of these brave individuals who came forward, i do not believe that successful reform legislation like this would have been possible, mr. speaker. they deserve the utmost respect and commended for their bravery. and many of them are in the visitors' gallery today. the voices of the peace corps' own volunteers from across the decades that can no longer be ignored. during the course of our investigation, mr. speaker, the house foreign affairs committee received dozens of affidavits from other victims in the peace corps echoing their plea for change. the accounts of these victims unveiled an institution that had

too often blamed the victim and treated reports of rape as a threat to its reputation. during their harrowing experiences, more volunteers who have been victims of sexual assault continue to support the peace corps and remain committed to its noble mission to promote world peace and friendship between peoples from different cultures. the director has begun to make important changes to better protect and serve volunteers in the peace corps. however, deeper reforms are needed, and that is what the legislation before us today, as was adopted by our foreign affairs committee requires the peace corps to make these changes. senate bill 1280 combines two of our house bills and requires the peace corps to establish a confidentiality policy for reporting sexual assault. the bill also sets up an office

of victims advocacy to oversee the response of sexual assault and other violent crimes. it establishes a sexual assault advisory council to provide guidance to the peace corps volunteers and ensure that it continues to follow the best practices as they evolve in the field. under this bill, mr. speaker, the peace corps must keep crime statistics and track them in annual safety and security reports. it directs the peace corps to perform portfolio reviews to evaluate the countries for volunteers served and evaluation of their safety and security. this bill enhances the independence of the peace corps inspector general by exempting that office from the five-year limitation of peace corps teenure. .

it delineates responsibility from crime victim support. i urge all members to support this important legislation in honor of kate puzey and vote in favor of senate bill 1280. help reform the peace corps to make it the polished gem of u.s. diplomacy that it was always meant to be. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserve the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. berman. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong support of s. 1280, the kate puzey peace corps volunteer protection act of 2011. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: today marks an important step towards improving the safety and security of volunteers that serve in the peace corps. the foreign affairs committee took up the issue of volunteer safety earlier this year after the broadcast of an extremely disturbing report on the abc

news program "20/20." the segment detailed the experience of a number of young volunteers who were sexual assaulted while serving overseas but did not receive the care and support they needed from the peace corps. the show also examined the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of kate puzey, a volunteer in the west african country who was murdered after reporting that a teacher was sexually abusing some of his students. in may we had witnesses that included returned volunteers who were survivors of sexual assault, the inspector general of the peace corps and the peace corps director. based on the testimony we received at the hearing and in consultations with other interested parties, we drafted a bipartisan bill to improve the peace corps and that legislation is reflected in the senate bill we are taking up today.

some of the key provisions include requiring the agency to have comprehensive policies and training for volunteers and staff on risk reduction and response, the establishment of a victims support office to focus exclusively on supporting victims of sexual assault and other crimes and completing a memorandum of understanding between the peace corps and the state department, clarifying security-related responsibilities. i think it's important to point out that the peace corps director, aaron williams, has already taken a number of important steps to improve support for victims of sexual assault and other crimes. for example, the peace corps has hired a victims' advocate, established a confidentiality policy and established a policy of rewriting their sexual assault, risk reduction and response policies and training. this bill codifies some of the important measures that director williams has put in

place, to ensure that they're retained by future directors. on its 50th anniversary, the peace corps continues to perform a vital role in promoting community-based development in some of the world's most poorest countries, sharing american values and enriching our own nation by bringing knowledge of other countries and cultures back to the united states. no agency with such a modest budget has done more than the peace corps to extend america's presence in nearly every part of the world and none has enjoyed such strong bipartisan support. this comprehensive, balanced and bipartisan bill will strengthen the peace corps and help ensure that the agency will continue to do its important work well into the future. i want to thank chairman ros-lehtinen and senators boxer and ice ackson and their -- isakson and their staffs and all our staffs for working so well together on these important issues and i particularly want to single out

congressman poe because without his initial thrust, i don't think we'd be at this point today and i think he deserves the appreciation of the entire body and of the people who are most impacted by this legislation for his efforts and for his willingness to work with us in such a cooperative fashion. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i want to yield to the wind beneath our wings, the man who got the ball rolling, judge poe, author of h.r. 2337, which was incorporated in the bill today, as mr. berman, my good friend, has pointed out has been the inspiration for this legislation today, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady

for yielding and i appreciate the gentlewoman and the chair and the ranking member for relentlessly pushing this issue to the house floor as fast as it was possible and to the good folks down to the senate, senator boxer and senator isakson who are the initial sponsors of 2337 that we will here today vote on in a bipartisan way. this legislation is bipartisan because it deals with victims of crime, american victims of crime. and victims are not a partisan bunch. they're just victims, and when someone picks out a victim to commit a crime against, partisanship doesn't play any part of it and it's good to see that partisanship doesn't play

any part in this legislation in opposing it, but it's a bipartisan piece of legislation. mr. speaker, there's a group of americans, they are really special people. i call them the american ambassadors abroad. they are young people. a lot of them are young females right out of college, and it started with a concept that president kennedy had many years ago, and it's called the peace corps where these american angels abroad leave their homes in the 50 states and they go to remote parts of the world where many of us would have to look up on a globe or an atlas or internet to find out exactly where they are. we never heard of these places. they're in third world countries primarily. they go out where many times the first american these folks

have ever seen in this country are that peace corps volunteer that show up and they show up for the sole purpose, to make life better for these people overseas. sometimes in very small villages. they go and they work in very primitive conditions and live very difficultly, trying to do something really important -- make the world a better place. and they do. they are remarkable people. and when they go overseas as they have done for the last 50 years all over the world, they sometimes -- crimes are committed against them. sometimes they are very serious crimes. sometimes it includes sexual assault, rape. and it occurs for a lot of reasons, but it does occur.

and unfortunately the peace corps back home for a long time ignored some of these crimes and some of these victims and they just weren't treated right when they were trying to cry out saying, hey, this happened to me over there. take care of me when i come back home. but now this legislation that's been drafted very carefully will fix that problem, will move us to a direction where we're going to take care of these peace corps volunteers because what they do is very important. what the peace corps does is very important. we just want to improve it so more and more people go and join the peace corps but yet they feel safe in what they do. this -- these crimes against our peace corps volunteers came to light really at the intendened of last year, beginning of this year. one reason it came to light was

because of an abc "20/20" special that was on january 14 outlining the plight of individual peace corps volunteers and how they were treated. first the crime and then sometimes continuing to be criminalized. and in some cases our volunteers were treated like the criminals and they weren't treated like victims. that the offenders sometimes were treated like a victim of the crime. and those days need to end. mr. speaker, i've been around the courthouse most of my life down in texas as a prosecutor, as a criminal court judge, and tried a lot of bad, serious cases. one of those cases that comes to the courthouses throughout our country is the crime of sexual assault or rape. that is a unique crime because you see many times the offender when they commit that crime against primarily a female has nothing to do about sex. it has everything to do about

power and destruction of who that person's identity is. these offenders in some cases try to destroy the soul of that victim, destroy their identity, and that is why when the crime is committed we treat those victims with special respect as they rightfully deserve. this legislation does that. it improves the peace corps. it makes it a better institution, but it tells our young people that you go somewhere in the world to represent america, to do something good, just to do something good for somebody else with no other motive, that we're going to do everything we can to protect you and then we're going to hold people accountable for what they do to you and we're going to do everything we can as americans to take care of you if a crime is committed against you. in the last 10 years, mr. speaker, the peace corps has

witnessed over 100 sexual assaults a year against its volunteers. that's 100 too many. we want to bring it down to zero. as the chairman has mentioned about this legislation, it does several things. it creates and requires the peace corps to follow best practices in training their volunteers in responding to assaults against these young people. second, it creates a system of restricted and unrestricted rorpgs so victims have control over their own information and can report only as much as they're comfortable with. and third, sets up an advisory council to help the peace corps develop programs, helps the peace corps sexual assault policy and implements it. i do want to thank the 87 co-sponsors in the house for signing on the legislation that i sponsored. i do want to thank the chairman, again, for the legislation she has sponsored, both passed, as she said, the house, committee on foreign

affairs unanimously in a bipartisan way. and i do want to thank the puzey family. sending their daughter overseas and having dealt with the murder of a child, their own child. none of us want to ever see our children die before our time. i mean, i got four kids, three of them are girls. i got nine grandkids, and as parents we don't want to see that happen. but their ability to come forward, tell that story and the story that others have told who are here today, peace corps volunteers, jess, kirsten, carol and liz, them willing to come before the foreign affairs committee to testify about what happened to them and the consequences of that. and i want to thank them for being willing to be here today and also to testify. but i also want to thank the members of congress for moving this as fast as we can. with all that -- what we're

doing and the economy, it's important that this legislation pass today. i do believe these young people are america's angels abroad. sometimes we, because of the economy and other reasons, we forget the greatness of america. this is a great planned and one of the reasons, one of the reasons it's great is because of the people that are here. and one of the reasons those people are great is because they do things for other people. they go to lands they've never been and they do things for people they don't even know and those are the peace corps volunteers. so i appreciate the time to speak on this. i hope that it passes unanimously, and send a message to those peace corps volunteers we support you, we support the peace corps, we want it to live 50 more years and this bill helps those american ambassadors abroad. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. . mr. berman: i would like to advise the chairman through you, i have no further requests for time and therefore, i will reserve, unless she's prepared to close, in which case, i will yield back. ms. ros-lehtinen: if the gentleman would yield back and i will close. mr. berman: i urge that the body do pass this and hopefully pass this unanimously. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume, for 50 years, peace corps volunteers their talents and skills to help the poor in developing countries thereby increasing understanding between diverse cultures. peace corps volunteers live within the communities where

they serve and are located in places with unreliable communication and historically, sadly, media have underplayed the dangers of serving in the peace corps and underreported or overlooked any criticism or any problem related to the peace corps. now, their own volunteers, the peace corps volunteers have come forward with a demand for change. congress has had several previous opportunities to help pass previous legislation to protect its volunteers overseas. but these efforts at previous attempts have fallen short. now we have this bill that has had bipartisan and bicameral support and drafted from the peace corps and volunteers. it is unacceptable that u.s.

citizens, peace corps volunteers do not enjoy protection from regional security officers who are stationed at our diplomatic posts, because their role in protecting volunteers has not been clearly defined. regional security officers are are united states law enforcement sfirbles and deployed overseas and in a best position to serve u.s. citizens and work with their foreign counterparts to seek justice on behalf of crime victims. as the peace corps inspector general reported, further delay informing this member rand umh of dr this member rand umh of. the language in this bill states that if the m.o.u. is not entered into within six months of the bill becoming law, the

committee must report to the committee along with a detailed certification on steps taken towards meeting this requirement in a timely fashion. this language is a result of extensive bipartisan consultation, including regular discussion with our counterpars parts in the senate. this bill is a substantial step forward and will address long-standing safety and security problems for volunteers. for the brave victims who came forward and for kate puzey who gave her life in the service of the peace corps, help us pass this bill. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1280. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair --

ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table senate concurrent resolution 31 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 31, directing the secretary of the senate to make a correction in the snolment in senate 1280. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in

. . >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the white house. thanks for being here for your daily briefing. i don't have any announcements to make at the top so i'll go straight to your questions. >> thank you. two topics. on -- [inaudible] by the prime minister, he said

it has called -- caused chaos. for him and his government and markets around the world. does the white house think that that decision puts the whole deal in jeopardy? >> as i said yesterday and others have said, including the folks who briefed with me yesterday, the europeans made some important decisions last week. the decision made by the greek prime minister, or the announcement he made, reinforces the notion that we need to or the europeans rather need to eland -- elaborate further and implement rapidly the decisions they made last week. it replains the case that the europes have the capacity to deal with this crisis and they need to implement their important decisions they made last week to provide a conclusive resolution to it. >> but, they're not implementing

it rapidly. they're potentially putting it to a vote which there's no sign it would pass. i'm just curious, if that happens, is that something the white house sees as a real game changer, a real potential -- [inaudible] >> that you can be sure as has been the case throughout this period that has involved, you know, a crisis in the euro zone, the united states, this administration through the president and secretary of treasury and other counterparts, including those who are with me here yesterday, have been consistently engaged with their european counterparts in advising and guiding them as they work through this, but it is a european problem that needs to be addressed and they have the capacity to do it and we will continue to work with them and consult with them as they do. >> on those lines whether the president or his team has reached out to the greek

government on this issue? >> not that i'm wear of. -- aware of. >> one other topic that i'm curious about -- >> i should say, that's within the white house. i don't -- i'm not speaking here for state or treasury or other agencies. >> i wonder if the white house has any comment on the -- [inaudible] that herman cane is facing and -- cain is facing and whether from your perspective that has any effect on his candidacy for presidency? >> i really don't have any comments on that. >> do you have any response to the reports of a deal between syria and the arab leagues -- [inaudible] >> we have seen the report, we can't verify it at this point. we welcome efforts by the international community to convince the what sad regime to -- assad regime to cease the violent acts it's been perpetrating on its own people against the syrian people. what remains true today is that

we continue to believe that assad is illegitimate and should step down. >> bank of america's probably decided not to proceed with its $5 charge for debit card. do you think the banking community may be getting the message that the consumers want their behavior changed? >> well, let's focus on this matter as it relates to this administration and washington which is that the reforms that were put into place did not in any way suggest or compel banks to institute these kinds of fees. in fact, they were designed to -- the reforms were designed to ensure the kinds of transparency, the kind of transparency that is -- consumers demand and to protect consumers. now, transparency allows for consumers to make decisions. they understand where fees are coming from, and they can see

more clearly what they're paying for and with regard to this, obviously the bank in question speaks for itself in terms of the decisions it made originally to announce the fee and now to withdraw it. but it certainly stands to reason that consumers do not react well to it. and in this case they had the opportunity to see it for what it was and express their opinion. >> do you have anything on the control of the currency, i believe, as saying that big banks should let their foreclosed cases know that they can be reviewed, about four million cases eligible for review on foreclosures? >> i don't have anything for you on that. let me -- we have some guests here, i want to mix it up. is mark wilson from tampa here? yes, mark. >> thanks. happy to be here. let me ask you about the american jobs act, if you consideration and its impact on florida. about $50 billion in the president's proposal for rail,

infrastructure, aviation. a chunk of that going to florida and tampa. given florida's history, what's the message now? >> well, with regard to rail in particular or the jobs act? >> i think with rail in particular for starts. >> we continue to believe that high speed rail is an important part of america's transportation future. that it's an element of how we can and should be competitive with the europeans, chinese and others. and we have noted through the process, with regard to the recovery act and states -- decisions that states have made, that, you know, with we believe they're making a mistake and there are certainly other states with interest in developing these kinds of high speed rail connections that are job creators on the front end and

economy builders for the future. you know, the president says and i think he makes a valid point that we used to in the united states have the very best of everything, whether it's airports or trains or bridges and highways. and we let our infrastructure decline and we have ceded the cutting edge in many areas to our global competitors. and that's certainly the case with regards to high speed rail. so we continue to work with lawmakers of both parties around the country who are interested in -- as well as local officials who are interested in this kind of investment because it really is the kind of things that -- thing that will help create a better future for the individual states and the country. >> i wonder if you can comment, the president previously has gone after what he calls fat cats on wall street for these big bonuses and what not over the last couple of years. there's a report that fannie mae

and freddie mac, freddie mac, their top five officers got $6.46 million in bonuses in 2010. these are institutions that obviously got taxpayer bailouts. ma many of those tax patients dealing with underwater mortgages or foreclosures. does the white house feel any sense of outrage about fannie mae and freddie mac still getting these big, big bonuses? >> let's be clear about one thing just for the viewers here and those reading the transcript, that these organizations, these entities are independent and therefore they are independent decisions. the white house is not involved and nor should it be. that's appropriate. but there is a larger issue here. the economy is tough, people are hurting, and we understand that there's a lot of frustration out there because of that and it's important that leaders, regulators, folks in the private sector as well as the public sector be responsive to people's legitimate frustrations. you know, we believe that there needs to be accountability and

responsibility in the practices of firms and that's why we fought to ensure that the wall street reform and financial protection act included say on pay which would let shareholders have a voice in compensation practices and important provisions that would recoup compensation paid prior to a company's failure. that's a broader principle at work here. the white house does not have a role in assigning pay for this individual agency, but i think more broadly everyone needs to be sensitive to and responsive to the frustration that is being expressed by americans all over the country about what they feel is an imbalance, perhaps, in these kinds of areas. >> independent but when the president was in rose garden in september talking about a deficit plan, he talked about part of that being cutting tens of billions of dollars to fannie mae and freddie mac. so, there is some leverage here that he should have. >> we have always said, you have

to wind down and we will -- we need to wind fannie mae and freddie mac down and we need to do it responsible. -- responsibly. we also need to keep focused on the task of implementing financial reforms. which republicans, as you know, want to repeal. you know, there's a rider as we speak being attached to an appropriations bill that -- a rider republicans support which would roll back the kind of provisions on derivatives, i believe, if i have this right, that, you know, are elemental to the wall street reforms that we put into place. and that i think many americans, if they were aware of this kind of activity, would be appalled by. because these reforms were designed to prevent the very crisis that befell this country and affected the american economy, the american workers and the global economy in 2008. so, we're going to press ahead with that, we're going to insist

that wall street reform be implemented and that it not be watered down or repealed. but we have to be clear in the broader discussion here about, you know, whose side is this -- this president is on and in congress, you know, what republicans are trying to do to water down and repeal the very reforms that the president fought so hard to put into place. >> on jobs, one of the local markets you brought in i think is from hampton roads, virginia, and the president is going to designate as a national landmark. speaker boehner is questioning the white house claim that this is going to create 3,000 jobs. there's so much back and forth over the last couple of years about stimulus and the bill. so, how does the white house back up the claim that this will create 3,000 jobs? >> i realize when i said that that it might look like i was blessing you which i bless you as well. [laughter] but the jobs claims here, the

expectation that jobs will be created as a result of this designation, actually are not made by us but by local officials in virginia including, i believe, the governor. so i would suggest the speaker tame take it up with them. the president believes jobs will be created and how many i think we rely on the local officials to project. but he believes this is an action he should and can take, that is inherently good, because of the designation and also as a job creator. yes. >> thanks. president obama is scheduled to meet with house democratic leadership today. you can give us a brief preview of the nature of that meeting? >> well, i think, as you know, he meets with congressional leaders and house democratic and senate democratic leaders on occasion. i don't have a specific agenda to discuss except for the broader agenda that the president and democrats share which is that congress needs to do something about jobs and the economy. it is the number one priority of the american people and i'm sure he will discuss with the leaders

who are here ways that perhaps the house can be compelled to take action on the issues that are of greatest importance to the american people. >> has he invited republican leadership? >> i don't have any announcements of future meetings to make. >> will he? >> anything's possible. >> also, this super committee, it seems like a lot of discussion we're hearing is reminiscent of the things we heard this summer. has president obama reached out to them, will he be reaching out to them more in the coming days and weeks as we get closer? >> i appreciate the question. let me make clear what is different about it. there are two things that are different about this situation and the one of the summer. one is, thanks to the inistence that the president made during those debt ceiling negotiations, republicans no longer have, as a tool, the threat of default on

america's financial obligations. as a means of forcing action that they desire for ideological reasons. or other reasons. but they've had that -- that tool has been removed from their tool box and i think the american economy is better off for it. secondly, what's different is that -- or significant about the period we are in is that from a very early period here, before the super committee really got going, the president put forward a comprehensive package of proposals that is his plan for broad and significant deficit reduction and debt reduction. that includes an additional $3 trillion in deficit and debt reduction over the long-term and a balanced package and congress has that and the supercommittee has that, that set of proposals, from the president to guide it, if it so wishes in makinging its decisions. to take a step back here, not to diminish the task that the

committee faces, but while it is challenging because of the politics, at a substantive level it is not that complicated. every group that has looked at this objectively, bipartisan group, in fact, that have looked at this objectively have basically come to the same conclusion, that in order to take a significant whack out of our deficit and debt, we need to do it in a balanced way. it needs to include -- everything has to be on the table. it needs to include the kind of discretionary nondefense spending cuts that were implemented as well as defense spending cuts that were implemented previously by the president and this congress. it also has to include entitlement reform and it has to include revenues. there is no other way to do this responsibly. otherwise you have to do it, you know, via the means put forward by congressman ryan, for example, which, you know, i think have been pretty soundly rejected by the american people which is just to say, let's protect and expand tax cuts for the wealthiest american, hold them harmless, not ask anything

from them, and ship the -- shift the burden onto, in the case of the ryan plan, onto seniors. voucherize medicare, ask seniors on average to pay an additional $6,000 for their medicare. that's the kind of drastic action you have to take if you'll -- you are basically saying, those who have done the best over the last 30 years and especially over the last 10 years, should bear no burden for dealing with this significant issue which is the need to reduce our deficit and debt. let me ask, is tom shadd here? yes. >> and we're talking about -- my father grew up in norfolk, virginia. >> that's where i liven right now. fine town. >> governor mcdonald did write a 14-page letter repealing fema's denial for assistance to recent earthquake victims in -- and it affected of course washington as well. he says, damage assessments

increased from $15 million to $22.5 million and damage to 400 additional homes, that is since the first rejection. now, is there a chance of a reconsideration based on those numbers? >> well, i would ask you to check with fema in terms of their processes for reviewing this but i'm sure you do know, well, two things. one is that the administration in general has worked very closely with virginia officials including the governor to respond to a number of disasters. as you know, just earlier this year, august 26, the president signed a -- an emergency declaration for virginia in advance of hurricane irene. september 3, very quickly after the storm, president obama signed a disaster declaration. that comes on top of two disaster declarations previously in his administration, -- administration, one in 2009, one in 2010, involving snowstorms and other severe weather. the way -- the same formula that fema looks at, they looked at in terms of recommending those disaster declarations for irene and other disasters, was applied

in the earthquake situation and it's my understanding that fema decides that -- decided that while there was damage, that virginia had it within their capacity to deal with it with regards to the earthquake. now, president obama has ordered fema to stay focused, going to the top of your question on helping virginia recover and rebuild and that's what this administration will continue to do. sam. >> i just wanted to ask ahead of today's meeting with leadership, in light of mr. daily's comments, how would you describe the president's relationship with house democrats? >> i think his relationship with house democrats is excellent. and i think that not least because democrats in the house and the senate share the president's goal of focusing on the economy and jobs. and, you know, it is very clear through this process, clear and unfortunate, that the obstacle to passing significant

legislation that would grow the economy by up to -- an additional 2% next year and add up to 1. million more jobs according to outside economists, is the republicans. they voted in lock steady against it in the senate, they won't bring it up in the house. they won't bring up provisions in it. hopefully that will change and maybe it will change in the house and i certainly -- there is some sign that there's a sensitivity here to what is becoming, i think blatantly obvious to everyone in this room and everyone who pays attention, that the republicans in congress are out of step, not just with democrats in congress or this president, not just with democrats and independents out in the country, but even republicans, their own constituents dish mean their own constituents and even their own supports within their own states and districts who overwhelmingly support both, the pro visions of the american jobs act and the means by which the president and democrats in the senate believe it ought to be paid for.

so the relations are quite good. >> [inaudible] . >> it's not at all. in fact, i think it's very much about strategizing on the number one priority that the president has, that the democrats have and the american people have which is doing something about sluggish economic growth and sluggish job creation and it goes back to early questions about the situation in europe. we have to take action on the things that we can control and this is something we can control. the president believes that if congress were to act as outside economists have said, that we can actually do something positive for the economy, for americans who are looking for work. even as we have to deal with things like the crisis in europe that aren't entirely within our control. we certainly should take action on where we can do it. john christopher. >> might the president consider delaying the implement men at that -- irm mentation of dodd-frank to keep the united states competitive with the worldwide competitors?

>> the president believes that reforms that are part of dodd-frank and the wall street reform package are the right thing to do, allow us to be both competitive and strong and prevent the kind of crisis we saw befall a nation in 2008 and affected the global economy so the answer is no. >> [inaudible] speech tomorrow. is there going to be anything new? [laughter] >> well, i don't -- i'm not sure. it will be a little different. [inaudible] well, look, obviously the senate is going to take up that provision within the american jobs act and the president looks forward to making the case at a bridge that need rezz pair, as he did -- needs repair, as he did at the other bridge. none of these are one-shot deals. you're talking about a lot of potential building and rebuilding that could go on if this money were secured, if congress were to pass it.

and a lot of jobs that would be had by the american people if these construction projects could get under way, rebuild bridges, highways and schools. so i don't think that case can be made too often. especially when we're faced with obstruction in congress. the president understands that congress won't act, republicans won't act because he asks them to. that's one lesson we've learned. but they -- congress may act if their constituents insist that congress act. republicans in this case, constituents, make their voices heard and say, get to work, please, focus on the things that matter. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we'll breakway here and talk -- break away here and take you to the house floor. house resolution 13.

and s. 1280 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote and remaining votes will be five minutes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from virginia and agree to house concurrent resolution 13 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: house calendar number 23, house concurrent resolution 13, concurrent resolution reaffirming in god we trust as the official motto of the united states and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools and other government institutions. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. 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 yeas are 396, the nays are nine. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from florida to suspend the rules and pass s. 1280 in which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1280, an act to amend the peace corps act, to require sexual assault risk reduction and response training, the development of a sexual assault policy, the establishment of an office of

victim advocacy, the establishment of a sexual assault advisory council and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 406, the yeas are zero. twirs being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. if members would take their conversations off the floor. the speaker: the house will come to order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order.

members please clear the well. the house will come to order. members please clear the well and take your conversations

outside, please. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is granted one minute. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, since early 2009, there have been consistently at least 13.5 million americans unemployed. every month for more than two and a half years, millions of people have been looking for full-time jobs and they have been waiting. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman cannot be heard. members please remove your conversations from the floor.

the gentleman may proceed. in phlegm -- mr. fleming: through months of debate other a health care bill, they've waited. they've waited through a financial services bill that will cost jobs. they've waited through bailouts and stimulus bills and debates over raising taxes, all of which will cost jobs. they passed while the house passed 15 big job-creating bills. now the president says, we can't wait. i must go it alone, he says. mr. speaker, that's why republicans have passed many bills to help this country's job create quor, to lessen the regulatory burden on businesses to encourage domestic energy production, and to halt the spending spree in washington that robs money from the jobs creators. now the president and the democrat-controlled senate need to finally act on many of those bills that we have already

passed and that will turn this economy around. we ask that you act immediately. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from texas. for what purpose do you rise? >> to address the house for one minute. ms. jackson lee: to adress the house for one minute. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. jackson lee: we have been waiting for a jobs agenda now for as long as this congress has been in session and i can convey to my colleagues that an easy way to attend to creating jobs is to pass a jobs bill. moving on, mr. speaker, let me thank governor perry for making a personal and public statement

of his opposition to the state-issued confederate license plate. yet i would advise governor perry that his department of motor vehicle board, nine appointed by him, have now ski squled that vote for november 10. all good willed persons, all good-willed texans, who would oppose a state issued, oppressive license plate reflecting upon the oppression of slavery need to show up on november 10, in austin, texas, indicate their opposition to such a draconian and devastating blow to the people of texas. i would also remind governor perry that the north park independent school district that's now leading and educating 7,500 student a majority minority district, has been given a denial on its appeal meaning the attempt by the texas education agency to kill a majority minority school

district in the state of texas. governor perry, come home, we need you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota, for what purpose do you rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> we just concluded national teen driving safety week, it's each year in october. each year, motor vehicle accidents stand out as the leading cause of death among american teenagers. with over 6,000 american teens dying in car crashes last year alone. as the father of four young daughters, i can tell you that keeping loved ones safe behind the wheel is a major focus. the u.p.s. foundation teamed up with the boys and girls club to introduce the u.p.s. road code to educate young and aspiring drivers about safe driving methods.

programs like these will help our community prorks tect our young drivers and ensure a safe -- safer commute for us allism thank the u.p.s. and foigs and the boys and girls club for their dedication to this issue and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minutes? the chair layings before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of georgia for today, mr. carson of indiana, for today and mr. fattah of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 201, the gentleman from arkansas -- 2011, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority

leader. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. speaker. i have joined some of my colleagues here tonight to talk about the most pressing issue in this country, which is job creation. private sector job creation. what we need to do to get our country back on the path to prosperity and job growth. i had a jobs conference in the second congressional district, my district down in arkansas, in little rock, a couple of weeks ago. we held it at the clinton library. it really was an extension of the 25 or so town halls that i've had this year in that we talked a lot about jobs. and i thought that a jobs conference would be a good idea because who better to ask about

job creation than job creators? so we had five panels, over 60 panelists, and i wanted to hear from the job creators in the second congressional district and i asked them two main questions. what are the obstacles that you face in creating jobs, and what opportunities do you see? as i indicated earlier, this was an extension of what i have been talking with constituents about for the nine months that i've been in office and even before that. and i expected that i would hear answers to those questions consistent with what i've heard in town halls in meetings in my office, and throughout the year. and i wasn't surprised. what i heard from the over 60

panelists that gathered at the clinton library in little rock a couple of weeks ago, what i heard was uncertainty is the number one obstacle to job creation in this country. uncertainty. now, i've heard that word used a lot since i've been here. i heard it a lot last year when i was traveling around the district before i ever came to congress. and it was pretty clear to me, has been pretty clear to me and still is, that uncertainty is the biggest problem we face. the job creators that gathered in little rock at the jobs conference were from manufacturing industry, energy industry, health care, retail, financial services, aerospace, infrastructure, construction, real estate, you name it. agriculture, we had folks from

all across the spectrum. and they all indicated that uncertainty is the biggest obstacle to job creation. what kind of uncertainty were they talking about? well, the number one type of uncertainty cited by job creators was regulatory uncertainty. they indicated that the -- at the conference, at this jobs conference, that number one in many instances they know new regulations are coming, but they have no idea what they're going to be. and so they have no idea whether they're going to be able to comply with those by spending a little extra money, no extra money or a whole lot. they're also concerned about regulations that are floated.

they're floated out by the agencies as a potential regulation that may or may not be implemented. and those sorts of regulations give these job creators great pause. because they don't know, they don't know whether they're going to have to comply with them. and it's not just one agency and it's not just one industry. i will say that the e.p.a.'s name came up more than any other . the job creators made it very clear that there are a number of regulations coming out of the federal agencies that they are concerned about. and the e.p.a. has issued a number of regulations and some that are yet to be enacted that these job creators were very concerned about. i heard from the panelists, the

common theme that, they're not against regulations, we've always had regulations, at least ever since i've been around. and we're going to continue to have regulations. and we need reasonable regulations to keep our water and air clean. i've got a 4-year-old and a 19-month-old and i want them to have a clean and safe environment. but we're not talking about just regulations, reasonable regulations. we're talking about excessive, overly burdensome regulations that in some cases require such drastic steps to comply that they just run people out of business. we've dealt with a lot of those here in the house, trying to reverse some of the stuff coming out of the administration. i heard from our energy industry

, the electric corporatives. some of the panelists represented those companies. and they indicated that if some of the e.p.a. rules are implemented as they have been proposed they could result in the shutting down of several power plants in arkansas. with a potential impact of raising energy costs 25%. now, these same panelists said, look, we're not necessarily against this sort of regulation, this sort of regulation they were referring to, but the timeframe for compliance is so short that there's no way, it's almost humanly impossible for them to comply with some of the e.p.a.'s mandates. so we heard a lot about the e.p.a. but not just the e.p.a.

h.h.s., department of labor, many other agencies here in washington that put out regulations, often with no or little regard to the impact those regulations are going to have on the folks back in my district and around the country. so, regulatory uncertainty was specifically identified as an obstacle to job creation in this country. in addition to regulatory uncertainty there's uncertainty over the health care law. is the health care law even going to be implemented or not? certainly i voted to repeal the health care law that passed in the last congress. i think we need health care reform, but not the health care reform we got. now the courts are looking at

the health care law and there's a good chance in some folks' opinions, in my opinion, that the supreme court might strike the individual mandate portion of the president's health care law, the health care law that we have now. so there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding that. there's also uncertainty over our fiscal situation. the president had a perfect opportunity to lead after his bipartisan debt commission came out with some recommendations. i don't agree with all of them. but it was a good place to start. but instead right after they came out with their recommendations late last year, early this year, president comes out with his budget, no reform of medicare to save it, no reform of social security to save it, no reform of medicaid, just keep on spending.

so missed an opportunity there. but the debt is a part of that uncertainty. the debt impacts our currency valuation, it impacts our markets. you don't have to look far, you just look at what's going on in europe. it's sort of like you're looking at a crystal ball and what's going on in europe is potentially, not identical, but potentially in some regards our future. that's where we're headed. more uncertainty. so, it was very clear after listening to all these job creators, the problem is not that the federal government hasn't spent enough money. we spent $1 trillion on the last stimulus at a cost of about $300,000 per job. discretionary spending has gone

up 84% under this administration. i don't think, in fact, you know that spending is not the problem. it's the uncertainty that the job creators addressed. so what we're going to talk about here tonight, what have we been doing for the last nine months to address the uncertainty on regulations, with regard to the debt and spending, with regard to our tax code so that we can remain competitive? what have we been doing here in this body, in the majority in the house, to address the uncertainty that i think is beyond dispute is the biggest obstacle to job creation in this country? and i'm citing the job creators in my district. we've been doing a whole lot over the last 10 months, passed a lot of legislation, i think

we've had about 800 votes. unfortunately a lot of those good ideas are stacking up like chord wood over in the u.s. senate. we pass it, the senate -- send it down to them, they stack it up. that's the way it's worked for the last 10 months or so. so i'm happy to be joined by my colleagues here, thought we'd talk a little bit about the different things that we passed that the american people would have heard a lot more about if they had been acted upon and become law, but most folks don't hear a lot about them because they go down to the other end of the building and they just sit there, like that little bill sitting on capitol hill that some of us grew up with as a cartoon. it's just a bill, it's not a law. so i'm happy to have my friends join me here tonight on the floor to talk about jobs and what we've been doing in the

house over the last 10 months. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i'm proud to join him and my other colleague from wisconsin tonight to talk about jobs. and what we're doing here in this chamber on that issue. you know, i listened many times to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle and they say, we haven't put forth a jobs bill . as if there's some simple fix that we here in washington, some bureaucrat, sitting in a cubicle over at the white house, is going to come up with, a plan that's going to cure this economy with a magic wave of the wand here in the u.s. house. or in washington, d.c. you know, i join my colleague in his sentiments that, you know, i'd rather be listening to the people on the frontline. i'd rather be listening to the people that are in the position to really create those jobs, because i believe in a private

sector-based economy. i believe it's going to be the private sector that is going to be the primary engine pulling us out of this economic crisis that we now find ourselves. not the public sector, not more spending out of washington, d.c. but rather what we need to do in this house is come together to create an environment so that the private sector can be competitive in this world economy, this world market, and it can really lead us to a better condition tomorrow. so that generations of families, of american families, will have the opportunities that generations of families before us so enjoids. you know, so i've -- enjoyed. so, you know, i've also gone out and had those town halls and talked to people on the frontline and it boils down to some simple philosophies. we run our office here in the

office like a business. starting four businesses on my own, i've always had a business plan, i've always had accountability metrics built into those plans. so so -- so we put forth a mission statement. we developed themes and goals and put metrics to those themes and goals to make sure we accomplish them. and the primary theme that we have adopted in our office is to create economic opportunity through the private sector and how do you do that? so we've adopted four main goals that we work on each day. we tackle this debt in a credible way, as my colleague from arkansas has indicated. because it has so many indirect implications to our private sector economy, be it in the financing world, be it in just the uncertainty of the u.s. markets. mr. reed: and we really got to get a credible plan put together so we can bring back that confidence in the american market that our job creators, the people that are going to invest in the american market, feel comfortable putting that

capital at play. mr. griffin: can i mention one thing? mr. reed: i gladly yield back to my colleague. mr. griffin: on the issue of the debt, we don't have to solve it overnight. we didn't get in this mess overnight, and we certainly aren't going to solve it overnight. but i sort of anal jies is to going on a trip. if you're going to travel from arkansas to washington, d.c., you don't have to get there instantly, but you need to have a road map. you need to know where you're going, and everybody in the car needs to have confidence that the person driving is taking you in the right direction. if you're driving from little rock to washington and you start seeing signs that say, l.a., 100 miles ahead, you're going to wake up everybody and figure out what happened. so we don't need to deal with this debt overnight. but we need a credible plan that

brings us back to balance, that brings us to a sustainable path and that gives people confidence. not confidence that it's going to be fixed immediately, but confidence that the path we're on will eventually get us back to where we need to be. i yield back. mr. reed: i appreciate that. what a great comment. and so that's exactly what i'm trying to articulate. i join my colleague and associate myself with those words. we need a true plan that will solve this problem. and it's such a huge problem. $14.8 trillion. it's not going to be solved overnight. but we have the vision and we have the plan, we're going to bring that certainty and confidence back to the american market. the second point on our four-point theme in our office that we operate under is going after our tax code in a way that's going to make it competitive in this world economy.

that means going from page 1 to the 70,000th page of the i.r.s. code and streamlining it and doing comprehensive tax reform in such a way that simplifies it and makes it so that we are competing on the same field as competitors around the world. i also firmly believe the third point of our plan is to focus on a comprehensive domestic-oriented energy policy right here, going after not only the fossil fuels in our backyard, but not taking our eye off the long-term vision of the alternatives and renewables, but looking at the commonsense solutions of going after our natural gas supplies and our oils and our shale formations and our tight sands formations around america but at the same time focusing on the alternatives and renewables because we know those fossil fuels are a limited source. but not only because of the national security implications that so many people and america knows so well, but also looking

at a private sector arena in which our manufactures of industry can compete again right here right with operations in america. because if you put those supplies in motion, you can create low-cost utility rates for 30, 40, maybe even 70 years, is what the projections i've read in the reports and talking to people on the frontline, have articulated to me. so those decreased utility costs make our market that much more competitive when we're dealing with a world market that we now find ourselves on. the last word we always stress in our office is going after the regulatory burden that my colleague spoke about earlier. it's about not living in a world with no regulation bus where there are reasonable regulations, regulations based on a cost-benefit approach -- approach, a business approach, recognize that with every regulation there's a cost. we have to make sure the costs

don't outweigh the benefits. we've adopted that type of framework of operation and we've found some great success. one last point i'll make before yielding to my -- yielding back to my colleague from arkansas, one of the stories that resonated with me, as i went to town hall meetings, we've done 30 or 40 of them now at this point in time, as i heard the story in august, i'll call him dr. bill. he was a physician and he had a small practice back in the 29th congressional district, he was talking about how he wanted -- wanted to invest and expand his practice, he went to the bank to get the financing to build a little addition to put maybe three new people back to work, or to work. i listened to his story, he was talking about the uncertainty that my colleague from arkansas is talking about. i want to put a face to it. dr. bill, as he told me, whenever he would go to the bank historically, he would go in, give his financial

projections as to what his practice was going to do and a lot of times he would have to footnote. we have a lot of issue here's in washington with temporary policies that have been done more for politics than true policy. what i'm talking about is, we're dealing with things like the physician's reimursment -- reimbursement under medicare. typically what happens, there's a fix a band-aid that's put on it each year. what he was able to do is he was able to go to hisback and say, i no the law says i'm going to take a 30% cut this year in my reimbursements under medicare but we all know congress will get around and eventually fix it by putting another band-aid on it so he projects a 2% increase in reimbursements. he went to the bank and he said, here's my financials again, i want to do this expansion and you know what the bank told him? they said, you know what, we don't know what's going on out

of washington, d.c. you've been dealing with the issues in your physician practice under obamacare, the health insurance reform act, whatever you want to call it. this is the bank talking to him, we're dealing under the new dodd-frank bill that came into existence, those regulations are uncertain to us. the bank told him, we're not going to accept that footnote anymore. you've got to project out what the revenues are under what the law says, that's a 30% cut in the revenue. when he went back and did the numbers, he couldn't get the financing. the bank had to say no. that's the real story from the front lines that we have to come to terms with down here in washington. our decisions, our policies, have ramifications and if we can just have some common sense points and deal with people like dr. bill in a way that says, we're going to adopt policy for the long-term, not the short-term, weir going to get away from the politics or

the tax politics and get into tax policy. we're going to get into the substance of these issues and adopt certain rules and regulations and legislation that's going to go on for five, 10, 20 years, so at least people know what the rules are. i think if we do that, we'll go a long way to improving the private economy of america. we're going to work day in and day out. i know my colleagues share a lot of these sentiments, i'm just here to join them to focus on what has to be the priority issue, putting people pack to work. that's what we're doing here in the house. we're not looking for the political headline of a jobs bill, we're here to talk about jobs plcy. leading this country out of the recession it finds itself in through strong policy rather than poll techs. with that, i yield back to my colleague from arkansas. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman from new york for his thoughts. before i yield to my friend, i'd like to revisit some of

what you said. we've tie didn't fied the -- we've identified the problem as uncertainty, i think we're all confident with that, we over the last nine months have passed a number of bills. that support the different aspects of our plan to get this country moving again and creating jobs. number one, fundamental tax reform. we need it on the individual side. we need it on the corporate side. regulatory reform. we have passed countless bills that reform the regulatory process or address specific regulations. in dealing with the debt, we've been trying to raise the issue of spending and overspending and have raised it successfully, numerous times, over the last nine, 10 months, we haven't been able to do as

much as we'd like, we're just one body here in the house. but dealing with the spending and forcing the federal government to live within its means has been and continues to be a priority. also, what the gentleman from new york mentioned is the importance of energy exploration and energy development to our national security, because we want to depend on our own energy sources or at least on our friends in canada. but it's also very important in terms of job creation. the energy development that we could have in this country could create up to some say at a minimum a million jobs. i was watching a new show on the networks last night, on nbc, an they had a whole segment on what's going on in north dakota with some of the shale drilling.

and how they're just -- there are just tens and hundreds of jobs waiting to be filled. in this country. in that part of our country. because of energy exploration. so tax reform, regulatory reform, dealing with the debt, so that we can invest in infrastructure which is so important to economic development and energy development. those are critical. and if you want to talk about jobs plan or what have you, jobs bills, it's not jobs bill, it's jobs bills. we've been passingobs bills since january. in fact, as i indicated before, they're piing up like cordwood in the senate. i yield to my friend mr. duffy. mr. duffy: i commend the gentlemen from arkansas and new

york for the work you've been doing in your own districts, reaching out to job creators, listening to them about what they need to make sure they can expand their businesses and grow their businesses. i've been doing the same over the last couple of weeks, i've done a number of different events. i did a jobs fair in central wisconsin. that's where i -- my district is, central wisconsin up to northwestern wisconsin. we had 100 employers and we have 1,200 job seekers coming through the jobs fair. and if you looked out at the 100 folks that they're looking to hire you didn't see too many people from the government looking to hire. because the real job growth in america is in the private sector. if you look out over that arena of employers, they're not big businesses. they're small businesses. they have anywhere from 10 employees, some of them as big

as 100, 120 employees. but all characterized and categorized as small businesses. and i thought it was important to note that there are people hiring. but if you look at the quality and quantity of people who need work in central wisconsin, there's a disparity between the number of jobs available and the number of people who want to support their families with the hard work and hard labor and a good paycheck. so the work is not done. we have to continue pressing on to make sure that we have the environment for job growth. as the president says, we cannot wait. i don't know what he's referring to when he says we cannot wait my reference to we cannot wait is we cannot wait, as the speaker said, for the senate to start passing our bills. they're going to put americans back to work. i did a policy -- forest policy conference in my area, we have

a large forest products industry. the chief of the forest service was kind enough to come to my district, well-spoken, knowledgeable individual who spent a lot of time in the forest service. rangers were there. it was a great conversation with a lot of our loggers. but in the national forest there, we have 1.5 million acres, great resource in central an northern wisconsin. let me tell you the story of one of the forest products individuals that came to that conference. he's an individual that owns action floors. they're from mercer, wisconsin, it's not the biggest community in wisconsin, it's a small town that relies on the forest products industry. and premier gym floors they make at action floors. but do you think they get the wood from the 1.5 million acres in that national forest? no. over 50% of the wood they use to make those forest -- those

floors is imported from canada because they can't access timber in central wisconsin. that's a shame. now listen, i live in wisconsin because i believe that we should have clean water and a clean environment. i live there because i like the outdoors. immaterial my kids to experience it. but managing forests is critical to preserving it. it's the first green industry. it's renewable. it grows back. and here we have folks in central wisconsin that can't access it. those are real jobs. those are real families that are impacted by the decisions that are made here in washington, d.c. but timber being imported from canada, give me a break. we had a field hearing just yesterday, financial variouses, subcommittee with financial institutions, and we had some small, small banks and some medium-small banks and we had small credit unions, medium-sized credit unions, all

in there talking about the rules and regulations that are coming from dodd-frank. and if you think that these credit unions and these small banks are big wall street banks, i would encourage you to come to central wisconsin. they're the furthest from a big wall street bank. these are people who have gown up in these communs, helping to get capital out of the bank into the hands of job cree -- job creators, into homeowners, people who want to buy a car. they're burdened by regulations, mandates and rules and can't comply with them. banking needs to be regular lated, we all would agree with that. but let's have smart regulations, let's make sure capital can get out the door to small businesses that want to expand or grow. there's some interesting information that i think just came out from the nfib and if you look at the end of the last recession, 2001, to the beginning of this new recession, in 2007, businesses

that have fewer than 500 employees, they have created seven million new jobs during that time frame. and 60% of those businesses, they'd only been in existence for five years. so these are new start-ups. small. that are the engine of job growth in america. now on the other hand, we had employers or businesses that had 500 employees or more, those businesses had cut one million jobs. the point here is job growth is coming from small businesses. but today, we are at a 16-year low for startups. businesses aren't growing. businesses aren't beginning in this new environment. i think it goes to what you gentlemen were talking about. three things. one it's access to capital. they don't have the ability to go to the bank and get a loan.

there are a lot of factors that used to be considered when making a loan in small town america. character and cash flow, a number of considerations. what's happening today with our banks is they're just looking at the file system of when the regulators come, their file looks clean and they can't take into all the factors they used to take into conversation. -- into consideration. the banks in my district, they weren't part of the financial crisis. they had nothing to do with it. they were implementing sound banking principles in their communities that were launching small businesses that were the engine of growth in our communities. but today they can't do that. so we don't see that job growth take place. they also talk about regulations which i think you two did a wonderful job, but just to name a few, remember the 1099 bill, in obamacare, in ppaca, last 1099 piece of legislation where if you had a transaction that was over $600,

you had to send the other individual a business -- a 1099. the work load, the paperwork that that puts onto a small business is unconscionable. they can't focus on doing the work of the business, they're focused on doing the work of the i.r.s. so what we're saying here is we need reasonable, common sense regulations that are going to help our small businesses expand and grow and another thing we talk about is uncertainty. this all feeds into each other but in here is taxes. it's health care. it's regulations. before i yield back, i'm going to tell you one story. this is a story from central wisconsin, it's an individual that i went to see. he's a small manufacturer. he has about 100 or 110 people who work for him and as i was sitting in his office, he was say, listen, i've got a great idea. i'm going going to grow my business, it's going to cost me $1 million to make this

investment, i've been in business for a long time and i know this idea that i have is going to work and if i make this $1 million investment, i'm go -- i'm going to create 10 to 15 new jobs in my community. but guess what? i'm 62 years old. i look at all the uncertainty, i look at obamacare, i look at taxes, i look at new regulations, i look at new banking regulations. he said, with all that uncertainty in the marketplace, i'm not going to make that investment. i'm 62. who got hurt? this guy has enough money. he's made enough money in the course of running his business. it doesn't hurt him. because he didn't make that investment. but it hurts 15 families in that community that don't have a good paying job. 15 families don't have work because he didn't take that risk, make that investment. and you know what? we have to make sure that people are encouraged to take risk, to invest and expand and grow and

compete. and if they do that, we're going to see great growth in this country. but i believe we're at a crossroads. if we don't go down the path of free markets and free enterprise, american capitalism, a system that has worked since our founding, that has created uncompareble wealth in this country, i think we're going to go down a different path and that path does not lead to prosperity, it doesn't lead to opportunity, it doesn't lead to job growth. it leads to something far less than that. and i think in this country we want to fight to make sure we stay on a path of prosperity and opportunity so we can pass that off to the next generation and that's worth a fight. i'm willing to fight for those principles and, you know, we in this house, we argue, and i think the american people would say probably too much, but i know those friends on the other side of the aisle that would agree with this. that agree that we have to come together to find solutions that are going to help the private, small sector grow and put our hardworking people back to

workment and so i appreciate the hour that the gentleman from arkansas has reserved and i appreciate the conversation and the focus that my colleagues here in the freshmen class have put on job growth, not only for their own districts, but for the country as a whole, and with this effort and with some corporation, hopefully from the white house, we're going to be able to turn this economy around and -- which is not us, it's actually policy that we turn over to the private sector for that job growth and with that i yield back. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman. before i yield to my friend from colorado, i just want to follow up on a few issues. we call the bills, the jobs-related bills that we've passed here, that will help the private sector grow, we call them the forgotten 15. because these are the bills that made their way down into the senate and just sat there. the only problem with that is it's not 15 anymore. it's 16 or 17 or 18.

and they're not one bill, it's more complex than that. they're plural. they're there are a number of jobs -- they're a number of jobs bills. a few of them. the reducing regulatory burdens act, h.r. 872. the energy tax prevention act, h.r. 910. restarting american offshore leasing now act, h.r. 1230. putting the gulf of mexico back to work act, h.r. 1229. these are all related to job creation and getting the private sector creating jobs again. and the list goes on and on. now, one of those is the north american-made energy security act, h.r. 1938. now, this bill is also just sitting in the senate, passed the house july 26 of this year.

now, we -- we're up here talking about bills and legislation and what have you, but i can -- speaking for me, i don't think i can speak for my colleagues here, we're talking about bills and legislation and laws that ultimately -- laws, but ultimately we're talking about policies that will allow folks who are hurting back in our districts, who have been out of work, we're talking about bills that if passed into law would help job creation which will help those folks who are still looking. i give you a specific example. there's a company called wellspun in little rock. and they make massive pipe. an they're talking about expanding -- and they're talking about expanding. well, what are they waiting on or what is one of the things that they're looking at? that's a potential obstacle? they make the pipe for the

keystone pipeline. why are they in little rock? because they're right there at the port of little rock. so they can really haul a lot of steel in those barges and it's -- they've got a huge high-tech, state-of-the-art facility, it's an indian-based company, lots of jobs right there them. want to expand, they want to create more jobs. they're building up that pipe. and we've got an administration that's not sure how they feel about the keystone pipeline that's going to allow for more energy to come from our neighbors to the north instead of from around the world? they're not sure about the keystone pipeline that will create energy jobs, energy-related jobs right here in the united states?

where i come from, keystone pipeline's a in-brainer. -- a no-brainer. that means, you don't even have to think about it. and now i read actually a few minutes ago, i got a news clip, that the president now has decide that he's going to make the ultimate decision on the keystone pipeline. if i was making that decision i'd take about two seconds. it's absolutely critical that we build this both for national security and for energy here at home in terms of jobs. now, on the issue of regulations i want to touch on it real quickly before i pass to my friend, my good friend from colorado. at my jobs conference that we had a few weeks -- a couple weeks ago, senior vice president of tyson foods, we've all heard

of tyson, my kids and i, we love the chicken, we've all heard of tyson, the senior vice president says this about regulations in general, quote, i understand the intended consequences of regulations, but it seems like we turn a blind eye to the unintended consequences of what that's going to mean to us. in arkansas. our industry. to the state of arkansas and to the jobs that support everything that we do. and it seems to be lost in an academic exercise without the consequence of what's going to happen. and we face it across the full spectrum of government agencies and it's terribly frustrating because we all want to do the right thing. now, on the regulatory front he's identified the problem. i had another panelist who owns 10 international house of pancakes restaurants, i love

them. like to eat breakfast there. here's what she said. quote, as a business owner today i am in a constant posture of defense. is that what we want? we want job creators in a constant posture of defense? so i just want to put in a plug. i have just introduced a bill called the job creation and regulatory freeze act. it's somewhat similar to a bill introduced on the senate side by susan collins of maine. and it puts a moratorium on all major regulations coming out of this administration until january of 2013. and my colleague on the senate side, hers is for a year. i didn't think a year was sufficient because at the end of that year the administration could just implement regulations that are waiting.

so i say, let's take it through january, to inauguration day of 2013. because this administration is not -- has not gotten the message on overregulation. this bill would stop major regulations being implemented, new ones, until 2013. now i'd like to yield to my friend from colorado. >> thank you. i appreciate my colleague from arkansas, great friend, yielding to me, just to add a comment. mr. reed: when nye colleague there wisconsin spoke -- when my colleague from wisconsin spoke and as my colleague just mentioned, when we talk about the forgotten 15, now 16, we got to be clear to the american public that those bills that came out of this house had bipartisan support. there are colleagues from the other side of the aisle that have seen the wisdom and the sound policy that's represented by those bills and they've

joined us and supported those bills going over to the senate. yet harry reid, the senate majority leader, has blocked in my opinion those bills from coming to the floor and it's time now for the senate to act. at least bring them up. and debate the issue. i yield back. mr. griffin: in fact, on the keystone bill that i mentioned, h.r. 1938, it was passed on july 26, 2011, the north american-made energy security act, looks like there were 47 democrats that joined with us on that bill. one of many where democrats joined us in a bipartisan effort. but again, stacking up like chord wood on the steps of the senate. mr. reed: and just to conclude on this point, now is not time for our president to divide this country.

we've had bipartisan support on these bills here in the house. i know it hasn't been reported on. by the press. but that's the fact. now what we need to do now, rather than divide the country, when i hear comments from our president talking about, you know, how they have to break up the american jobs act that he's submitted so we republicans can understand it. that's not productive conversation. we understand the jobs bill. and i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand it too and that's demonstrated by the fact that there's only one sponsor of that proposed piece of legislation from the president. no other individual in this chamber co-sponsored that legislation. i think that speaks volumes. they understand it's not good, sound policy. and so now is not the time to try to divide the country with scare tactics, class warfare, trying to go after and paint the top 2% as the reason why we're in this situation.

this is not the time to try to say, oh, china's the bad guy. of course it's not the policies coming out of washington and the overregulations and the noncompetitive tax code or the lack of a vision for a comprehensive energy policy. or doing the responsible thing with coming up with a credible plan to deal with the debt. no, we have to divide this country is the rhetoric that i'm hearing on the campaign trail during this presidential election from our president. i disagree with that. we're here as a freshmen class to really change the culture of washington and i think we are. we're making progress. but we got a lot more work to do and let us never forget that the forgotten 16 bills were done with bipartisan support and we'll continue to work at it because i don't believe the american people are stupid. they will see through all the rhetoric because the american people are like me, they are sick and tired of politics as usual out of washington. that's why we ran, that's why i'm sure my colleagues joining

me today would join empty sentiment that we ran, we left our families and businesses to come down here and once and for all stand up for what's right and what is right is a strong private sector america, an america of principle based on capitalism, based on individualism, individual accountability and responsibility. those are the themes that we promote and that we stand here and will fight for because if we can get those themes implemented into strong, long-term policy, america not only will survive, it will prosper for generations to come. and that's my promise to you here tonight. with that i yield back. mr. griffin: i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i thank the gentleman from arkansas and my colleagues for joining us today to talk about this important issue. you know, in eastern colorado the district that i represent is about 3,2 -- 32,000 square miles, it's bigger than the state of south carolina. and one of the greatest privileges i have in representing that district is meeting with people at the local coffee shop t