who keep these banks connected with their local communities. the national distribute rationale behind s.e.c. registration rules generally is to provide effective and timely disclosure to protect investors which of course all of us support. however, as maryland's banking supervisor notes, the current rule adds to banks' cost with little associated benefits. especially considering that unlike most private companies banks file public disclosure already on a quarterly basis and do so more on a more timely basis than public companies, as mr. himespounted out in his remarks -- himes pointed out in his remarks. the independent community bankers of america, state groups like the maryland banksers association and small banks throughout maryland and the nation support raising this threshold to 2,000.

which this bipartisan legislation would do this will lift a significant regulatory burden on our community banks without any offsetting price in regulatory oversight and make it easier for them to raise capital so they can continue to lend and support job growth in our communs. i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support h.r. 1965. i note that my friend mr. womack is also on the floor. i want to thank him for his leadership on this effort as well and i yield back the balance of my time to mr. himes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. >> i'd like unanimous consent that mr. peters of michigan be designated to control the remained ore of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will control the time. and the gentleman from alabama controls the time, the 20 minutes for the majority. without objection, so ordered.

>> at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. he's an original co-sponsor of the legislation. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the distinguished chairman for the time this afternoon and i'd also like to offer my thanks and appreciation to my friend from connecticut for his leadership on the issue. i am indeed an original co-sponsor. the unemployment rate in our nation still in excess of 9%. millions of americans out of work. i just recently came back from my district where we had a job fair and the 300 or 400 jobs that were allegedly available on that particular day, there were several times more than that looking. and it's a painful reminder to me that job creation is still critical to our country and i'm also reminded as to how important it is that this job creation is linked to access to capital by businesses large and small. the slow pace of the recovery,

the burdens of archaic and often unnecessary legislation have fallen disproportionately on small businesses and particularly community banks. as was commented on a moment ago by the distinguished minority whip, the bank the community banks, are the lifeblood of our communities. they help a family purchase a home. they allow that mechanic the necessary capital to open his first shop. they help a chef open her first restaurant. small businesses rely on these banks to give them a chance, a chance to take advantage of the american dream. today this chamber has the opportunity to make it easier for community banks and small businesses to operate by removing a barrier to raising capital. so today we have the opportunity to pass h.r. 1965 and i stroppingly encourage my colleagues to support it. your support will result in a fact that community banks will

have the flexibility they need to raise capital without having to comply with onerous s.e.c. regulations intended for larger banks and they'll use this money in my district, the third district of arkansas to create jobs that will be good for my district. it will be good for our state. it will be good for america. again, my thanks for the time given to me by leadership and to my friend from connecticut. i strongly encourage support of 1965 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. mr. peters: at this time -- >> at this time i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito, speak on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: i'd like to speak in support of mr. himes' legislation, h.r. 1965, which would amend the securities law

to set thresholds for legislation. we all recognize that capital is tight for leppeders. this bill along with several others passed out of the financial services committee will address the issue of capital formation and allow institutions much-needed resources to stimulate our economy. more capital equals more jobs equals more teem back to work equals a growing economy. the cost of companies to register with the s.e.c. can be burdensome and this cost is augmented when it's applied to smaller institutions they don't have the resources to meet the demands the larminger companies do. this bill would allow banks and bank holding companies access to more capital for that very precious an much-needed impetus. by raising the threshold it would permit easier deregistration and the expenses tied up with registering would go to stim lating our economy, more leppeding, more lending for a florist, a restaurant, i

noticed a longtime straupt was re-opened under new leadership just this morning in charleston. that's good muse. haas the kind of capital small businesses need to stimulate jobs and the economy. i believe this is a good piece of legislation whose effect on the economy will far outweigh any risk. i endorse mr. himes' legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired of this gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: we do not have additional speakers. i would like to reserve our time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. himes: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman from michigan. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 1965. we missed that number by up withful it should be 1964.

1964 was the last time they actually updated these registration numbers. that is a very long time. i can tell you at age 42 it was a number of years before i was even born the last time that this happened. it's high time that it does happen. i can also tell you, mr. speaker, here with the republican americans job creators plans, the first thing on that list is empower small businesses and reduce barriers to job creation. i hope that this bipartisan bill doesn't become part of that lost 5 over in the senate. s that very proactive, bipartisan step that this body is taking that as it goes over across that next chamber needs to be addressed. we need do this bauds we must modern ides, must update, must do these things to remain competitive in the world market. i preebt the opportunity and am pleased that i could rise in support of that bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. is week ert to speak in favor of mr. himes' legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. is week ert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like tufere a thank you to my chairman, mr. baucus and also the -- mr. bachus and thealsspon or of the bill, the gentleman from connecticut. h.r. 1965 actually has an opportunity here to actually solve some things that have been a frustration and learning some of the story was fascinating. in arizona, many of our community banks are quite new. but across the bank you hear about community banks that have been there for many, many, many years. we had one come testify and was telling us this story off to the side that most of its shareholders go back to returning soldiers of world war

ii. and they've literally had the same family, same family members, holding these snares 50 or 60 years. one little technical problem. they've literally been up against their 500 shareholders for all those years so their about to -- ability to access knew capital has been limited by these rules. s that classic case of if we want our banking system, particularly our community banks, our local lenders, to be capitalized which they're typically capitalized with local investments what a terrific piece of legislation. and it's one of those moments where you stand here and you look across the aisle and you find yourself smiling saying, this is terrific. we're doing something bipartisan. we're doing something that actually produces capital in our main street of our communities. particularly for those leners that often fund our local

neighborhood banks. and -- excuse me. our local neighborhood businesses. so we're heading the right direction here. i yield back, mr. speaker, my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan still reserve? mr. peters: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters and i, about two years ago were in kabul together and kandahar on a trip. i remember talking to my democratic colleague and saying that there must be things that republicans and democrats can work together to solve. we were obviously in a country that was torn apart by differences. but we both had something in commn. we were concerned about our constituents, we were concerned about unemployment, we were concerned about jobs.

and i think that's true of every member in this body. we know that the path to prosperity is jobs. and if americans are working, they're earning, they feel better about themselves. and if they're losing their job, then it's going to be not only a problem for them and their family but for their communities and for their country. and i'm happy to report that -- and i think it's fitting that mr. peters would be across the aisle if me managing the dime for the minority, that here we are, moving four pieces of legislation today, tomorrow, and on friday, which will create jobs and they'll do so without government expense. in fact, they'll do so with some marginal savings to the

government. but a great savings to those businesses. this morning, and i don't know that it was a coincidence, this morning the job figures came out and large corporations lost 1,000 employees last month but our middle sized and small businesses created 108,000 jobs. that's not enough jobs. that's not enough jobs to -- for the people graduating and going into the work force. but that's where job creation is coming and the -- in the economy now. small and middle sized businesses. those with under 500 employees, particularly. and that mid range from 50 to 500 employees. this bill that mr. himes has brought forward has won bipartisan support because it actually will create jobs in

those small community banks and credit unions. because it will make their cost of capital less and in a recent survey, 70% of small and middle sized businesses, those with 500 or fewer employees, said if we had more capital if we had more fuppeding, we would hire. 70%. only 14% said they were going to hire. and the difference in that number is the others weren't sure that they could get capital. now there's two ways that you obtain capital. to create jobs. one is you go and borrow it from a bank or insurance company in some cases or from someone else. but there's another way and that way is by someone willing to invest in your company. i can remember as a small boy

my father had a business and before that, he invested in another business. he invested with another man in a business. and i think one of the american dreams, not only a house, and that's still an more than dream to own your own home. even in the circumstances we've been through. but another is, either to have your own business or to be able to invest in somebody else's business. and mr. himes' legislation will allow that threshold of people who want to invest in a community paced financial institution to invest. and it will encourage those community banks to allow more shareholders, more people to participate. yes they will be participating in the risk but they'll also be participating in the profits. that's really the american system. when you invest you take risks.

but also if things are successful, you profit. that's where the risk and profits ought to be taken. they shouldn't be taken by the taxpayers involuntarily. they shouldn't be taken by the government. the government shouldn't take the taxpayers' money and invest in business. if those taxpayers, our constituents, our sit certains, who ought to make the decisions on what companies they want to invest in. and this bill will allow community banks, and we all know they're struggling today, it'll allow them to attract investors, people that say, i want to invest in your bank. they may be people that do business with the bank, they may be people, they probably will be that live in the community. but this bill, and this will be the first of four bills that we bring forward, they are going to be successful. they're going to move from the house to the senate, i predict this week, because there was

agreement as the minority whip, mr. hoyer, said, there's an agreement that this is the right thing to do, that we do have an obligation not only to oppose something but also to be for positive legislation. so this house, this week -- this house this week will be for something. it will be for job creation, it will be for allowing people to invest. it will be enabling companies to attract that capital and hire people. so we can feel very good about ourselves this week. and it can start with this bill. and this is not a minor piece of legislation. it's on suspension because it enjoys widespread support as does the bill tomorrow, but the two in the following days, we've worked out differences. mr. purl mutt heir a concern about -- perlmutter had a concern about a bill later this week. we've addressed that concern by protecting -- he felt like it didn't have enough consumer

protection or investor protection. and we have added his suggestion to the bill. and all for of -- four of these bills that will move this week, they're bipartisan bills. they're not republican bills, they're not democratic bills. they're bipartisan bills. so i commend the minority whip for speaking out for these bills. i think that bodes well. and i hope the senate was listening and i appreciate mr. himes for a bill that really is long overdue, but will immediately allow our community banks to invest and not be depending on the government for help. so i appreciate it, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves or yields back? mr. bachus: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to join in and thank

congressman himes for bringing this very commonsense piece of legislation before us. it's essential to bringing capital into our local communities and creating jobs, as chairman bachus mentioned, and also want to thank chairman bachus, for your leadership on this issue. i remember fondly our trip to afghanistan and it is nice that we have found common ground, that we are working today in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that our communities are strong and vibrant and have the tools necessary to create additional jobs. with that i certainly encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question therefore is, will the house suspend the rules hand pass h.r. 196 -- rules and pass h.r. 1965 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the gentleman from

alabama. mr. bachus: mr. speaker, on that i ask for 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 until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. bachus: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1070 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1070, a bill to amend the securities act of 1933, to authorize the securities and exchange commission to exempt a certain

class of securities from such act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members of the body have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous materials on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bachus: i thank you. mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield to the main sponsor of this bill, mr. she week earth of arizona, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. and first i'd like to start this

with a heartfelt thank you to spencer bachus of alabama, my chairman and financial services, for both his kindness to me as a freshman and also the guidance he's provided me. and to the gentlewoman from california who i hope will speak next who partially helped spearhead this idea and helped us move it forward. one of the reasons i stand here right now with these boards, it's just to sort of help through the concept of this piece of legislation, h.r. 1070. so often around here we refer to it as the regade bill. but what does that mean to people? to try to make it as simple as possible when a company does have an opportunity to do a filing with the securities and exchange commission for a simplified process, to go public, the problem is in today's world that's limited to $5 million. well, no one is going public at $5 million. and we can actually see some of our history of this.

this was first done in 1933 when at that time of the securities and exchange act it was understood that there needed to be a path to go public. well, at that time it was $100,000. and my understanding is in, i think it was in 196 -- actually in 1992 is when it was moved up to $5 million. well, in the 19 years the world has changed a lot. but one of the changes i consider almost a crisis. and that is the number of our companies that aren't going public anymore. and you're going to see on a couple of these boards here that the fact of the matter is we have fewer, substantially fewer, companies that are publicly traded today than we did even a decade ago. now, the first slide here somewhat simple, just trying to demonstrate how many years we've been sitting here at this $5 million level. and it's been 19 years. but as we go on to the next board, and i know this is a little busy to try to read,

staff got a little colorful on this one, but what we're trying to point out is the number of i.p.o.'s that are less than $50 million today are almost nothing. my understanding is last year we had only three companies, only three companies in the entire country take a look at filing in that $5 million and under space. and if you actually look at -- from 1995 to 2004, some of the latest data i was able to find, in that entire timeframe i think there was only 78 companies that actually pursued this process. well, in a country our size, this is a crisis. particularly if we're looking for that path of equity, that path of financing, that path of raising capital for these growing companies. this is one of the reasons we stand here with this reg-a bill, this 1070.

let's go on to this next board. i know this is a little busy, but this is also to try to make the point of what's going on from a competitive standpoint, when you look around the world. all those lines, those are other companies that are listing on exchanges, that are becoming publicly traded, that are reaching out to their -- to the world and raising capital. well, you'll happen to notice a small problem. the line with the dots, that's us. that's our country. we actually are going the other direction. if i remember my numbers here, we actually today have 5,091 publicly traded companies on the big exchanges. well, in 1997, so we got 5,000-some today, in 1997 we had 8,823.

does anyone see a real problem there? literally a little over a decade we've gone down dramatically in the number of publicly listed companies. and my great hope here is by raising this limit from the $5 million up to $50 million, which $50 million is chosen for quite a reason, that is the minimum threshold for a couple of the large exchanges to be publicly traded. and that's why we're doing this. because we're trying to create jobs, we're trying to move equity, and we're trying to be competitive around the world and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: mr. speaker, the american people need to see our congress taking meaningful action to help grow our economy. america is tired of too much partisanship out of washington and they want to see a republican -- see republicans and democrats working together

on bipartisan solutions to create jobs and grow american businesses. as chairman bachus said earlier today, this is exactly what we are doing. but before i go any further, i'd like to thank the gentleman from arizona for introducing h.r. 1070, the small company capital formation act, and i'd also like to thank the gentleman from arizona for working across the aisle to ensure that the concerns of both republicans and democrats were met in this very commonsense bill. mr. speaker, this bill would permit a small company to raise up to $50 million through a security offering process that balances both streamlined registration with adequate investor protections. as of right now, the current exemption under the s.e.c.'s regulation a is little used thanks to the small size of issuances permitted. as a result there are only three offerings last year. the current offering limit of $5 million hasn't been raised since 1992, almost 20 years, and it's

long past time for us to do something about it. in the last congress democrats sent a letter to the s.e.c. recommending that it raise the exemption limit. today we can fix this problem by passing this bill. additionally h.r. 1070 would also provide small and medium companies with the ability to offer securities of up to $50 million publicly without the full cost of registering potentially expanding their access to capital beyond private offerings that many use. in the spirit of bipartisanship, democrats also added important investor protections to this bill. such as requiring companies to provide investors with audited financial statements annually. in addition democrats offered investors legal recourse for misstatements companies make in their per speck tuses in order to prevent potential abuses. finally the gentleman has also

worked with democrats on the remaining issue of contention and that was the preemption of state law. he substituted amendments to h.r. 1070 -- his substituted amendment to h.r. 1070 helps that. regulation a securities can be high risk offerings that may also be susceptible to fraud, making protections provided by the state regulators an essential feature. mr. speaker, it's clear that we must pass this bipartisan legislation to help our small companies grow and create jobs so i urge adoption of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, meek are mr. speaker. at this time -- thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, small businesses are

the engine of the american economy and our legislation will help to provide the boost that they need to create jobs. when i talked to small business leaders in my district, they consistently cite burdensome government regulations, restrictions and difficulty accessing capital as the primary barriers to growth. currently outdated federal rules dampen both innovation and investment because the cost of regulatory compliance is just too high for the up-and-coming firms. h.r. 1070, the small company capital formation act, will help change that. the subject of this bill, regulation a, was enacted during the great depression to help small businesses access financing. however, these rules have not been properly adjusted over time to reflect the rising cost associated with taking a small company public. as a result regulation a

prohibits smaller companies from taking advantage of a crucial capital raising vehicle. h.r. 1070 will reopen the capital markets for small businesses, allowing them to invest and hire new employees. this legislation will jump start the i.p.o. market and revitalize public capital, raising opportunities that have been severely suppressed over the last decade. at a time when capital is harder to find than ever, this bipartisan, commonsense proposal will make our financial system work to the benefit of small businesses and promote greater competition in the marketplace. i thank the gentleman from arizona for his hard work on this legislation and i urge my -- and i ask my colleagues for their support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield one minute to myself. earlier i said that the american citizens, our american

citizens, would like to see republicans and democrats work together to tackle the challenges facing our country. this bill is a great example of that. congresswoman eshoo of california introduced this bill along with my colleague, mr. is week ert from arizona. they are meeting that challenge. as i said, it's a bipartisan effort and i know she deserves much credit for this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i'd like to yield time to a person who has been an incredible lead own this issue and i appreciate the warm comments from the chairman that is -- i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, anna eshoo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes.

ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding time and i want to thank my republican colleagues for both what they are doing today on the floor and for what you have said. these are really difficult economic times for the people in our country. that's why it's so critical for congress to bolster american innovation. that in my view is really what this legislation is about. it's an important way to facile tailt capital formation which is really one of the -- the important pillars of our national economy. capital formation. i know how important this is for small businesses, because my congressional district, which is silicon valley, is the innovation hub of our nation and it thrives on capital formation.

in december of last year, which is almost a year ago, i came to the financial services committee at the invitation of then-chairman barney frank and i want to recognize and thank him today for what he did then as well as the present chairman, chairman bachus, urging the committee to renovate, essentially, regulation a, which was created, as others have said, during the great depression, facilitate the flow of capital into small businesses. it's really quite extraordinary that f.d.r. and members of congress in 1933 recognized the importance of capital formation at that time. we have honored that since then. now regulation -- now it was established as part of the 1933 securities act, it was designed

to provide regulatory relief for small firms that want to share -- sell shares of company stock. i'd like to ask for another minute. mr. peters: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. eshoo: these funds have been used for small companies to test the waters for i.p.o.'s, initial public offers. unfortunately, initial regulation a threshold became stuck at a 1992 level of $5 million. at that low level, the benefit of regulation a offering is extremely limited. in fact, only three companies, as has been said this afternoon, have taken advantage of it in 2010. so this threshold, the $5 million threshold, falls far short of what companies need to develop the cutting edge

technologies in today's economy. it's outdated, it fails to serve its intended purpose and it's why this legislation is needed and why i'm so pleased that on a bipartisan basis we're taking action today. we need to raise the initial public offering limit to help provide capital to small businesses -- 30 seconds more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. eshoo: we look forward to spurring hiring and business development. that's what we're here for. i think it's what the american people want us to do. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of h.r. 1070 to raise regulation offering limiting from $5 million to $50 million. once again creating a meaningful offering limit. what better time than now, when our economy needs this important boost? so i thank the chairman of the

full committee, i thank the ranking member, i thank my colleague from michigan and i thank mr. is week ert for his kind words and i urge all of our colleagues to support this. i think when we do later on today that it lab source of pride and encouragement to the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i'll close. mr. speaker, let me say that you've heard from a member of the commerce committee, ms. eshoo, who i think said it well when she said that we're modernizing, we're updating a rule which had come to restrict the job growth. secondly, she mentioned technology. we know that small business are the innovators.

in fact, you look at google, look at apple, you look at facebook, these companies just in the past two or three decades started off as small businesses and they were able to grow and with the passage of this legislation, we believe that that path will be an easier path. 65% of the jobs created over the last 15 years have been in small business. as every speaker has acknowledged, if there's a time to encourage job creation and capital formation, that time is here. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. bachus: i urge members to vote in favor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan mr. peters: i want to thank my friends, mr. is week ert and ms. eshoo, for their work on this bipartisan bill to help small companies grow and

expand. as we all know, the american people want to see congress working together to strengthen our economy and create jobs. this bill will help businesses access the capital they need to pull out if the tough economic times and put americans back to work. additionally this bill provides the necessary protections investors need to have in order to ensure that they will not be subjected to potential abuses. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for h r. 1070, a common sense, bipartisan bill to improve our economy and i yelled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1070 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. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i ask for the yeas

and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> uh move suspend the rules and pass senate bill 894. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 894, an act to amend title 38, united states code, to provide for an increase effective december 1, 2011, in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemocratnyity compensation for the survivors of certain

disabled veterans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and the gentleman from california, mr. filner, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mill interk mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i rise in support of senate bill 894, the veterans compensation cost of living adjustment act of 2011 this critically important legislation that authorizes a cost of living increase for our veterans' disability compensation, veterans' clothing allowance and other compensation for survivors of veterans who die as a result of service to our country. the amount this is bill would thrs is tied directly to the consumer price index which also controls the cost of living adjustment for social security beneficiaries. i want to thank the senate

veterans affairs committee leadership, senators murray and burr, for working with me and our ranking member, mr. filner to get a cola bill to the president's desk were veterans day. i urge my colleagues to support senate bill 894 and i do reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: like the chair, i rise in support of this cola act sponsored by my good friend patty murray of washington, the chair of the senate committee on veterans affairs. i'm proud to work closely with her in my role as ranking member of the house committee. i thank the leadership of this body for bringing this uncluttered version of the veterans' cola bill to the floor which passed in the senate last month so we may pass it without delay and get it to the president's desk.

the veterans' cola increase will be 3.6% for 2012, a figure tied directly to the social security cola, whose beneficiaries will see the same increase in their payments. as it has been since 1976, congress, with the passage of the veterans cost of living adjustment act, directs the secretary of the v.a. to increase the rates of basic compensation for disabled veterans and the rates of indemocratnyity compensation to their survivors and dependents along with other benefits to keep pace with the rate of inflation. it will enable disables veterans if the world war i era through the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. in of -- many of the 3357b9 billion veteran depend on these payments not only for their own basic needs for but their children and spouses and parents as well. without the increase, these

veterans and fair families and survivors would likely see the value of their hard-earned bep fits slowly eroded. i think we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to guarantee that hose those who sacrificed so much for our country received benefits to keep up with their needs and inflation. we funned the war, let's fund the war hero. let's ensure their benefits make ends meet at the end of the month. i you remember my colleagues to support this bill and i thank senator murray for sponsoring this important measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: i'm happy to yield as much time as he might consume to the chairman of the subcommittee on assistance and world affairs, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. rise today in support of s.

894, the veterans' compensation cost of living act of 2011. it's a companion bill to h.r. 140 , which i introduced in april, which passed this chamber as ameppeded by voice vote in this chamber. s. 894 provides a cost of living adjustment, equal to that being provided to social security resip septembers for veterans disability compensation, an compensation for veteran surviveors. this is an annual bipartisan bill which is scored by the c.b.o. as hag no additional budgetary impact. it's crucial that the benefits are sufficient to meet their needs. as a member of congress representing the district in new jersey with the largest number of disables veterans, i've heard from many veterans back home and in washington

about the importance of the need of this legislation. this cost of living adjustment is tied to an increase in the consumer price index which has not increased in the last two years. s. 894's increase in the cola for 2012 reflects rising inflation rates in our volatile economy. and it is necessary to ensure that the well being of american -- america's veterans who have returned hop rahably who honorably served our country and respect their rights and freedoms. i believe this is the first piece of legislation i have the honor of introducing as a member of congress. i can think of no voter priority and commitment that our country wrows than to those who wear the uniform and defended all we hold dear as a nation. i want to thank chairman miller and ranking member filner for bringing this to the floor quickly and i would like to thank speaker boehner for his support in bringing this bill

to a swift vote. i urge all members to support s. 894 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california. >> i would continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the speaker for yielding. i now yield as much time as he might use, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman the chairman for yielding and, mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this important legislation, which will deliver greater benefits to deserving veterans in tennessee and across this nation. under senate 894 veterans will receive a cost of living increase for the first time in two years. this adjustment is equal to the 3.6% annual increase that will be provided to the social security recipients. this will provide much-needed assistance to service disabled veterans who are receiving v.a. disability benefits and their families. this bill is necessary to ensure the well-being of those who have honorably served our country and

protect our freedoms. in these tough economic times, millions of americans are struggling to make ends meet including many veterans. this bill represents an opportunity to take care of those who have given so much to take care of us and to help them through these tough times. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and as a veteran who has recently returned from afghanistan, i can't say enough about what our troops in the field are doing now. and it is no greater honor than to provide this benefit increase for them that they so richly deserve. i strongly support this, i thank mr. filner for his support, the chairman for his, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california.

>> i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: do you have any further speakers? >> yes, we have two more speakers. mr. miller: i recognize now a new member of the committee, a great advocate for veterans in his time here in congress, mr. guinta from new hampshire, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i rise to have my voice -- add to my voluntary -- voice to those calling for the change of living adjustment for veterans. as americans prepare to observe veterans day next week, it is appropriate that this body is preparing to vote on the veterans' compensation cost of living adjustment act. mr. speaker, this bill would provide a much-needed 3.6% increase in benefits to our veterans, their children and surviving spouses. the men and women of america's armed forces answered our call when the country had asked. now we must do the same for them. my state, new hampshire, has the sixth -- the country's six th largest percentage of veterans by population. nearly 128,000 former service men and women call granite state home. many of them are hurting, the national unemployment rate among

veterans is over 13%, more than 4% higher than the general population. it's why on thursday, november 10, i'm hosting a special veterans job fair in my home state of new hampshire at manchester community college from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to help them find work. we have more than 40 willing employers who are attending, looking to find jobs for our men and women returning to new hampshire. i urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this important cost of living increase for the men and women who have given so much to all of us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i have one more speaker on this bill, a member of the florida delegation, who has three sons wearing the uniform of this country, two sons currently serving in iraq, the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. as a member of congress who represents one of the largest veterans communities in the

united states, i recognize the significant responsibility a congress has to ensure that our veterans receive benefits they so honorably earned. these true american heroes answer to call of duty and put their lives on the line to protect our country, our freedoms and our way of life. it's important to remember that these proud americans also spent their lives working hard, playing by the rules and saving for a stable retirement. that is why today i'm happy to rise in support of the veterans' compensation cost of living adjustment act of 2011. this legislation will provide our proud veterans with their first costive living adjustment since -- cost of living adjust since 2009. mr. speaker, we as a nation owe our veterans a debt that can never fully be repaid. however, as members of congress we can assure that we keep our promise to our veterans by supporting this important legislation. with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: mr. speaker, i urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thanks, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members would have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material they may have on senate bill 894. the speaker pro tempore: hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i once again encourage all of my colleagues to support senate bill 894 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been -- without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. filner, for the service you've done for the veterans throughout the years and of course i want to thank the chairman from florida, for your work in bringing this legislation to the floor. it's very important to the veterans. this legislation affect the benefits of all veterans, by

raising the compensation they receive and allow them to continue to buy the products they need to live. it is important to pass this bill as a clean bill for those who have made sacrifices to protect the freedoms we hold most dear and do not suffer in these tough economic times. in the words of the first president of the united states, george washington, the wordness in which our young people are more likely to serve in any war, no matter how justifiable, should be directly proportion at as -- proportionate as to how they serve the veterans. as we go to veterans day that's coming up november 11, i want to say -- thank all of the veterans for their service and god bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass

senate 894. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, twirs 2/3 -- 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order, h.r. 2061 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 1695 and h.r. 1070. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote , remaining electronic votes

will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2061 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 96, h.r. 2061, a bill to authorize the presentation of the united states flag at funeral of federal civilian employees who are killed while performing official duties or because of their status as a federal employee. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 425 and the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is

amended. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1965 as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1965, a bill to amend the securities laws to establish certain thresholds for shareholder registration and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 420 and the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1070 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1070, a bill to amend the securities act of 1933 to authorize the securities and exchange commission to exempt a certain class of securities from such acts. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 421, the nays are one. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection the title amended. the chair announces the speaker's appointment, pursuant to 26 u.s.c. an thed or ore of -- order of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following members of the house to the executive commission on the people's republic of china.

the clerk: mr. woeful of virginia, mr. manzullo of illinois and mr. royce of california. -- mr. wolf of virginia, mr. manzullo of illinois and mr. royce of california.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. >> a recent graph reflects the progress made so far in this year's appropriations bills. only one box, that's for labor, health and human services committee is blank. with 9.1% unemployment, we need a vigorous debate over this bill. ms. delauro: it includes job training, k through 12 funding and health care services. unlike the 11 other proping bills, labor h is the only bill that has seen no action. instead, the chairman posted a draft bill on the internet representing his own preferences for the people's budget. but the chairman by himself is not the subcommittee. and simply posting a wish list

without ever bringing it to the subcommittee or the full committee for a markup -- >> the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: will members please take their conversations off the floor. ms. delauro: without a markup this bill is not an acceptable substitute for public debate and amendment. this action represents a clear violation of the majority's pledge to follow the regular order or the regular process. if no house markup is held, this would be the first time in nearly a decade that the subcommittee has failed to report a bill. it is time for the chairman and the majority to keep their promises, hold the markup for the labor h bill, the issues that face that subcommittee are too important to be left to the chairman's personal wish list. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, when the coach messes up, blame the team. yesterday in an attempt to divert attention from the attorney general, assistant attorney general took one for the head coach and testified about project gun runner he claim head knew about the practice of gun walking but tried to punt the ball by placing the blame on team a.t.f. for not stopping fast and furious. apparently the justice department knew about fast and furious so why didn't they stop it? mr. brewer said he talked to the a.t.f. about it so he thought he didn't need to tell the attorney general. now it appears the dysfunctional justice department is responsible for this disaster. bottom line, nearly 2,000 semiautomatic weapons were blindly sent into the hands of criminal narcoterrorists in

mexico and people died buzz of this operation. at least two americans and who knows how many mexican nationals. thousands of guns are still accounted for in mexico. clearly the department of justice needs a new head coach and a special council should be apointed to investigate fast and furious an that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this weekend i had the privilege, unfortunately, to attend a funeral of a great american, a constituent of mine living in tucson, arizona, when he passed, counselor luke welcomes. he was a tuskegee airman, born in mississippi, came to memphis at i think age 5 and went to

famous booker t. washington high school. at age 23 he went to tuskegee and was decorated with more honors and awards than you can imagine. mr. cohen: every flying award you can possibly get. he went on to work with air traffic controllers and was the first african-american air traffic controller in memphis, tennessee in our air traffic control station. he served 25 years with the f.a.a. serving duties in anchorage, alaska, also in atlanta, georgia, and in washington. luke weathers was a great man who didn't let race stop him even though sometimes his both integrate the air force and the squadron and the f.a.a. and even his church where the funeral was, little flower, he was the first african-american member of that church in 1963. i was pleased to be with the family and honor this man's memory and appreciate what he

did for our country. he was a great man. i yealed back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republicans have passed over 15 bills that would help create jobs and in addition ease the energy needs of this country. but where are those bills? and why is the president asking us to pass his jobs bill, which almost no democrats have signed on to. we've passed those -- we've passed over 15 bills. they're stuck in the senate. one senator has described the senate as moribund. mr. speaker, we can help create jobs in this country by empowering small businesses and

reducing government barriers to job creation, fixing the tax code to help job creators boost competitiveness for american manufacturers, encourage entrepreneurship and growth, maximize american energy unsust burden and start living within our means. people can find out more about our jobs program by going to jobs.gop.gov and i invite the american people to see what the republicans have presented to the senate and those 15 bills should be passed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, one day before the nation gathers to commemorate veterans day, a day that brings all of

us together, it saddens me to come to the floor of the house and announce under the leadership of governor perry, on november 10, in texas, the department of motor vehicle board will be voting to authorize a state issued confederate license plate. now, i realize that our work here in the congress is about passing the jobs bill, of which we are advocating to do so, but i think it is a disgrace on the history of this nation that a state elected agricultural commission by the name of mr. patterson continues to push forward this untimely and ill fated action. the confederate flag does not protect or honor confederate soldiers. you can do that in museums. the symbol of the confederate flag is that of the clansmen of the late 1800's and early

1900's, the jim crowism of the 1940's and 1950's, it's an ugly reminder of the past of our history. it's to take america forward and texas forward. i will be in austin on november 10, opposing that action. i ask all good faith, well-intended texans that want to take texas forward to come and oppose any vote that would issue a confederate flag and i make a clarion call to all americans who would like to drive to texas, come to austin, stand up against this dastardly deed and stand up against promoting slavery and oppression to come to texas, tell governor perry and commissioner patterson, enough is enough. take the nation forward, don't take it backwards. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to share

the story of mark andall, a member of my western new york community. mark owns a welding and fabricating company in my district. like many american manufacturers, it lost sales to china in recent years and was forced to cut its 70-person work force in half. mark was frustrated and decided to do something about it. he opened a general store that sells only products manufactured entirely in america. mr. higgins: when it opened last year, the store offered 50 products. since then sales have doubled, it now sells over 3,500 products that are 100% american-made, right down to the packaging. i visited mark's store earlier this week and was highly impressed. i was happy to invite him to make it in america working meeting hosted by the white house and our democratic whip, mr. hoyer, tomorrow. mr. speaker, mark's experience demonstrates why we need to strengthen our trade laws and pass the china currency reform

bill. in the meantime, i would like to salute mark andall for his commitment to the american worker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other requests for one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. carson of indiana for today, mr. ruppersberger of maryland for today and the bam of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take this hour together with my colleagues to discuss jobs in america. i think we know from our recent visits back to our district that there's a great deal of pain in america. americans want to go to work and yet the jobs are not available. our president has proposed the american jobs act, a program that would put perhaps 1.9 million americans to work as soon as the congress of the united states were to pass that legislation. and so that's the subject matter of this hour, is how to get americans back to work. and how to pay for it. i'm going to start with the pay-for, a word that's used

around here but perhaps not ready understood stood by americans -- readily understood stood by americans -- understood by americans. let's start with an analysis of the distribution of income in america. there's been more and more discussion about this in recent weeks and appropriately so. because what's happened over the last 25 years to 30 years is a skewing of wide separation in wealth in the united states, to a point that it is now perhaps the widest separation between the very wealthy and the middle and poor people in america and that's -- that's ever occurred in our history. and here's a pretty good description of it. if you take the top 1%, you've seen an enormous growth in their income. about 350%. and if you take the middle, the other 4/5 of the other 99% of the american population, you see

very, very modest growth and in the case of the poor you've actually seen a decline in their income over the last two decades. and that's what's happened is this enormous separation between the very wealthy and the middle class, the working men and women of america, not that the real rich don't work, it's just not that many of them, but they sure have got a big share of the money. let's take, for example, the top executives of the oil industry. if we were to take the top executives of the big five oil companies and compare them to a firefighter, a firefighter averages about $47,000 a year. an executive, the c.e.o. of an oil company would have $-- 307 times that amount of income. and if you take a teacher, let's say $53,000 a year, 273 times the amount of income of a

teacher. so what you're seeing here in just the oil industry and this is repeated certainly in the banking and the wall street industries, the financial industries, you see this enormous separation. 30, 40 years ago this was in the range of 40 times, maybe 50 times. but now we're talking 300 to -- in the low 300's. separation of the super wealthy and the working middle class, the men and women that are out there constructing school -- making our schools or teaching our kids or protecting us, police and firefighters. i put those up because it provides us with a solution. before i get to the solution, let's just take one more look at the way this income distribution is occurring here in the united states. the rising inequality since 1970's show a very sharp break in the prosperity from an

earlier era. in 1946 to 1976 the top 1% actually had a very small portion of the total wealth. in 1976 to 1970 we see an enormous growth in the wealth, the average income, not the wealth but the average income of the top 1%. so that now it dwarfs the rest of the population. sooneds this is why you see occupy wall street, occupy oakland, and the other cities, talking about the 99ers, the 99%. the 99% are the rest of us and the 1% are the c.e.o.'s, the wall street bar ons and those that -- boehners and those who have made -- barrons and those who have made an enormous amount of income. in the last decade that's even more apparent with the bush tax cuts that occurred in 2001 and 2003. they basically significantly lowered the tax rate for the super wealthies and allowed them to keep even more of the

extraordinary growth in their salaries and their income. so, how does that relate to american jobs? well, very, very directly. the american jobs program that the president put forth called the american jobs act would provide very substantial opportunities for employment. and what i'd like to talk about is small businesses here. the small businesses of america are given a very substantial tax break in two different ways if they are to hire new people. for example, small businesses with less than 5 -- $5 million of payroll are able to not pay their payroll tax. in other words, keep that money and go out and hire people. in addition to that, with veterans day coming up in just one week, we ought to be thinking about the veterans. we know that we have more than a million and a half americans that have been overseas fighting

in iraq and afghanistan and a few other places around the world. as those veterans come back, they have become the highest proportion of unemployed in america. it would seem to me that since we are asking so much of those men and women that have served in our armed forces, particularly those that have served in the afghanistan and iraq wars, that we ought to be looking to their interest very directly and making certain that our programs are focused on them. well, this is not lost on our president. in the american jobs act he deals very directly with this by providing employers with a very powerful incentive to hire veterans. so with veterans day coming up, let's take a look at that. let's take a look at what the president is proposing for the

877,000 unemployed veterans, the men and women who were out there fighting for this country, protecting us and doing what has been asked of them in an extraordinary way. with more than 6,000 of them having given their life and over 40,000 having been seriously wounded and of that 40,000 a very large proportion permanently, permanently damaged. and many difficult and extraordinary ways. 877,000 of them are unemployed. and the president looking at the jobs, the necessity of building jobs in america said, let's take care of those people. so what he has proposed, and i think this is a terrific idea, is that small businesses, in fact, any business that is out to hire a veteran will be given an immediate $5,600 tax credit. so that the taxes owed by that business or that employer would automatically be reduced for every vet ran hired by $5,600.

you can reduce your taxes by $5,600. even more so, if that veteran happens to be among those that have been wounded, and as i said, that's over 40,000, if you were to hire one of those wounded veterans, one of the seriously wounded that is connected with their service disability, the tax credit increases to $9,600. that's a very, very powerful incentive for businesses to hire a veteran. so with veterans day one week away, it's incumbent upon the 435 of us here in the united states congress to not just talk the talk, but begin to vote to provide the veterans with the

services that they need. now, why did i start off with this graph? why did i start off with this, showing the income disparity in the united states? because this is how we should be paying for it. those americans that have done extraordinarily well, and we're not talking just about extraordinarily, we're talking about extraordinarily, extraordinarily well. that have seen their income rise to a point of astronomical figures in some cases and certainly seen on wall street, that it's time for them to push aside the george w. bush tax cuts that allowed them to keep a very large portion of this, their taxes went down on income over $250,000 for joint filers, it went down from 39% to 35% and do keep in mind, all of the tax

writeoffs that they're able to take advantage of, that most americans can't get, but nonetheless since they've had 11 good years, 11 good years where they have received a significant tax cut, i think it's time for them to share and help our veterans get a job. and so the president has proposed as part of his american jobs act, which is fully paid for, that those men and women whose annual adjusted gross income after deductions, adjusted gross income after deductions is $1 million or more , and we're not talking about mom and pop on main street here, we're talking about those folks on wall street and those c.e.o.'s from the energy industry and the oil companies, those folks, it's time for them to come back and help america.

it's time for them to stop shipping jobs offshore, stop playing all the wall street gambling games that got us into such trouble, and it's time for them to share in a fair way, to pay for an american jobs act that would put veterans back to work by providing businesses in the united states with a tax credit when they hire one of those 877,000 unemployed veterans that have been out there keeping this country safe. so, you earn more than $1 million, adjusted gross income, after all of your deductions, yes, 5.6% of that income over and above would be surcharged and it would go back up to just about 40%. is that going to hurt anybody? no. is it going to help somebody? oh, yes. oh, yes, it's going to help

americans go back to work. and it's not just in the area of veterans, although we certainly ought to be focusing on this. my republican colleagues here on the floor is, let's not just talk about veterans and how we honor them next week, let's vote this week while we are here to put the american jobs act out of this house or at least put this part of the american jobs act out of the house and pay for it with a surcharge on those very fortunate americans who have worked hard, been lucky or whatever, allow them the opportunity to pay for putting our veterans back to work. so, let's get with it. i know you're going to go back to your districts, you're going to go to the veterans parades and you're going to talk all the talk. but here's where the walk occurs. in this house, in this week we have the opportunity, in fact, we have the obligation to really

help our veterans, to really help them by putting them back to work. 6 this is one way of doing it. let me talk for a moment about another way of doing it. i think i'll do it with this one. not only 877,000 veterans unemployed, but well over nine million, 12 million americans, another 12 million underemployed. the president in his job act says for small businesses, if you hire an unemployed person who has been unemployed for six months or more, you can have a $4,000 tax credit. so veterans, $5,600, a wounded veteran, one of our returning heroes, $9,600, and for a

long-term unemployed american, hire somebody and you can reduce your tax burden by $4,000. that's a pretty good deal. in addition to that, your small business with the payroll tax -- a payroll of less than $5 million, you can write off not pay, the payroll tax at all. for individual famthrirks president has proposed, and we all talk about the need for individual families who have additional money in their pocket, so the american jobs act said for individual family, tell you what, half of the payroll tax that you presently pay, about 6% you don't have to pay it. you can keep that money. it's over $1,500 a year in the pockets of average americans out there so the president has put together a program here, the american jobs act to deal with unemployed, some six

million who have been unemployed more than six months, hire them, get a $4,000 tax credit, hire an unemployed veteran, and you can get a $5,600 tax credit or if that veteran happens to be one of the wounded warriors, one of america's true heroes, it's $9,600. so it's time for us to act. it's time for the american public to tell congress, we can't wait. we can't wait. we can't take any more of this unemployment. pass a real jobs program. and i know my colleague here a few moments ago was talking about the 15 bills that went over to the senate. if you take a look at those bills, not one of them was a real jobs bill. what they did was basically cut the environmental regulations of this nation so that our children can have a little more arsenic, a little more mercury, and a little more pollution. and a little more polluted water.

that's not a jobs bill. there's no economist in this nation that would tell you by gutting the environmental regulations you're going to produce jobs, what you're going to produce is sickness, ill health, cancer and the rest. those are not real job bills at all. the real job bill is the american jobs act. we're going to be talking about that with my colleague from ohio in just a few moments. i want to share with you a piece of legislation that i've introduced. all of us are paying taxes, at least -- i think most every american pays some sort of tax, a payroll tax or perhaps a tax -- income tax. that tax money is used for a variety of things, it's used for military, social security, medicare and the like. it's also used to subsidize a variety of programs. today at a press conference we talked about the $12 billion a year subsidies that we pay to the oil companies. that's right.

you and i pay our tax money to the oil companies so they can have a little more. keep in mind that this year, their profits are up 100%. in the last decade, they've had $1 trillion of profit. they don't need our tax money. but there is a program for clean solar and wind. those kind of programs are our tax money being used to subsidize green energy. we also use our tax money to build highways, bridges, trains, light rail systems, this bill h.r. 613 simply says that if our tax money, in this case the gasoline tax money, is going to be used, it must be used to buy american made equipment. so that that amtrak train out there is made in america. we're paying for it, it's our tax money, it ought to be american made. this is part of the make it in america agenda. if you want to put a solar panel on your roof, and you

want the federal tax credit, terrific. buy american made solar panels. you don't like american made solar panels? use your own money, buy whatever you want. but don't use our tax money to buy a chinese panel. help american jobs, make it in america. same way with these wind turbines we're seeing around the united states. it's our tax money that is subsidizing that, and that's good. what's not good is that the wind turbines are made in china or europe. american made. you want the tax credit, buy american made credit. now joining us from this great state of ohio is congresswoman betty sutton. ms. sut iston, please, i know you've been involved in this for a long time, the make it in america agenda, share with us your thoughts. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for his leader ship. you have been a strong voice for the people in this country, standing up for the middle

class, it's my privilege to join you here on behalf of the hard working people of ohio. i think that we begin by noting that we think that the true measure of america's economic success is the well being of american families. not just the stock market, or corporate profit. now i know that you've already -- you've already talked about this but it's just so important that we focus on the fact that the promise of america must be for all americans, not just the wealthy few. so we come to this floor and we once again look at a couple of things. one of them, we've heard it many times, but it bears repeting. you know, even some of those who have done so well in america now are calling on us to have them do well by america. we have heard warren buffett say, here's a chart that shows that his income was $46

billion, his tax rate is 17.7%. his secretary's income is $60,000. and his secretary's tax rate is 30%. and to quote warren buffett, he says, you know, my friends and i have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly congress. so even he is calling on congress, and we join him in that call, because it's so important that we focus on what is the back bone of this country. what makes this country so great is the strength of its middle class and we know that it has been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. we're now in a place where one in four homeowners are under water. that means owing more on their mortgage than their house is even worth. we know that college tuition and fees increase about 300% over the last 20 years and graduates are now leaving school with an average debt of

$24,000. taxes for the richest 400 americans were sliced in half as their income quadrupled and now they are paying only 17%. now this is a complicated problem but it's a serious problem. -- problem. the good news is it doesn't have to be this way. and we all know, representative garamendi, and we all know that the key, the solution to strengthening this great country and restoring the promise of the middle class, lies in betting people -- getting people back to work. i'm very happy to hear you talking about your bill that deals with making sure that we're buying american. when we move into new industries in the future, i have a number of bills that require the use of iron and steel and manufactured -- manufactured goods made in america when we build our infrastructure, which, of

course, representative garamendi is one of the key components that building of our nation's infrastructure. that our president is trying to make happen with the american jobs act. if i could just pull up, why do we need to do that? obviously we need to put people back to work but we also have this. we have more than 2,00 miles of our roads in need of repair. that's greater than the distance between washington, d.c. and san francisco, california. now that's research, that's from the research and innovative technology institution at the u.s. department of transportation. so we know that the need is extraordinary and what would this mean for our workers, who would it mean? under the american jobs act, building new jobs for nearly two million unemployed construction workers.

can you imagine? we know that when we strengthen our infrastructure we strengthen our middle class and we strengthen our nation as a whole and its place in the world. so with that, thank you again, representative garamendi, for being down here, fighting the fight, because we can do things differently. and get results. results that work not just for the privileged few, not just for the billionaires and millionaires but for people who want nothing more than than a chance, a fair chance at the american dream. mr. garamendi: how correct you are. thank you very much, ms. sutton. thank you for bringing up the issue of infrastructure. infrastructure is a problem all across the nation. i spoke earlier about the use of our tax dollars to support infrastructure so we buy american, so we can make it in america and those are middle class jobs. once we start making things in america we start making middle class jobs. and the american jobs act has

the potential of putting two million americans back to work. many of them construction. those are not just temporary things that are going to be built. those are permanent foundations upon which the economy will grow in the future. so it's a sanitation system, it's a water system it's a highway. that is a solid investment that gives the american foundation -- the american economy a foundation upon which it can build and immediate jobs. what does it take? ms. sutton: will the gentleman yield for a moment in you mentioned our water and sewer infrastructure which is critically important. as we build that out, i have a bill that's called stop american job from going down the drain act. that would require -- mr. garamendi: wait. off bill that does what? ms. out sutton: it's called stop american jobs from going

down the drain act. mr. garamendi: i thourget i heard you say that. ms. sutton: it's deals with our water and sewage system which requires rebuilding, as we rebuild we can multiply the jobs act if, as this bill requires, we use american iron, steel, and manufactured goods. then the ripple effect of putting those folks who work in those industries, ironworkers, steelworkers, those who work in manufacturing, they also will have the benefit of us building out, in addition to our construction workers. i yield back. mr. garamendi: i want to come back to your don't let american jobs go down the drain act, i love that title, but more important, i love what it tries to accomplish. i notice our colleague from illinois has joined us here today. ms. schakowsky, you're not too

far from ohio, you must have similar issues in the great midwest. ms. schakowsky: everyone has the same issue the underground shm systems, the water system the overhead system the brims, i wonder sometimes about those who don't support the american jobs act, don't they drive over brecks? don't their tamlies drive over bridges? we have 400 unsafe -- structurally unsafe bridges in the state of illinois and you know, so aside from the jobs that it would create, the safety issues that would be addressed. i wanted to just debunk a myth that is so persistent and that some of our colleagues on the republican side want to repeat over and over again and that is that the stimulus bill did nothing, created no jobs. of course that's just not true. no matter how many times they say it, it's not true. between 1.9 million and three million jobs were created or saved. but i also know it's not true because many of those same

people when the ribbons get cut on those projects, actually appear at the ribbon cuttings. as we speak right now, there are people who are collecting those photos and videos and news accounts of those people who say the stimulus program created no jobs so that we can compile those kinds of things and show the hypocrisy that, yeah, when the project opens, there they are, smiling and cutting the ribbon. because it's not true. it did create jobs. i wanted to point out that at the very beginning of our country, george washington asked alexander hamilton to come up with a manufacturing strategy. mr. garamendi: hamilton was the -- ms. sutton: he was secretary of the treasury he came up with an 11-point manufacturing strategy. at that point, almost everything had to be imported

from -- mainly from england, with whom our colonies had just broken, and now our country was trying to create its independent and what alexander hamilton did was kick off the american industrial revolution, and there are a number of principles which i think are applicable today. they call stimulus, he doesn't use that word, but he talks about at the kuhn year bounties which -- pecuniary bounties which is used to support jobs. this is the most he have indicating means of supporting manufacturing and it is the best. though it hasn't been the practice. he says, of the united states. and that we should -- we should do that. also says the encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home and the introduction into the united states as such as may have been made in other

countries, particularly those which we -- relate to machinery. so we had a comprehensive industrial manufacturing policy which involved the public sector, making contributions, investing and making sure that not only did we have a vibrant industrial economy but we had people that would work in those things. and by the way, when george washington found out that he had been elected president, he looked for an american-made suit and finally found someone in connecticut that was actually making those, the fabrics because they, you know, while we had the raw materials they were made into clothing mostly in england and he was darned if he was going to be wearing an imported from england suit to the inauguration as president. mr. garamendi: i'm absolutely fascinated. i heard some of this before but i'm so happy you brought this attention.

the very first day of this country we've had a policy in the united states of encouraging manufacturing, making it in america. ms. schakowsky: that's exactly right. mr. garamendi: george washington's inaugural suit, i am being to use that. that is a wonderful, wonderful story. i understand the canal system that was a way of transportation, infrastructure, was also came about at that time. i know here the potomac river canal, george washington started that at about the same time and then the erie canal. all of these were transportation systems that were right back at the beginning of our country. ms. schakowsky: these are called public works for a reason. they are good for our economy. they put people to work. and that's exactly what we ought to be doing. and that's what the american jobs act is for. let me just emphasize one other

piece of that and that is the piece of fixing our schools. again, not only does this create jobs and not only does this do it summer, winter, spring and fall, because you don't have to wait for construction season, but it also means that our children who are sitting in school rooms around the country that are really toxic, where there is asbestos contamination or is dangerous or inadequate in the sense of being not wired for the kinds of technology we need for the future in order for them to be able to get good jobs not only now but when they become adults and go into the work force. this is such a no-brainer to me. if we are serious about wanting to educate our children as well as put people to work as well as create a healthy environment for them, this is such a sensible proposal, a part of the american jobs act. mr. garamendi: if i recall, there are 35,000 schools that could be renovated, classrooms,

playgrounds, roofs, painting, bathrooms, laboratories, 35,000 schools across this nation. ms. schakowsky: and electrical connections for the internet. mr. garamendi: and i bet some of those are -- ms. sutton: absolutely. ohio is in need and i think it's important that we look at not the cost that we're experiencing today. by the failure to put people to work, doing this work that needs to be done in our schools, building our nation's infrastructure which needs serious attention, according to all of the estimates and all of the surveys out there. the fact of the matter is it's important to look at the long-term affects too because those schools, those schools. if we fail to invest in education, whether it's in the physical facilities or education in general which is another place that some of our colleagues across the aisle

want to cut back. you know, the american jobs act is going to put more teachers in the schools. one of the things that we do is we choke off our future. because other countries, make no mistake, they're investing in education because they know that that creates a better future. not just for the children and the students themselves but for their nation and the strength of their nation. and they're also, representative garamendi, investing in their infrastructure for the same reason. because you have an up-to-date, a state-of-the-art infrastructure that will strengthen their competitiveness. it's going to strengthen their place in the world. and while others are doing that, here we are with all of this work that needs to be done that would add to the value, the value of our nation which is so great in the first

instance, but there is no substitute, right, for creating real value? we saw in this last recession, we saw the very -- the very risky proposition of people on wall street, you know, moving money around, not creating any real value. and you would think that more would have learned the lesson, right, because we need to have strong infrastructure. when you put people to work building things, you're creating real value. when you put people to work in manufacturing and you take something of lesser value and you turn it into something of greater value, that cannot be replaced with smoke and mirrors trading that we saw going on before the recession. mr. garamendi: you're quite correct about smoke and mirrors and when you brought up education, in the american jobs act, the president has proposed a better deal for the american

-- for america. and part of it is this education piece. it's right here. in the american jobs act, fully paid for -- we are not adding a nickel to the deficit -- fully paid for is a huge and important education piece. we talked about the renovation of schools. just the environment in which kids will learn. if you have a good learning environment, it's clean, it's healthy, well-lit, the electrical system works, you have air conditioning and the rest, kids will learn much, much faster in a better situation. but you also need a teacher. i know in california, i know from my daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are teachers, the layoffs that have occurred in their school and the increase in their class size. she went -- my daughter went from 22, 23 students to 32, 33 students in her class because of layoffs. the president in his american jobs act has proposed that 280,000 -- 280,000 teachers

across this nation go back into the classroom, that they don't have a pink slip, that they're not unemployed, that they're actually teaching our kids. and as you said, the most important investment of society makes is in the education of their children. infrastructure, critically important. security, national security, military, critically important. but if you don't have a well-educated work force, all the rest will fail. and so let's put these teachers back in the classroom. let's use a fair tax policy, those that have done so extraordinarily well in the last two decades, the top 1%, let them help the rest of the 99% by paying 5.5% more on income over and above $1 million. it works. it's fair and 280,000 teachers will be back in the classroom.

there will be police and firemen in the street to help protect us. what's wrong with that? why are we not doing it? in the senate last week and again this week, a republican filibuster was used to stop the progress of the american jobs act. and here in the house of representatives, it's not even heard before committee. republican leadership will not even allow it to be heard. so let's get on with it. let's put americans back to work. share with us. ms. sutton: thank you so much, representative garamendi. you know, it seems that thereby some, there are some here in this body, and, you know, with all due respect, there are a lot of folks who come to congress and they're fairly well heeled themselves. it seems that some who are here, they seem fixated on

protecting those tax breaks that ship jobs overseas. they seem very concerned about that top 1%, the billionaires and the millionaires. and it seems as if they almost believe that we can fix this country's economy without making most americans better off which is a backwards proposition. it's almost like they think that the top 1% is who built this country and that that's where all of our policies should be aimed. but i disagree and i know represent, representative garamendi, -- and i know, representative garamendi, that you do as well. when we have people building infrastructure and building -- making things in manufacturing that that has a way of rippling out, right? and then we have those

taxpayers who, of course, are energizing our economy and then we have the revenue that comes into our communities that can put our firefighters and our police officers and our teachers, you know, into a salary that they have earned and they deserve for doing the important work that they do. but instead of doing that, instead of making the choice of those at the top should pay a fair share. they want to take more out of those firefighters and teachers and police officers and nurses. you know, representative garamendi, right now when we speak we are a week away from a referendum in the state of ohio and if that referendum, if that issue, issue 2 is voted down, it will be a really big moment because what that would do is it would repeal a bill that was passed by the state legislature there.

and that bill aimed at attacking our firefighters, our police officers, our teachers and our nurses by reducing their collective bargaining rights, their ability to even have a voice at the table, to be part of the solution which they always are because they know what's going on in america. they didn't go into those jobs because they thought that they would make tons of money. they went into those jobs because they had a commitment to service, to teach our kids, to run into our homes when they're burning, to try and save us, to go out on our streets and make them self, and yet they're the ones that some are looking at to get money back. it wasn't our teachers or our firefighters or our police officers. it wasn't the seniors on social security or medicare. it wasn't the students and their pell grants that drove our economy off the cliff.

it was wall street that drove our economy off the cliff, and it's time that they pay a fair share so middle-class america can start to breathe a little easier again, knowing that they'll have opportunities in this country. mr. garamendi: i am so proud of what you and others are doing in ohio, fighting back against an extraordinarily unfair law that takes away the ability of people to come together and collectively voice their concerns. that's what it's all about. you can say it's unions, yes, but it's also the ability of people to say, wait a minute. we're all working here at this school, and we're the workers, we're the teachers, and we should have a voice in what is going on here. not just in our pay and our benefits, but also in the way this is working. so you're fighting back and you're making progress and

hopefully that proposition will pass and we'll begin to set a new model. ms. sutton: well, representative garamendi, i couldn't agree more with the idea that this is the voice of the people. this is a referendum. they said to the republican governor and the legislature, you've gone too far. you've gone -- our firefighters and our police officers, our teachers, they're not our enemies. they're our heroes. there are people who we look up to who do good work on behalf of all of us, not just those who are the privileged few. and this is where we make our stand on this referendum. so it's so important that the american people look at what's going on, frankly in ohio, and that we have a strong voice and frankly just to make sure that we have a correct record, a no vote on that bill -- on that issue is going to repeal that bad bill. so hopefully we'll see what the people in ohio do. but i am confident that we're speaking up together for one another and for police and for

fire and teachers. mr. garamendi: we also need to understand where the power has shifted. the power has shifted here. this is the average pay of the c.e.o.'s of the five biggest oil companies. $14.5 million. that's 307 times the pay of a firefighters, 270 times the pife a teacher, 263 times the pife an average police officer and 218 times the average pay of a nurse. what we have seen because power has shifted and part of this has to do with collective bargaining, power has shifted to the c.e.o.'s and extraordinarily wealthy. that's resulted in this situation where the middle class, the poor in america, have seen virtually no change in their income over the last 20, 25 years. they've been flatlined.

basically, the same. same level of income. just making it. and the only reason this particular line, this is the next highest 20%. the only reason they've seen their income grow is that both husband and wife are now working. back there, back in the 1970's, mostly just one or the other were working. now both are working. but look here. this is the top 1%. here's the 99ers. here's the 99%, down here at the bottom. and the 1% up here. what we're saying is, let's put americans back to work with the american jobs act and let's have a fair tax. not the george w. bush tax cuts that gave this group even greater wealth. greater annual income by cutting their taxes, but rather to restore that tax rate and allow that money to be used to hire the unemployed veteran.

877,000 unemployed veterans. these are the men and women that fought for us in iraq. these are the men and women that fought for us in afghanistan. these are the men and women who came back without their legs, with their minds jumbled because of an i.e.d. 77,000 of them. give them a chance and let this group that's been so extraordinarily successful, in part because of their own work and in part because of the tax cuts that they've enjoyed for the last 11 years. ms. sutton: you make such an important point. here we are, coming up on veterans day, it is not enough to just go out to ceremonies on veteran days and express our appreciation, although that should happen. we should be expressing our appreciation to veterans not just through those ceremonies but through our policies. we have all these veterans out there who are returning from the current wars.

we have other veterans out there looking for opportunities. and the american jobs act will help us to create those opportunities that they so richly deserved and let's be clear the people who are fighting our wars, they are part of the 99%. very few part of the 1%. so it's really, really important that we do focus on giving the opportunities, the american dream, the fact that if you work hard and you try hard and you play by the rules, that you'll be able to make it in america. that is part of what they were fighting for. so i could not agree more. we've got to focus on getting help to our veterans. mr. garamendi: as we begin to wrap up our hour here, veterans day, one week away. 435 of us here in this house. representing the american people.

we have an opportunity, and all of us will be out there on november 11, an we'll be doing our parades and we'll be giving our speeches about how wonderful the veterans have been in america. 877,000 of them have returned from iraq and afghanistan and have served this country in an extraordinary way. they're unemployed. they need a job. the american jobs act will provide every employer in the united states with a $5,6, -- with a 5,600 tax reduction -- not a -- excuse me a tax credit, their taxes reduced by $5,600. every unemployed veteran they hire. and if they hire a veteran who has been wounded, one of our returning american heroes, it's a $9,600 reduction in that

employer's tax. why are we not doing this? fully paid for. paid for by those that have been so ex-trordnary -- so extraordinarily successful in the last decade with a small tax increase. why are we not helping our rhett rans find a job? because in this house, the speaker and the republican party refuse to address this issue. no hearings have taken place on the american jobs act that the president has put before this congress. you can talk the talk. you can talk the talk forever. you can go home and talk the talk. or you can be here this week and you can give our veterans a real opportunity. it's not just those who have returned from the war. there are veterans out there that fought in the previous wars, that are served this country in vietnam. and in the first gulf war.

they're unemployed. or they are retired and they're receiving social security. so here on this floor, proposals have been put forth, and in the supersubcommittee, again, proposals put -- in the super committee, gep, proposals put forth, to reduce the foundation for retirement in this nation that the so -- so that the 1% don't have to pay their fair share of the taxes. something is wrong. those seniors and veterans are dependent on medicare for their health when we consider it was medicare that took more than 50% of the seniors out of poverty in the 1960's, gave them the health care they needed to stay alive. yet the proposal put forth on this floor and voted three times by our republican colleagues would destroy medicare.

and put every senior at risk. and those who are 55 and younger would never receive medicare. they'd be thrown to the mercy of the private insurance companies. why would we ever allow that to happen? because we want -- because apparently some want to continue the tax breaks for the super wealthy. but here we are. one week away from veterans day, a lot of talk. i want some action. america can't wait. these 877,000 veterans expect wait for a job. -- can't wait for a job. in ohio and california and every other state in this nation, this is the reality faced by veterans. and this house has an obligation. this speaker has an obligation, to put the legislation before this house and let us speak,

let us represent the people that elected us. please share with us your thoughts. ms. sutton thank you for joining us. you've been a wonderful representative of ohio, i've watched you fight day after day to put legislation in place so that your men and women in your district -- in your district can go back to work. ms. sutton: it is my honor and privilege to stand up for the people of ohio and the veterans you were speaking of. i have to say, you know when those veterans were on the battlefield, they weren't just fighting for wall street. they were fighting for the united states of america. and all that it stands for. they weren't just fighting for the top 1%. they were fighting for all of us. and now they're coming back an we have an obligation, we have a promise that we have made to them. part of which would be fulfilled if we could get the american jobs act passed. and so it is incumbent upon us

to beat back, we hear a lot of rhetorical terms, in the last election, representative garamendi, we heard over and over again, we could create jobs if we could get the government off the backs of -- well, look, the refrain that government don't want government on their back, i agree they don't want government on their back. but you know what, they do want government on their side and that is not what they have been getting. that is why we have to be here, to stand up for the middle class to stand up for those veterans, for those seniors, for those college students, for those workers, for those firefighters and police officers, those teachers and those nurses, who have suffered far less growth as we know wall street continues to flourish with record c.e.o. bonuses and all of those profits. we just want people to pay their fair share and want the american people to have a fair

shake. thank you for your leadership, representative fware men dee. you have been tremendous. mr. garamendi: thank you, ms. sutton, for so abley representing ohio and your states. we've got work to do. we've got veterans to care for and they need help. americans want scrobs and the american jobs act is there. if we were to bring that up today or tomorrow instead of the foolish little bills that have been going on around here for the last month and a half, americans can go back to work and it would be fully paid for with a fair tax. we have work to do. i ask the speaker of the house, my republican colleagues, to give americans a chance to go back to work. put the american jobs act up for a vote. put that tax up for a vote. let's pass it. i think we'd vote it out of here in half a moment if we had a chance. right now, woe don't even have that chance. with that, and hope for the

future, and thanksgiving for those men and women that have been out there protecting this nation, the veterans, young and old, able and disabled, we thank them. thank you. ms. sutton: thank you. mr. garamendi: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this afternoon, we're going to talk about a very important development here in the house of representatives. in fact, in the entire congress, because of the vote this summer on the budget control act, we are going to have in both the house and senate for the first time in about 15 years a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution.

the last time we did this was on march 2, 1995. actually the house had already passed it with 300 bipartisan votes, and it was brought to the senate floor on that day. the u.s. senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. the amendment had passed the house by the required 2/3 majority previously and the senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the states. as we know, balanced budget amendments, in fact, any constitutional amendment, is voted on by the house and senate, requiring a 2/3 vote in each body, then it does not go to the president of the united states as legislation does. instead, it goes directly to our stays. and then p three-quarters of the state lemming slaytures would be required to ratify it. if that amendment had passed we would not be dealing with the

fiscal crisis we face. if that amendment had passed, balancing the budget would have been the norm not the exception over the last 15 years an we would have nothing like the skyrocketing deficits we must address today. the good news is, like 1995, this congress is again standing at a crossroads at this very moment. the decisions we make today will steer the direction of the country for the next 15 years. we have an opportunity now to take action to ensure that 15 years from today, our children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. we must not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity. experience has proven time and again that congress cannot for any significant length of time rein in excessive spending. the deficits and debt continue to grow due to political pressures and dependency on government programs. in order for congress to consistently make the tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the

long term, congress must have an external pressure to force it to do so. the most realistic change we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is through a balanced budget amendment to our constitution. many members of congress have introduced balanced budget amendments in this congress. i introduced two versions on the first day of the 112th congress, h.j.res. 2 is the exact text that passed the house in 1995 and failed in the senate by one vote this amendment requires the total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. it also requires a 3/5 majority to raise the debt limit. it also has limited exceptions for times of war. h.j.res. 1, which i also introduced -- introduced also goes much further. it requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes and imposes an annual spening cap that prohibits spening from exceeding 18% of g.d.p.

in the u.s. senate, 47 republican senators, all the republican senators, have co-sponsored a balanced budget amendment which is a strong sign that the senate is ready to engage in debate on this subject as well. our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution, so we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue at a point in time so crucial to our nation's future. . we must rise above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation that will get 294 votes on the house floor. as we consider a balanced budget amendment, i encourage members of the body to devote our effort that can garner 2/3 of the house of representatives. we're at a crossroads in the country. we make the tough choices and control spending, paving the way for our return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt or we can allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic

deficits and leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own. i've been joined by a number of outstanding members of the house, and i'm going to call upon them to offer some comments about the importance of the balanced budget amendment to them and their constituents as well. and since he got here first i am going to turn first to one of our new members from the state of indiana, a great fiscal conservative, someone who believes strongly in limiting our government and balancing our budget, congressman todd rokita. mr. rokita: thank you, congressman goodlatte. thank you for yielding me time. thank you for your leadership in the congress years after years where we begin can have a vote -- again can have a vote about living within our means. as i talk about the balanced budget amendment, i want to

also address what happened here on the house floor, what was said here on the house floor the last hour. and really they used the term foolish several times. i want to describe how foolish it is what they said. not enough dollars exist in the top 1% of taxpayers in this country to possibly address the debt situation we face, to possibly address our economy. there are not enough baseball players, there are not enough football coaches, there are not enough oprah winfreys, there is not even enough warren buffett even if you tax 100% of everything they made and assume two things -- that they wouldn't leave the country and that they will continue to produce. there aren't enough of them to solve this country's fiscal problems. and so by definition, when people come here to the house

floor or talk anywhere else in this nation about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, by definition they are going to come after the middle class. they are going to come after your property, those of us who live in the middle class, our property being our dollars which aren't theirs, which aren't the government's, they're ours. that's what they're angling. make no mistake about it. i am part of the education and work force committee. a lot of talk was made here today about how we don't spend enough on education. we got to spend more on our teachers. let me just say this, the increase in our federal budget for education has been well over 300% since the early 1970's. yet, we haven't seen one bit of an improvement in our scholastic scores since the federal government has been involved in the education business. and i just find it humorous

when they stand here and talk about how we need to now spend money on infrastructure, now spend money on other things that might marginally give us some other jobs. where were they, where were they during the first stimulus when only 6% of almost $1 trillion went for infrastructure and the rest went for handouts like food stamps, unemployment insurance that won't grow the economy? not to say people didn't need help and still don't need help. it's a falsehood by thinking by giving more handouts you are going to improve the prosperity of this nation. you cannot tax, you cannot spend, you cannot lay debt on our kids and grandkids and expect this nation to get stronger, expect this nation to be better off. it doesn't work. world history is littered with examples where nations have tried to do this very same

thing and all it's resulted in is tyranny and the opposite of prosperity. so with that, mr. goodlatte, thank you, again, for letting me speak about the balanced budget amendment. i oppose the budget control act when we had it -- when we had that vote at the end of july because it wasn't a solution to our debt problem. it was another washington deal. but as i've said and will continue to admit, there was a silver lining and that silver lining was the requirement that both house at least take a vote on the exact same balanced budget amendment language and they do it by december 31 of this year. you know, our constitution is the blueprint for our system of government. our constitution has only been amended 27 times and for very good reason. it's not to change with the times. it's not to change with the political whims.

it is a blueprint, a document that has outlined a process contained in it negative rights that has given us the best system for raising the conditional of all men that the world has ever seen. and so it shouldn't be amended that often or that light-heartedly. but it should be amended in this case. this chamber, this house, this federal government in general, administrations both republican and democratic before us, have failed in their job to help have us as a federal government live within our means. we need a constitutional amendment to do that now. thomas jefferson himself even said it. i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution, i mean, an additional article taking from the government the power of

borrowing, unquote. given our $15 trillion debt and what's coming, the red menace, the tidal wave that's coming in the future, there is a clear feed for a balanced budget amendment. now, there are several different ones to -- need for a balanced budget amendment. now, there are several ones to take up. i would love to have a balanced budget amendment that contained a supermajority vote for us to even consider raising taxes in order to balance the budget. i would love a balanced budget amendment, the language to contain an indication that the federal government cannot exceed 20% of g.d.p. that would be spectacular. in the season of football, i call that a touchdown pass that wins the game. but there are other plays as well, and i'll take the 50yard pass, i'll -- 50-yard pass, i'll get us so far down the field that puts us in the position to win the day. winning meaning we save the republic, we keep the republic

like franklin suggested. and so i would support a clean balanced budget amendment. clean meaning a statement that simply says we will not spend more than we take in. our expenditures will equal or be less than the revenue we take in. now, some of my very good conservative colleagues would say, well, you're setting us for one day maybe raising taxes. that may be true, but in all honesty, that's a different fight. we can have that tax fight later. liberals love to raise taxes all the time because their solution to everything is bigger government. the only way to have a bigger government is to have a more expensive government. that will never change. so let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. let's not have that fight. and if once in a while win we know the people who win that fight won't be here for long. in the meantime, we have an amendment in our constitution

that declares each one of us as we take the oath to uphold the constitution ensures that we will live within our means. with that i'm happy to yield back. thank you, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. we're joined now by a very important member of our conference, a leader, a member of our republican leadership, the chairman of the national republican congressional committee and a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, congressman pete sessions who also has some other business he needs to conduct here as well. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 453, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2930, to amend the securities laws to provide for registration exemptions for certain crowd funded securities and for other purposes. and providing for consideration

of the bill, h.r. 2940, to direct the securities and exchange commission to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under regulation d. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, i want to thank you today for not only your strong leadership and the leadership of other members of this conference for bringing forth a discussion about a balanced budget for the united states of america. in fact, the united states congress has brought up this issue before, and it's been debated and discussed obviously not since the time of the signing of the declaration of independence but for many, many years afterwards. mr. speaker, i would say to you that today that every single member of this body should recognize the times that we live in are unlike any that this great nation has ever

seen. we find that we're in the midst of a threat of outside forces against the united states. we find ourself in a time of war. we find ourself in a time where we have political unrest with thousands, thousands of people encamped in our cities who are displeased with the direction that this country's going. we have millions of people, some 14 million people unemployed in america. some six million who are underemployed in this country. we've seen out-of-control spending that has taken place from a federal government that is not accountable. they tax too much. they spend too much. and they listen too little. we have leaders of this country who are not honest in speaking to the american people about not only the truths of each party and what they stand before but i believe who mislead others about the things

which they stand for them self. we find ourself at a time in this country where we are faced with a $14 trillion debt that is growing every single day. in fact, if any american looks at the debt clock, they will see it is spinning wildly out of control. mr. speaker, i did not come to this body nor did probably others to think that they would be here to manage our demise. we come to washington full of hope and opportunity with the expectations to further dreams of the american people, to further dreams for an experience that will allow us to enrich our lives but also to lead that that would be -- leave that that would be best for the next generation. as an eagle scout i grew up under scouting, understanding

that you should always leave your circumstances better than what you found it. now, i am well aware that the president of the united states, president obama, keeps talking about that this is a vision that he has about a direction, but there is no end in sight to the damage and harm, the carnage that is being made -- laid to this country as a result of economic demise. but what i would say, mr. speaker, is there are others who have traveled down this road ahead of us, and we are watching them today and we've been watching them for years. as the very fabric of their countries become torn apart. the essential ingredients that made those countries strong, not to put them on the map but that gave them a heritage and a meaning and a national purpose. they are now seen -- as this

current generation is falling apart. i stand strong with bob goodlatte, andy hultgren. we have brother rokita here. we have scott garrett from new jersey. we have even members from as far south as mississippi, steven palazzo, who are going to come forth on this floor and talk about the need for america, to gather itself with discipline and strength to add to the spirit and the resiliencey of the american people, that of entrepreneurship, that of tough love and hard work that will make this country stronger and better. i stand here, mr. speaker, as a result of understanding as other members of this body that have circumstances that are very similar to mine.

i have a future that i want to leave better than what i found it. i have two sons. one that's in the top 2% academically of students in this country and one that is in the bottom 2% of students academically. and the future of this country is very important to them, perhaps more important than mine was to me. but on my son who is in the top 2% academically, bill, his future of his american dream is being threatened because he wants to be a physician. and physician after physician, those in the health care field, are saying, bill, don't do that. this is his dream. on alex's side, as a down syndrome young man, he is faced with a sure future where he will be competing against all of us

for the needs that he should have as a disabled young man that should be the mission statement of this government, yet the federal government will be incapable and unable to perform because they are trying to take on everybody and thus will not do their job right. former senator phil graham from texas would speak about this often years ago when the same threat of the clinton health care plan existed. now it's the law. and senator graham would talk about that little red wagon that is designed for just a few people that the federal government should get it right and support. with government assistance. those with a physical or intellectual disability, those who are seniors, like our

parents, yes, my parents at 81 years old who have served this country so well, honorably and deserve a chance to be in that wagon in their later years. and lastly those who are too poor to take care of themselves. mr. speaker, this balanced budget len sure that we try and help a mission statement with this federal government that is not about expanding itself to where it is not within a mission statement but one where it is within a mission statement, where we are going to require the federal government to do a few things and do them well because we're not going to have the money unless we give it to them through economic growth. and with economic growth people can have their own dreams and not depend on government. so, why we're all here today, there can be different reasons. but it will boil down to this,

that the men and women of this body, some of who i've spoken about, including the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, who's joined us, are here for a mission and a purpose and that is to join with chairman bob goodlatte from virginia and say to him that we want to leave america a better place than what we found it and we believe bankruptcy, debt and misery and loss of jobs is not the right future. i heartily sign back up for this important effort, again, which i led in 1997, 1998 and 1999. i once again signed my name to that pledge. i am for a balanced budget to leave america a better place than what we find it. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. god speed and good luck, mr. chairman. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman,

thank you for your good work. thank you for your efforts on behalf of this cause. and i want to make reference to the fact that this special order that we're all participating in is sponsored by the house constitution caucus which is chaired by congressman scott garrett of new jersey. we'll hear from him in a few minutes. but now i want to yield to another new member of congress who has been very, very instrumental in working on the balanced budget amendment and has made a number of good, constructive observations and recommendations about this issue and that's congressman brooks from alabama. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. goodlatte. mr. speaker, america faces a financial threat of historic proportions. it has one basic cause. we suffer from unsustainable

budget deficits that threaten america with insolvency and bankruptcy. we've seen what's been going on in europe with greece, with paris from a few years ago, with rome, with riots in greece. there's even been fatalities. all these relate to the financial stewardship of their governments. i hope that with the remarks i'm about to share that the people of america will have a better understanding of the deficit situation we face because given that understanding i have confidence, mr. speaker, that the american people will cause washington to do the right thing. so a little bit of history is in order. i've got a chart here, united states annual deficits, the last balanced budget we had was $128 billion, fiscal year 2001, a democrat president, bill clinton, a republican house and republican senate. since that time we had 9/11, we've had wars in iraq and

afghanistan, you can see how the deficit situation became worse. george bush as president, republicans in control of the congress, to $158 billion, to $377 billion, to $413 billion. all of those were bad. no question. notably we have the bush tax cuts in the summer of 2003. from one perspective across the aisle, things should have goten worse but they got better because -- gotten worse but they got better because our economy improved and our deficit it declined -- and our deficit declined. we were on the right path as of november, 2006. then we had a different mindset capture the united states house, the united states senate. we have a different speaker of the house, a different majority leader in the united states senate, and a different philosophy of government and a different economic philosophy that unfortunately has failed miserably. as a consequence, after the november, 2006, elections where the democrats captured the united states congress, we have

a $459 billion deficit followed by a $1.4 trillion deficit. then we have a change in the white house. for two years, two budgets, two sets of expenditures, two sets of revenue, totally controlled by the other party, my colleagues across the aisle. in f.y. 2010 and f.y. 2011 we had back to back $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion deficits. ladies and gentlemen, these deficits were bad. these run sustainable trillion-dollar deficits as far as the high can see and they're a great risk to our nation. now, to put it into perspective, $2.3 trillion in revenue last year, $3.6 trillion in expenditures, $1.3 trillion deficit. a $14.3 trillion accumulated debt. with what happened with the budget control act in august of this year, a bill that i voted against, the debt ceiling was increased by $2.4 trillion such that will soon hit us $16.7

trillion debt burden in 2013. now i mentioned trillions and people's eyes often start to glaze over, mr. speaker. let me put it down into a family sense where hopefully the american people can getter -- better understand it. think in terms family of that's uncertain about its income so they go over their finances and they discover that over the last three years they've averaged $50,000 a year in income. not too bad. then they look at their expenses and they've been averaging $80,000 a year in expenses. that's scary to them and it should be. they've been in the hole three straight years for $30,000 a year. then they pick up their visa bill and it's for $320,000. now what do you think that family would do? well, they'd cut their spending. they would try to balance their budget in order to avoid bankruptcy. those analogies are exactly the same as that of the united states of america. those ratios. now, we have to have a balanced budget constitutional amendment i submit to the american people,

mr. speaker, because that is the only way washington will have the backbone to do the right thing. to protect future generations from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy that we in america face today. so i wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of representative goodlatte and all the other members of the constitutional caucus who have been working so hard to come forth with a substantive, effective and forcible -- and enforceable constitutional amendment that will help save our children and grandchildren from the seriousness of the financial situation that we in america face today. as for me, mr. speaker, i will do my utmost to support a balanced budget constitutional amendment, i will do my utmost to ensure that it is an effective constitutional amendment, that it's not a dog and pony show, that in fact it will achieve the desired results. with that, mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his very passionate support of the cause

of fiscal responsibility. and as i mentioned earlier, this special order is being sponsored by the congressional constitution caucus and it's now my pleasure to yield to another great champion of limited government and lower taxes and less government regulation and balancing the budget, congressman scott garrett of new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman for not only managing the floor tonight with regard to this conchings but also with regard to all your great work with regard to pushing forward the b.b.a., making sure we get over the goal line this time. you know, as the chairman and founder of the constitution caucus, we rarely come to the floor to advocate for the amendment to the constitution. but that's exactly what we're doing here tonight. it brings us here tonight because the united states government has, what? just as the other speaker just said, overspent, overborrowed and overtaxed. putting this nation on the road to fiscal ruin.

yet, as much as that is true, there's many who believe that the solution going forward is even more of the same. more spending, more borrowing, more taxation and only here in washington, d.c., could that ever be given serious consideration. you know, american families are not given that luxury. american families have to do what? they have to live within their means or face fiscal disaster in their family pocketbook. so too here in the united states government we should live within our means as well. but unfortunately to date, as you saw the previous chart, previous speaker, we have been incapable of doing that and that is why we're here tonight, because we know we must force ourselves through this, through a bald budget amendment. now step back. amending the constitution is a difficult process, it should not be entered into lightly. the process reflects the founders' commitment to a republican self-government while protecting, what? the integrity of the supreme law of the land. in spirit of the founders' vision for the amendment to the

constitution, we support tonight a balanced budget amendment as the only solution to excessive and irresponsible spending that we've seen go on for far too long. and yet we hear from the other side of the aisle and the other house, senate majority leader cad called the balance budget amendment -- called the balance budget -- balanced budget amendment a radical idea. how radical is it really? 49 states in this country have some form of a balanced budget amendment and they realized they must abide by it to live within their means. a new idea? well, indeed. thomas jefferson is the intellectual forefather of the balanced budget amendment so we can go back some 200 years. back in 1798 when jefferson wrote that the solution to then extravagant spending was a constitutional amendment eliminating the power of the federal government to incur debt. he went on to say, i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to the constitution. i would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine

principles of its constitution. i mean an article taking from the government the power of borrowing. now, the balanced budget amendment is the jeffersonan solution to today's debt crisis and yet you wouldn't think about it, the amount of spending and overspending that they had in jefferson's time pales in comparison to the reckless spending that we have today and the reckless and fiscal ineptitudes we see going on in washington. according to c.b.o., the congressional budget office, the government will spend nearly, get this, $1.5 trillion this year more than it takes in. and if we refuse to balance our budget, as your amendment would do, what will happen over the next 10 years? almost $9.5 trillion in additional red ink will be added to the bottom line. so, in conclusion, the choice i think is clear. either we continue down the same road with blissful disregard of the warnings of financial

catastrophe that we've seen, or we do what? we amend the constitution to require a balanced budget and put the united states back on the road to sustainability and also prosperity. so let's make the balanced budget amendment the 28th amendment to the constitution. with that i yield back to the good gentleman. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and i like the sound of that 28th amendment to the constitution. let me just say that as i mentioned at the outset, because of the vote by the congress, the house and the senate signed into law by the president, we will have a vote in both the house and the senate on a balanced budget amendment before the end of this year. before december 31. and if either body passes a specific balanced budget amendment, the other body has to vote on the same one so that we have the greatest possibility that if we can reach that kind of consensus we can actually send a balanced budget amendment for the first

time to the states for ratification, require 38 states to ratify it. but as the gentleman from new jersey just noted, 49 out of 50 states have a requirement in their constitution that they must balance their budgets. i believe with the public supporting this by numbers northward of 80% and its very bipartisan support -- i saw a report showing that 70% democrats support it as do a great many democrats in the house. in fact, to pass a constitutional amendment with 290 votes it has to be bipartisan. so we are working across the aisle to make sure that we build the kind of support that we need to pass the strongest possible amendment to our constitution requiring that the government live within its means. another great supporter of that concept, another new member who came here to reform the way things are done here in

washington, d.c. and who's joined us in this effort is congressman randy hultgren from illinois. mr. hultgren: i want to thank my good friend an colleague for the amazing work you have done over the years changing how washington does its business. thank you, congressman goodlatte. i appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak here today. the people from the 14th congressional district of illinois sent me to washington, d.c. last year, i have fought to bring accountability and responsibility back to congress. time and again i voted to cut spending and reduce the size of the federal government, and i haven't been shy about going against and opposing colleagues from the republican side of the aisle when i felt like they weren't doing enough to get our fiscal house back in order. with every vote i'm guided by the belief that washington, like our families and small businesses across the country, needs to live within its means. i know that the path to renewed and future prosperity lies

through a return to fiscal sanity and not by saddling our kids and our grandkids with more debt. our job creating bills that have been september over to the senate and are stuck in the senate right now along with less spending and less debt will help give small business owners and job creators the confidence they need to hire and expand, putting americans back to work again and getting our economy moving again. unfortunately this congress' efforts to cut spending are on their own insufficient. more importantly, any cuts we make today could be reversed by future congresses. long-term deficit reduction and spending restraints can only be accomplished through real structural changes to the way that washington operates, and i believe, as many of you do, that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is exactly the change that we need. i have been an outspoken advocate for a balanced budget amendment even before being elected.

and one of the first things i did after being sworn in is co-sponsoring a balanced budget amendment. a balanced budget amendment would force the federal government to spend only what it takes in, a novel concept, but it is the surest path to fiscal sanity, less spending and a brighter future for our kids and our grandkids. support for the balanced budget amendment is gathering momentum in congress and across this great nation. in fact, as congressman goodlatte said, the house and senate is required to vote on a balanced budget amendment very soon, but congress has been here before. in 1995 they nearly passed a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget amendment but fell one vote short in the senate. imagine the difference of this nation if that had passed at that time and the situation that we're in right now. 16 years later, we have the chance to finally get it right. the time is now. it is our responsibility and

our duty to support a balanced budget amendment and bring accountability back to washington. thank you so much. i yield back to the good gentleman. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman, and i very much appreciate his comments and would note the fact that we have speaking here tonight members from many corners of the country, from indiana, alabama, texas, illinois, mississippi, wisconsin, new jersey, virginia. in fact, members of congress from about 46 or 47 states have indicated their support for at least one version of the constitutional amendment. if we can bring all of them together and they can bring just a few more members together we can get to that 290 votes because this is not a regional issue, this is not a partisan issue. this is a issue that transcends the country. it's reflected that this issue we can reflect to our constituents about and they

understand exactly what we're talking about because they live with the concept they can't spend more than they take in year after year. the businesses that they work for, they can't spend more than they take in year after year after year. local governments, state governments all bound by this principle that you cannot live beyond your means. that principle should be enshrined in the united states constitution. another member who joins us in this effort, another new member and it's the new members who have brought this back to the floor, who really want to see a vote on this for the first time in years, we're joined by congressman ribble from wisconsin. welcome. mr. ribble: it's an honor to come down to the floor and work with you, congressman goodlatte, on this important issue. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the balanced budget amendment. and you know, i came down to the floor of the house this afternoon with some prepared comments. spent some time putting it together and wanted to make sure it was right. had help from my staff but i am

going to go a little bit off script today. as i listened to my colleagues speak on this very important issue, they covered much of what we want to say with the historical concept, what thomas jefferson talking about government being by the people. instead, i think i am going to talk about my experience here in congress. as my friend just mentioned, i am a new member. as a matter of fact, right around this day today, i've been here 10 months. i never served in congress before. never served in elected capacity before. i ran a small roofing company in wisconsin. and i have to tell you that i'm struck that we're at this place in history. when i look at our national debt and you look at it on a chart and on a curve, from 1787 to 2011, from 1787 to 1940, 1945 that line is almost from

zero. as you go on and get to the late 2000's that line begins to turn up and now in the last three years that line is nearly vertical as our national debt continues to explode. and that debt has to be paid. i told high school students and college students back in wisconsin where i'm from that there is a reckoning coming for them. there will be a date and time certain that this bill will have to be paid. and yet as i worked here and i've just discovered that for whatever reasons, whether it's partisan bickering or pure ideological differences that we can cannot it seems find agreement on controlling our national debt and our national deficits, annual deficits. just a few years ago the deficit was only -- 160 billion. as we heard from our colleague from alabama, the last three years it's been over $1 trillion each and every year. something clearly has changed,

and we would like to say it's changed in our economy. i would propose to you, sir, maybe it has changed in our government. at some point i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends that are republicans and democrats alike, it is time to put the sword down. we cannot -- in fact, mr. speaker, we must not allow this type of spending to continue so that our children, my grandchildren, your children and grandchildren will have to pay this bill, a bill that they did not make and a bill that they should not owe. and so i stand before you today challenging my colleagues to consider a better path forward, one that we use in our families, one that we use in our businesses, one that 49 states use in their state governments and that is a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. just the other day i was

standing right over where my colleague was and standing right now and i had a copy of the internal revenue code. it's nearly 10,000 pages of fine print. an amendment to the constitution will be just a few words. and it's a simple thing. most importantly the amendment to the constitution that would call for a balanced budget allows the american people, not just through their representatives here in congress, which we've clearly seen is not going to solve the problem, but allows the american people to finally have a say through the ratification process. i had a telephone town hall recently, mr. speaker, with 15,000 americans on the line. and i did a poll and i asked them -- how many of you would support a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution requiring the government to live within its means? and over 80% of those respondents said that they would support this.

and i want you to know, mr. speaker, that millions of families and businesses every day live under the constraint of a balanced budget. as a father, as a former small business owner, and now as a member of congress, i have a different perspective on this whole thing. and the perspective is that we must, must move forward with this. as a father i try to teach my children the value of hard work, the importance of saving for the future and not spending more than they earn. as a business owner, i operated my company that same way and now as a member of congress i recognize that these ideas that many of us, i would dare say the majority of americans hold true, is just as good for their government. and so if a balanced budget in your family, in your business, in your church and in your community and your state makes sense, it clearly makes sense here. the reckless spending will never stop, i believe, without it. there will neither be the

political will or the courage to do so. so since washington has proven itself incapable of doing this job, it's time that we let the people, the citizens of america to have a voice so that they can force their government to act responsibly. i call on my colleagues to pass a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution through this chamber, through the united states senate and then send it back to the people where they will finally have their voice heard. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his commebts. as i indicated earlier, this is an issue that has to have a bipartisan solution. it simply is not possible to pass a constitutional amendment to require 2/3 of the house or 290 members and 2/3 of the senate and 67 members without members reaching across the aisle and working together to come up with language that is agreeable and can be supported

on both sides of the aisle. and quite frankly, the nature of the problem that we are confronted with is one that past congresses controlled by both parties, presidents of both parties have contributed to and the solution is going to have to require also that same kind of bipartisan working it out on a year-to-year basis, balancing the budget. it won't be easy. there will be tremendous difference of opinion about whether we should do this by cutting spending or raising revenues or doing other things that can grow our economy and cause more revenues to come in. but it cannot get to the first stage of having future congresses live by this without it being bipartisan. and that's why i'm so pleased that so many members of the democratic party have signed on to support this effort, and they've been led by an outstanding member who has

championed a balanced budget amendment for a long time and that's congressman peter defazio from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this issue over almost a couple decades. it's been a long struggle. i hope the time is here. you know, i was one of 73 democrats in 1995 to support a balanced budget amendment which was basically silenced on the issue of whether we would get there with additional revenues and reforms that would raise revenues or with spending cuts or a combination of both. ultimately, in the 1990's by a combination of revenue increases and reforms and spending cuts we did reach a balance in the year 2000 and actually paid down debt. and had we passed that amendment in 1995, you know, we

wouldn't be looking at a $14 trillion-plus mountain of debt today, as the gentleman before me spoke, that's not the legacy i want to leave to our kids and grandkids and great grandkids given the magnitude of that debt. we have the responsibility to act. and anyone who is observing washington these days they can see it's hard, it's really hard for congress to come together and decide on issues that are extraordinarily important to our nation. we really need a little bit of forced discipline, i would say. and that's the way i look at a balanced budget amendment. that h.j.res. 2 would force us over a relatively short period of time to make very difficult decisions on, yes, the potential for revenue increases or spending cuts with virtually

everything on the table, to get to a mandatory balance of the budget within a short period of time. that would be -- and then to begin to pay down the debt which will take, if we aren't running surpluses and we merely balance the budget into the future, including our payments of interest and principal on debt, it will be some 30 years before our country could be debt-free. but that would at least be a point in time in which we knew that our grandkids and others to follow would not be inheriting that debt. so i'm very hopeful that when we have a vote sometime i understand perhaps in the next month that we have an opportunity to bring up what i believe is the version of the balanced budget amendment most likely to be able to engender a majority as it did in 1995 and that would be h.j.res. 2. with that i thank the gentleman for the time and i look forward

to continuing to work with his leadership on this issue. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman and in the next few weeks, as we anticipate a vote coming up quite soon, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are giving every member of this body an opportunity to speak out for fiscal responsibility and not just speak but put their vote on the line and say, yes, we think we should send to the states an amendment to our constitution to require a balanced budget. we are also joined by another new member who has been a very strong advocate for cutting government spending and having government operate more efficiently and believe strongly in requiring that our government do what everyone else in our society has to do and that is live within its means, balance its budget and that's congressman stutzman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. goodlatte, and thank you, mr. speaker, for the time that we can come to the floor and talk about this important issue.

you know, i think it's an opportunity for us here in washington to do something that changes the direction of our fiscal condition in washington, d.c., and our federal government. as we all know, the economy has been very difficult for families across this country in so many different ways. and people have realized and have made tough decisions within their own budget, whether it's a family budget, whether it's a business budget, and realize that the economy and the difficulties that we face today are forcing decisions to be made that are sometimes difficult, are not sometimes the choices we like to make. but as the federal government continues to spend and spend money that we don't have, money that we're borrowing, 40 cents for every $1 that we spend is borrowed money, i believe that this is a time for us to let the people speak. let the american people speak on

an issue that -- and a principle that is so foundational in our family budgets, our business budgets, what should be a very basic principle for our government and the way that we operate and that is a balanced budget amendment. this is an historic opportunity. it could also have historic consequences. i believe that if we do not rein in federal government spending and save the american dream, we will in effect determine the future of our great country. it's just very simple and i believe that as we -- we take this time to talk about the balanced budget amendment, whatever version people support in this chamber and across the hall in the senate, i believe that we have to have some basic principles, basic concepts that we can all agree on and how can we not agree on saying that

every year congress passes a budget it's going to be balanced? it's just common sense. i come from a state that has a balanced budget amendment. indiana. and we have a balanced budget. and i know the temptations that have come across the state legislature in indiana to pass budgets that are out of balance. but if we have that anchor here in washington that says, we have to pass a balanced budget, that we cannot continue to borrow and spend, that is what's going to keep washington in check. our constitution is the bedrock of our experiment in self-government. it's a remarkable document. libraries have been written on its importance and its legal application. but we cannot forget that the wisdom our founding fathers built in the constitution are timeless and they're very simple truths. people give the government its power is one of those. government exists to protect our

god-given rights. men are not perfect soneather is our government -- so neither is our government so it must be limited, checked and balanced. our great nation rests on these principles. if we still believe in those principles we must recognize another simple but profound truth. good government must live withins i means. so that's -- within its means. sose so that's why i believe the balanced budget amendment to our constitution is crucial at this time when we face $15 trillion of debt, we're handing off and saddling our children and every person in this country, $48,000 of debt per individual. unemployment has held a steady rate -- at historic steady rates -- i'm sorry, unemployment has held steady at historic high rates. confidence is declining and washington, like a spoiled child, continues to talk about tax increases and stimulus programs that just do not work.

so i believe we owe it to our generation, to future generations, to pass a balanced budget amendment to our constitution that requires the federal government to live within its means just like every american family and just like businesses across this country that are going to move this economy forward. so i thank the gentleman from virginia for his efforts with the balanced budget amendment and i am proud to stand here today in support -- and support it and i believe this is a great opportunity for congress to stand with the american people. this is our opportunity and we must not fail. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman. i have to say that we've seen support from all across the country, from east coast states like new jersey and virginia all the way to the west coast, to oregon. we've heard from members of both parties, we've heard from members from states along the

canadian border and members from states on the gulf coast. this amendment has broad, broad support in the congress. but it has a high hill to climb in needing 290 members to vote for it. so we're continuing to work to find that support. it's not a new idea. it has been around for almost as long as our constitution. thomas jefferson has been cited and i'll read that again here, he said, i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution. i would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government. i mean an additional article taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. that's not the only -- he said that in 1798. it's not the only thing he said. later in his life he said, there does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. it will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from

abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us. thomas jefferson said that in 1821. and about our future generations, which several members have commented on here tonight, thomas jefferson said, in 1789, the year that our constitution went into effect, then i say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. the second generation receives it clear of the debts and -- debts of the first. the third of the second and so on. for if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. thomas jefferson wrote that to james madison in 1789 and how was that as our new nation was starting work under a new constitution that he would observe that we are where we are today, where we are passing on to future generations debt that is unsustainable?

how ironic it is that we borrow money today to pay for programs today and put that burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren and those not yet even born, with the likelihood that if we do not change from this course, we will find that those very children and grandchildren will not have these programs when they need to depend upon it. they will only have the debt. that is what thomas jefferson meant when he said, the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living. finally let me give you one more quote. actually, no, i'm told -- oh, here it is. to preserve the independence of the people we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. we must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. i understand that the gentleman from indiana would like to say a few more words and i think we

have a moment or two so i'm pleased to yield to him again. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. stutzman: just a quick note. as we were talking about why this hill, i think you mentioned the hill being so high and so hard to climb, and there might be people at home watching right now, maybe even some in this chamber right now that say, why would this be so difficult? mr. rokita: we have others saying they had a telephone town hall where over 80% of their constituents were in favor of this. why is this so hard? well, we have to think of it this way. there are two groups of constituents. and we can't appease both sets all the time. there's a constituency that's the here and now, that will ensure that if we do things they want, they'll give us another election. they'll let us serve longer. but there's another constituency that doesn't even exist yet. no matter what we do, they won't be around to reward us or we won't be arounder to indemnify

-- for them to reward us and i would suggest that everyone here in this house of representatives sembs that latter constituency. serves that constituency, our kids, our grandkids, those that don't even exist yet. vote for them. so to make sure that we keep the republic. and for those of you that are watching, make sure you tell your representatives that, hey, i want to you vote not for me, not so i can have more on my plate now, i want you to vote for our future. and if the people of this country demand that of their representatives and their senators, we will keep the republic as franklin demanded. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, that's an excellent note on which to close. i want to thank the gentleman from indiana, everyone else, who has participated, the other gentleman from indiana, and with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

members are reminded to address the chair and not a potential viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, for 30 minutes. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. for the next few minutes some of us who are members of the medical technology caucus are going to share some of our thoughts about some of the recent troubling developments that are threatening this american industry and i will tell you, as co-chair of the medical technology caucus in minnesota, i get a chance to tour these companies and we all know the big names of the big titan companies, but nearly every week i get a chance to tour one of these small companies that might have five employees, they might have 10 employees, they're not yet profitable. if they are working on these really innovative and neat technologies that are there to help patients improve their lives and save their lives and in fact, mr. speaker, from 1980 to 2000, the medical technology firms were responsible for a 4%

increase in u.s. life expectancy, a 16% decrease in mortality rate -- rates and an astounding 29% decline in elderly disability rates and really this industry i think as we'll hear from some of our colleagues, particularly from the indiana delegation where we were just about a week and a half ago, we're learning there are some new hurdles on the horizon. number one, there's a medical device tax that will be imposed in just a little over a year, it's a $20 billion a year tax and studies have shown it's going to cost the industry 20% of their -- 10% of their work force. 10% of their work force is about 4 ,000 jobs that will be at risk. i just met with an owner of a company today that mentioned that he believes this tax if put in place, one year from now, will cost his company 50, at least 50 high-paying jobs. and then you have the other issue of just an f.d.a. that has become so bureaucratic, so unpredictable, so inconsistent and so untransparent that it's becoming more difficult for these companies to bring these

life-saving technologies to market, to make sure that the patients have access to them. and i've traveled the country to california, to boston, to new york, we'll have a chance to go to north carolina where these pockets of industries in the medical technology field are really strong and vibrant and, you know, one area in particular was indiana. we were there just a little over a week and a half ago and i will tell you that the folks that testified there, the companies and the presence there and the jobs there, it was compelling. if in fact, i'll never forget the words from one of the testifiers there at the committee when he mentioned, when he gets asked for advice on where to invest, where to start up, his advice to new companies is, go to europe, go to europe, and that is the wrong message, mr. speaker, in this down economy, when we were trying to -- we are trying to save jobs and encourage job creation and we're encouraging one of our best american success stories, one of our few net exporters to move overseas, and we've got legislation that's actually moving now, many of these

members are co-authors of streamlining and modernizing the f.d.a. to making sure we're doing what europe's doing, for instance, to make sure we're -- we don't have as high a hurdle. we want to make sure there's a strong, relevant, rigorous process at the f.d.a. because these companies want the gold standard, they want the gold standard of approval, but they don't want it moved in the middle of the process to make it so ridiculous that their investments are not going to be worthy of the risk-reward that they hope to have pay off. so with that, mr. speaker, while we were in indiana we had a bipartisan meeting along with representative guth row from the energy and commerce committee and they took the time to come out, listen to these companies that testified and more importantly listened to the patients and we had a patient testify as well. sheila frazier who testified, a young high school student who was testifying about a device that was implanted in her leg

and it truly is an amazing success story because in a lot of cases folks like her have to have amputations and this is a device that is now improving her life and she testified. and so i think as much as we like to talk about the jobs and the economic benefits, it's also just as important to hear from the patient's per -- spectives, how these life-saving technologies are improving them. mr. bilbray is going to talk. this is an issue that covers across many expect rums of the economy across the country. i just want folks who are watching here and understand today out there in america understand there are some of thaws really care about this industry. we are fighting for it and we appreciate the input and value that we had as part of it. mr. speaker, with that i want to yield to mr. rokita, helping us get co-authors to repeal that onerous tax.

mr. rokita: we were pleased to welcome you to indiana. i know you get that same kind of welcome all over the nation. mr. paulsen, i think has done an excellent job in making sure this issue, not only is formulated the right way, not only is formulated in a bipartisan way but now is on the verge of coming through committee and to the floor so we can take action. and what action are we speaking of? there is an insidious tax that was put in the new health care law, colloquial referred to as obamacare. a 2.3% tax on innovation. i often get asked in indiana's fourth district and other places around the state, how do we stay competitive? why are you letting jobs go overseas? and i'm the first to point out that the success of this country, the success of this nation, if we are to be

prosperous, maintain and increase our prosperity in the 21st century, we have got to stay a step or two or five ahead of our competition. you know, in indiana we're not competing with people in fort wayne or in jeffersonville or in terre haute. we're competing with people from places that we can barely pronounce. meaning not in the united states. in no country was ever successful ultimately by building a wall. whether it's a physical wall like we found in ancient china or an economic wall like we see with tariffs or in this case taxes on companies, on an industry that continues to innovate, that continues to keep us on the cutting edge of the -- of what the world is doing in this area. that's important. that is the key to our success. by taxing these devices, by

taxing this industry, you're not going to get more of it. you're not going to get more innovation. you're going to get less. if you want less of something you tax it. and by the way, when you do that you're not going to get more revenue to pay for that all-inclusive, government-run, bureaucratic interpreted health care system. i was proud to be a co-sponsor. i learned a lot from the field hearing that was done. i'd like to echo the point that was made, this was a bipartisan hearing, just like in the last hour we saw in a bipartisan way we have to live within our means and we can do that through a balanced budget amendment. we had democrats come and speak on that. on the field hearing, on the medical device tax, we had a bill repeal, we had that same kind of bipartisanship. bipartisanship does exist. it exists in indiana and with

this bill it can exist here on the house floor as well. i was alarmed as well. it was the person testifying was steve ferguson from the cook group. mr. cook when he started his company, he started from a spare bedroom in his apartment and grew it to a multibillion dollar operation. he's one of the best examples of an american success story. and his partner, mr. steve ferguson, who testified -- backup mr. paulsen in this -- when new startups come to him, when young men and women come with an idea and want to start a company, he says, go to europe. not because he isn't a true-blooded american patriot but because he's giving honest

advice. now, what does that say about our federal government? what does it say about our bureaucracy? when instead of going through the f.d.a. approval process the best advice is to go to the bureaucracy of a union of countries that can barely stay afloat because of the debt they are accruing. where does that put us in a 21st century world? where does that put us in terms of our ability to continue innovating, in terms of our ability to be prosperous? we have got to put the swords down as it was said earlier. we have got to come together and realize that it's that innovation, it's that economic freedom, it's that liberty to associate and provide an equal opportunity for one's own success that has made us the best and most successful experiment in self-governance that the world has ever known.

and as a result have kept us on the cutting edge of profit-making innovations that employ people, that keep taxes low, where we've proven time and time again the way to success is doing the opposite of leftying a tax, by letting -- levying a tax, by letting real men and women rise and fall on their own decisions. that's what this medical device bill does. thank you for sponsoring this time, representative paulsen. it's been an honor and privilege and pleasure to work with you and i yield back. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman again for his leadership. i just want to mention, too, you had mentioned all the authors of this bill that are trying to repeal the onerous tax. there are 204 members, mr. speaker, that want to repeal this tax, bipartisan support. you know, the amount of money this tax is expected to raise

is equally annually of the money that's invested every year. it's a very wrong-headed move. one of the first co-authors of the bill that wants to repeal the tax recognizes the importance of this industry is my friend and colleague from pennsylvania, and i yield time to him as well and thank him for his leadership and being part of the caucus effort. >> i thank the gentleman, mr. paulsen, and i can't think of anybody in the congress, mr. speaker, who has done more on medical innovation and leadership on the medical device tax, on f.d.a. reform issues than mr. paulsen. mr. altmire: it's an honor for me to be here to discuss this issue before the house. what we have done in a very strong and forceful, bipartisan way, which is critically important and something we don't do nearly enough of in this chamber, send a message that we want to protect the medical device industry in america, the innovations that are created in this country is second to none. the way that we handled the f.d.a. process could be improved and we are going to talk about that shortly.

but with regard to medical device issues in particular, i'm fortunate that the district i represent is home to a number of large and small medical device manufacturers that are doing great work right here in america producing medical devices that we rely on in this country, that millions of americans depend on. and when we last year, last session of congress went through the debate and eventually passage of the health care reform bill, which i voted against, but one of the issues that was in there was the medical device tax which seemed pretty arbitrary. they were looking for sources of funding. they were looking for ways to make the bill come into balance and one of the industries that they targeted for the tax was the medical device industry. i believe very forcefully that it was short sided. i think it was -- shortsighted. i think it was something that we should have done. it's an industry that we have leadership on.

it's an industry that americans have an everyday benefit from, and what we did was say, well, you look at the portion of overall health care costs in the country that that industry represents and you're going to create a tax that's going to pay for approximately that portion of that industry to go towards the health care bill, and i don't think it made sense then. i don't think it makes sense now. what i want to do, along with the gentleman from minnesota, and the other 202, total of 204 co-sponsors of this legislation is just put common sense back in place to say we want to continue to have those innovations take place in america, not in other countries, to continue to show the worldwide leadership that we have shown and to continue to allow american citizens to benefit from the great work that's being done across the spectrum, large and small, of medical device manufacturers in this country so the $20 million costs that's associated with this tax is just the tip of the iceberg.

we're going to lose a lot more than the cost of what it's going to take to pay that tax. we are going to lose the innovation. we're going to lose the talent because we're competing with the other countries with the top talent in the world and where individual people want to reside when they undertake research and development of new drugs, new pharmaceuticals and also new medical devices. so this tax is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and i strongly support the gentleman's effort to repeal that tax. we're going to talk later on, and i'm going to join the discussion on f.d.a. reform and some of the things we're doing working together, but this medical device tax, the reason it's attracted bipartisan support for the repeal is because it makes no sense. it's burdensome. it's absolutely the wrong thing to do. and i would yield back to the gentleman from minnesota to discuss it further. mr. paulsen: yeah. i thank the gentleman, again, for his leadership, and really standing out, standing up for pennsylvania companies and

understanding this is an american success story, as he outlined. he's actually co-author of some bills that is there to streamline and modernize the f.d.a. which we will talk about. we have a gentleman, the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. you were at the hearing and maybe you could share what you learned. i appreciate you inviting me to indiana. i appreciate that very much. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. paulsen. it was not only a great day for us and those that testified at the hearing in indianapolis. those in indiana, we love racing. we love agriculture. we love manufacturing. but we also have an industry there that we are very proud of and is one of the emerging businesses for the world. the orthopedic industry has $36 billion worldwide in revenue, and i am fortunate enough to represent indiana's third congressional district which

includes the city of warsaw and the warsaw -- the areas surrounding warsaw which is the orthopedics capital of the world. i could tell you, you hear a lot of the great stories about racing from indiana. there's great stories about companies that started in apartments or in a garage with -- from folks in indiana in this particular industry. it's an industry that i believe is so beneficial to people in a personal way. i can tell you myself that my grandmother had two of her hips replaced and that is the industry we are talking about, knees, joints, hips, other parts of our body that can be replaced to increase their quality of life that we enjoy. and my grandmother had her hips replaced and i know what it did for her. and this industry is really