the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. and the nays are 241. the motion is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-291 by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-291 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 187 and the nays are 228 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2, printed in house report 112-291 by the gentleman from iowa on which further proceedings were post poped and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-291 offered by mr. boswell of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

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

the chair: the yeas are 181 -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 239, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 3, printed in house report 112-291 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 112-291, offered by mr. walz of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 200 and the nays are 221 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4, printed in house report 112-2 1 on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-291 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises. the chair: the --

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had the bill h.r. 3091 and pursuant to house resolution 470 adopted an amendment in the committee of the whole. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the national labor relations act with respect to representation hearings and the time of -- timing of elections of labor organizations under that act.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. sutton: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. sutton: i am in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk: mizz sutton of ohio moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3094 to the committee on education and the work force with instructions to report the same to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill insert the following -- section 3, additional provisions to ensure a level playing field for employees -- to disclosure outsourcing. the speaker pro tempore: the house will please come to order.

the clerk may continue. the clerk: section 9 of the national labor relations act, 29 u.s.c. 59 insert at the end of the subsection -- of subsection c-1 the following new subparagraph. c, level playing field for employees and corporate directors. once an election by an employee is directed by the board, nothing in this subsection shall require a longer delay for employees to vote for a bargaining representative than is required for the board of directors to vote for a chief executive officer under the incorporation laws of the state where the employer is located. d, free and fair elections and equal access to voters. upon the filing of a petition for an election, the board shall ensure an equal opportunity for each party to access and inform voters prior to election including by prohibiting campaign meetings for which employee attendance is mandatory or employee time is paid unless both parties

mutually agree to waive such prohibition. e, prohibition on corporations that outsource jobs. notwithstanding subparagraph b, an employer that outsource jobs to a foreign country or announce plans to outsource jobs to a foreign country during the one-year period preceding the filing of petition under the subsection may not engage of raising new issues or positions under a pre-election hearing that were not raised prior to the commencement of the hearing. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i reserve all points of order against the motion. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i'm

opposed to this bill, but let me begin by saying that this final amendment, if passed, if adopted it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. instead, the bill, as amended, will immediately be voted upon for final passage. so we may strongly disagree on the bill in question, but surely no one in this chamber can disagree that in these hard times working families in this country deserve a fair shake. unfortunately, the underlying bill, as written, is fundamentally unfair. mr. speaker, a few weeks ago in my home state of ohio voters in an exercise of direct democracy voted to overwhelmingly repeal the infamous senate bill 5 which was a fundamentally unfair and extreme attack on workers. in a resounding victory for

middle-class ohioans -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentlelady from ohio may continue. ms. sutton: in a resounding victory for the middle-class ohioans, many democrats and republicans alike, went to the polls and rejected the union-busting effort that would have unfairly stacked the deck against them. at a time when public officials across every level of government should be focused on getting americans back to work, the underlying bill before us today, like ohio's recently repealed senate bill 5, would unfairly stack the deck against our workers and american jobs. but the good news, mr. speaker, is that it doesn't have to be that way. right here right now we,

democrats and republicans together, like so many voters in ohio join together, we can stand up for fairness and the middle class and pass this amendment. our amendment would improve the bill in three very important ways. first, it would level the playing field between employees and corporate boards. it's only fair when workers choose whether to organize a union, they're choosing who their representative will be in the workplace. when a board of directors takes a vote on whether to hire a c.e.o., they're choosing management's representative in the workplace. and i doubt that proponents of this bill would ever think of leaving a corporation voiceless or flow obstacles in the way of a corporate board of director's ability to choose their next c.e.o. and yet that's exactly what this bill before us does to workers. it's not right. workers shouldn't have to wait any longer than a corporate board of directors. and so this amendment levels things out by saying that nothing in this bill will

impose any longer waiting period for workers to vote for a union than any state law imposes on a board of directors voting on a c.e.o. second, this amendment will make sure that elections proceed legitimately and fairly. everyone can agree that workers deserve to be fully informed. so this amendment requires that when a petition for an election is filed, the board must ensure an equal opportunity for workers to hear from all sides. under current law, mr. speaker, only one party, the employer, can engage in what is called captive audience meetings. only one party can force the voters to attend campaign speeches, rallies and meetings or be fired. under this motion, under this amendment, the parties would agree to equal access to voters. it's only fair. no more captive audience meetings unless the parties agree, unless there's fair and equal access to voters so that

all sides may be heard so that workers can judge for themselves and make a fully informed choice when it comes time to vote. and finally and importantly, this amendment discourages job outsourcing. with 9% unemployment in the country and our economy barely growing, the last thing we want to do is reward companies who ship jobs overseas. the underlying bill provides employers with the nasty weapon for tactical delay. it allows employers to drag out pre-election hearings indefinitely, preventing an election from ever happening. employers can raise any issue at a time prior to the end of the hearing. even issues that have nothing to do with the conduct of the election or the question of whether there should be an election at all. outsourcers should not have the benefit of a tactical delay to help ship jobs overseas. we should not allow it. so this amendment says if you have outsourced jobs or

announce plans to outsource jobs in the past year, you don't get that privilege. you have to do what every party to a federal case must do -- state your claims at the beginning of the hearing. we shouldn't extend privileges to outsourcers. i urge a vote yes on this final amendment to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. does the gentleman rise in opposition? mr. kline: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit and reclaim the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i do rise to this motion to recommit. this is similar to amendments we've seen earlier today. we had sort of an amendment trying to capitalize on the occupy wall street movement and tie -- limit workers' rights because of behavior of

executives. this motion attempts to rewrite existing rules regarding union access to employer property. the current system, mr. speaker, the point is the current system has been providing fair elections as the distinguished minority whip said for employers and employees. the nlrb's job is to see that employers and employees have fair union organizing elections. at a time when millions of americans are searching for work, the democrats have introduced yet another proposal that will make it more difficult for job creators, employers to put americans back to work. rather than promoting a balanced election process, this motion to recommit will further tilt the playing field in favor of big labor bosses. it's time for the democrats here to stop standing in the way of the nation's job creators and work on

commonsense solutions that will allow job creators to put americans back to work. the underlying bill, mr. speaker, the underlying bill protects employers' free speech and employees opportunity to make an informed decision. this motion to recommit undoes that. we need to defeat this motion to recommit for what it is, support the underlying legislation. let's vote this -- vote no on this motion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion fails. ms. sutton: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. sutton: on behalf of the 99%, i ask for a roll call vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 477 and adoption of house resolution 477 if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote and members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the motion is not adopted . the ayes have it. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235, the nays are 188, the bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on reordering the previous question on house resolution 477 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 894, house resolution 477, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3463, to reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating

taxpayer financialing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the election assistance commission, providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 527, to amend chapter 6 of title 5, united states code, commonly known as the regulatory flexibility act, to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rule and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3010, to reform the process by which federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. 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 239, the nays are 184, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> on that i ask for a recorded

vote. the speaker pro tempore: a -- the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 239, the nays are 178, the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. would the members please take their conversations off the floor. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for

one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the bennett academy girl's volleyball team from lyle, illinois, for winning the state championship on november 12. mrs. biggert: the team finished with a phenomenal record of 39 wins and three losses. this accomplishment marks the first state championship for an all girls' team at bennett academy. each team member should be congratulated for their hard work, including senior megan who had three kills and 13 points in the final game. her sister, sophomore maggie, followed her lead with 16 kills and senior jenna who was named m.v.p. rounded out the team with 10.

mr. speaker, our community is very proud of these accomplished young women, at least seven of whom already have made plans to play volleyball at division i universities. once again, i'd like to congratulate the bennett academy red wings on their win and wish them continued success in all their future endeavors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, every nine minutes and 30 seconds someone is infected with h.i.v. in the united states. today, 34 million people worldwide live with h.i.v. and of those infected, 60% do not know they are positive. ms. bass: these staggering facts demand we strengthen our

efforts to prevent the spread of this life-threatening disease. tomorrow, december 1, we will rk nice world aids day. world aids day is an opportunity to take action and invigorate the global movement to ultimately halt the spread of h.i.v. emphasizing the importance of ending this three-decade fight this year's world aids day theme is getting to zero. zero new infections, zero discrimination, zero aids-related deaths. in observance, starting at midnight, i will hold a 24-hour tweet blast where every hour i will tweet facts about h.i.v.-aids and ways everyone can get involved to end this disease. i invite you all to join me in this conversation on twitter at repkarenbass. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as the -- mr. fleming: as the price of crude oil moves past $100 a barrel, it is another reminder of the high cost of our dependence on foreign countries, kills jobs and raises energy costs. every time the federal government imposes a moratorium or new regulations as it did on drilling in the gulf and now the keystone pipeline, it hurts the american people. despite 60 years of a spotless safety record, excellent state regulation and monitoring, approval for safety by the e.p.a. in creation of inexpensive energy sources, fracking for oil and natural gas is under attack by the department of the interior. what is the expected outcome?

look at what the administration has done to coal offshore drilling, not to mention we haven't built a new nuclear energy plant for decades due to overregulation. hydrofracking of oil and natural gas will inevitably be pushed into red tape, higher cost of production and lower yield, again, hurting america through high energy costs and fewer jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. the hardship of all those involved in the recent tragic developments of penn state university is heavy on our hearts as this community moves forward and these individuals and their families continue to

cope with the horrific adversity and pain. despite the tragic events, rise today for a different reason, something my community, the penn state community, can be most proud of. the chronicle of higher education reported that penn state leads the nation in outgoing faculty fulbright grants for the 2011-2012 academic year. they have received 16 grants, 14 of which were awarded at the university park campus at state college. the competitive based for studentsering teachers, and other professionals is the u.s. government's premier international exchange program. these vims will expand our nation's educational endeavors by strengthening partnerships around the world. these success stories serve as an encouraging example that every individual can achieve potential through hard work and dedication. these talented individuals have much to be proud of. congratulations to each recipient on this eseemed --

esteemed award. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commend the combined efforts of government at all levels, law enforcement personnel, nonprofit groups, local businesses and community volunteers as part of the third nationwide drug take back day on october 29. my home of bucks county has emerged as a leader in the prior take back events so it came as no surprise that despite the unusual fall storm, we led pennsylvania in collecting two tons of unwanted prescription drugs. mr. fitzpatrick: due to the efforts of of all involved, these drugs have been removed from the mustn't and no longer pose a threat to people or the environment. i applaud the government in

keeping the drugs off this estreets and out of the hands of those who may seek to abuse them and encourage continued efforts. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaf of absence requested for mr. dreier of california for tuesday, november 29, and for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr.

speaker. i'm here tonight with my colleagues to discuss the importance of small business in america. before i get started i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the topic of this special order. again, mr. speaker, we're here talking about small business. the speaker pro tempore: excuse me, without objection, so ordered. mrs. ellmers: thank you. small business are our job creators in america. and we here in congress must do everything that we can to help them to be doing exactly that and creating jobs in our country. we're here to talk about these issues, we're here to talk about the burdens that are on small business, that remain in tact, that we can help with. we must do everything we can because right now our small business hands are tied, they are telling us over and over again that regulations and the threat of taxation and uncertainty continue to hold them back from creating jobs, innovating and investing in their own companies.

with that i would like to allow my colleague from washington to speak. beaut beaut thank you -- ms. herrera beutler: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for allowing me the time to join her here today, to talk about what this government can and should be doing to help the private sector grow jobs. period. that's what we're about. we want to help small businesses grow jobs. there's a statistic most of us are familiar with, close to 2/3 of every new job, of all new jobs come from small businesses. they are truly the backbone of our economy. so what if this government started by saying, what can we do to help you, not hurt you or impede your success? and that's what this congress is going to be doing this week, as we consider the regulatory flexibility act, h.r. 527, it's a bill that strengthens existing law. it simply says if a federal rule

is killing jobs, if a federal agency is then required to find a rule that's less burdensome. it's pretty cut and dry. something we should be doing already, but we actually have to pass a bill to require it. you know, when the federal agencies here in washington, d.c., issue one rule after another, small businesses pay the price and our economy loses jobs. for instance, take my neck of the woods in southwest washington. a business manufacturer. when i visit this business i see a thriving facility with people at work. they're assembling products that help our economy grow. but the vacuum pumps don't have a huge team of lawyers and business accountants and -- to handle the regulatory details, they actually need regulatory specialists to navigate the maze of federal rules. they don't have the money. but you know, they just might need it. i actually brought the reason why i think they might need that.

mr. speaker, this is pretty heavy. this is actually the list of federal rules and regulations just for half of november. this doesn't even represent the entire month. these books i have right here represent about two weeks worth of federal regulations and rules that businesses have to navigate. let me show you if i may, just the rules from the last three days. monday, tuesday and wednesday. right here. you know, part of the reason we're here today is to illustrate the need to make it simpler and easier for small businesses to navigate this federal maze. i mean, this is ridiculous. this is monday, this is tuesday and this is wednesday. three days worth of rules that vacuum pumps in southwest washington is going to help -- need help navigating. which is why we're passing a

bill that says, if these rules -- puts the proof of the burden back on the federal government. the federal government needs to find a better way to put forward its regulations. another rule that's really important, it's working its way through the environmental protection agency and through the courts, it's called the forest roads rule. it's also very impactful to southwest washington. it's crippling in that it overturns 35 years of environmental policy and would require a federal permit on every single forest road. in essence you have to get the same federal permit for a road through your privately owned forest land, that would you have to get for factories and industrial sites. that's not necessary. let's consider the impacts on public land. according to the u.s. forest service it would require that agency alone 10 years to attain the 400,000 permits necessary for the roads on public lands. what would that do to rick, who owns a small tree farm in clark county, washington? he's not the u.s. forest

service, he doesn't have unlimited lawyers and resources. he has to do this on his own. that's what we're here tonight to do. is to make it easier on these small business owners to operate in our regions and grow our economy. so with that i thank the gentlelady for the time to talk about my support for the regulatory flexibility act, for what we're doing to help grow jobs and small businesses. i yield back. mrs. ellmers: thank you. and i'll just echo my colleague's remarks by saying that according to the nfib compliance with the environmental regulations cost small businesses four times more than larger firms. larger firms do have the ability and employees in place to deal with these issues. our small businesses simply cannot afford to do business that way. and with that i would like to allow my colleague from california to come forward, mr. dunham.

-- mr. denham. mr. denham: thank you for your leadership on this issue. we can't afford any more of the overregulation. regulatory burdens from new rules just this year alone have cost american taxpayers $93.2 billion. and one sfuddy found that each million dollars increase in the federal regulatory budget costs 420 jobs. overregulation costs us jobs around the nation. and let me just speak from my own perspective. 12 years ago i started denham plastics. something that my wife and i borrowed an incredible amount of money to start a vision that we had, supporting the agriculture industry with a plastics company. you know, it has been a tough road to hoe as a small business owner. certainly comes at great risk to our family. but it was a vision that we had, that we believed that without

government intervention we can succeed in not only creating new customers but new jobs. but one regulation would have put us out of business. the government-run health care, just the 1099 provision alone, by having to report all of our customers, by having to report all of our suppliers, would have put our small business under. from an agriculture perspective, i'm a farmer in the central valley and, you know, the e.p.a. came down with new dust control regulations. now, we farm, we drive tractors, we till our land, and we're going to have dust. i mean, just by the sheer motion of a tractor driving through a field or a plow putting through the dirt, it's something we've done for the history of our nation, creates dust. are you going to put us out of business because of it? we grow almonds. you can't spray the trees full of water before you shake the trees and harvest the almonds. you're going to have dust.

so, i've been a co-author of a bill that gets rid of this burdensome regulation, something that would shut down our agriculture industry, not only in the central valley of california, but across the nation. we're farmers, we are going to have dust. some of my fellow farmers and ranchers are also aware that the e.p.a. also wanted to expand its regulation of manure as a threat of greenhouse gas. i mean, some of these things are so ludicrous that they just cost us millions of jobs and the threat alone causes farmers to say, do we really want to be in this business? do our kids really want to take over the family farm? we've got to stop this overregulation because it does cost us jobs. we've got to stop eliminating jobs before we can go out and create more jobs. we have to have certainty in the marketplace. and whether you're a farmer or small business owner, the regulations effect us in such a way that as a small business

owner i couldn't go out there and hire a lobbyist to go through the 90,000 pages of new regulations this year alone. we have to stop the regulations that are killing businesses throughout the nation and h.r. 527 is one way to do that. we need flexibility, most of all we need certainty. we've got to be able to plan our business, not for a month, not for two months, not for one year, but when you're in business, when you're out there borrowing capital, when you're putting your home into a second mortgage because you want to do the american dream and create a business, want to go out and hire new people, you have to have some certainty. i can't go to my wife and say, let's take a second out on our home and maybe we might make it next year. regulations, we don't know what's going to happen. we need to be able to plan for five years, 10 years, need to be able to plan on putting our kids through college. need to, before i go out and hire a new employee, i need to have a commitment not only to that employee that we're going to have ongoing employment, but i've got a commitment to that

employee's entire family that depends on us for that new job. so the regulations that are killing our businesses across the nation have to end. we need flexibility. we need certainty as a business. we need it to create jobs in this great nation. thank you and i yield back. mrs. ellmers: thank you to my colleague. that is just your pe spectacularive alone as a small business owner and a farmer, you know, really gives us that strong idea of what we're really facing. many of us here in washington now are and have been small business owners and we understand the burdens that we are having to undertake and the rest of america is dealing with. in fact, mr. speaker, i'm going to just talk a little bit about some statistics and poll data. according to a recent gallup poll, small business owners in the united states say complying with government regulations is the most important problem facing them today.

followed by consumer confidence in the economy and lack of consumer demand. small business firms bear regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee. just to deal with the regulations. which is 36% higher, there again, than larger businesses. for small business, small business is what drives our economy and yet it is what is continuously targeted and we must act on it with the bill that we will pass tomorrow, h.r. 527. i spoke a little bit about the excessive costs of dealing with environmental regulations. according to the small business administration, regulations cost the american economy $1.7 trillion annually. that is an enormous cost and you

can see by our unemployment rate why we continue in this. until we are able to cut the excessive overbearing regulations that are facing our businesses, we will not turn this economy around. that is why we must act now, that is why the many bills that we have passed over to the senate we repeatedly ask for a vote. so that we can get started. we could do this tomorrow if these bills were voted on. one last bit of information before i introduce my next colleague of the administration's new regulations, new regulations. 200 are expecting to cost over $100 million each. seven of those new regulations will cost the economy more than $1 billion each. we cannot continue on this path.

with that i'd like to call on my colleague from -- i was going to say chicago, from illinois, mr. schilling. mr. schilling: thank you, congresswoman ellmers, for the introduction. and just for inviting me to participate today. the best thing about having the opportunity to represent the residents of illinois's 17th district is just listening to their concerns and taking those concerns back here to washington, d.c. as i travel throughout the district, the area, i listen and i'm also asked, you know, what worries me. i worry about unemployment and about the uncertainty facing our families in our district. i'm worried that more is not being done to create an environment of certainty that promotes long-term growth in our job sector. government does not create jobs. we need to be clear about that. government creates an environment for job creation by the private sector. folks simply will not be put

back to work if government continues villenizing our job creators and enacting policies that keep workers on the unemployment line and drive us deeper into debt. as a small business owner myself, i understand how this hinders the ability to create jobs. back in august i invited local business owners throughout our area to participate in a business round table where we discussed what government can do to empower the private sector, spur job creation and grow our economy. these business owners are the people we are asking to lead us into economic recovery and to put americans back to work. i was pleased to see folks from all sorts of industries to present great ideas and thought ops issues that are causing them to struggle in this economy. they shared with me that high energy costs, rising taxes, mixed messages from washington, d.c., and the uncertainty from

the illinois state government are stifling the creation of the environment of economic success. now, there are more than 27 million small businesses throughout the united states of america. they are the lifeblood of our nation's economy. america's small businesses create seven out of every 10 new jobs and employ over half the country's private sector work force. we ought to be making it easy for these folks to grow and hire new workers, not ville anizing them or -- not villainizing them or burdening them with new tax codes. we need to tear down roadblocks, get government out of the way and lay the groundwork for real, private sector job creation. phil nelson, president of the illinois farm bureau association, testified before the small business committee. to quote him, he said, what keeps me lying awake at night is the potential for more regulatory creep. it's as if we go to bed one

night with one set of regulations and wake up the next morning with a new set. every moment we spend fighting and then working to comply with the needless, duplicative service regulations takes away from what we do best, producing food. my colleagues and i in the house have been focused on jobs since day one. passing more than 20 jobs bills to give small businesses the certainty they need to grow, increase the domestic production of oil and get americans back to work. unfortunately, these bills remain stuck in the senate but we cannot do it alone. the president and the senate democrats must join us. this week we'll be voting on h r. 527, the regulatory flexibility improvement act. this is yet another pro-jobs bill, one that addresses the problem of burdensome, reckless regulation that burden businesses and stunt job growth. the regulatory flexibility

improvement act provides urgently needed help to small businesses facing an onslaught of federal regulations. when considering regulations, agencies frequently fail to consider alternative ways to achieve regulatory goals without imposing unnecessary burdens on american job creators. this bill increases the ability of small businesses to provide input to agencies as they consider government regulations and gives the small business administration new authority to ensure flexibility in taking regulatory action against small business. it takes president obama's regulatory review executive order one step further, giving the small business administration the ability to ensure new regulations are in compliance with the law while verifying that small businesses will be able to comply without hurting their ability to create jobs. business owners need the

certainty that the government will get out of the way so that they can do what they do best and grow their businesses and create jobs. and the american people need real, bipartisan solutions to our jobs crisis. let's put politics and partisanship aside and help the private sector create jobs that americans throughout the country so desperately need. the time has come to empower small businesses to reduce government barriers by helping our small businesses. to fix the tax code, to help our job creators and to boost competitiveness for american manufacturers, encourage entrepreneurship and growth, maximize american energy production, pay down america's unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means. with that, i yield back. mrs. ellmers: thank you to my colleague for that important information. again, as a small business owner, this information is vital to the solutions that we

are coming up with here in washington. we're not just members of congress who don't have the experience out there, we aren't listening to just the usual washington bureaucrats, we are actually small business owners who deal with these real-life experiences and understand what works and what doesn't. and this simply is not working. mr. speaker, in my district, where the unemployment rate hovers at about 10.3%, i am hearing numerous stories, highlighting how small businesses are hanging on by a thread and i say that in quotes, hanging on by a thread is what i hear. overregulation is killing us, is another quote i hear over and over and over again. they feel that they are being punished by washington. they -- years ago, they felt

that their competitors were the ones that they were working against in trying to compete -- and trying to compete with for a better product. now they feel they are working against the federal government and the federal government is working against them. the federal government has become their enemy. one of the local small businesses in my district is kivitz incorporated owned and operated by wonderful people, and i met them when i was running for office. why? because i needed to go in, they called for a meeting with me because they were so concerned with where our country was going and what was happening to their business. they were not people who had been politically active, they were not people who had ever sat down with a member of

congress or a want-to-be member of congress but they felt trapped and continue to feel trapped by the government regulations and all of the uncertainty, including the president's health care bill. which they know will harm them greatly. kivitz incorporated is the largest family owned and operated church pew manufacturer and pew refinisher in the united states. in addition they build and refurbish other church furniture and fixtures such as steeples and stained glass windows and provide a full range of services from delivery to installation. this is a jewel in my district system of many are sending these jobs over to china and yet the kivitz have maintained their business, their business was started by gerald's father,

i believe back in the 1950's. they have spent their lives and dedicated their lives to their business and they are feeling that it is being pulled out from underneath them. mr. kivitz' company had 160 employees in 2005. and they are now down to 52. from 160 to 52. their volume of business is down 60%. their business has not made a profit in the last three years. that is significant. they have not increased the prices on their products, either, since 2005. this has been due to the fear of losing more business, even though their costs, their costs for products, have escalated but they have tried to maintain

their business by keeping their prices at the same level. at one point, they were averaging one church, church furniture for one church every day and are now down to approximately two per week. mr. speaker, how are they going to be able to keep their doors open and keep those 52 remaining employees working? churches depend on charitable giving and they are having a hard time finding a way to meet their operating budget which leaves any kind of future planning completely out of the realm of possibility. i spoke a moment ago about the health care law, the uncertainty it's creating for small businesses. owners make it harder for us to determine, an this is coming straight from mr. kivitz, it is making it harder for us to determine what our costs are at a time when we are struggling

to meet the most basic costs of running our business. as he puts it, we are just trying to maintain and praying for the government to stop attempting to regulate small businesses and get out of the way. that is another quote i hear over and over again. get out of the way. that's some of the gloom and doom that my business owners in my district are faced with. as you heard tonight from some of my colleagues, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. mr. schilling from illinois showed you the card, the number of bills, again, that we have passed in the house, with bipartisan support, to create jobs. we keep hearing how america wants jobs. we keep hearing about the 99. the 99% is sitting on the floor

of the majority leader in the senate. because if those bills were passed and sent to the president to be signed into law, we could have jobs created in this country. we need to decrease the unemployment rate. we can talk about cutting spending all day long and we are all about that, but until we get people back to work, we're not going to turn this economy around. again, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and you've heard us speak tonight about h.r. 527, which we'll be voting on tomorrow. we simply cannot continue the one-size-fits-all regulations produced by this administration which hinder our small businesses. this bill will help alleviate needless burdens, economic recovery begins with our small businesses. but this will not happen unless

we rein in the mass of regulations coming from right here in washington. the regulatory flexibility act of 1980, as amended by the small business regulatory enforcement fairness act, requires federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their regulations on small businesses. imagine that. imagine having to run an economic impact study to find out how much damage they will be doing to small businesses if these regulations are put in place. if the impact is significant, they must consider alternatives that are less burdensome, however, the agencies have used loopholes to get around this statute and that is why it is so important that we pay -- that we pass h.r. 527, the regulatory flexibility improvement act of 2011.

which would remove the loopholes and strengthen the flexibility act. by increasing the power of the office of the chief council for advocacy, to enforce the r.f.a., ensuring complete analysis of potential impacts on small businesses. and forcing agencies to perform better periodic review of rules. regulations often impose unnecessary burdens on small businesses. you've heard that over and over and over again tonight. that impede their ability to create jobs. agencies frequently fail to consider appropriate alternatives that allow agencies to achieve their regulatory objectives without imposing burdens on america's job creators. our small business owners. the regulatory flexibility improvements act, h r. 527, provides -- h.r. 527 provides

much needed help to businesses facing an onslaught of federal regulations. it has been 15 years since congress last updated the regular willer to flexibility act of 1980. during that time, we have seen that there are weaknesses in the regulatory process that federal agencies have exploited at the determinant of small business and job creators. this bill ensures federal agencies can no longer ignore the r.f.a. job creators are the key to economic recovery. and the small businesses are america's job creators. overregulation requires the diversion of scarce capital from job creation to create regulatory compliance. i said earlier, mr. speaker, north carolina's unemployment

rate is now 10.4%. this is not a statistic, this is a catastrophe. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, thank you so much for this opportunity tonight and i yield to my colleague. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and especially thank her for leading this special order hour here tonight to discuss the burden on regulation -- burden of regulation on business in this country, particularly small business. from my standpoint, my background, i started a business in 1975. . i remember the fears and i knew i could do the work and turn a cash flow but i didn't know i could comply with all the government regulations and little did i know how much i was stepping into. and when you begin to enter into a business, you step into the

unknown and i would find out about a government agent after a government agent. they would show up and i would talk to somebody else in my business and said did you meet with that regulation, what about the e.p.a. side of this? do you know you have to post a sign that you are an equal opportunity employer and by the way, that has to be in multiple languages and in case someone who hose up that doesn't speak that language and on and on it went. and there was compliance with federal and state regulations. and so as the years went by, i got better about it and i found out more to comply with and i got greater frustration in me because of this burden of filing

reports and meeting deadlines and making sure they had all the paperwork and all the paperwork that i was filling out was going out in a storage dungeon, never to be seen again, unless there was a regulation or enforcement regulation and i was confident they would dig it up. what good did it do and what good did that regulation do if it was going to go off into storage that god forbid we had an accident and os hmp a wanted to make sure i had my regulations in place. and i made a comment here in the judiciary committee a month or so ago that of all these regulations that we have to

comply with, if you look across america, there are good companies in this country. and of the thousands of companies in america, hundreds of millions of companies in america all together, they advertise everything under the sun. they have banners on their web site and tell you they are the best or first and they will advertise their quality, their personnel, advertise the efficiency, the cost. it will go on and on and on. not one single company that has a little banner on their web site that says we are in compliance with all federal regulations. not one single company takes that position. if they ever advertised they would be in compliance, there would be a federal bureaucrat that represented an agency, 682

federal agencies and there are subdements and divisions, 682 of them and this count is five years old, that can levy sanction actions against american businesses. and the number one fear i had was, can i comply with these regulations and can i identify with them, what do i do about the conflicting regulations if you meet one, the other regulation is conflicting. today, not a single company in america says they are in compliance and if they do, we should give them the award for that because they would be surrounded by bureaucrats, federal regulators to make sure they are in compliance and they have to justify their job. woy predict any company that would announce they are in compliance of all felled regular

layings wouldn't survive 18 months before they went into bankruptcy because they would be tied down and they couldn't produce those goods and services. there is a tradeoff and doesn't mean we shouldn't have wise regulations. but they need to keep it in mind the regulatory burden of those rules, but what it does to slow down production. now, i have said, goods and services that have a marketable value, that means, if you run a company, you want to go to work every day, what do we do? produce a product. manufacture and advertise a width and if you put 100 people out there and doesn't take but one person to run the mail and payroll, you are in good shape. one of those people doing that.

99% producing that product, number one grade awidget. as soon as a bureaucrat comes along and says you have to have someone documenting the water coming in, electricity coming in, the sewage going out, you have to have safety inspectors and inspect meetings and you line everyone up and telling them what they need to do which is safe, not a bad idea. but the government puts more on your overhead and shut down your production of that plant for the entire period of time that they have prescribed. and the other regulations, federal government saying, let's say, you have to pay the government scale. davis-bacon wage scale. that means union-imposed scale and it might change the wages in the past.

i have seen them double or cut in half. you go into a different division and a whole different wage scale. and different from the guy that is running the machine that is being agreesed and i have to keep track on all of that, which means, is consumesing the efficiency on the project. makes it difficult -- is our time nearly up? i would yield then? mrs. ellmers: i just want to take the opportunity to say in closing that as a small business owner with my husband back in north carolina with our surgical practice that we have faced exactly what my colleague is talking about, these excessive

regulations that have continued through the years. we are at a point now where we are seeing our fellow colleagues back home with medical practices closing their doors, being bought out by hospitals, because they just cannot and know they will not be able to adhere to the mandates coming forward with the health care bill and all of the uncertainty with the d omp c fix, s.g.r., all of those wonderful things. mr. speaker, we must act now. we can turn this economy around by acting on these regulations, bypassing these regulatory decreases for our businesses so there again our job creators can do what they do best, re-investing in this country and being the job creailtors that they are. and with that, i yield back.

mr. king: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, for 30 minutes. mr. king: i appreciate that recognition and appreciate the input that has come from the others on the floor talking about regulation and i came down to change the subject. and take it over to this, that as i emerged into the construction business that identified, i found myself doing seminars with other people of the same profession around the five-state area in the upper midwest with our trade association and those five-state area as i traveled around and held those seminars, began to ask the questions of self-employed people, most of

them started the businesses themselves and were employers, doing this in the kind of way that we need to encourage americans to do, i began to ask them, how many agencies regulate your trade? and as i asked that question, there might be 60 to 70 contractors in a room and we would begin to write down the names of those agencies and some of those were divisions within the agencies. start with the i.r.s. and e.p.a. and go on and on and on and osha, mining regulators and continues on, but we came to this number of our little narrow trade group, 43 different agencies that regulate us. we needed to know the regulations from 43 different agencies and needed to be able to anticipate how they would interpret those regulations and enforce them and calculate when they contradicted one another,

one agency showing up versus another. and if they had conflicting regulations, you ran your operation to try to comply with the one who is trying to show up and regulate the other. that goes on every single day. flr floors and floors of lawyers whose job it is to keep those companies from avoiding the conflict that comes from federal regulations and our state regulations that are part of that as well. it is a great frustration to enter into a business wanting to provide that good or service and do it with a marketable competitive way and control your destiny and raise your family and find out that a lot of your life is really tied up in meet ink with government regulations and control the destiny of 300

million americans who never signed the front of a pay check and have no idea what it's like to maybe not have any capital and build a little bit with sweat equity and roll it and invest it and find enough margin and customers that you are compelled to hire a person to help you. you multiply that again and take some more sweat and equity and double up the equity and have another employee and another and while that's going on, you are buildings a capital base that bridges you through the hard times. and the at today especially on this side of the aisle, there are attitudes. i would say to you those folks here in this congress and most of them on the liberal side of this aisle believe that employers are victimizer and employees have a certain virtue

to them. we have good and evil in all of us. the people who risk their capital and put everything they have on the line and stand to lose it all if it doesn't work, they aren't taking advantage of the employees but giving employees a job. and republicans, we say jobs, jobs, jobs. well, yes, we want those jobs. i don't believe government wants the jobs. we need to get government out of the way so that investors can see an opportunity for profit and if they see that opportunity for profit, they will invest their capital or their sweat and they will produce the kind of jobs out there that will sustain people in a market economy. that's what needs to happen because first, you can't pay payroll very long if you don't have profit, which means you won't have jobs unless people make money.

what do you do? you punish people making money and on this side of the aisle, we don't want to punish those people who are seeking a profit because we want jobs. we should all say, we want to see profit in these companies so that profit gets re-invested and more people have an opportunity to go to work and receive a pay check and perhaps a pay razor benefits package and maybe if the profit is great, they will spin off of there and the people going to work for the boss end up in competition against the boss. that is another thing that is the american way. these things need to happen over and over again millions of times. if it doesn't happen, we go down into a social democracy -- hard for me to say of those words. we moved in that direction dramatically. the president of the united states doesn't believe in these things that i described that i

think are good. he has advocated this and spending trillions of dollars and borrowing it and they believe that u.s. treasury bills are the safest place to put your money, because the other currency has gotten unstable. the euro is in a very, i will say an unbalanced condition right now. they have spent money in the european economy, in the european union, money they didn't have. they have built a government bureaucracy much heavier, i have twice been to greece this year and have their heads in the sand in my opinion. they believe that they are the first of a multiple dominoes and 2% of the g.d.p. and if the g.d.p. of the european union and

if they are not bailed out by the e.u. and that means -- yes, loan guarantees, but gets down to debt forgiveness and if they default, then they will move away from the euro, the currency and print their money back in greece a second time or again. and if that happens, they think the euro becomes less stable and if the greeks aren't involved in it somehow and if they aren't held up, propped up, they will follow the dominoe and their dominoe will clip italy, portugal, belgium, spain, name your country. it may or may not be true. it's hard to look at greece and argue if they are a dominoe and if they fall, they will hit one of those unstable countries and

will start this cascading effect through thedom knows of those unstable countries. might not be true. . could be they have a firewall built arn it and if they fall, they fall and they have to build their country back up again. i hope this doesn't happen in greece. i hope that there's a stable economic environment that grows out of europe. we're tied to them financially with hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the european banks. if they should fail it hurts us badly. we're also highly leveraged in this cupry and the comparison of us to greece is one that is considerably disturbing. there is a good side to a potential greece default, a greek default, that would be that it would give this congress a lesson for what america needs to do to avoid a similar calamity.

i'd like to see us steer our way out of this but we're here having a debate in this congress aboutmy nureba in proportion to the scope of the problem we are in. we came into this congress, this new congress, with new speaker john boehner, we have an opportunity with 7 new freshman republicans who came here, most pledged not to raise the debt ceiling, most pledged to bring us back to fiscal responsibility, fiscal accountability. they all believe that to this day. i don't think they've lost their beliefs. but along the way, there were a lot of big decisions that needed to be made without time to analyze. so what happened? i said the first thing we needed to do was repeal obamacare resm peel obamacare, repeal obamacare. i can't say it enough. we need to repeal obamacare if we're going to have a country that functions again. it drives us so deeply in debt that just removing a couple of components of obamacare,

according to denny rehberg, chair of the health and human resources committee, it would cut our spending by $1.379 trillion. it would have solved the whole problem of the super committee, that $1.379 trillion cut, by ening the expansion into medicaid, the administration admitted they couldn't su sustain that component. one other component in the obamacare, the individual premium subsidy for those who are compelled to buy insurance under obamacare. those components totaled $1.379 trillion. we strike those out, shut off funding to that and save that $1.379 trillion, that would more than handle the $1.2 trillion that were directed in the debt ceiling deal. mr. speaker, this went this way. we had a chance coming into this new congress this 112th congress to draw bright lines and to ensure fiscal

responsibility and actually fix the real scope of this problem and step number one was repeal obamacare. we passed that out of this house, h.r. 2. send it over to harry reid where he set it up for failure and they shot it down. every republican in the house and every republican in the senate has voted to repeal obamacare. congratulations, thank you all for doing that. we didn't get it done but we got it voted on and it's on the conscience of the people that voted no that that monstrosity of a regulation churns its way through, consuming $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations that were written, deceptively, into obamacare in an uns predened tactic. yes, the tactic had been used before but the scope had never been used before. so that's in there. it's around $26 billion in the first two years of obamacare,

this year, next year, $26 billion, being churned away. if we had reached an impasse on the negotiations with the continuing resolution, the c.r. that hit at midnight on march 4, if that had resulted in a showdown that would have been the president causing a shutdown, that might have seen the lights go off in federal offices all across the land, mr. speaker. but you could have given through the federal buildings in this city, around the federal buildings in this city and around the federal buildings across america and where likes were on in that eventuality, they would be on because the money that funds obamacare goes on anyway. it's automatic. they call it manner to spending. and we tried to shut that off as well. and we did send the amendment language out of this house that shut off all funding to obamacare and it went to the senate but it was attached to the bill that went with the c.r. as an appendage so that

they could separate it out an vote it down in the senate and that's what harry reid did in the senate also, mr. speaker. so here we are. with a congress that began on the right foot, with an opportunity to force a showdown with the president of the united states and make him defend obamacare. we could have legitimately funded all of the functions of government, or i should say, we could have responsibly funded all the legitimate functions of government, would be a better way to phrase that, mr. speaker, and shut off all funding to obamacare. the president of the united states then was predicted to veto a bill like that. had he dope that he would have had to explain to the american people that his signature piece of legislation, obamacare, means more to him than all of the legitimate functions of government combined. that would have been the showdown. it should have been the showdown. i believe that we would have prevailed on that showdown and

i think the president would have had to accept the funds that we put on his desk in the c.r. appropriations bill, minus any funding that go into obamacare, cutting off the automatic funding to obamacare. could have, would have, should have done that mr. speaker. we move past that point. the c.r. was going to be $100 billion in cuts, out didn't become that. that number went low enough, it's not something anybody revisits, then we were going to do ye -- yeoman's work to balance the budget. it was done by representative paul of -- representative ryan of wisconsin that budget didn't balance for 26 years, that was all we could get out of this congress, it's hard to craft a budget that comes that close he did a lot of hard work, laid

out some good parameters we need to pick up and deal with but the budget resolution on the floor of the house with was a promise from ourselves, to ourselves to hold the spending down and this spending allocation was agreed to by this congress, by the majority of the house of representatives, excuse me, and the senate hasn't passed a budget in so long i don't remember when. so mr. speaker, that budget was passed, balancing in 26 years, spending too much money, leaving us with $23 trillion in national debt 10 years down the road and it was a great step in the right direction. not as strong as i wanted it to be, not as strong as the r.s.c. budget, but the one that could pass, could constrain our spending, i voted for both, the r.s.c. budget that balanced in about nine year, and the ryan budget which balanced in 26 years, left us with $23 trillion in national debt 10 years down the road, that doesn't sound very appetizing

to the american public, those facts, mr. speaker, but, those facts didn't hold the promise from ourselves to ourselves, went kind of out the window when the debt ceiling agreement was presented to the floor of this congress and ultimately passed. in that was the super committee, in that was a promise to vote on a balanced budget amendment and in that was the threat that if the super committee didn't produce a product that could pass the congress, be signed by the president, then there would be the se quest rage, i don't know where the language of that came from, but the sequestration is the automatic cuts we're looking at now. i knew when the debt ceiling deal was put on paper that we had to go through a number of things. one was we had to have a debate about how we were going to define a balanced budget amendment. we had that debate. i think i won the debate and lost the decision but nonetheless, the clean version of the balanced budget amendment was brought to the floor, i didn't call it a clean

version. i think we needed to have the plansed budget amendment that passed the judiciary committee. we should have let the committee work its well, the judiciary committee marked up a balanced budget amendment that had a cap at 18% of g.d.p. on spending and had a super majority to raise tacks. it had exemptions for a declared war or case of a serious national emergency and other provisions. it was a good constitutional amendment that we could live with that would strengthen this country over the long-term. we didn't have a vote on that we had the one that said thou shall have a balanced budget and allows for a tax increase to balance that budget. of course you get to a certain point with tax increases and see a decline economically and i think we're past that point. that was another struggle. now we're faced with the sequestration, i'm thankful the super committee didn't send us a package that couldn't pass the house or senate. i never believed they can.

they concluded they couldn't reach an agreement. there was an impasse, republicans said we're not going to raise taxes and democrats said, we aren't going to do it if you don't raise taxes. they want to punish the people that are produce, the people -- they would increase the taxes, you guys over there, you would increase the taxes on the people that are paying the most taxes, you'd increase the taxes on the people paying the highest percentage. you would argue it's progressive. and you're never going to be satisfied. i know you won't be satisfied. if i could tell you today and tomorrow is the first day of december, that i have a magic wand and i promise you all that we're going to give you what you want, you've got all the month of december to put your wish list together and when the ball drops in times square in new york, new year's eve at midnight and the new year gips, here would be the deal, give me the list of all the things you want to do, to take away the liberty and freedom of the american people, take away the

wealth and capital that's been so justly earned by people in this country and redistribute the wealth and the ideal karl marks or any other leftists that you worship, grant all the wishes you have, reorder society according to all your dreams and let you have 30 days to put the list together, and at midnight when the ball drops at times square, stroke the magic wand, give you your entire wish list. if i had that power and if this happened in this fashion, i will they will you you guys would work hard. your lights are on at nigh. you're well funded and smart people. wrong on your philosophy. but you would put together a list. it would be a long list. it wouldn't be without some internal fights and barney frank will still be there after all, so there would be internal fights. in the end, granted your wish at midnight at the new year but the deal would be that you had to then stop complaining the rest of your life, you'd have to live under the rules you had

written, that you spent 30 days and all your career wishing and dreaming an leveraging for in this congress, give you everything you asked for on the new year but you'd have to be quiet an live under those rules. i can tell you what happened. you'd stay up all night long on new year's night thinking, what did we forget? how did he cheat us? we forgot to leave this in, we need to change the rules and we're going to want more and more and more. because first of all you don't want to admit to the american people what you really want to do, you're anti-capitalist, anti-american liberty, anti-free enterprise, there are a number of pillars of american exceptionalism you just plain oppose. and here we are, hardworking american people, why do we have all this capital? it never was a zero sum game. it never was. if you look back, where was it when the save man first went out there and brought a pelt back and turned it into a blanket. there was a little bit of

wealth that have created out of the labor that's there. when they were scavengers and foragers, they still made tools and along the way, somebody else could make a tool a little better a little more efficient and someone else could raise ate ll garden, trade some vegetables for arrow heads, whatever it might be. someone else could tan a hide better than the person who hunt nerd pelt system of they traded labor. in the middle of all of that, they acquired things. they saiding let's do two pelts you keep one, i'll keep the ore. now there are two blankets where there had only been one before and on and on they wenting building capital because we had free enterprise captliffle, we let people invest their sweat and turned it into equity and eventually they invented the wheel and along came the industrial revolution where we built things and put them on ships and traded around the world an we found that there were resources that were developed in other countries more efficiently than we could here. adam smith wrote in "wealth of

nations" habit how they had the wool industry going on up in england, scotland and ireland and they should be the one there is shearing sheep and turning that into clothing and put the wool products that they did so well on ships and sail them down to portugal where they were a lot better at raising grapes and turning it into wine, bring back a load of wine and both countries were better off. . whenever there are two people that trade a dollar and a business transaction, maybe two, three, four, five, six people, these business deals are set up because each party benefits. doesn't need to be a loser and when i hire somebody so go to work for me and i pay them a wage, they get something in return. they want the challenge and want to contribute and we reach this

agreement. it is a crack tall agreement between two -- contractual agreement between two adults. gold got mined between the in crmp arch s and they cut out the cost of labor and said they cut out the cost of labor and once they removed a significant cost of the labor of producing the gold from them, they dumped into the markets of europe and the price wept down. supply and demand and cost went together. and over the centuries we built ships and we built buildings and highway s and bridges and we created cash and currency to trade these -- to trade our labor back and forth with a

commodity that would be willing to exchange. that's money. and then the capitalists built in this world trillions and trillions and yet class envia sets in. and i hear some of you say the people who want to work should work and have a job and people are able to, the people who are able to work need to sustain themselves and need to contribute to the gross domestic product in this country and patriotic thing to do. and america has created that somehow the federal government is going to guarantee a standard of living. mr. speaker, i know you are going to be astonished but 72 means-tested programs.

there isn't a single american can name them from memory. and if they can't describe them, they can't understand how they function individually let alone how 72 different welfare programs can interact and function to provide an incentive to do the right thing. maybe get an education and develop job skills. william bennett told us, he said he considered 75% of the nation's pathology. get married, stay married, get a job, stay a job. if he is right on that's correct the other is substance abuse and get to 99% if people get married, stay married, get a job, keep a job and not abuse alcohol and reject illegal drugs and would settle domestic

scaubles. and our culture is expanding the dependency class in america. it goes on and over and over again. you do that because some of you believe, maybe all of you believe that it is a humane thing to do is take the sweat of one person and hand it over to one person who won't sweat and do it because it expands your political base and cater to the people that you are promising somebody else's labor to. we are getting weaker. we reached the point now where the 300 million americans that we have, we talk about how much unemployment we have. 15 million. you look at the weekly numbers of the new sign-ups and that

ranges down to 400,000 or so and we think there is eirend no lon eligible and down to 14 million unemployed or a little more. that's not the number we should be most concerned about. it is a number, we should add the 14 million that meet the definition for unemployment to the number of americans that are of working age that are not in the work force. the department of labor has it in their web site and you will see different age groups. starts at age 16, 16-19, nine million americans of that working age that aren't in the work force. they may be in school. i started before that age of 16. and then you go from 20 up to 25, another chunk.

americans of working age not in the work force. when i came to this congress were 69 million. then it became 80 million and 2.5 months ago, the number for the first time in this country, the number of americans of working age not in the work force now has exceeded 100 million americans, 100 million americans. and while that's going on, now we have what is our number, 11 or 12 million illegals in america can. but indicates we know this seven out of every 12 illegals here in this country work, that is lower than the number of americans working. and seven out of 12 that are there are part of -- around

eight million, seven to eight million, documented, study analyzed consensus numbers that are working. if they all woke up tomorrow morning, that creates eight million new jobs. if they weren't coming into this country illegally, they could do something productive rather than something that is not contributing economically. eight million jobs there. but there are many other jobs out there that will start a business, ask for a job and compete and everyone offers 100 million americans that aren't working that puts in one hour contributes to the gross domestic product of the united states of america. people who aren't producing are not contributing unless they have investments and then i will give them credit. 100 million, think if you were

on a boat or a ship and 300 people on that boat or ship and some pulling the oars, some cooking, cleaning and housekeeping and taking care of the captain and had 100 people said i'm going to sit here and say, bring me my food. i put the people on the oa rmp s and we will sail a lot smoother and feel better about ourselves. this dignity of work is there for every man and work that takes that job on. let's step up and take the freedom we have left and grasp more of that liberty and freedom and put some of these 100 million people to work so they can continue to their gross domestic product. we will be stronger economically and have more prudent people contributing and get to a

balanced budget and start to pay down the national debt and respect the rule of law. mr. speaker, i would go on for another half hour, articulating the other pillars, but i recognize there is a limit to my time and i appreciate your attention and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. according to the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

host: the c.r. is expected to expire. where are we in the continuing resolution and is congress going to make that december 16 deadline?

guest: i'm confident we will work something out between now and the middle of december. host: among some of the other things we want to discuss is the payroll tax and we have this item from "roll call" who writes that senate democrats and the white house are setting up a certain to fail vote to expand the payroll tax vote as soon as this week heading into the election year for democratic partisans, the series for made for attack ads --

guest: you have to love a senate that sets up a vote to fail on purpose for political purposes. if people want to know why our approval rating is low, especially on a senate, it hasn't passed hardly anything other than a handful of appropriation bills. three years waiting on their budget. it doesn't surprise me and this is going to be the issue. we have moved into full-fledged class warfare. what is going to get lost in the debate is the payroll tax funds social security. and what we have been doing is borrowing from social security to run the country and i'm hoping we get a chance to date the merits of that what you just read doesn't discuss the other part of the bill we heard about is the extension of unemployment benefits and i imagine we will

take that up as well. these votes regarding these tax increases, these extensions are designed more for politics i think at this point than policy. host: you said in october you didn't support the extension of the payroll tax is because they don't work. tell us about your thoughts on that. guest: one of the things we have talked about is whether or not the stimulus worked, the payroll tax reduction was part of that. i have 15% unemployment in my district. such a small, mistargeted tax reduction and has had little impact. and what's the tradeoff for that? the tradeoff is we have been underfunding social security and taken a social security trust fund that originally was going to expire in 2037 was the most recent date and every day that we go on with the lower payroll

tax levels, that date moves closer and closer to the present. there is going to be a great effort on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make this look like a tax cult versus a tax ip crease debate. but are we willing to do it to save social security. host: if congress lets the tax expire, doesn't that go against the anti-republican tax effort? guest: the republican issue on taxes deals with growth. we look at taxes as a limit on growth. we had a long discussion in south carolina when i was there about taxing cigarettes so we would have fewer people smoking. there are people who want to raise taxes on carbon emissions. people understand and talking about cigarettes and carbon that if you raise a tax on something

you get less of it. the republican position applies that rationale to productivity and wealth. the payroll tax again, dealing most with the funding of social security has nothing to do with reforming the tax code to encourage the growth we need. host: we are talking with mick mulvaney about year-end pending battles. if you want to give us a call --

caller: we had a big trust fund in the 1970's and had a huge surplus and took money out of the trust fund and created on social security tax and got the hands caught in the cookie jar and said something about a locked box, how they were going to put the money into the social security and locked box and secure it. so my question is or my concern is, it doesn't seem that the federal government with 545 minds in the world can get anything done basically the social security system is broke, post office is broke and now all of a sudden all comes the europeans, we fund the i.m.f., nato, united nations and they

want more money from us. i think we should take care of our own problems first. host: go ahead, sir. guest: let's look at social security, a lot of folks didn't understand exactly where the money was and how it was funded. over the course of the last decades, more money came in every single week than went out in benefits. that's by design. so the surplus was built up. the surplus is technically invested in these private bonds which are private t-bills and treasury notes, very similar to the notes and bills you hear talked about but they are private, not publicly traded. what happens is that they invest in these federal government notes and bonds. when you buy a bond or a note, you are lending that entity

money and that is happened with this surplus from the trust fund. the social security trust fund was invested in those notes and they are sitting in a safe someplace. roughly 2.6 trillion worth of i.o.u.'s that have built up. i would say we borrowed from the trust funds and the money was invested and we spent it. we do use the social security surplus to help run the government. i leave it to other folks as to whether or not those documents have value. i think they probably do. but the longer issue here is that that surplus will be expended roughly by the year 2037. this past summer, we moved to a situation where more money was coming out than was coming in. we are cloudy skies to a balance and over the course of the next

several years, that will favor going out. and that's why the trust fund goes down and down and down to 2037. and if we don't do anything between now and 2037. the benefits on that first day, there is across-the-board cuts and we expect those to be 20%, 25% automatic and congress wouldn't do anything and the benefits would go down. that is the back ground on the social security. the locked box wasn't a big deal. but to your larger issue, we can't do anything, and i think you are starting to see that sentiment per late up. our federal reserve relative to what is happening overseas. how much money we have exposed over there and how much money we lent to people over there has raised a bunch of red flags.

our investment is concerning to us, if not for the merits of what is happening but the lack of transparency of what is happening. if you don't ask the exact right question of the exact right person, you don't get an answer and it's not right. you touched on a let of things, but generally speaking, your sentiment about moving on an idea of where we take care of our own with a priority over getting involved in the nation, i think that is starting to enter the debate. host: our next call comes from jim in kansas city missouri. caller: two points real quick, relative to the stimulus for the c-span viewers, c.b.o. just produced a report here several days ago that indicated that the stimulus did, in fact, work. the republican ma nmp tra that

it did not is false. it increased employment and g.d.p. go to c.b.o. and check on some of the data. secondly, on the payroll tax program, it's to be paid for by a surtax of 3.8% on incomes over $1 million. that affects 345,000 taxpayers or about roughly 2/10 of 1% of taxpayers. 1/10 of 1% or 1 in 1,000 would pay this surtax. how many people would it benefit? 113,000. the republicans are trying to protect that 1% again and they are going to raise the taxes on 113 million people simply to

protect their top 1%. so i would like to know how the republicans can justify if we are supposed to be a country that promotes the common good, how does that promote the common good. guest: the stimulus and the payroll tax. let's deal with the stimulus first. i have seen various reports and i don't know if i have seen the exact c.b.o. report that you mentioned, if it came out in the last couple of days, i haven't seen it. what you want to see in the stimulus depends on where you are looking. the administration told us unemployment would not go above 8%. we interviewed the head of the burro of labor statistics and he admitted that not a single time since president obama has been in office since the sthrause has been in place have we created enough jobs on a monthly basis

to bring our unemployment levels. the numbers i have seen is that the stimulus created or saved three million jobs. that number is not as large as we were told that it would be if we approved the stimulus and how do you measure asaved job? we could have that discussion all day. the truth of the matter is that your children and grandchildren are on the hook of several hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt because of the spluss -- stimulus plan. unemployment is 9%. i don't know how you can look at the actual facts on the ground and realistically try and make the argument that the stimulus plan worked. it is the most expensive economics lesson that any culture has ever paid for. if we don't look at it and says it didn't fail and didn't work,

even if it is $850 billion. keep in mind the size of that stimulus is twice the amount in modern dollars, current dollars, twice the amount of doing every single inch of highways. if you got much benefit out of the stimulus or twice as much benefit as you get out of the interstate highway system and my guess is you probably didn't. about payroll taxes, what you laid out is what we are going to hear. what you laid out is class warfare. why don't we take from this group of people and give to this group of people based solely on how successful this group of people have been and how difficult. that's not the common good, jim. that is taxing somebody else in order to solve somebody else's problems. easier to raise taxes. where is the democrat mantra about shared sacrifice and the

democrats have said because we are in this bind is no one asked us to share the sacrifice of the wars overseas. and we have folks on the democrat side of the aisle let's tax the rich. you cannot tax the rich enough to solve our problems. you could take the marginal tax rates to 100% and take every penny and would not balance this budget. you could take the wealth and we wouldn't pay off the national debt. the truth of the matter is we have to look at reform of our tax system and how we spend, we have a spending problem but not a revenue problem. host: senator harry reid talked about the payroll tax cut yesterday and also republican opposition. this is what he had to say and

we'll get a response. >> republicans know that raising taxes on the middle class is the wrong thing to do. that's why in the past, they have always supported it. just last congress, senator kyl said, not what he said on sunday, but this, and i quote, you can do something to stimulate job creation and certainly something like reducing the payroll tax would accomplish that. end of quote. senator mcconnell said, quote, the payroll tax cut would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals. so the reason for the republicans' change of heart, obviously, is simple. as senator mcconnell has said, his most important goal is to defeat president obama. it's clear the republicans will stop at nothing to achieve that goal even if it means hitting the middle class with a $1,000 tax increase.