and we've had our credit downgraded because what is happening here. this is not whether we'll pay our bills in the future or not. this is the courage of talking about the problem is spending. yes, there are loopholes and yes, there are others who may be able to pay more, but why on earth would you ask them to pay more into this system of spending that we have created which is in no way accountable to any of those folks who are paying? so i can tell you this, for those folks that are new and perhaps need to understand how things are done here in washington, the people who gave me this job understand very well how things are done here in washington and they're tired of it. and you know what, they're right. i yield back. thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from the empire state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. reed, are you ready to close? mr. reed: i'm ready to close. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: and it will take me just, i think, 30 seconds. maybe a minute. you know, in a few words what the republicans in the house are doing, they're playing with fire. and that's reckless. they know that others will put out the fire. and we'll vote, many of us, to do that today. and if we don't succeed, the senate will do so. this, i think, is worse than a charade because it really assumes that the agenda of this congress should essentially be a kind of a play thing. a number of people who came to speak for this resolution voted in august for the resolution

that brings us here today, including, i think, mr. reed. so i think what's changed is not our responsibility but the ability of thinking to have it both ways, to vote yes on the resolution knowing that as it goes to the senate this potential damage to the economy will be saved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, mr. levin, for engaging in this debate today. it's so important, in my opinion, for the future of this nation, the future of the world , in the sense we need to get this issue under control once

and for all. the national debt is a serious threat to our very existence as an american nation. you don't have to take my word for it. you can take the word for the former joint chief of staff, admiral mullen, when asked by the president what is the biggest threat to our national security and admiral mullen responded, not a military threat but the national debt, a fiscal threat is what jeopardizes us most in regards to our national security. when i hear that type of opinion and advice coming out of our military leaders, i'm very concerned. and it should send a message across the nation that this debt needs to be addressed. but it doesn't necessarily just need to be addressed for the purposes of the threat it represents to our national security but also the threat that it represents to the

economic recovery that we're trying to kindle in this city, across america. the national debt represents a threat to that american recovery when it comes to putting our men and women back to work because it is the cancer that is causing concern across all of small business america, all across the private sector. when they express that they don't have the confidence or certainty that washington will take care of the problems that threaten us most. so it's time that we come up with a hard plan. now, my colleagues during this debate referenced the house budget as the plan that was adopted here that somehow by voting for this resolution we contradict ourselves because we voted for that house budget because it called for an increase in the debt ceiling. but i would remind my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that budget only passed this house. the senate has yet to enact a budget. it will be soon 1,000 days that the senate of the united states of america has not passed a budget. so if we don't have a bicameral, a u.s. house and a u.s. senate committed budget that we can rely upon to solve this issue, how can we only rely on the house budget to see us through? and so this resolution today sends a message to the senate, the nation that the house of representatives will remain committed to finding a solution on this issue. and the second threat that it represents to our american recovery and putting men and women back to work is if our interest rates in the private sector upon which they are key upon the national debt and the interest rates that are charged

for our borrowing costs as a governmental entity, the interest rates in the private sector increase. you are not going to have the capital to invest in small business america or in the private sector that is going to lead us out of this economic turmoil that we find ourselves in because they won't be able to afford that capital that will build the next plant, that will build the next assembly line or build the next retail operation that will put people back to work. so the bottom line is this debt touches everything across america, and what we're doing with this resolution is saying we are going to deal with it and we are going to continue to deal with it until we get a plan in place from the white house, from the u.s. senate and from the u.s. house that deals with it once and for all and brings certainty and confidence back to the american market.

because, madam speaker, it is time to lead this nation, not hide. it is time to put our ideas in writing, debate them with the american people in an open and honest fashion, and once and for all, even be willing to sacrifice our political lives to do what's right for the american people. i'm committed to doing that if it means that we will save my children's generation and the generations yet to come. that's what needs to be done. and i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. we know it on our side of the aisle, and our hand is open to work in a bipartisan fashion, and i'm glad that i heard many comments today on the other side of the aisle that are committed to that commitment also.

and i am confident that when we join hands, when we come together, we will solve this issue and we will solve the economic problems we face as a nation because together, the history of our nation has shown that we can overcome any obstacle in america. any threat to our existence. once we unite, not divide, and put forth a common sense solution to our problems. with that, madam speaker, i ask all my colleagues to >> president obama on wednesday took the advice of the state department and denied a permit for the proposed keystone pipeline to bring oil from canada to the u.s. over the next hour and a half, you will hear about that decision from republican leaders in the house, the white house briefing, and minority leader

nancy pelosi. several live political events to tell you about tomorrow, including two in charleston, south carolina. in the first, a gop presidential candidate representative ron paul speaks at the college of charleston at 11:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the southern republic leadership conference meeting in -- >> and hosts presidential candidate rick santorum, former presidential candidate herman cain, in the head of the family research council, tony perkins. we are covering president obama 's campaign speech in new york city at 9:30 eastern. >> only those who have shown the resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard its in the challenging turbulence and unpredictable

times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, the decade and a century which opened up before us must see the lasting triumph of liberty of our common cause. the world needs britain and us.tain needs tha >> nicknamed the iron lady, margaret thatcher is currently being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. watch the real iron lady online at this c-span video library. more than 100 appearances, including from the house of commons. >> there are some countries in the common market's that would have that is not our view. we did not wish to hand over further powers from this parliament to other bodies. >> it is what you want, when you

want. >> the state department today recommended to president obama that he deny a permit for the proposed keystone pipeline to bring oil from canada to the u.s. the statement said in part -- president obama agreed with the state department's recommendation to deny the permit, saying i am disappointed that the republicans in congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to america and make energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. republican leaders in the house responded to the president's decision in a 20 minute briefing.

it is shipping american security to the chinese. there's no other way to put it. the president selling out american jobs for politics. the president was given the authority to block this project if he believes it is not in the interest of the united states. is it not in the interest to create tens of thousands of jobs? is a not and a natural interest to give it an outlets like canada? the president has said he will do anything he can to create jobs. today that promise was broken. the president expedited the approval project that has been under review for four years. he said the energy pipeline

projects can create hundreds of thousands of american products. it has bipartisan support here. the president decided to reject it anyway. the president will send a to the political base even in the name creating jobs. the president's policies are making the american a economy worse rather than better. in latest decision, it is but the latest example. this is not the end of the fight. republicans in congress will continue to push this because it is good for our country and economy. it is good for the american

people. >> thank you. today president obama has decided to create jobs the in china instead of the united states. i went to the canadian embassy weeks ago and met with officials there. they said they want to do business here in the connected states. if they cannot comment they have to take urgent here in the united states. if they cannot comment they have said they were -- they said they want to do business here at in united states. if they cannot, they said they will go elsewhere. wellspun makes the pipe. they laid off some workers right after the president said that this decision would be after the next election.

the folks were hoping for the opposite decision today. i spoke with them a bit of both. they said their concerns are that now they have all this pipe, hundreds of miles of pipes that will reduce the cost. they may have to lay off more workers because of that. this is an indian company that in vice did predict invested in little rock. -- this is an indian company that invested in little rock. i am going to work with the speaker to do everything i can to get this reverse. -- to get this reversed. >> a few weeks ago on january the seventh in the president's

weekly address, he vowed to do to "do what ever it takes to get the economy moving and create jobs." today what we see is the president has shown that the actions do not match the rhetoric. by deciding to block the development of the keystone pipeline, he has decided to block the creation of 20,000 new jobs. as has been said, this was a bipartisan pipeline project. there was bipartisan support in house that will put people back to work right away and boost our domestic energy security. examples have been shown now the energy supply will go elsewhere. the jobs connected will go elsewhere. either we're going to get serious about the number one issue, the creation of jobs, or

not. the president has decided that he is thought serious if this is the decision he will make on this particular project. there is no question the president's policies have failed to create jobs. this is another wrong move for america. these are small businesses that we need so desperately. three years ago, barack obama was inaugurated as our president. we were told that if we passed his stimulus plan dodd/frank that it would help our economy. instead, we had the worst employment since the great depression. millions more have lost their jobs since he became president. his policies have failed. it is a new year. it was an opportunity to try new policies.

after studying keystone for three years, 23,000 shovel ready project just got buried. canada has energy in jobs that could be destined for the united states of administration -- of america. the administration has said they are destined for china. it is a devastating day for families who want jobs. >> it has been more than three years since the administration has been studying the keystone pipeline. in october of 2010, secretary clinton indicated that she was inclined to support this project. in august, the state department completed their analysis. they agreed that the proposed route was [inaudible]

we had a provision that the president should decide based on the national interest whether the keytsone pipeline should move forward. when president obama took office, the gas price was $1.93. now it is almost twice as high. this is a pipeline that will bring as much as 1 billion barrels a day. where do we go from here? we have asked secretary clinton to come testified before us. the president will not say yes. we want the american people know that we will. no option will be off the table. we cannot wait.

>> thank you. as a supporter of the pipeline and author of two of the bills, i am deeply disappointed our president decided to put his politics above the nation in energy independence. there the two things that the pipeline brings to the united states. this is not over. he did not mention why denying the permanent -- permit is in the national interest of this country. the governor of nebraska said that the keystone xl pipeline at a time when 8.5% unemployment is at in national interest, it is a no-brainer.

i agree. they say they need more time. as fred mentioned, this is the same state department that was telling us all summer that they had all of the information to make their decisions to press releases. secretary clinton made public statements that all was in order. bake had already chosen the route. they told transcanada where it should go. they did not see any reason to deny this. now, seven months later, they have changed their mind. for me is pretty obvious it is all about election-year politics. also, july 25, the white house through omb issued a statement that says they have all the information, and that they are

working diligently, and that they will have a decision by december 31, 2011. in the middle of january, they're saying something different. who is next? >> i am from the state of west virginia. what this decision says to me is a repeating pattern from the president "delay, obstruct, delay, obstruct, lost jobs." the administration is now delayed. they are repeatedly holding up

our permanents -- permits. they have delayed the ability to get permits on the outer continental shelf. read the pattern. we have seen this from the administration. they are willing to sacrifice -- they talked a lot about infrastructure jobs and how great they are. what creates more infrastructure jobs and creating a major pipeline? as the speaker said, this is not the end of the fight. a means that much to the american people. >> thank you. even though i represent tennessee, i grew up in south mississippi with a data in oil industry.

-- dad in the oil industry. i remember as a child i would have classmates at school or friends from church whose dad went away to work on the pipeline. there's always a sense of pride that was tied to it. the work was hard but the work was consistent. it is doing something that was my be important for our country. it was making certain that we had energy. i kind of light that feeling that we were all in on this team together working to make this country great. how in the world did the president arrived at this decision? based told us today they told us they had all the information

they need it. -- they told us they have all the information they need it. we need this job and energy. our country needs energy independence. it leads us to believe that the president made a decision that does not support what the american people are wanting to see done, to grow jobs. >> any questions? >> what is the end of the game? >> all elections are on the table. the facts are indisputable that the state department has had this under review for three

years. all the reviews have been finished. under the agreement that was in the legislation, at the president had to make a decision. it had to be based on what was in the national interest of our country. for the president to say that the keystone pipeline is not in the interest of our country, i think most americans are scratching their heads and wondering why. >> do you expect this to play a role in extending the payroll tax? >> all options are on the table. >> what with the options be? >> this will not go away. you can count on it. >> but what are the options > what can congress do that they cannot do before?

>> there are legislative the goals that will be moving in the weeks and months ahead. republicans on capitol hill will continue to do everything we can to make this a positive decision for our country. the american people are still asking "where are the jobs?" the president has the ability to great 20,000 direct and 100,000 indirect and he says "no." >> republicans seem to state -- we are 17 days in. was it worth it? >> this pipeline is important to our country and what the president says is the number- one issue on the minds of the

american people. that is creating jobs. he said he would do everything he could to create jobs. he did not. for >> via been talking about national security. the president has written a letter about a direct talks. do you agree with that? >> i think it is very difficult to have talks, with a country around the world who has vowed to do everything but wipe us off the face of the earth. this is not the kind of environment that i believe can lead to a constructive discussion. i think it makes america look weak. >> thank you. >> today's white house briefing focused on need ministration's decision not to approve a permit for the keystone pipeline.

this is a little less than an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. it is always a pleasure to see you. i have a couple of things i want to say at the top. first, following the president's state of the union address, he will begin a five-state, three- day swing across the country. he will begin his trip with a visit to the cedar rapids area, followed by an event in the phoenix area, before traveling to las vegas on january 25th. on january 26th, the president will hold events in the las vegas area and the denver area before traveling to detroit that evening. the following day, january 27th, the president will deliver remarks in the detroit area before returning to washington, d.c.

more details, including information about the president's events and media credentialing, will be released as they are available. secondly, i want to anticipate a number of questions you may have on a particular subject based on reporting, sourcing and anonymous sources about the keystone pipeline. and i just want to get it out of the way up front that i'm not going to confirm any reports. i'm not going to get ahead of the administration, of the secretary of state or the president. we may have more information for you about that later today, but i'm not going to get ahead of the secretary of state or the president. i would simply ask that you review the facts here, which is that in a precedent established long ago that has held through many administrations, both

democratic and republican, pipelines like keystone that cross transnational borders, as this one would, the permits for those pipelines have been reviewed in a process led by the state department. that was the case here. when, in the case of the keystone pipeline, concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in nebraska by, among others, the governor of nebraska, a republican, a decision was made that an alternate route be sought, and that, therefore, the process had to be delayed so that an adequate review could be undertaken, following the same standards that have always been in place, that were in place in the beginning of this process for this particular pipeline, and that have been in place for these kinds of projects for many years. in a purely partisan effort to

score a political point, republicans in congress insisted on inserting an extraneous provision within a bill that had nothing to do with pipelines, but was a bill to extend a tax cut to 160 million americans -- a tax cut that this president fought very hard to get and to extend. even prior to the signing of that legislation, the state department, which, again, reviews this process, made clear that setting an arbitrary deadline through this purely political effort would put the state department in a corner, would severely hamper their ability to review an alternative route and a new pipeline route in the proper way, a way that has long been established by precedent and

that would take into consideration all the criteria that are so important in decisions like this, economic impact, national security impact, environmental impact, the effect on the water that our children breathe -- or rather water our children drink and the air that they breathe. they made clear at the state department in a statement prior to the signing of this legislation that imposing an arbitrary 60-day deadline on this process would make it virtually impossible for an adequate review to take place of a route, an alternate route, that to this day does not yet exist. so i am simply reviewing the facts as we know them. >> yes, but he signed the law that says he had to do that. >> and we made clear -- well, he signed a law that forced a decision to be made in an arbitrary fashion, no question. and i don't have an announcement about any decision that would be forthcoming on that. but i'm just reviewing the facts as they existed yesterday as well as today. >> the facts are the law says that -- >> let me get erica.

>> but to follow up on that, you're saying that you don't want to get ahead of the president or the state department, but the law specifies that it is the president's decision. so is there any reason that this announcement would come from the state department -- >> again, i'm not going to get into details about -- i've made clear that we may have more information for you on that later today, and i'll look to that -- i would urge you to look to that for guidance on that question. >> and just to be clear, are you saying that there has not been a decision made, or you're not -- >> i'm not saying one way or the other regarding that. >> and can you speak to some of the republican criticism that's already coming out, anticipating what the decision will be, that the president hates jobs, et cetera? >> well, i think i did anticipate some of that in my opening remarks, but i would make clear that there is a proper process that has existed for many years and many administrations by which a

project like this is reviewed and a permit is either granted or denied. because of concerns expressed by numerous stakeholders, including the republican governor of nebraska, it was decided that an alternate route through nebraska was necessary. the choosing of that alternate route has not even been completed yet. the state department, which conducts and oversees this multiagency review process, made clear at the time, in december, that inserting this extraneous provision in an attempt to get a political victory -- because for some reason extending a tax cut to 160 million americans wasn't victory enough -- the republicans put in jeopardy a process that should be immune from politics, should be conducted on the basis of pragmatic and considered analysis, and tried to hijack it through that.

and the state department warned that that would create serious problems. so the president's commitment to job creation has been amply demonstrated by the policies that he has pursued, that he has signed into law, that have contributed considerably to the creation of 3. 2 million private sector jobs. they've been demonstrated by his fierce commitment to doing everything he can, both working with congress and acting independently, to further assist the economy as it recovers from the worst recession since the great depression, to further assist the economy as it creates more jobs -- most notably, recently, his proposal, the american jobs act, which if the republicans were committed to job creation they would join with him in making sure that all of the provisions of that law became -- of that proposal became law,

including the provision that would put 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, the provision that would help us rebuild our infrastructure and put idle constructions workers back to work -- hundreds and hundreds of thousands of americans who would have jobs were the republicans to finish the work of passing the american jobs act. so that would be my answer to that criticism. jake. >> you say that the move by congress to force the president and the state department to make a decision within 60 days about this pipeline is partisan. how is it any less political for the president, faced with a difficult choice between jobs and environmental concerns -- the two important constituencies for his reelection -- to say, you know what, i'm going to delay a decision on this until after the reelection in november 2012? how is that any less political than what congress did?

>> well, because there is an established process by which these reviews are conducted. when, because of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders, including the republican governor of nebraska, a decision was made that an alternate route needed to be considered, that process needed to be delayed and the full review needed to be conducted on the alternate route. i mean, that's the way this process is supposed to work. >> what would have happened if the president hadn't intervened? if the president hadn't -- >> the state department -- first of all, again, the decision to create an alternate route was made based on the requests of stakeholders affected by the original route, including, again, the governor of nebraska and others in that state. and that necessitated, as deemed by the state department, which has to conduct this review, the postponement, and the allowance of enough time to thoroughly review the new route. again, i think it's important to note that, as the state

department made clear, 60 days is simply not enough time. we don't even have an alternate route identified yet, so how could anyone possibly review it thoroughly, in the manner that is expected in this process? so the point is, is that these things are supposed to be decided in a methodical, responsible manner so that all these criteria are properly weighed, because a decision like this has long-term implications for our economy and for our environment, for our national security. and those criteria all have to be considered as the decision is being made. the effort to score a political point, in a process that was wholly unrelated, because they were unhappy about the fact that the president was pushing for a payroll tax cut extension for 160 million americans, i don't think makes a lot of substantive sense in terms of the issue that proponents of that course say they care about, which is a decision that needs to be made on a pipeline and the

potential economic -- positive economic impacts that that would have. you got to let the process unfold the way it's supposed to unfold without this kind of extraneous political interference, and then a decision would be made on the merits. >> would you clear this up, though? >> sure. >> the president signed this into law. it says that unless he finds that it is not in the national interest of the united states, within 60 days, then the project will go ahead, he takes no action. it leaves the state department out of the equation and puts it squarely on the president. >> again, i'm not going to preview for you any information we might have about this process or decision prior to that taking place. i'm not quibbling with the legislation the president signed into law. i am making a broader statement

about who conducts the review, and the fact that the state department, which, again, through decades of precedent, conducts this review, made clear back in december what it felt the impact would be of an arbitrary deadline set by -- for political reasons. so if your issue is like -- if your concern here is who's going to make the decision, i'll suggest you wait for the decision to be made. >> the logical extension of that would be that the president would find that it's not in the national interest, just go ahead -- >> well, i would point you to what the state department said, that it would be impossible -- or highly unlikely, if not impossible, to conduct a proper review of an alternate route that, again, on january 18, 2011, does not even exist, so how could you possibly review it? >> doesn't he have to do it? >> again, i'd point you to the future, 2012 -- what did i say? i don't think i've made that mistake in any checks i've written so far this month. >> hasn't the nebraska governor

said that he doesn't have these concerns anymore and he's okay? because you keep citing him, but he's since said -- >> he's not okay with the original route. that was one of the primary reasons why this -- >> but he said it should go forward while an alternate route is looked at, though. >> you don't grant a permit for a pipeline with a significant portion of it missing. >> yes, but you keep citing that he's opposed, but he's saying -- >> he was opposed -- >> before. >> his opposition was important to the decision to seek an alternate route, which then delayed the process. and then the process requires the permitting of the full pipeline. it's not a partial proposition. i want to go to alister. >> can we stay on this? >> yes, we can. >> just -- i'm going to change the subject very quickly. officials in iran have said that they reached out to western powers to discuss restarting negotiations over

their nuclear program soon. so do you have any response to that? and could you talk about your -- the administration's attitude towards getting back to the negotiating table with iran? >> well, our position has been clear and has not changed for a long, long time here. we have made clear from the beginning, when the president took office, that the path is open to iran to get right with the international community, to fulfill its international obligations, abide by its commitments, and that the international community, including the united states, would be willing to work with iran if it were willing to do that -- to ensure, for example, that it had access to nuclear technology for non-military purposes. and that stands. iran's behavior and its refusal to engage in serious discussions about this issue, its refusal to live up to its international obligations, its

persistence in pursuing a nuclear program in a manner that's not consistent with those international obligations has led to the consistent ratcheting up of pressure on iran, led by the united states, but together with many, many international allies and partners, and that process continues. and it has put enormous pressure on iran. it has isolated iran. and that continues. but the fact remains that there is an alternate course here available to iran should it respond to the letter from the p5-plus-1 and be willing to live up to its obligations. this is a simple choice that has been available to iran from the beginning. ann. >> thank you, jay. in general, the president doesn't oppose the construction of pipelines. after all, this is just an

extension of an existing one. overall, the president thinks that they're an important part of the oil infrastructure? >> definitely. and i think that's an important point to make, which i think i made yesterday, which is that this president's commitment to expanding domestic oil and gas production is firm, and has been demonstrated by the fact that, again, in 2011, as was the case in 2010, the united states produced more oil and gas than at any time since 2003. and he has continued to make more territory available, both in the gulf and in alaska and elsewhere, to production and development. and he has done that in a way that at the same time maintains the standards of safety and responsible development that he thinks are key.

so he takes an all-of-the-above approach here. he believes firmly that we need to continue to exploit, if you will, our domestic resources. we need to continue to invest in clean energy technologies. and doing so, taking this approach that includes oil, natural gas, nuclear power and other clean energy technologies, is the best energy policy and the surest way to ensure that we increase -- improve our national security and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. and so this is not an either/or proposition, it's a both/and. you can do this, you can increase domestic oil and gas production, as has been the case on his watch, and do it in a safe and responsible way. and doing it in a safe and responsible way includes ensuring that the proper reviews are conducted for a proposal like this keystone pipeline, in accordance with longstanding bipartisan tradition in multiple administrations. >> this, of course, is an extension to canadian oilfields. does he had an opinion on tar sands and whether those are an appropriate place to -- >> the president is a firm believer in the fact that we

need -- that we can and we must develop energy sources in a safe and responsible way. and obviously there are -- you have to take a lot of factors into consideration when you do that. the overall issue here is about economic security and national security. and that's why it is so important to embrace the possibility of further development and ensure that we do it in a way that's safe and responsible. and that's true for oil, it's true for natural gas, it's true for nuclear and it's true for clean air technology -- i mean, sorry, clean energy technology. getting ahead of myself. mr. henry, again. >> thank you very much. can i follow up on iran real quick and then a question on taxes? you said in your answer to alister, by talking about the p5-plus-1, and that is a channel the u.s. can use. but there's a lawmaker in iran and the foreign minister in iran are both on the record saying that a letter has come from president obama directly to the

supreme leader saying that there should be direct u.s. -iranian talks. has such a letter been written, and are you open to direct talks? >> our position has not changed. any communications we may have had with -- or may have with the iranians are the same in private as they have been in public, and that is along the lines of what i just restated in terms of our position and our policy. the p5-plus-1 structure is in place. if the iranians are serious about restarting talks, then they need to respond to that letter. that is the channel by which -- the mode by which the restarting of those talks would take place. again, our expression of our position is the same in private as it is in public. the statement that there is a path here towards renewed talks and a path here for iran to pursue if it so chooses that would allow it to get right with the international community, that would allow it to stop the process that has isolated it further and further,

has been apparent from the beginning and it remains available to iran to this day. but iran has shown no inclination thus far to make that choice, to make that decision. and what we have seen over the three years since this president has been in office is he has -- by pursuing the iranian issue in the way that he has, he has ensured that a world that was in conflict over this issue is now united -- an international community -- and an iran that was united is now in conflict. and that is the effect that the president's policies have had on iran and on this process. he has brought to bear a level of consensus in the international community on the need to pressure iran and isolate iran on this issue that

did not exist prior to him taking office. >> but can you address going back to the '08 campaign, then- republican-candidate john mccain was complaining that direct talks with iran that the president had talked about then in the campaign would show weakness because why would you sit down with a country for direct talks -- >> the president has always made clear -- >> -- wipe israel off the map? >> -- the process by which negotiations or talks would take place is the p5-plus-1. the president has always made clear that -- as he did when he took office, as he stated during the campaign -- that by offering the possibility of resolving this dispute with the iranians through negotiations and talks would strengthen the united states' hand, because if iran agreed to do that and fulfilled its international obligations and abandoned its nuclear -- its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that would be to the greater good and in the interest of the united states as well as its allies and partners around the world.

and if it did not, it would be clear to the whole world that iran was the problem here -- not the united states. and that is exactly what has happened. we have a level of international consensus about iranian behavior that we did not have before. we have a situation where iran's economy is clearly suffering from the effects of the international sanctions regime, as well as the unilateral sanctions that various nations have placed on iran. and that isolation has caused disunity within the iranian leadership and made clear to the world that they have isolated themselves outside of international norms. >> the last thing, on taxes. yesterday, when norah asked you about mitt romney saying that his tax rate is around 15 percent -- this gets back to the

old thing that you mentioned, the president has mentioned, about warren buffett paying less than his secretary because of the rate that capital gains are taxed. what is the president's -- from a policy standpoint, what then is his solution? i mean, he's talked about various things like the buffett rule and whatnot, but in terms of law, is it to bring capital gains tax rates up closer to income tax rates so that's more fair? is it -- what is his prescription then? >> well, i appreciate the question, ed, and it's a legitimate one. the president has made clear what his principles are in terms of tax reform. he is for both corporate tax reform and individual tax reform. and one of the principles that he would bring to the table in the development of individual tax reform is the buffett rule, which would ensure that millionaires and billionaires, because of the nature of their income, do not pay at a lower rate than middle-class americans -- that warren buffett does not pay a lower rate in taxes than his secretary, as mr. buffett himself has said. how you get there is a matter that i will leave to the president and others to propose,

because tax reform is a -- there are many ways to skin the cat, and it's a complicated process. but the principle of the buffett rule is one that he believes is very important, because it goes right to the situation we were talking about yesterday and that you raise, and that is that it simply, as a matter of fairness, does not make a lot of sense for millionaires and billionaires to be able to pay taxes at a much lower rate than somebody making $100,000 a year or less. and so that is a principle he would bring to bear here. it is particularly -- there are a variety of ways that -- there are a variety of loopholes within the tax code that -- or

elements of the tax code, as well as loopholes within it, that create that situation, not least of which -- and he's identified this -- is the carried interest loophole, that allows hedge fund managers and private equity managers to take income for their labor and have it taxed at a capital gains rate. the president believes that's just -- in the world that we live in right now, when middle- class americans are struggling, when they've seen their wages stagnate or decline, when there's enormous economic pressure on hardworking american families, that's just not fair. and we have important things that we need to do to ensure that america is strong and that our economy is powerful in the 21st century. and so we need to make sure that everyone has a fair shot and everyone pays a fair share. april. >> hi, jay. back on keystone, realistically, a timeline -- now that there's been a rejection, what's the timeline as far as an alternative route. what do you think that -- when do you think you'll -- >> i refer, april -- first of all, i don't have any announcements to make regarding any decisions on this, so i would just take issue with your question in that regard. but -- >> you're giving us answers, so you didn't take issue --

>> well, i've been reviewing facts that have been true prior to today. as for pipeline proposals of the nature that are -- of the nature of keystone that are transnational, i mean, those would go through the normal channels, through the state department. and their duration in terms of the review process would be -- again, absent extraneous, political interference, would take place in the normal manner. but that's just the way the process exists. >> -- in a 60-day process? >> well, the 60-day thing was the arbitrary element inserted into an unrelated tax cut bill. but that's not how the process works. the process works in the manner that the state department has run -- designed and run it for many years. >> and the reason why i ask that question is because there are already concerns about the fact that "tens of thousands of jobs" will be lost because of this rejection. so would you consider this more so of a deferment of job creation?

>> well, let me just make clear here, as the state department decided and the president concurred, the review process was extended because of a decision to change the route. that process should be allowed to take its course. the review should be allowed to be conducted in the appropriate way with all factors weighed and considered, overseen by the state department. that is certainly the way this thing should happen. unfortunately, because of the decision by republicans to insert this extraneous provision within a tax cut bill, there is this arbitrary deadline of 60 days, forcing the administration's hand. but again, the broader process will continue to work the way it has always worked, again, predating this administration.

>> but i'm talking about the issue of job creation that comes from this and while people are screaming that tens of thousands of jobs are lost now because -- >> april, you have -- these projects -- you have to weigh a variety of considerations, economic impact, environmental impact, health and safety, national security -- and that's the way it should be. there are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders who could go back to work right away if congress would act on the american jobs act, if republicans would stop blocking the provisions within the american jobs act that this president proposed and democrats support. there are tens of thousands of construction workers -- infrastructure jobs, not unlike the building of a pipeline -- who could be going back to work rebuilding our infrastructure, making us more competitive for the 21st century, if republicans would support, as they often have in the past, the kind of

infrastructure investments that are included in the american jobs act. and again, as we've said earlier -- i've said earlier this month in briefings, we remain optimistic that that kind of cooperation could be forthcoming this year, because it really is incumbent upon every elected member of congress as well as the president to work together towards the goal of improving our economy and creating jobs. kristen. >> thanks, jay. just to follow up a bit on what april was asking, the bottom line is the keystone pipeline has become a political lighting rod this year. so what's the administration's level of concern that the debate itself has really in some ways pitted this administration against some unions who are saying this would put them back to work? >> i would simply say that on issues like this there is a non- political, professional process that has been in place, was established long before this administration came to office, and is the proper way to conduct the reviews for

applications for permits for these kinds of transnational projects. that review process is run by the state department. it was being run by the state department. a change in the route was made because of concerns expressed -- legitimate concerns expressed by stakeholders in nebraska and elsewhere. and because of that, the process had to be extended. that's how it's supposed to work. there are a lot of factors to weigh in these kinds of decisions, including national security factors, issues of the health and safety of our children and the residence of folks in the area of any proposed pipeline, economic impacts, job impacts, the effect on our energy security. and that's the kind of process that the state department oversees. it involves input from many agencies. and that's the way this should proceed. it should not become, as you

say, highly political in the way that it has become because of the decision to insert an extraneous provision within a tax cut bill. >> i understand there is a non- political process, but given that we're in a reelection year, isn't it impossible for this not to take some sort of a political -- >> it's up to others to decide how political they want to be about any kind of decision like this. this president, this administration, is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing these matters in a way that's appropriate, that takes into consideration all the different criteria that need to be brought to bear in a decision like this. and that's the approach the state department has taken and the president has taken, and will continue to take. >> and just to ask one quick one on another topic, jay. representative peter king, chairman of the house homeland security committee, as you know, back in august, raised some

concerns over kathryn bigelow's upcoming osama bin laden movie, raised some concerns that there were potentially some classified information that was leaked about the kill and capture of osama bin laden. last week, the cia and the defense department officially opened an investigation up into this project. what's the administration's reaction? >> well, the cia and the defense department are part of the administration. and i would point you to them and their announcement of their look into this. what i made clear at the time is that there was some loose reporting in a column about what the white house did. and i made clear that in discussing that mission and those days with folks involved in making this film or writing books or articles or doing tv pieces, we said all the same things and none of it was classified. >> and you're confident that this investigation -- >> well, again, i would refer you to the defense department and the cia -- with regard to that -- because i was part of that process -- with regard to the white house's engagement with reporters like everyone in this room, practically, as well as others who were working on magazine articles or books or films, we provided the same

information to everybody, and none of it was classified. laura. >> my question is a process question. why, knowing as you do the interest in the keystone issue, and knowing as you do that this decision is going to be announced later today, why would you announce it after the briefing, and therefore put yourself in a position where you won't answer any questions about it and where we won't have an opportunity -- >> well, i'm not going anywhere. you know you guys can ask me questions. i'm here most days. >> okay. all right. >> you're welcome to fill a seat. >> i'll call you after the decision comes out. >> i know it's hard to believe, but the schedule of decision- making and policy processes and stuff are not all dependent on my schedule, or the briefing schedule, or the communications shop. and that's how it should be.

so, again, you guys probably don't like me to brief in the middle of the evening or something, so i would just point you to the fact that we may have something more to say about this later today. margaret. >> thanks. on keystone, without confirming a rejection, can you explain to us what a rejection would mean? in other words -- (laughter. ) no, no, i'm not -- i'm totally serious. >> no, good question. >> okay, so if transcanada has to submit a new route, does that just -- like, does the clock start at zero again? are we looking at another 10- year process? you can say that house republicans forced their hand on that, but i'm trying to understand what does -- what would a rejection mean. would a rejection mean --

>> well, let me make two points -- >> -- begin at the complete beginning? >> well, let me make two points. first of all, these reviews are conducted by the state department, and the details of how they work are best explained by the state department. however, i would point out that absent the payroll tax cut and the insertion of an extraneous

provision within it that had created this arbitrary 60-day deadline, there was a process in place that wasn't 10 years, but when the route had been changed was -- i think it was 18 months, if i'm not mistaken. and that's because that's the amount of time that the state department believes was necessary -- would be necessary to properly review an alternate route. i would refer you to the state department for more details about how that process generally works, depending on whatever decision was made because of the necessity created out of this legislation. >> so this is the white house's understanding that this would probably begin another 18-month time clock then? i can ask -- i'll ask my state department reporters to ask -- >> i don't have a white house view to express on that except for what i just said, which is that the process -- i mean, because it depends on a lot of factors, including the outcome of this decision. but as you noted in even your question, there are players in this process, including companies, private companies, there's another country involved, which is the reason why the state department is engaged in this. so i would be -- i would not want to speculate. >> it may have been eight months from now that you guys gave it the green light, and what i'm asking is, is that option now totally obviated? is that no longer an option? >> i would just refer you to the state department. i just don't have details for that. and again, it's based on the

premise of a decision that i'm not announcing from here. >> and any white house reaction, in just working principle, as you've gone through your day, have the internet provider and website protests affected you guys in any way? >> well, i don't have any effects or impacts that i've noted beyond to point out that we made very clear over the weekend our views on this, and we had tremendous response to our "we the people" initiative. and we think it's an important process here that has been conducted where there's a lot of external input expressed about the many important issues that are at stake. and our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open internet. and what that means is that both sides, loosely defined, the two sides in this issue need to come together and find a solution that strikes a balance. and i think that process has

been benefited by the interest and the number of voices that have been heard on this issue. we've been really impressed by the volume of response that we've gotten online to what we put out over the weekend. lesley, and then jackie. >> jay, can you give us a little bit more on the president's visit to florida tomorrow and some of the republican criticism that he's going to be there just a few days before republican gop candidates will arrive, after south carolina and polls are down in the state for him? >> well, i've discussed his travel. i mean, he goes to states all across the country. and every president should travel across the country to meet with americans from as many states as possible -- and that's a principle this president pursues. he will travel tomorrow to florida, to orlando, to walt disney world, where he will unveil a strategy that will significantly help boost tourism and travel, which is an important and sometimes

overlooked sector in the u.s. economy. the action will be taken as the president's "we can't wait" agenda of executive actions that will aid job growth and do not require congressional approval -- which goes back to the point i made earlier, which is he's pursuing every avenue possible here to tackle what he thinks is our most important challenge, which is growing the economy, creating jobs, positioning the american economy to compete and dominate in the 21st century. and this is another indication of that effort. i think -- >> -- a few days out of the florida primary being started,

it has nothing to do with -- >> you can argue that, but, first of all, our schedules are made with a lot of different considerations well in advance. i think i read reports a few weeks ago that this thing would be over after iowa. you can't -- that would -- or that it could go on until may as it did in -- or june, as it did in 2008. that would make it impossible for us for -- if we were guessing in the weeks in advance that we make travel arrangements like this, it would make it very hard for us to go to many, many places. this is -- it's obvious when you're making a tourism and travel announcement that one of the premier sites of u.s. tourism industry is orlando, so it seems pretty self-evident that you would do that. >> can i follow up on that? >> sure. >> is the president disappointed that senator nelson won't be with him tomorrow in orlando? >> i'm not aware of any opinion he's expressed on that. >> apart from general state of the union follow-up, what's the message next week on this five- state tour? >> well, since he'll be talking about the subjects that he raised in the state of the union, if i were to talk about

the subjects he'll raise in the states that he visits i would be getting ahead of the president. so look, i think one thing you can be sure of -- and this is broadly speaking, you shouldn't rule out other subjects -- but that he is fiercely focused on economic growth and job creation and pursuing every -- using every tool available to him to assist in that project. so that will certainly be a topic generally of his address next week, and it will be a topic that he discusses on the road both after the state of the union and beyond, as he has so frequently prior to the state of the union. >> and i appreciate that the florida plan had nothing to do with the fact that florida is about to vote, and then he's going to nevada, which is the next state up to vote. it seems awfully coincidental. >> well, look, again, if we --

we would have to rule out -- remember what happened in 2008. we would have had to decide back in december or november -- and we make decisions fairly far in advance about where we're going to travel -- that we couldn't go to any state that had a primary -- that's 50 states, basically -- because all of them could be the place where the nomination was decided in the other party. we can't do that. this president, as every president is, is president of all the united states of america, of all the people in the country, and he's going to travel around the country to talk about the issues that are important to americans in every state, including, most importantly, economic growth and job creation. brianna. i'm sorry. did i miss you this whole time? >> i didn't consider it -- >> okay. >> on keystone you talk about these are processes that have been in place in other administrations. i mean, the president has talked about kind of greasing the rails in some ways to create jobs. isn't this sort of one of those bureaucratic mountains that he's talked about moving?

>> well, you eliminate red tape and you eliminate bureaucracy, you do the kinds of things that he has done in an unprecedented move with his regulatory look- back process that has eliminated a lot of rules and regulations to make life easier for american businesses. but you do that in a careful review to make sure that you're not eliminating processes or rules that are vital to either health and safety of the american people, or national security, or energy security. so, no, you don't ignore potential issues involving the health and safety of residents in numerous states who would be affected by this pipeline. you have to --it's your responsibility. and that's why this process is always done in a manner that's very thorough, very considered, that weighs all the different factors that are at stake here in a decision like this. >> but wouldn't it serve him -- >> i mean, the issue here is to

short-circuit a process and approve a pipeline, the route for which hasn't even been decided -- or proposed. >> i'm not saying in a haphazard way. but wouldn't it be better to move forward in some way, in tandem with the state review? some way to move forward on this instead of being hit, as he's going to be hit, over and over by republicans who are saying, according to transcanada, this is 20,000 jobs -- and they're going to put it over and over in different pieces of legislation and it will be a fight over and over. isn't he better off moving forward in some way? >> there are going to be a lot of fights. and i understand the republicans, for lack of

alternative arguments to make on the proper way to balance our budget, or on tax reform, or how we should best pay for the kinds of investments we need, or why they oppose putting 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, or why they oppose putting construction workers back to work, that they will grab onto some other arguments. but that doesn't mean the president doesn't have the responsibility, and his administration doesn't have a responsibility, to conduct a review like this properly and by the book. and that's how they're going to do it. >> these are private sector jobs.

they don't require any expenditure by government. >> that's not the issue. the issue is the impact that a development project like this, transnational development project like this would have on the health and safety of the american people in the region, on our economic security, on job creation, on our energy security. these are -- there's a variety of factors that have to be considered, and they should be considered. they should not be set aside out of -- for political gain. i mean, let's go back to how this happened, right? the president was making a very compelling argument about the need to implement the provision within the american jobs act to extend the payroll tax cut. his original proposal was to expand the payroll tax cut so that americans got -- 160 million americans got a bigger tax cut this year. republicans went from opposing that to being ambivalent about it to suddenly deciding that they needed some -- because they were going to have to go along with it in the end because it was the right thing to do and their constituents were telling them it was the right thing to do -- to deciding they needed some sort of political victory, and this is what they settled on, an attempt to hijack a process, to short-circuit a review process that needs to be conducted properly in order that all the prerogatives here are considered. and that's how it should be and that's how it will be. george. oh, jackie, i said you next. >> on another issue that pits constituencies against each

other, you mentioned that, on saturday's blog post about the issue of intellectual property rights and piracy, that you were just trying to urge the sides to come together on a solution. but it was widely interpreted in some as the white house taking sides with google against hollywood. why do you think that's the wrong way to look at it? >> because as i just stated, we believe there is a need absolutely to address the problem of online piracy conducted by foreign websites, which is the real driving issue here. we made clear in the statement that we put out over the weekend that we oppose the so-called dns filter, and we made clear what our principles are in how we pursue -- or how the government ought to pursue addressing the issue of online privacy, and in doing that, it must not impinge upon the freedom of the internet because the internet is such a vital resource for our economy and for the american people. but these are -- there are absolute issues here that -- and interests that all sides of this debate have, and they're legitimate, and that's why there needs to be the kind of dialogue we believe that could

bring us to a resolution -- that could result in a resolution that is balanced and addresses concerns about online privacy, but doesn't impinge upon the freedom of the internet. >> but you had bills moving forward in each house towards markup, and typically this administration is, if anything, deferential towards the legislative process in congress. why -- >> everybody hear that? >> why the timing? and why was it timed on a saturday? i mean, there are so many aspects of the timing of this that are unusual. >> well, i think there was a

great deal of focus and interest and intensity on this issue. we have the "we the people" process and solicited opinions on this issue, and the threshold was met for us to respond and we did. i think it's entirely appropriate for us to put forward our view on pending bills, as you stated, at least on the provision in particular within one of them or both of them on the dns filter, and on the overall principles that we think should guide this process. >> thank you. >> anybody else? george, i owe you, and then that will be it. >> yes, i just wanted to clarify -- >> and then cheryl, i know you're dying in the back there, sorry. >> i just wanted to clarify your answer to ed. are you confirming that the president sent a new letter to the leadership in iran? >> i'm not -- we don't discuss specific communications, diplomatic communications. i would say that we have a variety of channels through which we can communicate with

the iranians and that any message we communicate to the iranians about these issues would be entirely consistent with what we've said publicly, what i've said publicly, the president, the secretary of state and others. and you can be sure of that. cheryl. >> two personnel issues -- i know you love talking about that. are you considering -- >> i have no personnel announcements to make. >> is the president considering larry summers to head the world bank? >> i don't have any personnel announcements to make. >> and is the president actively looking for a new omb director, or is jeff zients going to stick around for a while? >> well, he just became acting director for the second time. so i don't want to foreshadow anything. the president is very appreciative of jeff's excellent service so far, his willingness to be acting director in the past, his willingness to do this again now.

this is a very important role. it's very important specifically as regards our interactions with congress. so he's very pleased that jeff is taking on this responsibility. >> has the president talked to prime minister harper? >> i don't have any foreign calls to announce. >> so he hasn't talked to him? >> i just said i don't have any foreign calls to announce. thanks. >> will we have the president on keystone? >> am i the warm-up act? >> yes. >> i have no -- nothing more to say on the matter. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> nancy's pelosi predate nancy pelosi spoke, mostly on the he

still pipeline. >> good afternoon. here we are back to work. we all know what is at stake here. the first order of business is to pass the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. as unemployment insurance for millions of americans who are out of work through no fault of their own and for tens of millions of seniors for us to pass legislation that will enable them to see their doctor under medicare. this is something that we all know is a possibility. we have been over this for a long period of time. i can just assume that after a large absence from congress republicans will come back to work. it can be done in a short period of time. let me say with the unemployment insurance, traditionally most of the time it has not been paid for. if it needs to be paid for, the same thing with the payroll tax cut, think of this. the double standard of

republicans. for tax cuts for the wealthiest people of the country, they do not have to be paid for. tax cuts for the middle class, they have to be paid for. let's join them together. that can also cover the unemployment insurance costs as well. as far as the ability of seniors to see their doctor under medicare, we think this can be paid for by the war savings funding otherwise known as the overseas contingency account. there we have it. we have the three major provisions of the legislation that was passed for a two month period in december.

we can take it to the end of the year. if the republicans insist on paying for payroll tax cuts for the middle class as the have not insisted on tax cuts for the wealthiest, we have a way to do that. again, we are in session two whole days. mr. hoyer told us it will be two full days. there is plenty of time to meet and directed by legislative business to get this done. it is just a matter of priorities. we know that the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance are not only good for the individuals, for these families, but it is good for our economy. it has a macroeconomic effect. money will be spent quickly and injected into the economy to

create jobs. let's create jobs and give a tax cut to the middle class. let's do so in a way that does not increase the deficit. we all observed on monday martin luther king day. what a wonderful thing to do so this year seeking that beautiful monument on the mall. imagine martin luther king standing there comfortably among the washington monument, jefferson memorial, the lincoln memorial, fdr memorial, the great presidents of our country. a great leader for our country. he talked about the fierce urgency of now. we could not afford the luxury of gradualism. we do not need gradualism now. we need strong statements to create jobs and to reduce the deficit and make the feature bright for our children. >> could you talk for a moment where you are now on the piracy acts. we have had an avalanche of criticism of this the past few

days. people are criticizing the bill. >> i will be happy to answer that. i just want to see if anybody has any questions on our legislative business which is imminent. it has to go forward and if it needs to be paid for, a surcharge on the wealthy. savings from a ftr. let's get the jobs done. >> republicans have all along said absolutely no to a surtax on millionaires. it sounds like we are in the same position that we were prior to the recess. is there any movement at all backs it seems like we are hitting the same positions we saw in the beginning of the fight.

>> let's review that. we had many objections to what the republicans were proposing before. many of them legislative language in this bill, much of which they walked away from. the fact is, the surcharge is the simplest easiest way to pay for this. if republicans have some other suggestions, let them put them forward. democrats are not going to dip with one hand from the middle class and take away with the other hand. that is what republicans want to do. we want a payroll tax cut, too, but we want to the -- seniors to pay more for their medicare. this is not going to be paid for by a penalty to the middle class. if you have another idea, tell us why the surcharge is not the

best way to go. >> republicans make the point they passed a bill on the house and that democrats did not pass a bill in the senate. you did not offer an alternative in the house. they do not want to negotiate themselves. they say it is up to democrats to offer alternatives. >> we just did. we just made a suggestion. i think it is up to the american people. the american people know our economy will benefit from the effect of having the tax cuts for the middle class. unemployment insurance brings a lot of money into the economy. it increases demand and increases jobs. this is about jobs and is about doing so in a way that is fair to the middle class. we will continue to make that argument. if they do not want to accept a surcharge, what are they accept -- suggesting in its place tax we are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

it is absolutely necessary for us to have a fairness in our budget decisions and in our tax decisions. >> the president was expected to announce he is rejecting the keystone. >> that is a little off the subject. i will come back to it. it is about as close to this, but none the less. you are right. it was in the bill. we will come to you next. >> you mention paying for it with the savings from the war cost, those may score but on the practical level those expenses are not expected to happen in the future with the clout of iraq.

a very strong case to be made that is a gimmick. my question would be, is that not sort of the kind of gimmickry that people are tired of hearing about where you pay with something with phantom money? >> it is what the republicans used in the rye and budget. -- ryan budget. they use the overseas contingency account for that. one of the biggest favors that we can do for american seniors really it really should not be considered a favor, it is something they deserve. take off the table forever whether they can see their doctor under medicare. this is something that even the republicans in the senate have been inclined to spend some were savings to do for partial fix. we are saying, we can do it all right now. let's get it off the table.

that removes the uncertainty. let me say this because i have been following this issue for a long time. the sooner you do it, the less it costs. as you drag it out, it just increases the cost to the taxpayer. it is not any more of a gimmick that when it was used for other initiatives along the way. >> the president is expected to reject the keystone pipeline from canada. they made at the comment that it would be a job creator in this country and the consequence is the oil would be shipped to china rather than the united states. are there not consequences to rejecting this? let me make a few points on the subject of the keystone pipeline. the president has not made an announcement yet. i do not have a heads up from that other than i just came back from a conference of mayors and it never came up and said the rumor was as you described. if the republicans cared so much about the keystone pipeline,

they would not have narrowed the presidents options by putting it on the timeline they did. they left him little choice. this oil was always destined for overseas. it's just about whether it leaves canada by the way of canada or the united states. without taking a position, i do not agree with the stipulations this is oil going to china instead of the u.s. there are arguments to be made on both sides. we should not be building a pipeline if the oil is staying in the u.s. it is not. the republicans need only look in the mirror why this decision is announced. there was no way in this

timeline the president could do anything else. i do not know if it is a definitive answer. we do not know until we hear. >> so on the sopa act, there has been an avalanche of criticism on both sides. i know there are folks in your neck of the woods are very involved in the tech community. what do you think about wikipedia giong blank in protest, and is there a compromise that could be forged that's obviously there is bipartisan opposition to where this bill was written now. >> that was about four or five or six questions. are you ok with that? i take great pride in our golden state. it is the center of the

imagination for the world. whether you are talking about the development of content or technology and distribution of largely in the north but throughout our state, with this imagination we will be able to come up with some technical fix for us to deal with protecting intellectual property and copyright without infringing freedom of expression on the internet. more particular to what you said about some of the sites shutting down, i have heard a great deal from my constituents on this subject as you can well imagine. you have to come there and see it. it is the most amazing place -- in terms of technology for the future. i like what google has done. they blanked out, but they have a statement that says in regard

to protecting intellectual property, we have to sit down and get together and do something that has consensus going forward. i am not doing justice to the essence of this statement. all i saw was a blank. i have heard from many, many, many constituents. they are all very concerned about freedom on the internet. the are concerned about the impact on the content. would you develop content if it will already be taken by somebody else attacks on the other hand, we are in a different world of communication and technology. we should be able to work this out. the conference of mayors endorsed sopa. some did, and some did not endorse it. it is a wonderful opportunity

for us to have a national debate on a topic that has an impact on people. young people want to know why wikipedia is shut down today. what is the internet about? it is about the future and privacy. those interests have to be protected but we also have to protect intellectual property. >> this is between silicon valley and hollywood. is it fair to say you are on the side of silicon valley? >> i am on the side of the american people.

i hope we can find a way to have a bill that addresses the protection of content and the freedom of distribution and technology. >> how is 60 days adequate time to come to a solution on the long-term extension for payroll tax cuts but 60 days to come up with a decision on the keystone project is not? >> none of the provisions of a payroll tax cuts are new. everybody knows -- this is a smorgasbord that we have seen over and over again. there is nothing new about it. when you are talking about all that it takes for an international agreement, and that is why the state department was involved, because the pipeline will cross an international border, you are talking about a much more complex issue. when i was in canada last year, i was at a speaker's meeting in september, this was subject a. my question to them was, why do you not take it up through canada? they do not want to. they do not want to take it out through canada, they want to take it out through the united states.

it is going out. there are major complexities to it. by putting a time line on it, it predetermined the logical response. will it be definitive? i do not know. we will see. i will be gone by then it from here. >> the president is coming up next tuesday for a state of the union address. have you had any conversations with the white house about the things that might come up? >> i would not engage in a conversation with the white house except to say to you that i have expressed to the appreciation of our congress to the president for his taking on the message of fairness to the american people. i think without his involvement out their -- let me say it in a

positive. for the presidents involvement in taking the message, i think the winners were the middle class of america. they get to see their own doctors under medicare. we are proud of the president. i think the most enduring theme in america is reigniting the american dream. we have plenty of work to do. we believe that we will strengthen the middle-class and rebuild the middle class by engaging in the abcs we talked

about before -- make it in america. not to be protectionist, but to be reliant. building infrastructure whether it is broadband or pipelines of america. i do not know if this will happen, but part of our democratic message is we want a new politics for the future, new politics free of the heavy interest of special interests. disclosure would be an important part of that. shine the bright light onto who is making these contributions. that is part of where we go from here. disclose, we can do some of that now. we have to when to do that. all of it is important to strengthen the voice of the middle class. while we do that, fight efforts

to -- i do not like to say repress the vote. it is too discouraging. we must protect the rights of voters to make sure they cannot vote and their votes will be counted. it is about, again, a vision about the american dream which is what our country is about. it is about ways that are part of the american jobs at that contains many of these provisions. we have a lot -- he is a master of communication, but we do not know what his speech will be but we know what his values are. our vision and values will be reflected in his speech as well. one more question.

>> republicans today, their attempt to disapprove the presidents request for the debt limit. your thoughts on that? >> the very idea that the country had to undergo the juvenile behavior of the republicans this summer when they were willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america to such an extent that our credit rating was downgraded, to such an extent that our reputation was questioned. i think it sent a message to the american people that it was important for them to know about the tea party congress. today it is just another exercise in that juvenile behavior. thank you all very much. did i wish you a happy new year? >> are you betting on the forty- niners? >> who did we bet yesterday -- i

just cannot be waiting to eat that chocolate ice cream. if you saw it in a movie, how could we suspend our disbelief to pull this off. i grew up in baltimore where johnny unitas pulled it off. my kids grow up in san francisco with joe montana -- same thing. we saw that happen. i am going to be in the midwest and in baltimore, a number of places on my way home this weekend. i do not know if i will go to green bay for the game -- whoever thought new york would win? i am really happy to be going home. was it not thrilling football -- four of my children were born in new york.

new york is kind of a second or third depending on where they are in the next. baltimore, new york, san francisco, my son-in-law is from colorado. we had almost everything in the game. somebody was going to win and be happy in the family. we are really thrilled. >> you want forty-niners and baltimore ravens as the final? >> would that not be great? it is easy for me, i am in san francisco. i am from baltimore but i would like san francisco to win as well. we will see. is it not great to watch those? >> you will be at the game? >> i will be at the game. thank you all.

but then a few moments, mitt romney campaigns in south carolina. in 40 minutes, voters hear from newt gingrich's daugh ters and then the role of super pacs in the election.

several live political events to tell you about including two in south carolina. ron paul speaks at the college of charleston. they host rick santorum. now we're cutting president obama's campaign speech at the apollo theater in new york city. that is at 930 eastern. >> we argued a couple of things. he argued that american policy toward japan was provocative. he said we're putting pins in a

rattlesnake. eventually, the rattlesnake will strike back. >> herbert hoover remained in storage here saturday night, editor and hoover scholar at george nash on the executive branch decisions starting with the second world war through the cold war. that is at 10:00 p.m. eastern. then jeff charlotte on religion in america. sunday night, understanding our constitution by looking at the odd clauses. it is every weekend on c-span2. >> our road to the white house coverage leading to the saturday primary election in south carolina continues with mitt romney at a campaign rally. he discussed jobs and the economy for 40 minutes.

♪ ♪ i was born free i was broorn free born free ♪ free like a river, baby strong is the wind i'm making ♪ google.com [playing "born free" by kid

rock] >> good morning, everybody. that is your clue not to say anybody else. i am a southern baptist. if i was a baptist minister, i would say what a beautiful day the lord has given us. i do not know if it is just me, but i think the mitt romney crowds are getting better looking every day. thank you all for coming out here this morning. it is very important. south carolina has an outside burden. we have to let somebody that we can send not just to win the nomination but to become the next president of the united

states. we need a leader that has private industry experience. we know someone that can create jobs. we need a leader and we need him now. we do not need to wait for years. we need to stop mr. obama and send them back to chicago. believe in free enterprise. mitt romney has been a success. we're going to take the skills to the white house. he came here today because he believes in spartanburg county. he is running for president. he is giving us this because he

believes in america. do we all believe in america? do you all believe the met ronnie? so do i.. it is my honor to introduce not also his lovely wife and ma, ann. do you know who this guy is? that is the legend david pearson. do you want to say hello? >> i will say hi. >> that is the kind of speech i like. i love it here.

it is a little brisk this morning. i love the chance to be doing what i was doing. a brent the best people in the world with me here today. i saw her in elementary school. i'm sure we saw ourselves passing in the hall. when she turned, 16, i really did take a notice. she went to a party at a friend's house. i was there, too. i went to the fellowship came with and said i live closer to her than you do. how about i give her a ride home for you? he agreed. we have been going a steady ever since. clyde thank you. it is great to be here. i see some children here.

it is wonderful to see the children. we met in high school. there are no secrets here. we know everything about each other. we had an extraordinary life. now it is time for some serious things to happen. i am not asking you can you whewin. i am asking you if you do, can you turn this country around. i say i know what we have to do. you have to go and be barack obama. -- and beat barack obama. we can get distracted by a lot of things going on. you have to ask yourself this thing. you can beat obama? of this guy right here can. who can turn the a economy around? only this person right here.

i have all the confidence in the world in him. he is a great husband and father. when i was a young mom and the boys are driving up a tree, he would remind me that what i was doing the more important than what he was doing, that my job as a mother would bring us lasting happiness. it has. it is great to be able to know, to see my five sons married and see these great grandchildren that we have. but other great joy in life is watching my grandchildren misbehaved. when they are really not see is what i love it the host. -- when they are really naughty is when i love it the most. it is great to see that they followed the example of their father. he is a wonderful husband. that brings his great joy. i am excited about where we are right now.

south carolina, you have a job to do. you have to make the right decision. you have to decide who can beat obama. you have to figure out you can turn this country around. it has to be this guy right here. thanks. >> after she speaks, people always ask me why do we let her run for president instead of me? i have to take the microphone away from our little earlier. i appreciate your being with me. i have had the chance over the last how many months to go across the country and see america. a lot of people are hurting. if we've got change. we can give hope. i go into people's homes. they're having a tough time. i spoke to a woman said can you

find me a job. i am looking for a job. 9.9% unemployment in south carolina. it breaks your heart to see what is happening. i see people who planned on retiring. now they are working minimum- wage jobs. they're thinking of starting a family better having to hold off. it has been a tough time. this president has run out of ideas. now he is running out of excuses. in 200012 he is going to run out of time. he has failed on almost every dimension. he said he is good to get this economy going. he went on the today show and said if i cannot turn this economy around in three years, i will be looking at a one term proposition. we are here to collect.

you have 25 million people today in america. they're out of work. they stopped looking for work. did you have a median incomes. they dropped in% and a last four years. soldiers are coming home. they cannot find work. you have given people coming out of colleges and universities that expected to have a great job waiting for them. they cannot find work. if they do it is less than the skills they were prepared to deliver to the free enterprise system. these have been tough times. the american people want to see something that is different. they want a turnaround. i spent my life trying to turn things around. i have had the chance to run for different enterprises. once i started the business of my town, it became successful.

i was sent out to help the electric's in salt lake city in 2002. together our team turned it around. they made it a success. in massachusetts we had a $2 billion shortfall. people wondered if we could turn it around. that is what i know how to do. if there has ever been a time the nation needs a real leader is now. this is the type of choice for america. decide which that we're going to go down. president obama fundamentally believes that government is the source of our strength. i believe the people of america are the source of the greatness. president obama looks the capitals of europe. i look to the towns and cities of america. he wants to see government that is larger. i want to see government that is

smaller and simpler and smarter. he is comfortable with trillion dollar deficit. over the coming decade, it will take us on a course like greece and italy. i will not build those massive deficits. i will fight to cut spending, it to cap spending, and to find a balance our budget. the president thinks the right horse for health care is to have government run it. i think the right course is to repeal obamacare. the president thinks the right course is to insist that we have unions by forcing card check. he said that boeing cannot build this. they are wrong. we believe in free enterprise.

the president is pursuing a policy of appeasement. he is sensing that other nations are growing farther. he says we should be nice to everybody. i do not agree. i think some people did not show -- share our interests. they seek to impress others. they have the intent of expanding their power. the right course is not to assume that america will be in decline but it may be a century we must continue to lead the world. the president's path is one of a declining investment in our military. i hope this of a significant decision to cut three and a $50 million out of our budget.

we will cease from being able to engage in to compline rigid complex at once. we will say that we can only compete in one at once. do you know how smaller navy is today? it is smaller than any time since 1917. our air force is smaller and older than any time since it was founded in in 1947.

. .

ion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ed: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today as a proud primary

sponsor of the subject resolution that is before the desk. madam speaker, i'd like to start my conversation with a few numbers. 15.2 trillion dollars. that is the size of our national debt. we as a nation are borrowing at the rate of $58,000 per second that is approximately $45,000 for each man, woman, and child in america. this type of debt inot sustainable. madam speaker, this resolution is offered today to send a message to the nation and to the world -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations from the floor.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. this resolution is submitted to send a message to the tion and to the world that this chamber is going to lead and not hide. we are going to deal with the issue of the national debt once and for all because it is time. the path that we are on is not sustainable. it is a path of bankruptcy, it is a path that will destroy the american dream if we do not stand up to the plate and lead us out of this fiscal nightmare that we now find ourselves in. now, many people in this town and in this chamber and in the chamber on the other side of the capitol probably would like this issue to go away until after the election. the problem is is that the issue will not go away.

and ev though if we don't want to deal with it politically, we need to deal with it substantively. and my resolution that is before this chamber will send a message that the constant borrowing on the backs of our children, our grandchildren must come to an end. i quote the words of our own president when he was senator in the u.s. senate. the path that we are on is similar to the words he echoed an stated in his u.s. senate chamber when he said this constant borrowing, this national debt is a complete failure of leadership in the white house. we need to lead. and that is what we are going to do. so i ask for support on this resolution from all of my colleagues to stand with us, make the hard decisions, deal

with this issue to stop this insanity that is truly a threat to our very nation. and also it is a threat to any economic recovery that our nation hopes to enjoy in the short term. . because if we do not get this debt under control, small business america, entrepreneurs, the people that will put america back to work, will not have the confidence or the certainty to invest in the american market that are going to lead to real jobs and to deal with the problem of our unemployment once and for all. so with th, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro teore: the gentleman is recognid. mr. levin: you know, there's a very basic fact.

i've listened to the rhetoric. if house republicans prevaled on this bill, what would be the result? chaos. chaos. the house republicans have become the party of chaos. six months ago they took us to the brink of default. no one in this country liked what they saw or maybe a very few. not the american public at large. surely not the markets. surely not the markets. but apparently house republicans did and you're at it again. here we are in the first full day in the house when we're in session this year debating a measure that will take us immediately back to the brink

of default. house republicans have once again, relying on the votes of others to save them from themselves and to save this country from them. this is postering, sturing, not legislating. this is rhetoric, not real action, and we've seen this movie before. 174 house republicans voted for the budget control act that set out to keep the government functioning and address our long-term debt, but many decided to tur tail and on september 14, 228 house republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution to end the president's authority to pay our bills.

that's what's fiscally responsible, paying bills. basically they were for it before they were against it. it's a rerun of a bad movie. when the american people clrly want us to move forward, and unfortunately house republicans have turned to washington with the same confrontational tone they left when they nearly allowed the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance to expire. and i want to emphasize that. the same confrtation, instead of a spirit of seeking common ground, essentially confrontation. and i think the american people have said to you, enough is more than enough. house republicans act as if we don't already have a deadline

looming. one with vast implications for millions of american families, that's what we should be talking about. in six weeks the payroll tax cut expires for 160 million americans. federal unemployment insurance begins to end for more than three million people searching for work, and access to health care becomes endangered for 46 million seniors and the disabled. well, last month -- while last month's jobs numbers were encouraging, the private sector gained nearly three million since the recovery began. but with 16 million americans looking for work, we need to do more. we should be doing everything possible, everything possible to ensure that our recovery doesn't falter and you're here supporting something if it

prevailed that would deeply impact our economy and economic growth. so here we are in the third week of january, and now we have a conference committee on these issues charged with the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurae that -- but that hasn't yet happened. not for lack ofanting on our part. we've been eager and wanting to begin. families and businesses that have been planning for the year should not wait until the 11th hour for once again uncertainty. brinksmanship has had for republicans i'm afraid as demonstrated today become the rule. so i urge -- we should reject this cynical, this rigidly ideological attempt to take us back to the brink of default.

if you prevailed, it wouldn't take us back to the brink. it would throw us over. the resolution fortunately is going nowhere. its only impact will simply divide and distract from addressing t real needs of the american people. so i assume, as happened ce before, a majority and maybe a vast majority of the house republicans will come down here and essentially contradict what they helped to pass. that contradiction isn't even good poll tickets -- politics and it's terrible policy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker.

what i'd like to say is that time has passed since we passed the balanced budget control act. there has been no action on the debt. we have seen nothing out of the white house as to a plan to deal with this national crisis. and my colleague on the other side, i'll remind as i am conferee on that conrence committee to deal with the payroll tax rate, to deal with the unemployment insurance, to deal with the doc fix, i was here through december, we were here last thursday, friday working on it. and i'm glad to see now the house democrats are here to do the work. we do need the senate to join in that conversation, and i my hope is that -- and my hope is

that they will join in that conversation soon. we are capable men and women in this chamber, madam speake i confident that we can walk and chew gum the same time. we will de with the payroll tax rate. we will deal with the issue of unemployment. we will deal witthe issue of the doc fix, but we will not take our eye off of what is becoming one of the fundamental issues of our generation and that is r national debt and that's what this resolution speaks to and will constantly remind all of us that we need to be diligent on this issue to get it taken care of ce and for all. and with that i would like to yield to my colleague from colorado, mr. lamborn, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for the time and for his work on this vital issue. i'm opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit. how in the world can we raise the debt ceiling if the senate

will not work with us to pass a balanced budget. the senate has not passed one in three years. no one would walk into a bank and ask for a loan without a plan on how to spend that money and pay it back, so why is it ok for the federal government to operate that way? it's not. the latest increase to the debt ceiling limit allows president obama to borrow an additional $1.2 trillion, which brings our national debt to $16.4 trillion, and he will likely be back at the end of the year asking for another increase. to put that into perspective, after the revolutionary war when we became a country in 1776 and after that, many wondered if the young democracy could withstand what many at the time considered a crushing debt. the nation had borrowed heavily to pay for the revolutionary war. the debt when the war was over was about $34 per american which in today's inflation adjusted dollars would be about $653.

today's debt, by contrast, is nearly 68 times that size or $45,000 per american. it's bad enough to borrow money like there is no tomorrow, but to do so without even a budget in place is simply wrong. today, i have introduced bill to stop this madness, the budget before borrowing act, h.r. 3778, is a straightforward, no gimmicks approach to spending money. it very simply says the nation cannot raise the debt ceiling limit unless the house and senate have agreed on a budget resolution. this cld only be waived with a vote of 2/3 of both members of the houses. to conclude, i am opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit, and i urge my colleagues to support this disapproval resolution. with our current debt load and lack of a budget, the president has no business asking to raise our nation's debt at this time. thank you, madam speaker, and i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in firm opposition to this resolution. a political stunt that prevents the increase in the debt limit that this congress has already approved. this is a dangerous distraction from our efforts to move the country forward, support continued economic growth and promote job creation. and it lies in the face of the budget control act which 174 house republicans voted for last summer. in 2011 my colleagues across the aisle caused multiple self-inflicted economic crises. the republican majority simply has not learned that these kinds of empty partisan measures can cause immediate harm to our economy and hurt working families everywhere. this resolution is nothing but a deeply harmful and dangerous

charade, dangerous for americans still struggling to find work, dangerous for our economy that is depending on our robust and focused recovery and dangerous for our responsibility as a legislature, tasked not with these grand charad of brinkmanships. we have already seen our credit downgraded and seen other countries face the worst of default. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam spear, i am happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. paul: madam chairman, we're here today to try to prevent the national debt from going up another $1.2 trillion. but in a way it's a formality

because most everybody knows the national debt is going up $1.2 trillion. and this is sad because this process is a really very mixed effort ttry to curtail spending. and this power to the president to ask for a debt increase and then we have to get 2/3 of the congress to prevent this from going up, this is a creature of congress. it's also a creature of a mental status here in the congress of overspending on just everything. and it would be nice if we could blame everything on the current administration or even the past administration but this crisis has been building for a very long time and it's veryipartisan. there's been way too much cooperation in th congress because those who like spending cooperate and they kp spending it and for a long time we were able to get away with this because we were a very wealthy country. now we're nonproductive. the good jobs are overseas and yet the spending is escalating

exponentially. we're really not facing up to the reality that the problem is spending. yes, we have to deal with the debt, but the debt is a consequence of too much spending. where do we spend too much money? in two places, overseas and domestically. we need to stop the spending. you know, it's really in my mind started about 40 years ago when there was a guarantee that you don't have to worry about debt because we always had somebody there to buy the debt. if we'd had a market rate of intere where you didn't have the federal reserve buying the debt, interest rates would go up and force us to liveithin our means. as long as you have a federal reserve there with no linkage of anything of soundness, since 1971, the congress has been reckless and the deficits had continueed to grow and the crisis -- continued to grow and the crisis is an inevitable conseqnce. i believe we are in denial here in congress. if we had the vaguest idea of how serious this crisis is financially not only for us but

for the world would cut spending because you can't solve the problem with debt by accumulating more debt. it's just impossible to do this. and one other thing i think we fail to do on both sides of the aisle is really cut spending overseas. it is considered that if you spend more money overseas you have more defense, and there's no truth to that. just spending over $1rillion overseas doesn't necessarily give you more defense. and yet nobody's willing to cut. some of these automaticay -- automatic cuts is supposed to be in line, they come out of the supercommittee, everybody's squirming already. how are we going to prevent these cuts? and this pretense we might cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years is total pretense. we are in total denial that is cutting something. there is a poposed increase seline budgeting of $10 trillion. we are going to cut $10 trillion over 10 years? that's over $1 trillion. our debt is going up $100 billion a month.

it's a charade. the american people know it's a charade. they are tired of this. they've known about this. we need to make up our minds, are we going to live within the confines of the constitution, get out of this mess. . >> another 30 seconds. mr. paul: thank you. the crisis we face as i said is not just domestic because it is a worldwide crisis. and if we don't do something, we will be forced under very dire circumstances because we cannot bail out the world. we are prepared now through our feral reserve to bail out all of europe. we have been downgraded. france is downgraded. greece is downgraded. we believe that all we have to do is spend more money and inflate the currency. believe me, we ought to face up to reality and live within our limits. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield three minutes tohe very distinguished senior member of our committee, mr. charles

rangel of new york. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and exnd my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognizedor three minutes. mr. rangel: i was awed in listening to my friend, congressman paul, he usually comes up with some far-fetched ideas that i have no idea what he's talking about, but the truth of the matter is that he is right. america is walking down a very serious economic path that could not only jeopardize what's left to our fiscal system, but good or bad the whole world depends on our system. and i cannot believe that a group of americans, especially members of the congress, would say that the president of the united states is ot authorized to pay off the debts that we already had.

we certainly can find a lot of agreement as to how we got there . whether it's president obama or bush's taxuts, or two wars that the congress never declared. hey, all you need is a mathematician to add it up, but we got it there. we owe them money. who is so less patriotic, who cares so little about our country that you would have in addition to the falsehoods they tell about us, saying and we don't pay our debts, either? it's a question if you want to talk about what we do in the future as relates to spending, but i know the debate has to deal with people who don't pay taxes. i know the debate has to say that people are taking unfair advantage of a tax code with so many loopholes in it that the most conrvative republican has to agree it's time for a reform. there's a broad area we can talk about and what we are going to

do about ld, reckless spending. but you just don't do it by saying that i am so angry with the president. i am so politically involved in opposing him, that i willeny him the opportunity to do what every president has always done and that is to be able to tell the world that you can count on us to pay the money that we have borrowed. now, being a politician myself i know there's extreme things that we go through, but love of our country has to be something that we believe in. and i don't know what republicans feel such a strong commitme to the tea party or whatever other people having parties on the other side, that they would say that they would stop america from paying its debts. i don't believe it. you don't believe it. you know this is not going to

pass. but my god, i don't think we should be dictated about connection with what foreigners think about us. but they should be some pride in saying if we make mistakes, they are our mistakes not european mistakes, not foreign mistakes. if we borrow money and we don't like how much we borrow, that's our domestic problem. but for god's sake don't let us fall in such partisan position that we are going to say that the united states of america, the lader of the free world, we know how to borrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now privileged and happy to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. rooney: thank you, madam speaker. our national debt now stands at more than $15.2 trillion.

that amount exceeds the entire u.s. economy. washington's reckless spending now burdens every child born in the u.s. with a $50,000 share of the national debt. if we don't do something about it now, we'll be the first generation in american history to leave our children worse -- a nation worse than we inherited. and our skyrocketing debt doesn't just affect our children and their future, it damages our economy and our unemployment rate today. it's a drag on the economy that fuels uncertainty. it hurts our credit rating. it slows economic growth, and it prevents job creation. when president obama took office, he pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2012. after three years in office, has he yet to introduce a credible plan to get our deverses under control? no. -- deficitunder control? no. instead under his watch the country has hit three of the highest deficits on record, and

that's unacceptable. the national debt has grown by more than $4.6 trillion in his three years in office. we can't solve our debt problems until we address the root cause of this issue and that's overspending here in washington, d.c. in house we pass a budget that would put our country on the path to a balanced budget. the senate didn't pass a budget. they dew point take up our own -- our budget, they did nothin we passed nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts and we are planning to do more this year. the senate, as i said, has not written a budget in nearly 1,000 days. if your family was trying to get out of the red, you would sit down at the table, figure out how much you are making, how much you're spending, and ere you should cut back. the senate refuses to do hat. think about that for a second. how on earth are we supposed to get our fiscal house in order if the senate won't even write a budget? and why won't the senate do their job? one word.

politics. it's no wonder we have a 12% approval rating. madam speaker, it's time to cut out the credit cards here in washington and stop spending money we don't have. the longer we wait the harder it will be to fix the mess that we are in. putting ourcountry on a responsible fiscal path is the only way to restart the economy and ensure our children a prosperous future. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's n my privilege to yield three minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell, from the state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, dam speaker. the gentleman from michigan. listening to the debate you're not hearing the same thing you heard seven months ago, i'm told. but when you look away then you say, gee, didn't i hear this before? maybe that's true on bothides. but you know bruce bartlett, who

is a former advisor to president reagan, and a treasury official in george bush's administration, wrote about the five myths of the debt. the five myths of not paying the debt. or not increasing the debt. and one of them i think bears witness today of what i have heard. the myth that it's worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase given the weak economy. this is a republican saying this. i'm just repeating the words. he says, while republicans' concerns about higher taxes are not unreasonable and they are not, most economists believe that any fiscal contraction at this time would be dangerous. in fact, they note that a large cut in spending in 1937 brought in another sharp recession. it's very easy to say that the

president is the -- the purpose, is the reasowhy we had the plague and the tremendous deficit, but if the private sector wasn't spending money, then we would have had five million more people out of work. the government has the responsibility when folks can't do for themselves what we expect. that undermines the recovery of the country and that's what happened in the great depression. republicans respond that tax increases are especially harmful to growth. however, they made the same argument in 1982 when psident reagan requested the largest peacetime tax increase in american history, and again in 1993 when president bill clinton asked for a large tax increase for deficit reduction. in both cases conservative economists' predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong.

and strong economic growth followed. i wasn't here in 1993, many of you were here in 1993. you remember what the dire consequences of those -- the clinton plan was. and what happened. we had the greatest boom in 50 years. just like the economists who told us we wereheading to nirvana since 2001. and i don't want any part of nirvana if that's it. and none of us do. so, we are not talking here about helping the middle class, that's for sure. we got bailouts for them, for the other side. we know what the resultsre. all of us know that. it's not a partisan issue, really. you're trying to say you want to protect people's taxes, and we want to say we got to pay our debts. but we are really not 180 degrs apart. i think we need to do both. and if we don't sit down together, we are not going to do both. i yield back, madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from illiis, mr. manzullo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: thank you. madam eaker, any vote to raise the debt ceiling should be tied to restraints on spending. this is the voting card. america's most expensive credit card. during my time in congress i voted nine timesgainst raising the debt limit because it was not tied to spending controls. this is another time to say no. last august we were hopeful that we could have gone beyond the $4 trillion mandate in the budget control act, but it did not happen. unfortunately the supercommittee can could not come to a consensus and we have been drifting ever since. we are now projected to add $2.1 trillion to the national debt since august with the president's most recent request. i voted over700 times against $2.6 trillion in spending over the past five years.

that's a good place to start to find the savings that we need to get serious on debt reduction. we need to vote yes on digs approving to raise the debt limit yet again so we can get to work to cut the spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i was looking over the vote from the first of august and it's interesting to see -- hear people coming forth who voted aye on august 1 and now essentially want to repudiate that i now yield three minutes to another very distinguished active member of our committee, james mcdermott, dr. mcdermott, from the state of washington, from the snowy state of washington. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, it's been more than a year since the tea party took over the house. 375 days, and all that time the republicans have not brought one bill to the floor to help the economy. not a single bill. today after a long vacation and on the only day of legislative business in the month of january, the republicans are yet again wasting the american people's time putting out press releases. we aren't voting to help americans get jobs or make educion better or investing in roads or bridges. no. instead the republicans have us voting on their top priority. to default on our country's debts. ain't that something? priority? today's vote is exactly why the public is disgusted with the congress. the hypocrisy of this vote boggles your mind. republicans wage unnecessary

wars on our edit card? they cut taxes on the very rich. and blow up the deficit. and now they don't want to pay for the spending binge. . i got the republican study committee's email outlining their agenda for next year. i admit. i subscribed. we have 14 million people unemployed. we have huge competitive challenges with our other countries. there's lots of investing we need to do at home. but what's the republican program as they put it out over the email? nothing. they didn't have one, not one new idea in that agenda. all the republicans want is more war, more deregulation on wall street, and more dirty air and no help of any kind whatsoever for the middle class. madam speaker, the republicans are wasting the americans' time. we need investment, not a

republican default. they're spending their time in south carolina now selecting their next leader to lead into the same congress of no. this is the congress of no we're watching. they don't pay their debts, they don't have any ideas, they don't provide any jobs. it is simply the no congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i'd just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the last time we took a vote on this issue back on the budget control act in august is a much different time than today. since august we've been waiting for a plan from the other side dealing with our national debt. we've been waiting for a plan from the white house to deal with our national debt. nothing has occurred. so, madam speaker, there is no repeediation of our vote from august. this this consistent with what

the american people are telling us, that we need to get our act together in washington and i join my colleagues on the other side. my hand is open to work hand in hand to dole with these problems once and for all. i'm willing to sacrifice my political life to do what needs to be done for the american people. i just hope my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in that same sentiment. let's put politics aside. let's deal with the substance of the day. let's deal with this underlying national crisis that is represented in our national debt. you have many friends over here that are looking to reach out, hand to hand, join arm in arm to deal with this problem and de with the economy of our nation once and for all. i just ask you to jump and join us rather than fight us. and with that i'm happy to eld to my colleague, mr. flake, for two minutes, i

believ the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this vote has been called a charade. that is true, it is. let's face it. the president will veto it. the senate wilsustain the veto. having said that, for years and yearse raised the debt limit without a discussion. let alone a vote sometimes. it would just happen procedurally. that's wrong. at least this time we've had a discussion back in august. i didn't favor the budget agreement that we had there. i did not vote for it because i think if we're going to raise the debt ceiling tn, boy, we ought to have a plan to pay down the debt or actually deal with the deficit. but i think we have to admit that even if the senate had passed the house-passed budget the so-called ryan budget, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling. i don' think anybody really disputes that. we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling again and again, but at least put together a plan to deal with our deficit and we haven't done that.

now, in our candid moments on our side of the aisle, we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the present president took control of the wheel. he stand on the accelerator to get us here faster. the congress only decide to take action when we stand on the edge of the cliff. it could happen when we have a treasury auction and no one wants to buy our debt. it could happen sooner than when we want to realize. it behooves us now to put togeer a plan to deal with our debt and deficit. that plan does not exist today. i think for that reason we should vote for this resolution and then put a plan to deal with it rather than just letting future generations inherit this debt. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 second mr. flake, the problem is if

you prevail you'd create an abyss. you'd create an abyss. i now yield two minutes to a very distinguished gentleman from georgia, another active member of our committee, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank mr. levin for yielding. here we go again, madam speaker . instead of working on legislation to help create jobs , house republicans have gathered us here for political gains. this bill is not constructive. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, it is destructive. it is disruptive to the most important task we face, helping struggling america get back to work, get our economy moving

again. we've been down this road before. we fought this so-called battle last year. the debt limit is america's credit card bill. and just because we don't ke the banners doesn't mean we don't have to pay it. it's just tt simple. when you get a balance on your credit card you pay it. we all do it. this exercises a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this bill. let's come together and work for the good of this nation and not partisan -- the time is always right to do right. the speaker pro tempore: the ntman from new york. mr. reed: i'd like to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle, when you get a

credit card bill that you can no longer afford, you do pay it but you cut it up and you stop the spending so you don't exacerbate the problem. and with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. goip madam speaker, i thank -- mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of this resolution of disapproval of increasing the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion. you heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, members of the ways and means committee, the distinguished former chairman, mr. rangel, and others speak about why have to raise the de ceiling and that it's something that's been done over the years and certainly that's true and the nine years that i've been a member, this being my 10th year, i've seen it happen many times. a lot of times it's passed, as mr. flake said, procedurally and the public doesn't even know it. now, i rarely disagree with my

friend from arizona, but i take a little bit of exception with what he said. he said the president has just stepped on the accelerator a bit. i would say $4.5 trillion in 3 1/2 years is not stepping on the accelerator just a bit, madam speaker. that's putting the pedal to the metal. and this has gotten so totally out of hand that it's g to stop. so this is not on our side a waste of time, as the gentleman from washington said. we are not just pandering to the tea party. listen, we're paying attention to the conservatives in this country that first got my attention in 1964 and the conscience of a conservative and quit all this spending and get our fiscal house in order and we need to do that by cooperating on each side of the

aisle. this resolution will fail. we understand that. the american people need to know there are members of this congress that are going to stand with them, whether you call them tea party or whatever, and try to den grade them. but questioner -- denigrate them. but we are going to stand here with them. we are going to take the time today. it may be t most important thing we do, to say we are not going to overspend and just automatically -- and then we're going to say we are going to cut or the next 10 years but we are going to borrow over the next year $1.2 trillion. my colleague has yielded me a little bit of additional time. i am ready to wrap up. is is what we need todo. this is what the american public needs us to do. it's time for us to get together in a bipartisan way, solve this, solve medicare, solve social security. as former speaker newt gingrich said on the cpaign trail just yesterday, it's time to take

social secury off budget and have it stand alone, not let the cock raise the trust fund -- not let congress raise the trust fund. we noowe $2.-- if we don't increase t debt ceiling then seniors won'tget the social security checks, that's baloney, a i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mrlevin: it's now my privilege to yield to another distinguishemember of our committee, m neal, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. neal: let me call attention to some of the statements that have been offered here. mr. reed, the reason you were invited to this floor to manage the time as a freshman member of congress is very simple -- you weren't here for the reckless ride that the republican party took during the eight years of the bush administration. that's why you're here and the other freshmen have come to the floor, you weren't here for this tirade of spding. when you said you cut up the cred card, so we're going to cut up the credit card for the

v.a. hospitals? after 35,000 men and women have been wounded, serving us honorably in iraq and afghanistan? now, look, i voted against the war in iraq and i voted against the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. fact. not opinion. bill clinton says goodbye and there's a $5.7 trillion surplus. balanced budgets four times in five years. it's only happened five times since the en of world war ii. mr. flake is one of the few republicans that will come to the house with a straight face and say -- let me tell you how got here. he knows how we got here and mr gingrey is a friend and he knows how we got here. you can't cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and fight two wars and honor the commitment we have to those men and women who have served us honorably in iraq and

afghanistan. and while i was against the tax cuts and while i was against the war in iraq, i'm going to vote for those appropriations to take care of those veterans' hospitals. you don't cut up the credit cards when they come back. you use good judgment before you send them off. what happened here during those eight years with the prescription drug benefit? what happened during those eight years with weapons of mass destruction? what happened with tax cuts? and by the way, the corresponding argument on those tax cuts -- tax cuts pay for themselves. well, guess what, we're staring at a $15 trillion deficit and debt because of those reckless fiscal practices that took place. for the republican party to make these arguments today about this issue, which, by the way, mr. flake is correct about again, it's but a charade. you meet your obligations, you pay your bill. that's what the credit card is about and not to pontificate in

front of this chamber today about reckless spending when for eight years nobody had the courage on that side to stand up and say, enough is enough. and i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for the time. every time i go back home to tennessee and as i hold town hall meetings, i do hear from my constituents enough is enough, stop the madness, let's get the nation's fiscal house in order that is what the american people are demanding that we do. and just so we all realize what the debt is -- you're talking $15.2 trillion. nearly $5 trillion or 1/3 of that debt has come onto the books in the past 3 1/2 years.

that is the rate of acceleration by which this administration is pushing this nation to the brink. and that is why our constituents are saying stop it. it's the reason for this vote today. to pass a resolution of disapproval, to send our message to the president that, look, time is long past for you to bring forward a plan to deal with this debt. it is your responsibility to do so for this country, and it is your responsibility to do so for future generaons, to make certain that children and our grandchildren, like my two grandchildren, tonight have an increasing -- don't have an increasing share of this. this past year, our family's share of our national debt grew by $30,000. $30,000.

it is time for us to realize that we have to stop the out of control spending, we have to freeze the spending, then we have to begin to cut andremove and eliminate items that are unnecessary to the budget. let's reiterate our commitment to getting back on the right track, getting our fiscal house in order. let's reiterate this commitment to the american people, that we have hit the high water mark in spending and we are going to join together in a bipartisan fashion to make certain that we get the federal government's fiscal house in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. >> i now yield three minutes to another -- mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from the great state of oregon, mr.

blumnary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in letting me speak on this measure. what we are dealing with today is a smoke screen to eure the self-inflaketted crisis of confidence that's been unfolding with our friends on the other side of the aisle over the course of this last year. everybody knew that we would honor our debts that had already been incurred. but they fogged the issue, created doubt, pushed to the brink, and this charade today is a result of what was required to help them get off the ledge onto which they had climbed that risked damaging the credibility and credit worthiness of the united states. the issue should be how we spend

money. we need to change how we do business. and i think with all due respect, there are things that we could be working on now to make some progress. there is an opportunity to reform our tax system that is complex and unfair. we're just finding out that mr. romney, with hundreds of millions of dollars, pays less in tax than probably the undocumented workers whoorked in his yard. there are opportunities to deal with carried interest, with unnecessary tax breaks that are permanent for oil and gas, while important emerging technologies like wind are in a state of limbo. and the public agrees that the most fortunate among us should be paying a little more. it's only fair.

they can do it. it makes a difference. we could be working together on agricultural form to spend less money but target on farmers and ranchers, rather than large agribusiness. we should accelerate the health care reforms that started out bipartisan and relatively noncontroversial that actually would help us no longer spend almost tice as much as other developed countries for results that aren't as good. instead of getting down to brass tacks, my republican friends are playing games like this measure. luckily, the game that they are playing today won't crash the global economy, but it will further erode confidence in congress and it delays the day that we work together on the

elements that i just described, where we could get bipartisan support, change how we do business, redeuce the deficit and give the taxpayer more value for their dollars. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minute mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair, i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. let's look at president obama's record after three years. he's left a record of debt, despair and downgrades and here we are debating whether or not president obama is able to grab another $1.2 trillion that he adds to the debt of our nation that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. the reason we were downgraded is because president obama himself has still refused to put a plan forward to balance the federal budget. his budget that he pushed forth

doubles the national debt in its first five years. then he becomes the first president in the history of our nation to have our debt rating, the debt rating of the united states, downgraded. you look at the despair. as americans are trying to t jobs. we're get regular ports today that president obama is going to reject the keystone pipeline. turning his pack on 20,000 american families who were looking for those good jobs. here in america. making us more dependent on middle eastern countries who don't like us. the canadians, who are good friends of ours, wanted to send oil to america. that's oil we don't have to be buying from middle eastern countries. instead the president is going torque as we're hearing reports of today is going to turn his back on those 20,000 jobs. he's going to send that oil and those jobs to china. now how propost-rouse is that. as the president is trying to rack up more debt on the nation's credit card, at the same time, he's turning his back

and running 20,000 more jobs out of this country. that's the record of this administration. that's what president obama has given us. you wonder why we've had over 8% up employment for almost every single month he's been president. we can't afford the obama economy. we need to reject this increase in the debt ceiling, stop spending money we don't have and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my good friend. madam speaker, i understand that the republican majority will vote today against the president's request to raise the debt limit. to borrow a phrase from a former eaker of the house, can we please drop the pious baloney? less than six months ago,

republicans voted for precisely what they are voting against today. this republican leadership created a national crisis and walked us to the brink of default. then they voted far bill to end the crisis, but slipped in a provision to allow them to attack the president for a decision they don't have the guts to stand by. this is not leadership and it certainly is not governing. it's an ideological game that's ventured well beyond the absurd. mr. flake, i think in a very important moment of candor, talked about the fact that the very budget that the republicans passed this last year would in fact raise the national debt by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years. you cannot square logically an opposition to raising the debt ceiling when you have voted for a budget that does exactly that. it raises the national debt. with all due respect to the gentleman om new york, when he

says nothing has changed in the last seven months, nothing has changed in the last seven months. we agreed on something, we knew what the debt was going to be, the deficit, we agreed to accommodate it in this way. the only thing that's changed in the last seven months is that the republicans are now trying to renege on the agreement they made seven months ago. that's the only things that's -- thing that's changed. the american people have been loud and clear on what they need from this congress. responsible investments in infrastructure, education, and job creation. they want everyone share in the sacrifice for our economic recovery, including billionaires and big oil companies. madam speaker, it's time to do the work the american people have asked us to do. they don't have time for more pious baloney. i yielback. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i remind the gentleman that what

we have done on our side of the aisle is at least we've put a plan in writing by adopting an aprove -- approving the budget. we're scrust looking, in the last seven months, we have been waiting for a plan from the white house of how are we going to get out of this national debt crisis in black and white? not political speeches. but in black and white. so we can take it back to the american people and have an open and honest debate as to where we're going to prioritize our spending and how we're going to get out of this hole. that's what we're looking for. that's what my colleague from arizona, mr. flake, is talking about. we are at the point on this side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, to say we don't care who is at fault. i'm at the point, demrat, republican, we're at 15.-- we're at $15.2 trillion, whoever is responsible for it, i could care less. what i care about are my kids, my grandkids who aren't even born, aren't even on the face of this earth, of getting our act

together in washington and getting a national plan put together that we can join arm in arm and stand with each other to deal with this issue. with that, madam speaker, i yield two minus to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the spker pro mpore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in opposition to raising the debt limit again and again and again. last week i traveled across the first district of kansas to host seven town hall meetings and kansans reit vated -- reiterated the same thing i heard on town halls last year. overspending, overregulation and yes, overtaxing must end now. kansans are not concerned about the next election like most in washington seem to be. they are worried about the next generation. between the first day this president to office and today, debt has grown by $4.6 trillion.

in comparison, it took from george washington to bill clinton to build up that much debt. now the president wants another $1.2 trillion. unfortunately, the real battle to prohibit this $1.2 trillion mortgage on our children's future was lost five months ago wh the house passed the budget control act. since the budget control act passed, the congress has failed to produce any cu from the supercommittee. we failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. senator reid not only refuses to pass but ruses to consider a budget. that doesn't paint the picture of the -- theulture of overspending in washington for the past half century has led us to where we are today. every president has refused to balance the budget. every member of congress who advocated for their special interest, every special interest who came to us, they are all to

blame for where we stand today. when this debt limit is reached, every man, woman, and child in america will have their own debt to pay to washington of $50,000. this doesn't take into account the mountains of debt we face for future entitlement programs. this is not about us. this is about our children and grandchildren who will have to pay this back. unless and until washington can get its grip on reckless spending and borrowing, the future of our country will remain online. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas yields back the balance of his time. the chair will advise the gentleman from new york he has 34 minutes remaining on his side, the gentleman from michigan has 35 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it is my pleasure to yield five minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer from the great state of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five

minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, according to a new poll by "the washington post" and abc news, 84% of americans disapprove of the way congre is doing its job. i don't know that the other 16% are paying attenti pause we're not doing our job well. and this certainly is not doing our job well. the reason it's not doing our job well is because it is a pretense. a sham. this legislation is to pay bills that we've already incurred. whether as the gentleman said it was incurred with your jotes -- your votes or our votes, we have incurred those expensesful 69 -- those exes. this is about -- those expses. this is about whether america will pay its bills. the previous gentleman said nobody has done anything about the debt new york point of fact, we did something about the debt. we put revenue at levels

commensurate with our spending. and as a result, in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, in 1997, we brought the debt -- the deficit down to $25 billion and for the next four years western had a surplus. now, a couple of those years were not real surpluses because we counted on social security revenue but two of those years were real surpluses. this is about whether we pay our bills that we had incurred. not doing this would be irresponsible and would lead, i think, to further disrespect by the public and properly so. one of the reasons for this feeling by the public is that americans are tired of political game this is a political game. this ia game that will say,

see, i voted against debt. now, let me tell you how to vote against debt. when you cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, i agree with my friend, it's not about blame, it is about learng, however. when we cut tacks in 2001 and 2003, 2001 under george bush, we didn't y for them. we pretended they would pay for themselves. they didn't. alan greenspan says they won't. we ought to learn from that. learning from that, we ought to say, yes, we'll pay our debts, the president doesn't want this ney. it's not for the president. it's for bills that we incurred in fighting twoars, in giving tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest in america, to passing a scription drug program that frankly all of us now support, but we didn't pay for it. as a result, we got deeply into debt.

we have to show courage, wisdom and hopefully intellectual honesty in getting to that. the american public are tired of seeing republicans spending time because of electoral positioning and they would be tired of us doing the same thing. that's what all-what this is. this is not our debt. we voted against it. but that's not responsible. it's not honest. and i think most of you know that. the resolution before us today is simply another waste of time. more than that, it udermines competence here and around the world. some of that debt, of course, we owe to people around the world. it is the essence of political gamesmanship and does nothing to reduce the debt or create jobs, and we spent the whole day on it. this is the only full day we will spend in janua debating any issue.

americans know that we ought to pay our bills. they know we reached a deal in august that said both parties would work together to reduce our deficits in order to provide certainty our businesses, certainty -- families around the dinner table. this would only provide more uncertainty at a time when our people need to see us working together on a big balanced deal to meet our fiscal challenges. my friend and i are both for that effort. i am very much for that effort. but i don't pretend that not paying the bills that we incurred are going to solve that problem. the only thing that's going to solve that problem is we are going to ask everybody to contribute their fair share. yes, we are going to havto make some cuts and make some cuts that neither side will like and raise revenues that neither side will like. but i will tell my friend, who is waiting for his grandchildren, i have three

grandchildren now and i have two great grandchildren, and he's right. they're the ones who are going to have to pay this bill. and i saw my young friend and new member from south carolina -- i can't call his name right this second -- can i have two minutes. mr. levin: i yield three minutes. mr. hoyer: i saw my young friend passionate about not passing this to his children. i could have given that speech. i voted against the a.m.t. without paying for it. we paid for ithen we set the a.m.t. i think it needs to be fixed and we'd pay for it. i would vote no on this resolution, and i strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. why? america is disheartened because they do not believe we are honest in dealing with them. they believe we play political games. they believe that we are not addressing the issues they know

are of importance and know do not have easy, simplistic answers. i hope that democrats who vote no will vote no joined by a large number of republicans, not because you like debt, not because any of us like that. and veryrankly i voted for e clinton revenue increases in 1993. the prediction on your side of the aisle was it would destroy the economy, unemployment would spike and the deficit would explode. none of that happened. you were wrong. all of us are wrong from time to time. dead wrong. as a matter of fac we enjoyed the best economy i have seen in my adult life in the 1990's. and we have seen the worst recession in my life after pursuing the bush policies for eight years. yes, we were in charge for the last two but we couldn't change policies because the president

had the veto and the majority votes to sustain that veto on this floor. so, ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with the american people. we've all incurred a debt. we all spent the money. we drove on the roads. we were defended abroad. we invested in health care. research. we all incurred these debts. we know we need to solve it. we know that will be tough but honesty will make it easier. honesty between ourselves, honesty with the american peoplend honesty, integrity and courage. i say around this country talk about, you know, greece has a real problem. they are 128%. i think we are at 100%. the problem with greece is they don't have the resources to solve their problem. america, the good news for us is we have the resources to

solve our problems. if we have the courage and political will to do so. this vote is a small token of showing that we have the courage, the wisdom and the political will to do so. we need to pay our bills. vote no on this resolution. show the american people that we have courage, that we have wisdom and we can have the political will to make america the continuing strongest country on the face of the earth, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to say to mr. hoyer that i have a tremendous amount of respect for him as a member of this body, and i have joined him to support the go big effort. and what i would say is by this resolution, look at what we have done on our side of the aisle.

we have brought this conversation out of the back rooms. we have brought the ideas and proposals that we heard from mr. blumenauer from oregon, i believe, who talked about comprehensive tax reform, agricultural reform on the floor of this house in front of the american people in an open and honest manner. and what we have done on our side of the aisle is to stress that these conversations will no longer happen behind closed doors, but they will happen on the floor of this chamber. and i'm confident, i am confident that when we come together, like we are, like the foundation that we are setting in our conversations that we are going to solve this problem. but until that solution is enacted, will get up every day as a member of this house to champion the cause of getting the fiscal house of washington, d.c., in order, to get our reckless spending under control and get this economy

going. and with that -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. reed: i'd yield. mr. hoyer: i want to thank him for his participation in addressing this issue and frankly in my opinion he was one of the 100 signatories saying, let's say get a big deal. we have to get a handle on this debt. i want to thank him. but i want to assure him as well -- i have been here just a little longer than he has -- this debate has been goi on for some period of time. this is no new debate. with all due respect, it's been on this floor, i've been raising this issue for some 20 years, very frankly. others have as well on both sides of the aisle. the debate has been going on, but as i said, we need to summon the courage and political will to not just debate it but to address it and address it effectively and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. reed: thank you. madam speaker, with this i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for my time. it's a new year and we have a new chance to tackle some new problems in this session of the 112th congress. but real problems need real solutions. we saw what was possible when the house came together last year to pass conservative job-creating bills and a plan to cut $6.2 trillion in government spending and reduce deficits by $4.2 trillion over the next decade. also saw how little got done when democrats in the senate and the obama administration consistently ignored the wishes of the american people. this administration has said it will continue to wage its 2012 campaign against this ngress. so instead of working with us and encouraging the senate to consider the numerous jobs bills we have passed in the house, the president has chosen once again to try to divide us and the american people. make no mistake, the sue of spending will be as important in this second session of congress as it was in the