what do we do? we run down to the local home improvement store, buy things, picks it up. it that is whether you are an investor or the owner occupant. the ability to sell those the people will be using them, whether you are an investor or homeowner, and the philosophy of making the neighborhood better, there is some great irony. there are some neighborhoods in arizona that have been relatively hard hit. a lot of investors and first- time home buyers bought in those neighborhoods. they look better today than they have in decades because they have had this wave in new capital into home improvement. there are some unintended consequences, and sometimes it may be a positive. host: do believe the president's housing proposal will get a

hearing in congress? guest: it will, but i'm very frustrated. from the house and financial- services committee, and the republican caucus, we have offered certain solutions and have tried to move forward and tried to work with the administration on cleaning up fannie mae and freddie mac and what the future will look like, and we need to provide visibility to the markets, and even to you and i as homeowners. our great hope is that this is not another political ploy, because we have already had several of those, where it is great in the brochure but it does not work in practicality. host: thank you for being here. it we have a two-hour program this morning because the house is coming in session early today, 9:00. they are considering an faa bill and live coverage begin shortly. we will be here again with

"washington journal" at 7:00 a.m.. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest champ lane, reverend cal lamont, first presbyterian church, springfield, missouri. the chaplain: let us pray.

god, as you know, these walls have echoed with your name for centuries. you see, god, we know your name because we are your nation, your people. to prove it we printed your name on our dollar bills, chizzled your name into our granite walls everywhere in this city and regularly include your name in prayers before friday night high school games. therefore, since you are our god and the prince of peace, i ask you to quell the need in this room to dominate, degrade and even den grade. i ask you, god, the healer, to

rob the salive of your holy spirit into our wounds. i ask you, god, the creator, to whisper new words, new possibilities and new solutions up and down these aisles. teach us, lord, when we drop your name, we must also be ready to drop to our knees again and again and learn from you how to be one nation under god, with liberty and justice for everyone. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1,

the journal stands approved. . the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. mr. lankford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, is recognized for one minute. mr. long: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, one of the privileges we have as members of congress is to have the leader of a church back home deliver the opening prayer for the united states house of representatives. today, i am proud to introduce america to a friend of mine, the reverend dr. cal lemon. he's an ordained elder, first and calvary prest by tearian

church who preaches at a historic house of worship. he assists organizations to become more productive through effective leadership. he's also a writer and regularly contributes to the society for human resources magazine, employment relations today and the opinion page of "usa today." like many members of the clergy, cal lemon is a voice of our community. hes has been a spiritual influence on me and my family. he has a heart for his country and for each and every one of us. i am honored to welcome him here to congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. mccotter: to address the

house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccotter wear red is today. i understand most men don't own a red suit unless, of course, you are a keyboardist in an 1980's hair bands. we all have shirts, ties, accessories and lapels to which we can show our support and go red for women. as husbands, fathers, friends, we can do no less for women we owe everything, for the women we love, for the women whose loss would empty our hearts. mr. speaker, i encourage every american, go red. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> thank you. to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, 100 years ago,

juliette, daisy gordon lowe organized the first girl scouts troop in savannah, georgia. mr. barrow: her movement has grown to include over 50 million american women over the past 100 years, including 3.2 active -- 3.2 million active members today. they have developed leadership skills and preparing girls to take their place in the world. i know what i am talking about because i have a twin sister and she was a girls scout. i am proud of the women who have been part of the girls scout movement and the positive influence this institution has had throughout the millions of girls throughout the world. i wish them every success the next 100 years. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: unemployment numbers are in. 8.3%. it's progress but it's 37 months above 8%.

makes me grateful again to be from oklahoma. we have the 10th lowest unemployment rate in the country at around 6%. forbes magazine listed my district one of the happiest place to work in the country. oklahoma is the number one to start a small business and number one in technology job growth. oklahoma city has created more than 80,000 new jobs. they include a thriving energy, aviation and biomedical center. oklahomans work for private businesses, nonprofits, churches and religious organizations to feed the hungry, offer job training and education. on this mission, we don't see washington as our enemy. just sometimes we don't see washington as our ally. what so many back home tell me what they want from their federal government is a plan to reduce our debt, simplify our tax code and get rid of the red tape off their business. then we will see our economy take off. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delauro: three years ago, this week the lilly ledbetter fair pay act was signed into law. named after a true hero who was shortchanged from her employer and fought back all the way to the supreme court. the ledbetter act ensures that women who are discriminated against have a right to sue as long as their unequal pay continues. this is a good first step but we have to do more to achieve real pay equity in america. today, women are still only paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men for the very same job. they lose out between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime. this is an injustice. it is time to pass the paycheck fairness act, already passed twice by this body. it would give real teeth to the equal pay act.

it's been almost 50 years since congress passed the equal pay act. it's time to ensure that one half of america's work force is paid as equally as the other half. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i am proud to go red today and to honor our girl scouts and we have a wonderful woman in our beautiful hudson valley who is a former computer programmer and current substitute teacher and she wrote to me, it broke my heart to hear that kodak filed for bankruptcy. ms. hochul: what is being done to keep the companies made in the u.s.a. pro-- ms. hayworth: this is what is being done to keep companies made in the u.s.a. productive. we're working to remove

burdensome and unnecessary regulations and we're working to take less so we can spend and save and invest right here in our communities and in our country and we've sent 30 bills to the senate, 27 of which still sit unanswered. so week in the house of representatives we are working further to shrink the federal government and to make our budget process have common sense the way you do in your own homes. i urge the senate to join us to work together, to revive our economy and to make america open for business again. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i rise today in complete disgust of republican conferees attempt to include an education requirement as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits. to require people who would otherwise be eligible for benefits to now either have a high school diploma or be

enrolled in a g.e.d. program is discriminatory. it is despicable. adding conditions to receiving compensation does nothing to create jobs or address causes of unemployment. it's a difficult time, mr. speaker, to be unemployed in america, but republicans seem determined to make it even more difficult by kicking the unemployed while they're down. with less than a month to craft a long-term tax measure, i urge republican conferees to stop obstructing the process by insisting on distracting proposals that are only meant to score political points. i am opposed to any education requirement to receive unemployment benefits. i implore my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the gulf oil spills has been terrible for the gulf coast but

as bad as it's been, the moratorium on deep-water drilling is worse. i offered a motion to immediately end president obama's moratorium on deep-water drilling. mr. cassidy: although the moratorium has officially ended, there is an overall slowdown in reduction that's caused nearly one half of the gulf coast oil and gas businesses to reduce wages or lay off workers. these aren't the major oil and gas companies. these are small businesses who cannot move overseas. 41% are not turning a profit. 70% had to draw from their savings accounts to meet operating expenses. the gulf oil spill's a tragedy but for workers the moratorium has made it worse. for the sake of job creation, affordable domestic energy and a stronger economy for all americans, i call on the president to reverse these policies and let the gulf coast get back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. engel: you know, the reports have just come out a few minutes ago and it's great news for america, 243,000 jobs were created in january, which is 150,000 more than were expected. the unemployment rate is down to 8.3% from 8.5% so the programs are working. i congratulate president obama and urge my republican colleagues to pass the jobs bill so we can continue to have a downslide on unemployment. now, i know mitt romney said he's not concerned about the very poor, but this is good news for all americans, from the very poor to the middle class. so this congress needs to work together with the president to pass a jobs bill and to make sure that unemployment keeps going down, but this is great news for all america, great news for president obama and great news for all of us. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, throughout his campaign for the white house, the president made an empty promise to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term. earlier this week the congressional budget office announced its projection that the president's failed policies sadly have more than doubled the annual debt. our debt has increased by almost $5 trillion over the last three years. this statistic shows that throughout the presidency of the current president, the president's recklessly spent the tax dollars of hardworking american families. the "wall street journal" stated, quote, to sum it all up the c.b.o.'s facts plainly show that mr. obama has the worst fiscal record of any president in modern times. no one else even comes close, end of quote. at a time when americans are searching for jobs, the president must follow through with this promise for the american people and work with both houses of congress to stop

washington's out-of-control borrowing and spending. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate and honor the centennial of our nation's girl scouts. for 100 years the girl scout experience has enriched the lives of millions of girls and their families through innovative and progressive program that embraces the rich diversity of communities across our country. a cornerstone of the girl scout movement, community service, allows girls to exercise their leadership skills at a variety of levels and at any age. each year thousands of service hours are provided to communities cleaning parks, organizing food and toy drives, planting trees, and clearing forest trails, tutoring young students in migrant camp summer

schools, collecting basic essentials and backpacks for children entering foster care, sending school supplies to third world schools, and helping deliver food to home bound citizens are just a few of the activities that girl scouts do every day to make the world, our world, a better place. that is something from which each of us can and should learn. i would like to personally honor the girl scouts of northeastern new york which serves 12,000 girls and their families in a 15-county region. i look forward to dozens of these coming to visit washington, d.c., in early june where they will skwloin others in song along the mall. to hosting the women of distinction award, thank you to our girl scouts and their leaders and a very happy and healthy centennial celebration. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> by direction of the rumes committee, i call up house resolution 533 and ask for its

immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 107, house resolution 533, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 658 to amend title 49 united states code to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity. to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate and two, one motion to

recommit if applicable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: during consideration of the resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. house resolution 33 -- 533 provides for a standard rule for consideration of the conference report from h.r. 658, the f.a.a. modernization reform act of 2012. according to the federal aviation administration, the f.a.a., the united states aviation industry currently accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and contributes $1.3

trillion to the nation's gross domestic product. regrettably since september 30, 2007, the f.a.a. has operated under a series of short-term stopgap extensions. in fact, there have been 23 extensions of the f.a.a. program since the last multiyear re-authorization was signed into law eight years ago. i'm relieved we have finally stopped playing politics and with the safety of our airline passengers and appear to be on the verge of passing a necessary, meaningful, and long-term f.a.a. re-authorization. the f.a.a. conference report provides responsible funding for f.a.a. safety programs, air traffic control funding for also the modernization efforts known as next again and operations through 2015. it holds spending to the fiscal year 2011 levels while providing $13.4 billion in projects that will create much needed construction jobs.

the conference reports contains no earmarks. it does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges during this difficult economic time. while the passage of the re-authorization, the employment of next gwen technologies to replace -- next gen technologies to replace our current outdated control system will begin. nextgen will begin an estimated net of $281 billion benefit to the overall u.s. economy through decreased flight delays, reduced fuel use, and job opportunities for new high-tech companies. the house-senate agreement will also improve aviation safety for passengers. reform antiquated programs that have become overly reliant on government subsidies and establish a process to address outdated and obsolete air traffic control facilities, thereby saving taxpayers dollars. because we are finally passing a

four-year authorization, the conference report will provide a long-term certainty for the aviation industry and all who rely upon it. this certainty will produce an environment which allows the creation of high-paying and sustainable jobs. instead of wondering whether or not the next extension will squeeze by just before the expiration. employees and job creators can budget, plan, and grow with confidence that government will not full the rug out from under them. while i am excited about finally embracing the benefits of certainty and -- uncertainty and stability when it comes to our aviation system, i can't help but state what many americans probably feel is obvious. this is how the system is supposed to work. far too often congress comes from crisis to crisis, many of which appear to this freshman member to be self-created. far too often because of the unwillingness of some to cooperate, we have forced -- we have been forced to wait until we are up against some kind of

deadline that if we don't act something else looms on the other side. this is no way to legislate, it's no way to govern. it certainly isn't the legislative process i learned in my seventh grade civics class. instead we should be striving to do our work as the founding fathers envisioned. they under stood, anticipated that the house of representatives-senate would not always walk in lockstep agreement on every issue. on the second day of the first congress and april 7, 1789, there was a conference committee appointed by the house and senate. and they worked out their differences. and since that time the house and senate have formulated positions, each 6 which may be somewhat different and yet conferees would be appointed to manage that chamber's position and to hash out differences and ultimately produce an agreement that both chambers could agree on. in my first year in washington, however, it seemed that's the exception much more than the rule. much more off what one side

takes a position and then on the other side they refuse to do the same and there is a lack of any kind of compromise or cooperation. i'm not interested in assigning any blame on who or why that's taken place, why the process is the way it is. i do believe, though, cooperation makes a willing partner and we can be that willing partner. today is a good day because we have so much more work, but we have so much more work to do. i hope that today's process as we see it, even though it's not the headline getting opportunities that you see, a process is important and to me as the more we can push down the power an spread out the base, let every member be a player, have a process that both house and senate can work on and work with each other on and cooperate, the better the policy. if the process is broken, sure enough the product's broken. if the process is good, as this process has been, then i

guarantee you the unintended consequences that usually appear in bills that are pushed through in the dark of night are gone away -- done away with and we have an opportunity to do that today. no one got everything they wanted, and yet this is a picture of how it ought to be. so, mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and underlying legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote yes on both of those measures. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: good morning, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from florida for yielding me the customary time, 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. mr. speaker, after 23 short-term extensions i'm glad that we have finally brought the long-term f.a.a. authorization bill to the floor. 23 extensions are about 22 too long. the legislation also contains unnecessary language that will inject politics in what should otherwise be a clean bill to

make the skies safer. today's bill would change the requirements for unionization that have existed for more than 75 years. this politically driven legislation is being done unilaterally without the thought of unions and workers whom it will impact. during the 20th century the rise of unions was quickly followed by the creation of the american middle class. the largest middle class on earth. and thanks to this, safety protections, fair play, and hue mainness were achieved for unionized labor. the american worker didn't just hear about the american dream, they lived it. meanwhile the american corporations, including airlines, were rewarded with the best workers that the world had to offer. over the years the change in the global economy and deliberate effort to weaken unions has made life harder and harder for the

middle class. in the aviation industry airlines began to outsource repairs. often using counterfeit parts and repairing airplanes in foreign countries, endangering our flying public. the union fought these changes and tried to keep american workers in charge of protecting the american flying public. over the objections of the unions the airlines continue to outsource, sometimes resulting in very dangerous accidents. today is more challenging than ever for a middle class family to pay the ridesing medical bills, to put food on the table, and to afford a college education for the next generation. for so many families the american dream has now become nothing more than a memory of times past. at a time when some of our nation's airlines are reporting record profits, workers are struggling to get by, i don't think we should be considering legislation that makes it harder for the middle class to survive.

in-state capitals and in the -- in state capitals and the halls of congress, the american worker has been under a sustained political attack, these attacks must not go undefended. for that reason i cannot support this bill. i ask for a no vote on the rule and the bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my colleague from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank my good friend, ms. slaughter, from new york, and i rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill. and i will continue to oppose all f.a.a. re-authorizations because i strongly oppose the f.a.a.'s new york-new jersey -philadelphia airspace redesign plan which includes rerouting at

least 100 additional flights over rockland county in my district which i represent. while this bill will likely pass, i will not stop insisting that the f.a.a. revise their ill-advised redesign plan for the airspace around new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania. i have spoken to and written letters to the f.a.a. and transportation secretary ray lahood asking for reconsideration of the redesign plan. i continue to be outraged at the decision to direct even more flights over my district. talk about government arrogance, talk about not even caring about the people they affect, talk about not even having any kind of hearings within the affected areas trying to sneak it through, talk about having the person who approves it overseeing the plan, the original one who drew it. so he has a stake in it. of course he's going to approve it. there are a number of alternatives to address flight delays without requiring that

people of rockland to bear the burden. . the noise and air pollution will increase. it's unknown how it will affect childhood asthma in my district. i believe it's clear the airspace redesign will result in the decline of quality of life for my constituents in suburban rockland county and what for? the expected result of the ill-advised plan is a reduction of delays, an average of only three minutes per flight. that's not good enough for the inconvenience it's going to cause my constituents. the modernization of our aviation system is necessary to bring it into the 21st century to keep pace with the increased number of flights and to also maintain our technological advancements by implementing new equipment to keep our system the safest in the world. while nextgen is important to upgrading our system, it should not be exempt from environmental studies, which

this bill makes it. finally, i want to echo the words of the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. i am also strongly opposed to the changes the bill makes to the national mediation board. while the middle class is suffering in this country, we should not be making it harder for workers to exercise their right to engage in collective bargaining. unions are essential to improving the middle class and strengthening the wages and benefits of all workers so i will continue to oppose the f.a.a. re-authorization until the f.a.a. halts and revises their deeply flawed airspace redesign plan and i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to let the house know and speaker know this conference report was signed by all the republicans and democrats. there are a few people against this but not many. it's a bipartisan effort. all the democrats in the senate signed the conference report. so i believe this is a great

bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire of my colleague -- oh, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the gentlelady from new york for her courtesies of extending time on a bill that we have been waiting for for a

very long time. i was speaking as i was coming to the floor and thinking about whether or not we could work together in a bipartisan manner. i represent a number of airports, generally, and specifically i represent bush intercontinental airport, which has a reputation for being one of the top airports around the nation. a couple months ago we stood together with our airport director and workers, community asking for an f.a.a. re-authorization bill. we are in need of repairs and we are in need of growth, and how exciting it is to know that this has been one of the best job growth months in our time, 243,000 times. we are on the right track, ms. slaughter, and this bill would have certainly been on the right track, but why in the

world do we put in this bill a poison pill that some say is a settlement that takes a configuration accounting that is absurd? for those who want to come together as the first amendment allows you to do, the right to assemble, in unions and employee organizations, which to date has not harmed our airport industry, for those who want to come together and absurd configuration of retirees and people who are not there are counted. the governor of indiana siped a right to work. we have -- signed a right to work. we have right to work states. we have recognized their existence. whether we like them or not they exist. why can't unions have a right in a fairway to organize? and if any member had -- in a

fair way to organize? and if any member had -- i thank the gentlelady for her kindness. if any member, any governor had to go to the polls and work to bring people to the polls to vote in election in a democratic process and in that election they had to count the people who are at home sleeping in their bed, some who did not desire to vote, that was their democratic choice although we want everyone to vote, most people would say that is absurd including my friends on the other side of the aisle. why did this have to be the scourge in this particular legislation? let me also say as the ranking member on the transportation, security committee and formerly the chairperson, we were dealing with private stpwhration in some small airports -- privatization in some small airports.

as the gentlelady will recall, we were privatized on that faithful date of 9/11. the idea is to have a level that is responsible across the nation, and we had language in this bill that said that we may look at our requests for -- or make decisions on other requests for using a privatization. no, they go and change the language. now, the secretary has to. and there is no credible evidence that suggests that the privatization of t.s.o.'s or transportation security administration is going to make our nation safer. why do we mix infrastructure work, getting our airports safer and credible and ready to expand with these kinds of poison pill, in the box, in the eye initiatives? so, mr. speaker, i came to the

floor to say i am shouting for the fact we have finally come together in what could be a way forward, but unfortunately we've decided to use the poison pin strategy, divide but not concur. we are going to fix this as we -- divide but not conquer. we are going to fix this as we move forward. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i have no other presenters so i'd like to inform my colleague i am ready to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. slaughter: i am ready to close. i want to say briefly in chosing, politically driven political decisions in this legislation would have otherwise make a clean and fundable bill for the f.a.a. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm glad that we're finally getting ready to provide certainty and stability to our aviation industry and those that depend on it for their lively heed and safe travel. the agreement reached between the house and senate conferees are far from perfect and i doubt everyone got what they wanted but it promises to improve air travel for passenger's comfort and safety while ensuring that a more modern air traffic control system. it keeps spending flat and is free of earmarks, tax increases or any increase in passenger facility charges. it provides funding for airports, infrastructure projects that will spur much-needed construction jobs for an industry that has been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn. this conference report represents a step in the right direction. while long overdue in this instance, the legislative process has finally worked and congress stands ready to work the people's will. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule

and its passage along with the underlying bill and its passage. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i call up the conference report, 658, the f.a.a. reform act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: to amend title 49, united states code, to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and stable , to provide funding for the national aviation system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to house resolution 533, the conference report is considered as read. the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. and good morning. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: i am pleased to rise in support of the conference report of the f.a.a. re-authorization. this is the f.a.a. modernization reform act of 2012. first, i want to take a moment to thank ranking member rahall, chairman petri, ranking member costello as well as chairman rockefeller, ranking member hutchinson and the conferees who worked on this conference report and the underlying bill so that we could reach an agreement on this conference

report and this bipartisan bill. also, want to thank with us this morning, mr. paul of the science and technology committee chair, his ranking member, mr. levin, ways and means committee for their assistance and our committees in congress who had important parts and provided assistance to our transportation and infrastructure committee to get this bill done. . i must thank also the staff. might look a little bedraggled this morning, our staff is probably even more so. almost all the members of the t.i. committee stayed through a markup that ended at 2:49 a.m. this morning. and they are here bright and chipper this morning. i appreciate all of the staff, and i want to particularly thank

holly lyons who is our staff director on the f.a.a. subcommittee. mr. jim coon, our staff director on the full committee, amy smith, who is our policy director, bailey edwards, and i have to give special thanks to our legal counsel who last night informed me she's resigning today. that was about 2:00 a.m. in the morning. but it was with good plans for her and her family and her future. she served the committee well. we'll miss her. it wasn't as a result of us staying up all night and working on this bill, but i'm sure that provided some incentive. people don't understand how our staff works. on this measure our staff worked over the holidays and i'm

talking about through christmas last year and new year's holiday, they worked on weekends and they worked late into the night. not unlike many americans. they did this for many americans who want to work and that's what this legislation is about. this legislation deals with entire american aviation industry. it sets all of the policy, all of the formulas, all of the major projects are outlined. this is the blueprint for the united states of america and actually for anyone between 8% and 11% of our entire economic activity. aviation we take for granted, but 2/3 of all the people who fly in the world fly in the united states and aviation has provided a magic carpet where today these members here will be here in an hour or two, mr.

speaker, and in a few hours or several flights later they'll be home across the continent to the far reaches of the united states and our territories. that's the magic it provides us. it's the engine that drives business and the economy for the united states. and this congress failed to provide a re-authorization. i have only been the chair of this committee for a year now. had the good fortune of being chairman of the subcommittee of aviation in 2001 and we wrote the last authorization, a four-year bill, in 2003 that expired in 2007. when the other side of the aisle had total control for four years they had control of the house and the senate, and for two years they had total control house, senate, white house.

they could not pass a bill, a blueprint, for the aviation industry. they passed 17 extensions and the former f.a.a. administrator said it's causing havoc. these extensions cost the taxpayer millions of dollars and you can't run an agency that's responsible for so much of our economy with these hiccup extensions. now, we have done a total of 23, probably more extensions than the history of any other legislation that's come before this congress for authorization of an activity within the government. 23. i had to do six. about four, i got a little testy , i got tough, but i said enough is enough.

i was tough and i think i did get people to come to their senses and say that this isn't a republican or democrat issue. this isn't a labor or business issue. this is an issue about putting people to work and defining federal policy for one of the most important aspects of our economy. so although it's tough and i intend to be tough -- last night we stayed until 3:00 in the morning. we'll stay as long as it takes to get these measures done that are so important to drive the economic engine of america. the transportation legislation last night, historic reforms, we took 90 amendments i believe from the other side in a very open process. and everyone had an opportunity to bar tiss pate, both this fay -- to participate, both this f.a.a. re-authorization and the

historic legislation that we passed at 2:49 a.m. this morning. so no one has been denied the opportunity to participate. and it's amazing when you come together what you can get done. and the american people want that. they are tired of the bickering and they are tired of the fighting. yes, we may have some heated discussions, yes, we may have differences of opinion, but we got the job done. and so today is a historic day on two counts, two major accomplishments to pass a transportation bill, working again with members, and i appreciate their work, and today, this historic conference report that finally sets a blueprint for aviation industry and an important aspect of our economy. this sets the policy for also taking us into the nextgen racial of air -- next

generation of air travel, it's called nextgen, next generation air traffic control so our planes can fly safer in the skies, so we have the ability to save fuel, so we can get from point to point and know where those aircraft are both in the air and on the ground. this legislation sets that blueprint. so i'm very pleased to be here. i'm pleased for the american people because the congress has done its work. they don't want excuses, they want results, and today is the day of results for one of the longest term extended authorizations in the history of the united states congress. so with those few remarks, and i'll have additional, i reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i had hoped the legislation today that would be laser focused on creating jobs, on creating jobs and making our aviation system safer, more efficient, and more accessible for our flying public. instead, much of the drama over the f.a.a. re-authorization for the last year, and there's been plenty of that drama, erupted over a provision of the house passed bill that would have changed how the national mediation board, that is the n.m.b., counts votes at elections at airlines and railroads. let me be clear, as i stated in

our -- -- in our one single only conference meeting on this issue that that provision had no place, these labor provisions before the national mediation board, have no place in f.a.a. re-authorization because it has nothing to do with improving safety or creating jobs. instead it was a salvo aimed by the majority in this house at our american workers. today we have a conference report with a so-called compromise. but that compromise still, still changes how airline and railroad workers join unions. now, some will say that this compromise is several degrees better than the original provision in the house bill. nevertheless i strongly oppose inclusion of this n.m.b.

provision in the pending legislation. on the other hand, i am pleased that the conference committee flat out rejected the proposal of the original house-passed bill to sunset the essential air service program. i was beginning to suspect that my republican colleagues were confusing the e.a.s. title of this bill with the e.s.a., which in my mind refers to the endangered species act. the gentleman and chair will know to which i refer. this conference report will not make e.s.a. an endangered species, fortunately. and the program will be continued with modest reforms to ensure that it remains a worthy investment. for communities in my home state of west virginia, these airports are a vital lifeline and engine of economic growth that will be preserved. and this is what i reference when i refer to creating jobs.

this legislation will improve safety and it will um prove efficiency. -- will improve efficiency. it will create some jobs though not enough in my view, while it does not slash f.a.a. funding to 2008 levels, it could have authorized more investment in our nation's aviation infrastructure. on the journey to 100% sustainable, efficient, accessible, and safe aviation system this bill is just a wayport. much more work is still ahead. but at least this legislation will set a course for the f.a.a. fay -- f.a.a. to follow and investing for the future and keeping the skies safe in the coming years. i do not want to see the f.a.a. continue to limp along in the no man's land of serial extensions to which the chairman has already referred, 23 or 24 to this day. and i certainly do not want to

see another shutdown of this agency as we saw last august with innocent individuals being laid off of work. but i will watch closely how the n.m.b. affects workers' bargaining rights and will be ready to act to correct any unfair imbalances if that becomes necessary. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. just one housekeeping chore. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany h.r. 658. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mica: i'd like to recognize the chair of the aviation subcommittee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. the speaker pro tempore: for? mr. mica: for four minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. petri: thank you very much, mr. chairman. as you and our other colleagues are happy to see this process coming to a conclusion. the successful conference report that we are debating today demonstrate our ability to take on important issues and still reach bicameral, bipartisan agreement on how to move our aviation industry forward, reform a critical government agency, and create jobs. this legislation will at long last provide stable funding and policy direction for the f.a.a. safety programs, airport development grants, nextgen efforts, and operations for budget years 2012 through 2015. legislation contains no earmarks and achieves savings for our taxpayers. this legislation includes many important aviation policy initiatives. i'm especially pleased with the reforms included in the legislation for the f.a.a.'s nextgen program. the conference report establishes timelines,

performance metrics, and accountability for the nextgen program. conference agreement also authorizes the pay-per-view to streamline environmental reviews that often stall out efforts to increase decrease the efficiency of our system. to be clear the benefits of the nextgen program are not only felt by aviation users. in may, 2011, a delot study showed a $281 billion net benefit to the u.s. economy if the nextgen program is implemented on time. so i'm pleased to move this legislation that will help the f.a.a.'s efforts to implement the important nextgen modernization program. . the safe integration of systems, the conference report unlocks the potential for private sector job creation here at home that has so far been stalled by government inaction. along with advancements in the nexgen program, this legislation enacts policies

that will foster sustained long-term job creation in our private sector, reaffirming the united states leadership role in aerospace innovation. the legislation makes over $14 billion available for airport projects over the life of the bill. as the spring construction season nears, it's important to have stable funding for projects. it gives airport managers the ability to plan and execute airport projects that will support thousands of construction jobs. this legislation also enacts protections to ensure airline passengers are treated properly and fairly in the event of travel delays. the bill makes reforms to the essential air service program, eliminating federal subsidies in the most egregious circumstances aso highlighted last year. it will make the f.a.a. work smarter, reduce its footprint and deliver more. the final product will have the job creation for america's

aviation infrastructure that this congress and the american people have been looking for. i strongly support this legislation, and before concluding would like to acknowledge the hard work by holly and our general counsel, bailey edwards, as well as giles and alex who have helped negotiate with the senate and bring this project to a successful conclusion. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, at this point i'm very honored and in a nostalgia way yield to the current ranking member, he's taken his expertise and hopefully not his friendship in going elsewhere after this year but he's been a very valid member of our committee and his

treasure chest of knowledge on this issue is so boundless. i am very happy we've had jerry costello to represent us on this issue for so many years. recognize him for as much time as he wants. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. costello: thank you and i thank the ranking member of the full committee, mr. rahall, and not only thank him for his kind words but his leadership on the committee on so many issues. as the chairman pointed out, we were in a markup until almost 3:00 a.m. this morning, and mr. rahall led us on our side of the aisle in working together to try and come up with a better product than was presented to us last night. so i thank him. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the conference report. i want to say from the outset that i am deeply disappointed in the change to the railway labor act that was added to the conference report during final negotiations on the national

mediation board provision. between speaker boehner and majority leader reid, the language that had been dropped altogether, as mr. rahall indicated in his statement, congress should not be amending the railway labor act in this bill. importantly, there are several provisions in the conference report that help organize labor. and after working on this legislation for over five years, i believe it's necessary to move forward and enact a multiyear re-authorization of the federal aviation administration. however, i want to be clear. i join the ranking member, mr. rahall, and many others that if the railway labor act proves to have significant impact, negative impact on the right to organize, we must come back and revisit this issue. one of my highest priorities in the f.a.a. re-authorization bill has been and is fair bargaining rights of employees at the f.a.a. after leading the fight for many years, i am pleased that

the conference report establishes a process for mediation and binding arbitration of impasses between the f.a.a. and its unionses. as chairman petri indicated, the f.a.a. modernization and reform act provides $63 billion for f.a.a. infrastructure programs, operations and research over the four-year period of the bill. i wanted to see higher funding levels and a passenger facility charge increase for job creating airport infrastructure projects. however, the funding levels in this conference report are an improvement over the 2008 levels originally proposed in the house-passed bill. they are roughly levels with current year appropriation. the conference report also includes a number of safety provisions such as a stronger requirement for maintenance work performed on u.s.

commercial airlines by outside contractors. it also requires the f.a.a. to assess the appropriate staff levels for air traffic controllers, f.a.a. managers and aviation safety inspectors. in addition, the conference report takes important steps to advance the nexgen ration air traffic control system -- next generation air traffic control system that is not only needed for the air traffic control system but for the population as a whole. it will provide accountability and stability and require reporting metrics to ensure that nexgen is making progress. further, we'd require the f.a.a. to work closely with affected unions and the planning, development and deployment of nexgen. i wrote this provision in the bill four years ago, and i'm glad to see it will be enacted into law in this conference report.

finally, mr. speaker, despite the flaws that we talked about in the bill, we desperately need a long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill, and that's why i'm supporting this bill. i thank the ranking member, mr. rahall, chairman mica, chairman petri and other committee members for all of their hard work on this legislation, and i thank the staff on both sides of the aisle that have worked very hard over the past five years to try and bring us to the point that we are today to get a bill on the president's desk. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield myself 15 seconds and then i'll yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, one of the conferees, the senior member of the transportation and infrastructure committee. i just want to spend that 15 seconds to say how much pat

mica and i have enjoyed jerry costello and his wife. we could be privileged to have someone like jerry costello, both to chair an aviation subcommittee, be a ranking member and key player. i yield back the balance of that 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to in support of the conference report for the f.a.a. modernization and reform act of 2012. this is a very good bipartisan, bicameral conference report and i want to congratulate chairman mica, ranking member rahall, chairman petri and a special congratulations and thanks to ranking member costello for your years of service here and it's been a pleasure serving with you and i wish you the best as you ride off into the sunset. mr. shuster: but i'm sure

you'll be doing great thing in the future. so, again, thanks for all your hard work in your years here in congress. again, i rise in support of the modernization and reform act. it does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges. it holds spending levels through 2015 at $63 billion over the four years and it does not add to the deficit, which i'm very pleased to see. it provides long-term stability for the f.a.a. and the aviation industry which is certainty in that transportation sector which has southerly been missing in the -- has soarly been missing in the economy. it accelerates and requires the deployment of nexgen, the air traffic control modernization program, which we need to be able to more efficiently manage the skies above us. it provides unprecedented reforms of the national mediation board.

i'm disappointed that we were unable to include the european union's prohibition language. we will continue to pursue that passage of that bill. i think it's something we really need to focus on here in congress before the taxes starting to be collect and do great damage, harm to our aviation, airline industry. this is a responsible and much-needed conference report. therefore, i urge all members to vote to pass the conference report for the f.a.a. modernization and reform act of 2012. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield at this point to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, three minutes. a member of the conference committee as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. while i was named conferee, i have been on the aviation committee for 26 years, there was no legislative conference. the most contentious provision of the bill was a deal that was

struck between harry reid, the majority leader of the senate, and speaker boehner, and it was a take it or leave it deal. now, this bill is absolutely critical to the safety and security of the aviation system of the united states of america. it's critical for its modernization. it's critical for its competitiveness. these things are extraordinarily important to our country. aviation constitutes in aggregate about 10% to 11% of our gross domestic product. it is not a sector that we can continue to ignore and underfund in terms of providing the tools it needs to be fuel efficient and safer for the traveling public and more efficient for business transport and goods. but those things should not be held hostage to the incredible

anti-labor here in the house. the bill that passed our committee would have established a rule for the formation of a union that said anybody who was eligible to vote who didn't vote counts as a no. well, i went to review the elections of every member of congress and guess what, if we had that rule, if every person who was potentially eligible voter would be counted as a no vote in your election, not one member of congress, even those who get 80%, would have been elected because you didn't get -- because you had more people who didn't vote than you got vote. not one member of congress. but that would be fair for the working people of america, according to the republicans here in the house. that was an incredibly egregious provision, outrageous. so then we moved to the senate. well, we go through this little thing last summer where we actually shut down the f.a.a.

now i know you don't care about 4,000 federal employees. that's fine. but you also put out of work 78,000 people who were working in the private sector on the modernization and updates of our aviation system at our airports. all over, you know, wanting and hating unions. you know, i don't get it. i don't get why you hate unions and working people. i really don't understand that. so here we come to the final product, and the final product will make it much easier for someone in the anti-labor airline out there, perhaps, to deunionize in say a merger or even in an election because their furloughed employees would count in an election. you don't know who they are, where they are. they get to vote. and you have to have an election to have an election, and you have to win the election to have an election. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: this is not a fair provision.

we need the changes in this bill, but we do not need to attack the working people of the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself 30 seconds and then three minutes to the -- three or four? three minutes to the chairman of the science, space and technology committee of the house, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. hall. i yield myself that time. well, let me just say that we did not change the provision of the law that it still requires the same provisions that the n.m.b. put in place that changed 70 years of labor law. anyone who shows up if there's 1,000 people in the union and 200 show up, 101 can have a vote and go into the union. we did change a requirement,

and actually i didn't negotiate it specifically. i yield myself another 30 seconds. it was negotiated by mr. boehner, our speaker, and the leadership controlled by the democrats in the senate. and in fact, it is fair to labor because it does require a certain number of people to sign up to have the election. i think it's a good compromise. the house voted to do away with the provision that the gentleman spoke about. republicans are concerned and want to help labor. . the vice chair of our subcommittee, mr. cravaack, is a union card carrying member of the union. that's bogus. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i rise of course in support of the conference report of h.r. 658. to begin with i think i

recognized our chairman gave accolades to all those he worked with and i think we owe accolades to him and his staff. the word transportation indicates travel and he's traveled all over this country to bring this bill together. i don't think he's turned anybody down that's asked him to come to help them with their area and give them due consideration. the committee on science, space, and technology working with our senate counterparts helped write title nine, re-authorizing federal aviation research and development. we also worked with our friends on the house sprorgs and infrastructure committee to draft -- transportation and infrastructure committee to draft various sections relating to the f.a.a.'s nextgen air transportation system. section relating to unmanned system in title 3 and provision addressing commercial space launch licenses and appreciate working with jerry costello along that line.

we'll miss him. the f.a.a. depends on our nation's economy and helps us sustain a high quality of life, enabling people to travel safely, reliably, conveniently, and relatively inexpensively to every corner of the nation and world. it's a 24/7 operation, staffed by high-trained and dedicated controllers and technicians who rely on the evolving technologies to ensure mission success. a robust research and development program is fundamental to f.a.a.'s role. the nextgen program which is expected to cost well over $20 billion when completed, will modernize our air traffic control system to acome date ever increasing numbers of flights, but doing so safely, efficiently, and less fuel burned. even though f.a.a. is highly automated, technologically driven agency, one of the peculiar ironies is its low level of investment in r&d for year 2012 f.a.a. requested and r&d budget of 386 million which amounts to slightly less than

2.5% of the agency's total budget. that's a small level of investment for an agency that relies heavily on automation and is only made possible because of aeronautics related r&d activities funded by the national space administration, which is carefully coordinated with the f.a.a. and industry. mr. speaker, i'm pleased mr. mica and his leadership were able to bring cloture on this matter, on this important bill. i urge all members to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield now to the gentlelady from texas who is not only a member of our transportation and infrastructure committee, but also our ranking democrat on the science and technology committee, ms. eddie bernice johnson, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. miss johnson: thank you very much. mr. speaker -- ms. johnson: thank you very much. mr. speaker, let me thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee on transportation and infrastructure, as well as the

science, space, and technology committee and simply say that at the end of this year i would have completed two decades on both of these committees. and you know on committees is where you develop most of your friendships. jerry costello and his wife, georgia, have been one of those true friendships that i have experienced. and i will be so -- i'll miss him greatly and i'll miss her greatly when he retires and i hope they'll visit often. my role as a conferee on this conference committee was that as ranking member of the science, space, and technology committee. and i'd like to highlight some of the provisions in this bill that fall within the jurisdiction of this committee. the nextgen modernization authorized in this bill will transform the national airspace system through satellite based

traffic management we'll be able to address increased congestion in our nation's skies while improving safety and reducing the environmental footprint of our air transport. transitions to a g.p.s.-based air traffic control system will allow airlines to reduce flight delays, save fuel, and cut the amount of harmful emissions from aircraft engines. there is no doubt that successful implementation of nextgen will boost our economy and enable the creation of more jobs. the bill also authorizes the secretary of transportation to establish a center for excellence to develop innovation . spurring the development of new and better energy technologies. through the conference committee, we were able to improve on the version initially passed by the house of representatives, but as with all legislation, there were many

compromises, there were several aspects of this legislation which i believe could further be improved as any piece of legislation. on that however, the conference report contains needed policy direction and authorizations that warrant member support. while the funding proposed for research and development is less than i believe we need to invest, the conference report represents an improvement over the funding levels in the house passed bill. i'm also disappointed that the commercial space transportation prevention included in this conference report was done so without the benefit of a serious review of the impact. i expect that chairman hall and i will be taking a serious look at these issues associated with commercial space transportation and this position during the remainder of the session of this congress. mr. rahall: i yield an additional minute.

ms. johnson: i am pleased that a number of policy provisions that were worked on have been included in this conference report. for example, the house mandates f.a.a. research on procedures and methods to improve competence in and timeliness of certification of new technologies for introduction into the national airspace system. so, mr. speaker, there is much work to be done to keep our staff safe, but it is certainly time for congress to act. this re-authorization is a culmination of years of work that has not been fair to the f.a.a. and its employees for trying to figure out whether they are going to exist or not. with 23 extensions. so with the guidance to pursue its long-term nishtiffer, we will take our aviation system into the -- initiative, we will take our aviation system into the 21st century and i urge my colleagues to support this

imperfect bill. let me say, mr. speaker, i have not yet experienced a perfect bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the young, dynamic leader and chair of the space and aeronautics subcommittee of the science, space, technology committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. i rise in support of the conference report to h.r. 658, re-authorizing the f.a.a. fay -- federal aviation administration through 2015. early last year the committee held an oversight hearing on f.a.a.'s research and development programs. on march 9, 2011, sighons committee chairman ralph hall introduced h.r. 970, the federal aviation research and development act of 2011. a month later it was reported out of the science, space, and technology committee.

the bill was ultimately incorporated into h.r. 658 now before us. the f.a.a.'s research, engineering, and development accounts funds a number of programs and projects that are essentially to the agency's ongoing safety, capacity, and air traffic modern .ization efforts. to give a few examples of its safety related activities, f.a.a. conducts reserve on the flamibility of materials used in airplane cabins and methods to improve fire suppression systems. research on mitigation of aircraft icing on early detection of failure modes related to aging aircraft and improving our understanding of human factors. in the environmental arena, examples include research on fuel additives to replace led and aviation gasoline that powers piston engine aircraft and better characterizing aviation's impact on local air quality. with regard to air traffic control, f.a.a. is investing a considerable portion of its r&d funding on the nextgen modernization program to increase the capacity of

airspace, improve safety, and provide for more efficient routings. most of f.a.a.'s r&d is managed out of the technical center located in atlantic city, new jersey, airport but as many members are aware, f.a.a. also engages a large number of leading research universities using competitively selected cooperative research grants. mr. speaker, this is a fiscally responsible r&d provision, funding f.a.a.'s research, engineering, and development account at its current spending level of $168 million a year for each year through 2015. this is well below amounts proposed by the senate during conference negotiations. i support this conference report and urge members to support it as well. and i thank mr. mica for all of his hard work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm very pleased to yield to our ranking democrat on the house education and labor committee and true friend and leader of the interest of all working men and women of this

country, especially our coal miners, the gentleman from california, if he's ready, mr. miller, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this conference report. this compromise stands as an example of why it is counterproductive to negotiate with hostage takers. initially the republicans insisted that to keep the f.a.a. up and running we make union elections as unfair as possible. for instance, they said that if a union election we should count anyone who did not vote in that election as a no vote. members of congress immediately recognized that none of us would win those elections and none of us would be here today. if it's unfair for us, it must be also unfair for the workers of this country. the republicans gave up that demand thanks to the democrats. the rule providing for fair elections is protected. but instead of succeeding in

making union elections unfair, this conference report makes these elections difficult if not impossible to hold at all. this report contains numerous statutory changes, not rules changes, but statutory changes that will make it harder for workers to get an election and to have a voice at work. a voice at work. a fundamental right granted to every worker in this nation by the laws of this nation. and these changes will require an act of congress to undo. the compromise leads to absurdities. under the election rule, the rule, which is safe for the time being, workers need a majority of actual votes to win a union election, and that's fine. but under the conference report to even hold an election workers must first get a majority of all of the eligible workers to sign cards supporting the unions. these are nationwide units stretched across the country. you don't have access to all of these workers. you don't even know where many of them are. and in the airlines many of them may have been furloughed for a

number of years. imagine if a congressional election was run this way. to get on the ballot you first need a majority of all of the voters in your district to sign cards saying they supported you, but you didn't know who those voters were and you didn't know where they lived. none of us would be elected -- i ask -- mr. rahall: i yield an additional minute. mr. miller: none of us wouldn't be elected under this requirement. there wouldn't be an election. once again we wouldn't run under these conditions. we wouldn't participate in election under these conditions. and yet we are sins that worker -- insisting american workers have their elections rigged in this fashion. at this point, especially when you see how it might work in airline mergers, there again this rule works against the workers in trying to assemble the election unit. mr. speaker, i cannot support this bill. it undermines the rights of american workers for no purpose other than to' -- to sea the

idea lomingic -- satisfy the ideological demands. i urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, member of the science, space, technology committee, senior member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of the conference report on h.r. 658. this legislation goes a long way to addressing some concerns i have had regarding our nation's aviation enterprise. two of those provisions i would highlight this morning. the first is an extension of a provision from legislation that i supported back in 2004 when i was chairman of the space subcommittee of the house science committee. let me note that these provisions accurately just

described as not having had hearings. there were lots of hearings on these provisions. the provisions relate to the f.a.a. office of commercial space transportation and is designed to make certain the f.a.a. does not limit the development of the commercial human space flight industry without specific data about what will increase safety. this extension will encourage continued research and development while building industrywide flight experience. so these companies can best serve new and existing markets. this includes expanding the research portfolio for federally funded science in the upper atmosphere and in space. . the second provision has a slight increase of the number of flights from ronald reagan international airport so that it can accommodate these

flights to and from the west coast. this small increase will help my constituents in southern california and all americans in the western states to meet their representatives in washington, d.c. or visit the smithsonian or perhaps enjoy the cherry blossoms in the spring. it will also enable those in the washington area to visit california, california's beaches, california's sunshine and perhaps maybe want to join the freedom surf team. this legislation takes us a step closer to removing the unnecessary and unfair restrictions on flights to the west coast. i thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from florida who is our ranking member on the railroad subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure, ms. corrine brown, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown: i want to thank chairman mica and ranking member rahall in their effort of bringing the f.a.a. bill to the floor. i want to thank mr. costello because without his leadership and working this bill for many, many years we would not have a bill on the floor and the public really owes you a great debt of gratitude. i want to thank you. you know, i think the aviation community deserves a long-term aviation bill so they can plan for the future needs of the traveling public. we have had 23 extensions already, and it's really time to send a bill to the president. but this is not a perfect bill, and i don't support the labor compromises in this bill and don't believe it should have been in the aviation bill in the first place, but our airports, airlines and passengers have waited too long for this important safety provision. my home state of florida relies

on air service to support our tourist base economy. we have 20 primary airports, 22 reliever airports and 57 general aviation airports with our top three airports generating close to 45 million a year. this creates jobs and helps grow the economy. i really say if we don't pass this -- that probably will not be any transportation of putting people to work because the piece that we passed 3:00 this morning out of the transportation committee is the worst bill i have seen in the 30 years i've been elected. i've been in transportation 10 years in the florida house and close to 20 here and it was truly the worst bill i ever seen. with people from california went into the bill and took almost $1 billion from the people from california. people from houston took it.

not only taking the safety of the public -- i mean, taking the transportation dollars, doing away with all of the regulations -- may i have an additional minute? it is truly a sad day for transportation and this will probably be our only work product because, you know, members come to the floor and they rail about the senate. well, let me tell you something. the senate don't have to take up our bad work, and in fact, this bill, this transportation bill should be dead on arrival when it gets to the senate. and i will do all i can to continue to work to put people to work and work for making sure that we have a transportation and infrastructure bill that will really put people to work because we know for every $1 billion we spend it generates 44,000 jobs. truly the worst bill i've ever seen. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield myself about 30 seconds, mr. chairman, and then i'm going to yield one minute to the chair of the aviation subcommittee, mr. petri. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to hear the cooperative tone of the other side of the aisle who had the opportunity when they controlled both the house, the senate and the white house to pass a bill and failed to do so. but i'm really encouraged today by their willingness to come together in a bipartisan effort on behalf of the american people and get one of the most important job creations, infrastructure bills and pieces of legislation which is our responsibility done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. petri: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd be remiss to see the discussion of this conference report conclude without expressing my admiration and

appreciation of the service of our colleague, jerry costello, for whom i suspect this may be the last f.a.a. re-authorization, although i know he will not be riding off into the sunset. he will be very much around in one capacity or another, continuing to play an important role in developing public policy. it's been a pleasure to work with him, both as the ranking republican and, again, as chairman, and i think he's always been open to comments and suggestions and it's been a team effort and especially the leadership he took in grabbing the bits and helping to establish focus at the f.a.a. for the nexgen effort which was floundering when he became chairman of the aviation committee. it's a major contribution, i think, to an important sector of our economy, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, yes, i yield three minutes at this time to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i, too, want to rise today to acknowledge both the chairman and the ranking member. i know this has not been an easy task, and i certainly want to express my appreciation to mr. costello and the work that he has done and the friendship he's shown to members but the understanding that he's had for this industry for those of us who represent airports.

i cannot deny that this is not an important bill and legislative initiative. so let me thank you and thank you as well for the late hours that all of you who are on the transportation committee engaged in. might i for a moment before i speak of this bill thank the ranking member and ms. brown, congresswoman brown, congresswoman johnson for saving houston, again, and its light rail. something i worked for almost 20 years, and the amendment last evening that would have defunded houston's rail, light rail was absurd and frankly an outrage. i hope as we proceed we'll find a way to recognize that members' projects for their constituents for regional mobility should not be tampered

with by those living miles away from their community. so i am just thankful for recognition of the importance of rail and job creation. as i indicated, i do rise in support of the infrastructure aspects of this bill. we cannot deny and i am grateful in the airport trust fund language dealing with how do you do the airport fees, the nexgen technology. but i serve as the ranking member on the transportation security committee and there's language in there about t.s.o. officers. remember, we were privatized on 9/11. despite having never been debated by the committee on homeland security, the committee of jurisdiction and no members being appointed conferees on behalf of the f.a.a. conference committee, section 830 of the conference report for the f.a.a. re-authorization has been tampered with. it limits t.s.a.'s flexibility to approve or deny an application from an airport to opt out of using federal

screening work force or passenger and baggage screening. let me remind you, the airports had privatized security on the day of 9/11. that's why we went to the transportation security office. it places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on t.s.a. to determine whether approval of an airport application would compromise security, affect cost efficiencyy. it increases administrative burdens on t.s.a. by acquiring tedious paperwork, exercised each time an application is denied, provides a waiver for the existing law that requires private screening and it says that we shall do it. besides the poisonous comments -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rahall: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman. provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted will be owned and controled by a citizen of the united states. meaning that it waives the fact

that you have to be a united states citizen to provide security for those who are traveling. and it requires -- it says you must privatize some of these airports. did we learn from 9/11? so besides the poison pill on labor, counting people who don't even show up to vote, now we have a situation where we are forcing our nation's airports to privatize their security. i ask my colleagues to reflect on this challenge. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time remains on both sides of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from west virginia has four minutes remaining. mr. mica: i have no further -- i'm sorry. i do have one speaker, and then i would like to reserve. i think i have the right to close on the measure, so if we can -- i would be pleased at this time to recognize one of the most distinguished chairs

of the transportation and infrastructure committee, a good friend, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to congratulate you and for those that condemn this bill, remember, we have not had a re-authorization of f.a.a. for many, many years. i think this has been well thought out. this bill will do the job and we should get it done for the american people. this is a process of compromise, and we have done this with the senate side, which is really the problem most of the debates we have as far as conferences go. it would be a sad day if we didn't pass this legislation because the work has gone into it and it does solve lots of problems. the f.a.a. can plan ahead, make our airports safer, make us flyer safer and have the navigation necessary. so i congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for getting this bill done. the negotiating part was very difficult. they did a good job. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, who has the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has the right to close. mr. rahall: ok, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. waxine waters, ranking member on our house financial committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. members, as the member of congress who represents los angeles international airport, also known as l.a.x., i know we need a multiyear f.a.a. re-authorization. l.a.x. is one of the six busiest airports. it creates an estimated 59,000 jobs in or near the airport and has a total annual economic impact estimated at $60 billion. in 2008, 60 million passengers and 1.8 million tons of freight passed through l.a.x. all of this economic activity depends upon the f.a.a. and the work that it does every day to guarantee us safe and efficient

air travel system. my district also includes the western pacific regional office of the f.a.a. where dedicated f.a.a. engineers and program managers work, plan improvement of the airport operations. i'm extremely disappointed that this bill contains language to labor laws affecting the dedicated workers at our nation's airlines and railroads. this labor provision increases the percentage of employees who must express interest in having an election regarding union representation from 35% to 50%. this provision was included without consultation of the workers who will be affected and without a vote on the house floor. it is unfortunate and divisive and there is no reason for it to be in this bill. last august the f.a.a. was forced to shut down many of its operations because the house of representatives refused to pass a simple bill to extend its funding re-authorization. as a result, 4,000 f.a.a. employees were placed on

furlough. those affected included many of the f.a.a.'s engineers, research analyst, computer specialists, program managers, environmental protection specialists and community planners. these government workers were being forced to live without pay for 13 days and weren't able to do their job developing our air traffic infrastructure and serving the flying public. i would like to support this bill, but this is problematic. and i yield back the balance of my time. . some the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from illinois. once again i cannot say how much we are going to miss his knowledge and his expertise on this and many other issues on our transportation and infrastructure committee. but i yield him the balance of our time on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. costello: mr. speaker, thank

you. again i thank the ranking member, mr. rahall. we have worked very closely together on this legislation and over the next nine or 10 months my service to complete my term we'll continue to work together. i want to thank chairman mica. we do not always agree on every issue, but we work together in an open process. he has extended many courtesies to me and i appreciate his friendship. and his leadership. no one wanted to bring this bill to the floor more than he. and a number of us as well. but he's done his very best. he said when he took over as chairman he was going to bring a f.a.a. bill and highway bill to the floor and i think he has every intention to do that and we are halfway there as of today. let me say, mr. petri, who as chairman of the aviation subcommittee for four years, i could not have had a better ranking member and now as

ranking member i could not have a better chair as far as a working relationship. we have done things in a bipartisan manner. so i thank the chairman and i thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member. let me conclude by saying that this is not a perfect bill. i have major concerns with the n.m.b., it should not be in this bill. and if there are problems as a result of the provisions put in this bill, it is my intent and intent of many on our side to come back and try and address that in an appropriate way. there are many provisions in this bill that will enhance safety. and there are a number of provisions in this bill that will protect workers and workers' rights over at the f.a.a. and the unions that represent employees of the federal aviation administration. i will be supporting the conference report.

and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. five minutes remains. mr. mica: thank you. first i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a list of the staff that worked on h.r. 658. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mica: mr. speaker, as i close today on this historic legislation, again i can't thank enough folks like mr. costello who will be leaving us, mr. rahall, our ranking member, the leader of the committee, mr. petri, and others who have been here helping and worked on this. i think mr. costello and mr. young summed it up. this is the work of many people. it is not exactly what any one

of us individually would offer. the important thing is this provides them certainty in an uncertain time. this process is very difficult. the founding fathers wanted it that way. but the american people want us to get the job done. now, just to be factual, the other side again had four years in which they controlled this body, the united states senate, and two years in which they had significant majorities and the presidency. they could not get it done. they did 17 extensions. that -- let me praise mr. denazzo. i didn't see him here. he and i helped to lead the effort to pass in 2003 a bill that expired in 2007. that means for the past five years we have not had -- we have

not had revised and updated policy for our aviation system and for the f.a.a. and that hurts the system. it hurts the american people. it hurts looking for safety improvements in the process. and it hurts people looking for expanded opportunities to be employed. today we heard some good news on employment. the good news is that some of the policies that went amuck, the spending that went amuck, the new regulations that went amuck, this small band of people who were sent here have called a lot of that to a halt. it wasn't productive. this bill does not have tax increases in it. this bill does not have earmarks in it.

this bill does not have any special plums or favors for anyone. contrary to what's been said here today, this bill does not adversely affect labor. it's a fairness issue. the house passed a measure that would have codified and changed what the n.m.b. changed in 70 years of labor law allowing whoever showed up to vote into a union. it set out a fair process and it was done with a compromise. if you want to know what the delay was the first four years, let's be frank. it was a labor issue that the democrats couldn't resolve among themselves. and they controlled the whole process. so i'm here one year later as chair. took some tough measures and i will take tough measures to see that we get our job done. we stayed until 2:49 this morning to get the next piece of

legislation. we have done in the past and present and an improvement to pipeline safety so important for energy, expanding energy sources but making certain that energy is coming to us in a safe and responsible manner. today we will pass in the house f.a.a., accounting for up to 11% of our gross domestic product, our economic activity for the country, $1.3 trillion of business activity. thousands of jobs. let me tell you, too, we can't let labor, you can't let this go astray. it's our responsibility to set a steady course. this is a very fragile industry. we just had announced american airlines is going to cut more than 10, i think 13,000 jobs in bankruptcy. boeing we almost lost jobs in

south carolina. we can't play those games, labor and business. we got to come together and get people working. aviation industry not only passengers, which is so important flying, but aviation products, they are the core to our exports. we can and we must get this done working together. i'm pleased to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 533, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the conference report. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the in the opinion of the chair of the chair the eyes have it. the -- the ayes have it. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 3578 will now resume.

the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 259. h.r. 3578, a bill to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. tierney: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. tierney of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3578 to the committee on the budget with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. in section 257-c of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 as added by

section 2 strike budgetary and insert except as provided in paragraph 3, budgetary, in paragraph 1 and after paragraph 2 add the following new paragraph. three, maintaining current funding levels and real inflation adjusted terms for programs and education programs for students. health and all discretionary spending that provide benefits for seniors. job, health, and all investigationary spending that provide benefits for veterans. and health research including n.i.h. and research to cure cancer. the discretionary portions of budget functions 500 education, training, employment, and social services. 550, health, 57 o 0, medicare. 600, income security. 650, social security. and 700, veterans benefits and services other than unobligated balances shall be adjusted for inflation as follows. a, inflater used in paragraph 2

to adjust budgetary resources relating to personnel shall be the percent by which the average of the bureau of labor statistics employment cost index wages and salaries, private industry workers, for that fiscal year defers from such index for the current year. b, the inflater used in paragraph 2 to adjust all other budgetary resources shall be the percent by which the average of the estimated gross domestic product chain type price index for that fiscal year defers from the average of such estimated index for the current year. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amount amendment of this bill. it will not kill the bill and won't send it back to committee. if adopted we'll vote on the passage of the bill as amended. mr. speaker, with families in my district and across the country sit around the kitchen table and try to balance their budgets, they know the costs don't stay the same every year.

they know the price of milk, gas, college, health care all go up. yet h.r. 3578 left unamended holds the budgetary baseline constant instead of allowing it to reflect increases in cost making simple inflation add adjustments look like spending. translated this means that the priorities we support to help sustain the middle class and those aspiring to it, the programs we pay our taxes to support, will be cut as inflation eagles into the accounts set in the budget. the republican majority argues that america's middle class must make even more sacrifices to address our debt. the majority's banter is our spendling cuts focused only on nondefense discretionary spending with no additional revenue and without closing any special interest tax loopholes is all they think should be done. never mind that it's largely their policies enforced under the last administration aided and abetted by the then federal reserve chairman that are

largely responsible for the debt situation. never mind that federal chairman alan greenspan has since testified that this was wrong. that his unconstrained free market winner take all theory had never worked in his 80-plus year life span. never mind in the 1970's we used to spend 5% of our national income on discretionary domestic spending like education, job training, health, research, veterans, and infrastructure and more recently we have already peared that back to 2.5%. with this bill the majority tries to balance the budget on the packs of workers, middle class families, and small businesses and society's most challenged. they refuse to consider a fair distribution of our tax obligations. they even refused to close special interest tax loopholes. the bill if not amended chooses to shield an extraordinarily well off from any fair share of taxes over sustaining pell grants. student assistance promising opportunity to families. they choose allowing hedge fund managers the benefit of a especially low tax rates over meals on wheels for seniors.

and they choose special tax credits for the mature, extremely profitable oil and gas companies over providing security of housing for homeless veterans returning from duty in iraq and afghanistan. the austerity only approach is not the smart spopes to our economy's needs. we need to deal with our economic situation in a smart way as attested by the majority of economists across the political divide. we need a gradual approach, balance between spending cuts and revenues fairly distributed. those need to be appropriately targeted an amount, share, and applied and not applied in the budget fashion on the floor today. choking off the middle class by cutting spending for education, health, jobs, and obligation to veterans is shortsighted. studies and reports of international and national economists tell us that a vibrant middle class is essential for the well-being of our economy. imperative for businesses so they have customers for their

goods and services. important to employers so they have the next generation of innovators, inventers, scientists, teachers, engineers, and general capable work force and important to families and individuals as they seek personal and economic security. we shouldn't need to argue the moral imperative of meeting our obligations from those suffering from debilitating health conditions and the families that support them or have the care of of of our seniors, especially those aged, alone, and poor, nor our military forces, especially the wounded and disable. left as is this is a step to undoing all the progress however slow so far made in moving from the near depression caused by the failed policies of twin to 2008. simply cugget spending on the middle class at the same time businesses and families have enforced to limit spending and just as municipalityities and states are trimming back, just adds to the downward spiral to fewer customers for our businesses, more layoffs, and on and on. make no mistakes, this bill if

not amended makes the dream of post high school certificates or degrees or acquired job skills more remote for many. the only one means research on debilitating diseases may be delayed an the cure of cancer a more distant goal and consigns our veterans more periods of homelessness and more difficulty getting a job. this would allow inflation to be factored into the baseline to avoid cuts in purchasing power. it lessens the obstacle to the america we envision. let's pass this amendment and start down a path that recalls what make this is country exceptional. the notion that everyone, no matter what social -- sose yo economic condition one is born

to, should meet their goals. to reflect that people will meet their burden. let's pass this act and -- amendment and i hope for those that count on us to be fair and just or make smart, targeted, balanced approaches, we could at least to that. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: this is another common sense reform i'm proud we've brought to the floor time and time again. folks say, why haven't you gotten this already. my friend from massachusetts has laid out the reason why. these are politics of division, not of unify. these -- unity. these are politics of fear not of home hope. i tell my friend, as he knows very well, this bill does not cut one penny from any of the

prior thinks mentioned. my friend knows it to be true, you know it to be true an i say it to the american people today what this bill does is to shine sunshine on what has been a budget process cloaked in darkness for far too long and both parties have been complicit in that, and both parties are going to unite today to change that history. mr. speaker, the folks back home want to see over 50 different duplicative job training programs plused up year and year without regard to their efficacy in no, they don't. do they want to see education programs that have failed our children time an time again plused up while those that have been successful be needy? no they don't don't. do they want to see the security programs plused up -- that have not provided security

plused up while those that could be a hand up out of poverty fail, no they do not this provides honesty in our budget process. if this motion to recommit pass; we'll return to the days where confusion, rather than clarity is a touchstone of this budget process. chairman ryan has given us an opportunity with this legislation to bring the american people into this debate to make the budgeting here in this body look like the budgeting around the dinner table back home. are expenses going up in this country? they are. are times tough in this country? yes, they are. when we spend $10 today and $12 tomorrow, the american people know we are spending more and not less. we can continue to put lipstick on this budget pig. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this motion to recommit and unite to throw open the doors of the institution and bring in budget

sunshine. once again, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas an nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 3578 if ordered, and adoption of the conference report to accompany h.r. 468. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 176.

the nays are 23 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

>> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are 177. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on adoption of the conference report on the bill h.r. 658 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title

of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 658, an act to amend title 49 united states code to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for the fiscal years 2011 through 2014 to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste and improve aviation safety and capacity. to provide stable funding for the national aviation system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the conference report. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 248, the nays are 169. the conference report is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 537, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1734, to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real property and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. i'm pleased to yield to my friend, mr. can'ter, the -- mr. cantor, the majority leader. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip for yielding. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i want to hear the majority leader if we could have the house in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on thursday. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules which will be announced by the close of business today. building upon our legislative agenda this week, the house will consider two more bills next week aimed at reforming the federal budget process, including h.r. 3521, the expedited legislative line item veto and revisions act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by budget committee chairman paul ryan, and co-sponsored by

ranking member chris van hollen. as well as, mr. speaker, h.r. 3581, the budget and accounting transparency act sponsored by congressman scott garrett. in addition, the house will act on legislation passed in the senate yesterday commonly referred to as the stock act. finally, the house may consider h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act sponsored by congressman jeff denham. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. would ask him on the timing, the conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the so-called doc fix to ensure the fact that doctors are compensated and will be available for medicare patients. conference committee, mr. leader, has met twice since december 23. we adopted a motion to instruct

overwhelmingly through the house to make sure that they reported back by february 17. i think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not do it by the 17th, then we are off for a week and we will be back, 27, 28, 29, come back the night of the 27th will be jammed at the end on wednesday the 29th. we on have six full days left before the february break. that does not include our 6:30 start times. house democrats, mr. leader, stand ready to, frankly, i think work through the weekend if that was necessary, but i'm very concerned that something that we all want to get done, and i have made the suggestion to my democratic conferees, and they

were equally amused as you are, i understand that. but i will tell you, that i have great concern that we are going to get to the 27th, 28th, and 29th and be in the same kind of confrontation and debacle we found ourselves in in december. that's not good for your party. my opinion it's not good for our party. it's not good for the house and senate, but it is certainly not good for the 160 million people who are going to be concerned about whether or not their tax cut will continue or medicare people who are going to be concerned about whether their doc's going to be available or the unemployed who are going to be concerned. now, of course, the unemployed we had some very good news. i'm sure you didn't mention it in your opening comments, but i'm sure you were as excited as i was about the 257,000 new private sector jobs that were created last month. showed real progress. but i will tell you that i'm

very concerned about the timing and would be delighted to hear the gentleman's thoughts on the success and progress of the conference committee. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, what i would say is the republicans on the house side led by chairman camp have been and are ready to make sure we resolve the issue of the payroll tax holiday extension right now. the issue has been the reluctance on the gentleman's side of the aisle on the unfunded capital. if i thought that working seven days a week through weekends and all hours of the day and night would make a difference, i would be all for that as well. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, this house continues to act. this house passed a year-long extension that also did not have the effect of raiding the social security trust fund. something the gentleman and i both want to make sure happens.

that we restore the integrity of that fund for the people who are counting on it. but, mr. speaker, i would say the house also this week acted on several measures that frankly are very relevant to the work of the conference committee yet no action by the senate. one of those things as the gentleman knows was passed out of the house this week. it was a measure calling for a pay freeze. at the federal level for federal employees, including members of the house and senate. and this was a vote, a bipartisan vote, 309 members voted for that. and it allowed for about $26 billion in savings that could be easily included in the conference committee deliberation. something that our side continues to want to include, but yet no answer from the senate majority leader and his conferees. so again i would tell the gentleman, please, we are as

anxious as you are to try and resolve these issues. we had another vote today on this week, mr. speaker, which garnered 400 votes in the house, a bipartisan bill, which called for some necessary reforms to the tanf program. these were reforms which preclude the use of the moneys that beneficiaries receive for purchases of services at casinos and other types of establishments that perhaps those moneys could be better spent not in those places, but again no response from the senate. and i would ask the gentleman if he could please direct his urgency towards the majority leader in the senate to see if we can get this off the dime and resolve the issue of the payroll tax so that we can, as the gentleman suggests, send a very certain signal to the people who are struggling out there working day in and day out that their

taxes will not go up. and as for the gentleman's suggestion about the job numbers, i don't know if you saw my public statement this morning, but i said that was welcomed news. that when you have job creation like that, welcomed news. but i also think we can do a lot better. i was pleased to see that the president came out this week and said he now, too, wants to be a champion of small business. and we say we are happy to work with this white house so that we can provide the help to small businesses. we will be bringing to the floor before tax day a small business tax cut bill that goes right at the issue of helping small businesspeople -- small business people, allowing them more incentive to invest their capital so they can create jobs and we can see this economy really take off. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we have long been a supporter of small business. we believe small business is the

engine of our economy. we believe we need to grow entrepreneurs. we need to expand, frankly, small business and the middle class. it was interesting what the gentleman referred to in response to my question. yes, we understand that cutting the pay of average working americans who happen to be federal employees, but they are average working mens is the way you want to pay for what we do. we of course want to pay for it with some of the wealthiest people in our country just contributing a little bit more, just a little bit more, as opposed to average working people who are struggling by, and by the way the sponsor of that piece of legislation to which you referred indicated he was having a tough time getting by supporting his family on the salary that he makes here in congress. now, frankly we offered, as you know, to have a vote on freezing members of congress salary straight up. not hidden in another bill, but

straight up. which i would have supported. and my side would have supported overwhelmingly. i presume your side would have supported overwhelmingly. we of course didn't get that opportunity because frankly our priorities do in fact differ. average working people as opposed to the best off in america. that was -- that's the choice in this conference committee, apparently, because you want to pay for it with the average working people taking a hit. and we want to pay for it by just asking just a little more from the wealthiest in america to help us through this tough patch that we are in. things are getting better. the gentleman -- i haven't seen his release but i will certainly look at his release, he says we ought to do better. i will tell the gentleman we are doing a lot better. the gentleman knows during the last five months of the bush administration we lost 3,192,000

jobs. the gentleman smiles because that's history. it is history and we learn from it. we were following the economic policies the the gentleman still continues to press upon the american people. we lost 3,19 ,000 jobs in five months. in the last five months, however, we have gained now over a million jobs. that's progress. and in fact over the last 22 months we have gained over three million jobs. so that we are making significant progress. not enough. we dug a very, very deep hole and we are trying to get out of it. but the fact of the matter is losing three million jobs in five months and gaining a million jobs in five months is about a four million job difference. so i tell my friend both in terms of who ought to pay for the investments that we have

agreed we need to make, we don't want to raise taxes on these folks as the economy is still coming backment obviously still showing great progress, but we don't want to pay for it with average working people having to pay the price. and i will tell my friend i was disappointed that we dew point have a separate vote so -- that we were disappointed we haven't a separate vote so members of congress could vote straight up on their being frozen. i will tell my friend i will work with him perhaps towards that end. . now, having said that, is the gentleman expecting, i'm sure he's been in conversations with mr. camp, is the gentleman expecting a relatively early report back from the conference committee, hopefully prior to the 18th of february that we might be voting on this? mr. cantor: let me respond, mr. speaker, do you yield?

mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, first of all, i do hope that we can act in an expeditious manner to accomplish the same goal he stated, that i agree with. he we need to let the people of this country out there working so hard to know they're not going to have their taxes go up on them and we should allow for certainty for a full year. the position the house has taken from the very beginning. i would say to the gentleman, about his assertions of our policies and those under the last president and perhaps their effect on job creation or job loss, the issue is, right now, and my question to the gentleman is, as far as that's concerned, doesn't he agree that we could be doing better? and that's my point, mr. speaker. we can do better. we can do better by focusing on the private sector, small business men and women, so that

we can empower them to invest and create jobs again. we can do better. that's what we intend to do, straight up, through policies that affect reduction of red tape in this town, to make it easier for small business men and women to operate, as i indicated before, a bill to be brought forward to provide for 20% tax cut for small businesses. i hope if the gentleman says he's for small businesses he'll join nuss a bipartisan way to support a bill that provides far 20% tax cut for small businesses. i ask the gentleman as well, he continues to advocate higher taxes for people. higher taxes. that's what we hear. higher taxes on people who make a lot of money. well, the fact is, the result of that is putting more money into this town, putting more money into the hands of washington so that washington can decide where people's money is spent. now we all know we've got a spending problem, and we all

know that raising taxes does not.gov -- dig us out of the hole. i ask the gentleman, does he think that's going to fix the problem? it's not as if we're saying we don't want to help the people out there struggling, that's what we're trying to do. i'm looking forward to working with him in a bipartisan way and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we look forward to work -- working in a bipartisan way. we have found difficulty doing it, because we have trouble having a meeting of the minds. i will tell my friend, what i advocate over and over and over again is paying for what we buy. that's what i advocate. and if -- and if you don't want it, don't buy it. you controled this town for eight years from an economic standpoint. we were in -- were in charge for two years but we couldn't pass anything over george

bush's veto. we went from surplus to deficit, from a debt of $5.6 -- -- from a debt of 5.6 to a debt of 11. have we added to the debt? yes. why? because we went into the deepest depression, starting in 2007, that this country has been in in your lifetime and my lifetime -- and i'm a lot older than you. that's why i advocate paying for what we buy and have the colonel to make decisions on doing exactly that. frankly, on your side of the aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do you go to? you go to members and go to people who have some resources they can contribute to an effort you think is very important. i think america's efforts are very important. i think those of us who have done better ought to pay a little more than those who are struggling as the gentleman refers to. yes, that's the difference. i believe it's the difference. i will continue to advocate paying for what we buy.

that's why i was for pay-go which george bush abandoned and which essentially is not being followed today as i think all of us should do. so i will tell my friend that i think we ought to do better. i agree with him. and we did do better. we did do better under policies that i supported. 22 million jobs in the 1990's. we last jobs in the 2000's. we went backwards. the stock market went up 216% in the 1990's. under george bush, it went down 26%. yes, i think we can do better. and we ought to do better. and we ought to do better by investing. now i talked about investing. let me talk a little bit about the bill that the speaker has talked about, you've talked about, infrastructure and jobs. the transportation infrastructure committee marked

up a controversial highway bill. the gentleman says we want to work together, he and i tried to do that. we don't always succeed but we try to do it. they marked up yesterday 17 hours. finished around 3:00 a.m. at the start of that debate, i don't know whether the gentleman knows this, mr. rahall, the ranking member, asked all the members of the transportation committee, when the bill was put on torque raise their hand if they read the bill. do you know how many people raised their hand? that's a rhetorical question, because the gentleman probably hasn't inquired of this, none. 800-page bill. not a person raised their hand. that they had read the bill. there was a lot of discussion about reading the bill. reading the bill. now if they had read this bill, there was, of course, as you know a bipartisan no vote, one of the senior members voted against it, this is in stark contrast to the unanimous vote that occurred in the united states senate. on the bill.

the committee on natural resources also completed a controversial markup on opening anwr to drilling. as i understand, you're going to put that in the infrastructure bill. with the clear knowledge that that is a very controversial item that will not pass the united states senate. you may have the votes here, that is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last december. if you're going to work in a -- on a bipartisan basis, we ought to understand that we're going to have to try to not push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable -- unacceptable and won't pass and don't have the votes. the reason george bush sign sod many bills we passed in the congress in 2009 and 2010 is because we worked with the administration and worked with the senate. the senate and the house controlled by democrats, president bush in office, he signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. why? because we worked with him. we would urge you to do the

same. is the gentleman planning to bring up the infrastructure bill to the floor soon and can he tell the members it will be considered urn an open process? furthermore is the majority leader expecting there to be bipartisan cooperation on the infrastructure package so we don't have to go up against another deadline? as the gentleman knows, march 31, the highway bill authorization ends. we temporarily conclude it. let me end with this before you answer the question, because ray lahood was a leader in this congress. ray lahood was a leader on your side of the aisle. ray lahood served together for a long time. i don't know if you've seen his quote, i think it bears consideration of your side of the aisle from a republican, from middle america, peoria, who, your leader, your minority leader, bob michael, had as his chief of staff. here's what he said about the infrastructure bill that was marked up.

this is the most partisan transportation bill that i have ever seen. and it is also the most anti-safety bill i have ever seen. this is a direct quote from ray lahood, republican, former member of this house for many years and former chief of staff to the minority leader bob michael. it hollows out our number one priority, which is safety. and ray lahood went on to say this. frankly it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts we have been about for the last three years. it's the worst transportation bill i've ever seen during my 35 years of public service. ray lahood, politico, february 3, just a few days ago, actually, that's today. he said it today. in realtime. this is real, breaking news from the majority leader. the worst transportation bill

he has seen in 35 years. that does not, i tell my friend, bode well for bipartisan cooperation on a piece of legislation. that nobody in the committee had read. so i ask my friend, do we expect to bring that bill up under those conditions in the near term? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of the 13th. i think there will be adequate time for members to review the bill and the text to the gentleman's concern about mr. rahall's inquiry last night in committee. that's why we're allowing for the time so members can review such a big bill. a bill that means so many jobs to so many americans. i hope the gentleman will work with us. this american infrastructure,

energy, and jobs act is this just -- is just that. it is a jobs bill. it can provide certainty to contractors torque our community, so we can start to grow again and see jobs proliferate. but i find it ironic that the gentleman complained about paying for it. because he talks about the ways of our wanting to open up our resources. our resources offshore. our resources in anwr. as number one, an attempt to allow america to develop, finally, a national energy policy, but to also promote jobs. the gentleman knows, as i do, the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty of parts of this country and can do a lot more, and is willing. private capital. willing to deploy to create jobs. but i find it also ironic, mr. speaker, that the gentleman complains that there's no bipartisanship. because somehow we're not working with the

administration. the administration's been absent on all of this. they're not interested in working with us. -- with us to create a product where we can see jobs created. as you can see, the secretary sits in his office and opines and attacks the bill. saying it is all the negative things he said. now that's not a way to collaborate and work together. and the gentleman knows that as well. the gentleman knows that that is certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to produce a result. so the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together an the administration, oh, the poor administration is being trampled by some action here, he knows good and well, mr. speaker, that this administration has been absent in so many of the discussions on so many important issues and the fact that we differ on policy, yeah. but i think the gentleman also knows that reasonable people

can disagree. but we -- that doesn't mean we can't work together to find some things that we agree on. and certainly we agree on jobs. the gentleman says we agree on small business. i'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit bill. and we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part of our economy. i'm looking forward to the next week or so as the bill works its way to the floor to hopefully garner his support. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. wonderful, wonderful logic. a republican leader in this house is appointed to include bipartisan, as we have been on transportation and infrastructure, as secretary of transportation, who was a leader in this house and the chief of staff of the minority leader of this house, says that the bill you have drafted, that your members didn't read before

they passed out of committee, the public i'm sure is glad they're going to read it before we pass it, i've heard a lot of talk about reading the bills, nobody read it before they passed it out of committee. and a republican secretary of transportation, former chief of staff of the minority leader, says, my friend, it's the most partisan bill he has ever seen in 35 years. and then you say, well, i know we passed the most partisan bill in 35 years but gee, the administration won't work with us. you don't accept that premise, i understand that. but it's ironic that you say the administration won't work with you. you and i both know ray lahood happens to be one of the more bipartisan people you and i have served. i have worked frequently with congressman he lahood when he worked -- represented peoria in the house of representatives. we worked together on a lot of somebodies. why? he wanted to get things done. he wasn't simply interested in

making political points. now you bring up anwr in terms of pay-for. i'm for paying for this. you didn't hear me say anything about offshore drilling. i did about anwr because you and i both know, in a bipartisan way, many of your members have voted against opening up anwr and we have, as the gentleman knows, millions of acres, millions of achers currently available for drilling in alaska right now, as we speak. so that we want to have a bipartisan -- but putting an 800-page bill on the table, no chance to read it, passing it in a 17-hour marathon session and then having clearly no -- having not worked at all with ray lahood and if you're telling me ray lahood won't work with republicans, i do not accept that premise. i think that's an absolute -- i think that's a disservice toray lahood. if that's what you're saying.

he is the secretary of transportation and i'm -- there is no doubt in my mind, none, zero, that if mr. micah wants to work with ray lahood on a bipartisan bill, ray lahood will be here as many hours, days and weeks that mr. micah needs him here and i think you would hopefully agree with that proposition. ray lahood is a republican but he is a bipartisan american who wants to get things done for our country and create those jobs of which you speak, which all of us want to do. we have a jobs bill, by the way, that you have not brought to the floor. what's one of the aspects of that jobs bill? infrastructure. investing in infrastructure. that bill has languished for five months now not brought to the floor by the majority leader who has the authority to bring it to the floor and i of course have been urging him to do so. i'll yield. mr. cantor: absolutely, mr. speaker. i join the gentleman in

thinking secretary lahood is a fine gentleman but i have to say is actions speak louder than words. what i have to say about the request of the president's jobs bill and whether we are bringing the whole bill up for a vote, i ask the gentleman, how many on his side of the aisle actually sponsored that bill. and i think there is certainly many elements of that bill that we can all agree on. and in fact, we have voted on four separate elements, big elements of the president's small business agenda that he announced this week that was part of that bill. crowd funning, mini offerings to help small business access financing. a bill to provide for 100% depreciation, the provisions that will allow for more ability for small businesses to see money to go to the bottom line so they can grow, and a bill that we passed out of this house to eliminate country caps for immigration, for the highly skilled workers.

all these are part of the president's proposals. all these the house has passed and they sit and they sit on the other side of the capitol. so i would say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that this -- that more stimulus spending as a part of that president's -- the president's proposal is something we don't accept but there is plenty in there that we can agree on. back to the notion of bipartisanship, let's set aside differences and find what we can agree. these are areas we can agree on, and so i would say to the gentleman, please, work with us. please ask the leader on the other side of the capitol, bring these bills up. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows a number of those proposals had bipartisan support in this house. i think had bipartisan support over in the senate. they need to be paid for and that's where the contention

comes, as the gentleman knows. let me ask you on another subject, if i might, the stock act. the -- and -- well, before i do that, i appreciate the gentleman's observation with respect to those bills that the president has suggested we do, that we have done. mr. cantor: if the gentleman could just yield for a correction. there is no need for pay-fors on these bills. these bills are something that were cleared out of the house in a revenue-neutral way. mr. hoyer: the individual bills, right. mr. cantor: again, the gentleman is correct in saying there's bipartisan support for these bills. the president supports them. where the problem is across the hallway here and we could actually get the majority leader there to help move these bills we can make some progress. mr. hoyer: we could make some progress if frankly the majority leader could get 60 votes to enact legislation and transact business on the floor of the senate.

unfortunately, as the gentleman very well knows, the majority leader, harry reid, has had great difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of the united states senate. i think that's unfortunate. but let me move on because the gentleman went from infrastructure bill, which secretary lahood, that was the most partisan bill he's seen in 35 years, shifting to jobs which we agree. the fact of the matter is i want to talk about another piece of legislation that the senate has worked on. we have a bill here, we asked that it be taken from the floor -- from the desk, put on the floor and that's the stock act. the gentleman has expressed support for the stock act. i'm hopeful we could pass a house bill and then go to conference with the senate on a bill in the near future. can the gentleman comment on that? mr. cantor: if the gentleman yields.

it has always been my intention to act on this very important issue and to get the president a bill that he can sign as quickly as possible. again, the underlying notion is, as the gentleman believes, we need to make sure that the people that send us here know that we are acting and abiding by the trust that they place in us. that's what the stock act is about. and so what we're going to do next week, mr. speaker, as i indicated earlier, is we are going to act with dispatch. we are going to take up the senate bill. we are currently reviewing the actions the senate took on that bill and we intend to strengthen that bill. again, to do so in a way that can get a bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people here that they can trust this institution and the members and there is no preanticipation whatsoever that anyone here -- preanticipation whatsoever that anyone here

misuses information for their own personal use. i yield. mr. hoyer: tim walz of minnesota has had a bill, as the gentleman probably knows, the stock act, also louise slaughter, ranking member on the rules committee, has worked on for literally a decade or more. so we have legislation which is available to take frankly from the desk, pass that and go immediately to conference with the senate. the gentleman indicates he wants to change the senate bill. i think that that may be appropriate, but if he does we are going to have to go to conference in any event so my thought is take tim walz's bill and we go to conference on that bill. it seems to be the most expeditious way in a way the gentleman wants to accomplish in a very quick fashion. i think tim walz of minnesota

would be happy to hear that and available to work towards that end along with louise slaughter. i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, i know the gentleman likes to talk about past congresses. when he was house majority leader he did not bring the stock act to the floor and it was a submitted bill. so let's set the record straight. this majority leader is going to bring the bill, a stock act bill to the floor next week. and i would also say, mr. speaker, that mr. walz's bill actually would weaken the senate bill. and it is our intention to pass and get to the president a workable, strong bill that makes sure we're delivering on the promise that we made to the people that sent us here. i know the gentleman wants to join me in the effort to reinstill the confidence in the public that we are abiding by that trust. i yield back.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think certainly that all of us hopefully agree with what the leader has just said. we clearly want to make sure the american public has confidence and trust in the actions we take and are not driven by personal interests but by public interest, by a concern of the welfare of the people we represent in our country. and with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. more legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, iran is rapidly building a nuclear

weapon. recent reports reveal that israel may be preparing to attack iran. some critics, including the united states, say that israel should not attack because it would derail the sanctions process. but sanctions are not fully accomplishing their objective. russia, china, india and even japan are all continuing to buy iranian oil. for israel, a nuclear armed iran threatens its very existence. ahmadinejad, the little fellow from the desert, says he wants to wipe israel off the map. experts agree that iran soon will have the power to do that. israel has the right to defend itself, the right to be left alone and the right to prevent its annihilation. iran cannot get nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, the greatest hope for the world is a regime change from within by the people of iran. the united states should verbally support the good people of iran and changing their dictator, but the world should be prepared for nuclear mischief by that tyrant and that's just the way it is.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. on wednesday, first of february begins black history month and on that day i sprow deuced a proposal for a congressional goad medal to all civil rights leaders. black history month celebrates the history of african-americans in our nation. and a gold medal for civil rights workers is so appropriate because the people who fought for civil rights had

to fight their own government to get the rights that were embedded in the constitution for others and that specifically said that they were 3/5 and that slavery should exist in this country. and jim crow laws that were passed and approved by this congress and by the state legislatures continued that for another 100 years. so people like john lewis and robert filner who serve in this house, the people that engaged in the sit-ins and the marches that challenged our system and showed it to be wrong and forced it to change itself, not just dr. king but julian bonds and the farmers and the bell fonties, they de-- belafontes, they deserve recognition because they took a wrong in america and they righted it and they continue to serve and make this greater for all people based on the principles of the united states constitution and the declaration of independence that don't really fulfill their destiny without the efforts of the civil rights workers who

have made the work of jefferson and our founding fathers true. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, thank you. i rise this morning to talk about a jobs bill that just passed out of the rules committee and will be on the house floor next week. h.r. 1734 is a bill that will address all of our civilian properties across the nation, things that we don't need, identifying properties that can be redeveloped, but let me give you one example of something that's happening right here in the district of columbia. the old post office, which will be redeveloped, keeping in its historic fashion, will create 350 jobs just in the construction phase of redevelopment and another 150 ongoing jobs. mr. denham: if you want to be able to get the republicans and democrats to come together on a jobs bill, here's a fantastic opportunity, one that will bring in billions of dollars of new revenue from the sale of properties, will cut waste and

get rid a lot of the expense that we have in ongoing properties every year and ultimately get americans back to work. truly a bipartisan proposal, something i'm looking forward to seeing on the floor next week and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of be a requested for ms. hahn of california for today, mr. heinrich of new mexico for today and mr. turner of ohio for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergency act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its

declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared an executive order 13396 of february 7, 2006, with respect to the situation in or in relation to the ivory coast is to continue in effect beyond february 7, 2012. the situation in or in relation to the area, which has been addressed by the united nations security council in 2004 and subsequent resolutions has resulted in the massacre of large you were ins of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest

and fatal attacks against international peacekeeping forces. though considerable progress has been made, the situation continues to pose an unusual threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency and related measures under executive order 13396 of february 7, 2006. blocking property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in the area, signed, barack obama, the white house, february 3, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr.

speaker. this has been a good day legislatively in the united states house of representatives. and there's a lot of good things to be said about what's happened today. yesterday, there was a wonderful event, the -- it's called the president's prayer breakfast here in washington. and the president was gracious enough and i'm not being sarcastic, he was gracious enough once again to extend his presence with the first lady, who was also extremely grarkse and represents us well as the nation's first lady. it was a marvelous breakfast. held north of the capitol. there was so many moving, touching things that were said and done from having an 11-year-old girl who sings like an angel bless us and also

having an amazing speaker, the author of a book on "amazing grace: the william wilber force story" as well as bonhoeffer from germany, he was funny, he was inspirational, he was touching. one of the things that's been such a blessing over the seven years i have been in congress has been on thursday mornings, 8:00 to 9:00, members of congress from both sides of the aisle come together for an hour of sharing breakfast, but sharing our christian faith and listening -- listing prayer requests and praying, singing hymns of faith and hearing on an alternating basis from republican and democrat. i know people hear what goes on

on the foor and assume that members on one side of the aisle must absolutely hate members of the other side of the aisle and actually there are many of us that get along quite well other than talking politics. and that's why we protect that hour. we don't talk about politics during that time. because those that gather together have something in common, our christian faith, as well as a heart wanting to do what's best nor country. to ensure that we pass on a better country than we received as stewards. for the first time in american history, surveys now indicate perhaps 70% or more of the american adults believe that we will pass on to our children a country with less opportunity and our children will have it

less well than we have it right now. i'm determined to do everything i can to try to keep that from happening. but politics doesn't really get into the thursday morning prayer breakfast. we have our little gathering. it doesn't get into our prayer time where voluntarily members of congress come together, the first night folks are back. republicans, democrats, we express personal needs for prayer and we join hearts and minds together in prayer for those things of need as well as those things that we prayed for that result in rejoicing. so those kind of things go on and i am very sincere in being grateful to the president for continuing the tradition of appearing at the presidential

prayer breakfast. it is quite meaningful. there are people from over 100 different countries. i have talked to so many from so many different countries. i have developed good friends in other countries that they have started prayer breakfasts among their legislators and leaders. and it's wonderful to see that kind of thing going on. unfortunately, yesterday, one thing got entered into the prayer breakfast that would, i think, be better off avoiding, an that is in such a breakfast, having someone stand up and basically make it sound as though the programs i'm for are based on christianity and the inference being, if you oppose me on this, you're not a good christian. there's an article posted

yesterday, thursday, it starts with a quote from c.s. lewis that -- one of my favorite authors. the president started with a quote from one of my favorite authors. the quote is, christianity does not and does not confess to have a detailed political program. it's meant for all men at all times and a particular program that suited one place or time would not suit another. her article says this morning in the middle of his national prayer breakfast speech, president obama delighted those of us who love irony by quoting c.s. lewis. it was an interesting moment in a speech that put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right along in line with teachings of jesus. she says, i mean, jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right? the idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of jesus teaching

on charity is a common misconception that many people make. christians included. and it's the main reason that liberals believe conservatives are christian hypocrites. perhaps if the president visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might not be so confused. see, not only do we spend time praising god in church, we also gain insight from pastors who surely spent more time in the word of god than we have. let me insert parenthetically here, i don't hold the failure to attend church against any president. because when you look at it, when a president comes to church, they go to a graduation, they change the whole complexion. they force everyone else there to go through metal detectors and all of this, just so one man can come and worship.

so at times, it may even be admirable not to go to church and force people to that. so i don't have a problem with that. although the article goes on and points out other difficulties. while obama may have been correct in sing that government mandated shared responsibility is equal to islamic belief that those of us who have been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, she says, he's incorrect to group in jesus' teaching for whom much is given, much is required, as aside from the fact that jesus was discussing requirements from god, but he was teaching his disciples they were stewards of god's gift of revelation. the requirement was to spread the good news of jesus christ. it's the crux of christianity

that obama seems to miss. ee us is came because we were imperfect. we could never fulfill the requirements that the fair sees loved to lord over the people. jesus coming ended the rule of law and began the acceptance that our only way to go was through him. yes, jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the poor but as a reaction in joy to what we have been given, not because of a law. giving out of obligation, she points out, is not truly giving. it's merely following the rules. ask anyone who has ever written a check to pay their taxes. i doubt you'll find them excited. she goes on to say, the bible also teaches that everything we have including money belongs to god. we're called to be good stewards with his money. the government is the epitome of mismanaging money. if you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out charities. but that would require a bit of work on the part of a give and

a great many find it easier just to let the goth run every aspect of their lives. so it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club a.t.m.'s and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder why government hasn't solved this issue. perhaps they should ask the 27 democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. another highlight in obama's speech, miss howe points out, was his proud problem clamation that his his administration has partnered with catholic charities to help those in poverty. i wonder if those charities are the ones begging the obama administration to no avail to change the edict requiring them to cover both birth control costs in their health care, even though it's against their religious beliefs to do so?

really, slapping them across the face would take less time and probably hurtless. -- hurt less. so i again applaud the president for appearing yesterday. of and hope that in the future presidents can avoid references that their agenda is based on christ's teaching which clearly would indicate belief that those of us who oppose some aspect of governmental taking and governmental running everything in our lives, that we're the ones who are being non-christian or being hypocrites. because the fact is, you know, jesus did say, render unto see sar what is see sar's. -- render unt caesar what is

caesar's. he also thought that you're supposed to be responsible as members of government as the story of zaccheus shows. zaccheu sumbings was so excited about having jesus come that it showed in his life and his exuberance. not only did his life completely change from having met jesus, he actually, after that decided that the appropriate thing for him as a governmental tax collect war un-- collector would be to cut taxes. not only did he cut taxes, he gave a four to one rebate to those from whom he had taken too much. so if our government's looking for an example to follow, perhaps doing what zaccheus did

after he met jesus would be a good way to go. government is supposed to be responsible. those of us in government do have an obligation as stewards of this country to provide for the common defense. and make sure their own internal financial policies do not bring this nation down. that we're stewards with this great country so that young people, some of them here, will have a country even better with more freedoms and more opportunities and every -- every generation up to now has done that. and provided the next generation with more opportunities than they have. we have a lot of work to do. and the reason that i feel so good about today is after seven

years of pushing a bill, a concept that seems a surprise to americans when they hear that we haven't dealt with this before, but it is stopping the automatic increases in every federal department's budget. every year. it began in 1974. now, i was going about my life, served in the military for four years, practiced law for a number of years, was a judge for a number of years, and i was listening to rush limbaugh one day at lunch and he was talking about the zero baseline budget. and as i listened, i was a person who was shocked, what? our federal government can't balance its budget? and yet it has automatic

increases every year in their budget? this is a no-brainer. just stop the automatic increases. and at the same, republicans were in a majority. even though there was a democratic president, newt gingrich and others showed that if you are persistent and you send the president a balanced budget, he may be toe it once, he -- eventually you'll evenly get bill clinton to sign on because he sees the will of the american people is behind congress and not beheend a president who keeps vetoing a balanced budget so they finally got a balanced budget signed into law and they balanced the budget. but they never eliminated the automatic increases. and one of the things that got me to thinking about -- probably the main thing that

first started me thinking about running for congress was the need to change legislation through which this country, since the 1960's, has provided incentives financially to prevent people from reaching their full potential. so that if a young girl gets bored with high school and she drops out of school and has a baby, instead of having financial incentives, because we know having the gift of history behind us, we know if she finishes high school, she will make more during her lifetime than those who don't finish high school. the statistics are so clear. so why wouldn't we want to give her incentives despite the hardship of trying to finish school with a child, give her

incentives, help her get through high school so she can start reaching her god-given potential? don't give her incentives to stay out of school and have child after child. i had one woman who had 15 children, didn't know where they were, but she had been getting 15 checks. our government gave her incentives to do that. now, it's one thing when people choose a way of life that keeps them from reaching their potential, but it's quite another when we as a federal government put in place incentives to keep them from reaching the potential that they have. and one of the things that hurt so much during the downturn economy for any individual is when they have lost their job and they're used to working because there's fulfillment in

working. even those of us who believe the bible's account there was an adam and eve. no, that before there was a fall from grace when things were perfect, they had a job. and it was to tend the garden. each individual has the same responsibility. maybe you're renting. maybe you're living in somebody else's property, but wherever we are we have a responsibility to tend that garden. and there's some fulfillment that's innate in mankind that if you have a job and you accomplish things you have fulfillment, you have self-worth. and from that you begin to notice, as c.s. lewis did, the man the president quoted, c.s. lewis noted in his book "the case for christianity," incorporated in the book

"christianity," he talked but how he injoyed as a professor at oxford, how can there be a good god or just god when there is so much injustice in the world? and eventually he got around to realizing, if there were not some standard, unwaivering, unequivocal standard of absolute right and wrong in the universe, then how would he know that there was injustice in the world? and the same manner in which a person who is blind from birth sees nothing but blackness, how could they ever know that there was light and color and beauty with their own eyes? they can't see it. so lewis explains, he began to realize there has to be something out there. there has to be some entity that set up justice so i would

know right from wrong. i would know injustice from justice. and yet here we are in the united states government as members of congress and too often we begin to think not only should we provide for the common defense, not only should we ensure that this government doesn't go broke in providing for the common defense, but we have those who think we should tell everybody how they have to live. we should tell everybody as a judge in texas did, listen, a student may voluntarily want to get up, she's given the right to stand up and given the valedictorian address and it may be from her heart she wants to mention god but if she

mentioned god, benediction, join in prayer, bow our heads, have a whole list of things, then i'll send her to jail because i'm going to tell people what they can say and not say. you know, during the revelation one of the most quoted comments usually attributed to voltaire but the quote was, i disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. the one of the reasons i was willing to take a scholarship from the united states army at it a&m. i looked four years of service in being part of our nation's defense. to defend those rights that people are supposed to have, to practice religion, to believe as their heart leads them. well, coming to congress was quite eye opening. in january of 2005 when i was sworn in, i was surprised this

issue of automatic increases in our federal appropriation for every department in the federal government automatically increased. so if anyone said, you know what, let's slow down this rate of increase, then they were portrayed as trying to hurt people, wanting to make draconian cuts, when they were trying to slow the rate of automatic increases. there were no cuts. and as we've been going through these last three years, four years of recession unlike any other recession in our nation's history because the things that should have gone on have not gone on and i know most of us on this side of the aisle agree because the president has

hijacked the economy with trillions of dollars in giveaway programs, including to groups like solyndra, we keep hearing about those more and more. more and more, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars given to folks because they're pursuing some project that will never make money but it's something the president wants to promote. i mean, it makes no sense not to stop the automatic increases. i brought it up back in my first congress as a freshman. why have we not stopped the automatic increases in every department's budget? make them come in and show us that it is justified to increase their budget. don't give them an automatic increase. and then only require them to come forward if they want an increase in the increase. make them come in and justify

the increase. i mean, we're willing to give our nation's youth a bankrupted country, for heaven's sake. let's at least give them the chance to take over a country where they have freedom from government intrusion into their personal lives and where they have a government that is not bankrupt and we are already saddling them with $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 before they have arrived in this world. for heaven's sake, we should be more responsible than that. and what should be a low piece of hanging fruit to get us on the right track to be responsible is to say every federal department, you come in and justify an increase in your budget because otherwise you are not getting one. we are just starting where you were last year. i mean, this is -- this should have been a no-brainer. but i have been here for seven years and it has not been done.

two of those we were in the majority, 2005 and 2006, and now for a year we've been back in the majority and i think most people who follow what happens in congress know i haven't been a big supporter of some of the things that our leadership has done and since i believe in calling things as they are, when our leadership has not stood firm and stood for what's right and stood for what we got elected to do, i owe an obligation to speaker boehner to say thank you. 2005 and 2006 when we were in the majority, neither the budget chairman nor the speaker were interested in eliminating the automatic increases in every federal department's

budget. but speaker john boehner assured me last summer that we would get this done, but he said since he's not the budget committee chairman, that will be up to chairman paul ryan to get that done. well, lucky me because paul ryan, it turns out, back before i ever got to congress, had with our good friend, jeb hensarling, been pushing an end to the automatic increases in every federal department's budget. and yet even in a republican majority before i got to congress that bill did not get passed. so the automatic increases continued even as people in the united states were struggling and nobody else has an automatic increase in their family budget every year. and the more responsible thing

to -- and i discussed this with chairman paul ryan, he's struggled with this over the years while he was not chairman of the budget committee that really we should do more oversight over federal departments. how are you spending your money? but because we are required to have a budget every year, then the whole year seems to be taken up with getting that budget done and dealing with those budget issues. so he has a solution for that and that is another bill that i understand will be forthcoming from the budget committee to go to a two-year budget so we do a budget that will cover two years and that will allow congress to have hearings and do better oversight because before when departments wanted

an increase in the increase then they had to come up and lobby people on the hill. say we need this. we need more money than the automatic increase, and there really wouldn't be time to do proper investigation to see exactly how they were spending their money. a two-year budget that chairman ryan has indicated he would like to see that that would allow them to do the proper oversight. now, there are some in the motion to recommit by the democrats, some of those budgets that i can promise you there will be part of some of those programs that virtually every republican will want to increase. but the better way to move forward is to have a budget, no automatic increases and then have oversight and in those

departments where there will be some part of the department where we want to see an increase, let's look at the areas that need decreasing. then you don't have the opportunity to really go back and visit that. you're worried about doing the budget for the next year. so i applaud the house for passing the zero baseline budget bill, and i am very grateful to our leadership, to paul ryan and the freshman class that has come through that wanted to see this happen, so i filed this bill in each of the four congresses i've been in. it really takes someone in a committee of jurisdiction shepherding that through so my language was incorporated into a bill that our freshman representative woodall put together and as a member of the budget committee he did an

excellent job of marshaling that through, handling that on the floor and even dealing with the debates. . i think it's important to note we have had friends across the aisle stand up and argue against passage of the zero baseline budget yesterday and today. one of the more articulate people in the house is chris van hollen. when we disagree, i still admire his ability to put words together in such an in-depth fashion and i have his exact words and his argument against passage of a bill that ends the automatic increases every year. and a friend across the aisle, mr. van hollen said, quote, this bill when you pass it doesn't save one penny.

he goes on to talk about how we can cut, if we really want to cut them, but he goes on and he says, quote, so again, this bill doesn't save a penny, unquote. he finishes his comments in saying, quote, but this bill doesn't mandate any kind of cutting of that nature, unquote. so i was interested when our colleague across the aisle, representative delauro, came to the floor because she stated in arguing against the zero baseline budget, she said, quote, at its heart this bill is a backdoor attempt to enact the same radical cuts the majority attempted last year and further reduce the spending caps agreed to in the last budget control

act. she says by eliminating inflation from our official budget considerations, this bill represents a freeze on all discretionary programs. it would be become a devastating cut to critical programs. she said within 10 years all discretionary programs would see their funding slashed by as much as 20%. she references this dangerous cut. so we have one of our very able colleagues across the aisle saying this doesn't save one penny, another a cross the aisle standing up and saying this represents radical cuts. what it should do, what it does do, eliminate the automatic increases, that no family in america, no business in america has. all of the surveys indicate

federal employees are being paid better than the private sector. why shouldn't we take a better, closer look in each congress as to which department needs increased and which needs decreased, and what parts of each department should be lowered and which should be raised. that is the responsible thing to do and i think chairman ryan's proposal to a two-year budget, though i never thought about it before talking with him, two-year budgets are what we have in texas, so that you have some planning and you have something to count on. i think it also indicates for this country what we see over and over, the private sector says if you could give us some continuity where we know the same laws will be utilized for at least some period of time, then we got something to count on. and we'll invest our capital.

and whether they are democrat or republican business folks, or like on wall street where they are 4-1 democrat over republican they still get it and they see, gee, we have some continuity here so we shouldn't be afraid to invest capital and get the economy going. but as the old saying goes, capital is a coward. it goes to areas where it feels safest. and it never feels safe when things are constantly in flux. this way there will be more continuity and we'll know more of what to expect. last year's c.b.o., and that's the congressional budget office, that has rather interesting rules, and i think when you look at the history of c.b.o.'s projections of the costs of things, and how revenue would go, it makes it pretty clear if

we were in the private sector we would have gotten rid of the c.b.o. a long time ago and gotten somebody that is far more accurate at projections. i know that c.b.o. previously when nancy pelosi was speaker, harry reid is head of the senate, they were pushing the obamacare bill and it was scored and c.b.o. scored it over $1 trillion. and then the director got called over to the white house for a little wood shedding, although director elmendorf told me he wasn't wood sheded. he had a nice conversation with the president. after whatever you want to call it, his visiting to the white house, they went back and cut off a quarter of a trillion dollars from their estimate, basically. and said, well, it's more like around $800 billion is the

projected cost. some of us weren't terribly surprised after it passed that c.b.o. then came back and said even though the president had said it would cost less than $1 trillion and we had projected it would cost more than $1 trillion, and then the president asked us to lower it and we took a new look and we lowered it to around $800 billion, now that it has passed after the president promises everybody it would cost less than $1 trillion, now it's passed, we look at it, you know what? it's really over $1 trillion that it will cost us. if we want to keep faith in c.b.o. and really figure out how much we can trust them, then maybe that is a good indication. that any projection from c.b.o. should be looked at with a factor of plus or minus 25%. they give us a projection, but they may be off by 25% too low.

they may be off 25% too high. so really you have about a 50% chance of the c.b.o. just really missing their mark. if we were in the private sector trying to balance budgets where you have to there, unless you get government bailouts, you wouldn't allow anything to get money, your hard-earned money, that doesn't come closer than a plus or minus 25% rate of failure. plus or minus 25% margin of error for any government entity should require us to get rid of it and figure out new rules for scoring bills and develop an entity even if it's in the private sector where they do a far better job, certain people, some are terrible, that's why

they go broke, but some are quite good and a whole lot better than 25% plus or minus margin of error. now, some have said, well, this is going nowhere in the senate. we have cut out the automatic increase in the house, but it's got to pass the senate and get a president to sign it. well, this is an election year and it's amazing sometimes what people will do in an election year because they know the people expect it that they might not do in a nonelection year. we are told there may be 20 or so senate seats that could possibly go either way. so i would hope that as my friends at freedom works, heritage action, other places as they start putting the heat on the senate to be responsible, no more automatic increases in every department's budget, by golly you need to take a look at

those budgets before you increase it one penny. see if it needs to be cut. see if it needs to be increased. that fresh sure starts being brought to bear on the senate. i would hope that the republican leader would make clear in writing to the majority leader, harry reid, that we have at least 47 people ready to vote on this bill. and then the pressure goes on the democrats or in tough election cycles, well, are you going to be supporting these automatic increases? are you going to stand with harry reid and prevent this from coming to the floor of the senate? to make us more responsible as a government? and force us to look at each department and determine whether they need an increase or not? or are you just going to go along with the same old automatic extra spending every year like no other american can

do? i have hope that springs eternal in the human breast and i hope i keep it until the day i die, but i believe we have a real opportunity to get it through the senate. to have enough, at least 60 senators, do the responsible thing in a bipartisan way, follow the lead of the house, that couldn't have been without all these wonderful fresh faces like representative woodall, follow the lead of the freshmen who have now for the first time in all these years said, you know what, no more automatic increases. i think it's a harbinger of good things to come. i'm greatly encouraged as we start, at least early in this year, such a great bill. and i don't know how long the wonderful people of east texas,

i love with all my heart, i want to live around all of my life, i don't know how long they'll allow me the honor of representing them here, but i think there is also a message here, it may take seven years to keep pounding on an issue, but when it's the right thing to do, when people are struggling across america to pay their bills, and they have had no automatic increases. in fact, i have talked to people and they indicate, they are democrats, please help us. we are having such a tough time we just have been cut in our pay. so could you cut us a little slack from washington? we owe it to those people to quit spending so much. so they can have even a little more of their budget. and i would think as the president has talked about, people paying their fair share,

we should take him at his word and ram through a flat tax that says if you're rich, you pay more because you're making more. and a flat tax does that. if you're poor, you're not making as much as others. you pay less. and in the discussion with steve forbes who ran for president on the idea of flat tax, talking to steve last week, i was asking him about some of the nuances of his plan, but he said under his flat tax proposal if you were a family of four, he provided a $46,000 exemption. so you make less than that with a family of four, you don't pay any tax. so it's kind of hard to say that you're going after the poor in american society. a flat tax would eliminate the games. it would allow everyone to pay according to what they receive.

that way to whom much is given more would be required. as the president quoted yesterday. and if those are given less, less is required. that would be the way to go. let's cut the automatic expenditures, let's be more responsible as a congress in supervising those things, as the oversight committee, oversight hearings progress, move forward, we'll show responsibility in doing that and the american people will be the beneficiary and i hope and pray that within the next few years the polls and surveys will turn around. that will show the american public we can get this thing back under control so it can go on for another 200 years. we can do that. and then we'll see the surveys

turn around so they don't say 70% of american adults don't think we are going to leave our children as good a country as we got. i see my friend, dr. harris. i would be delighted to yield to my friend, dr. harris. at this time i yield back my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded the remainder of his hour to the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. mr. harris: might i inquire of the chair how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 16. mr. harris: 16. thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from texas who spoke so eloquently about the condition of the country and the

condition we're left in. i want to remind the american people that one of the obstacles we still have to overcome is we have a health care plan that was passed out of the last congress, that isn't in full effect yet, but we're starting to feel the problems with it. what i'm referring to is, of course, what other people, everyone calls the obamacare legislation. passed 2 1/2 years ago now, not fully implemented until after this next election, but influencing americans in their daily lives. now, the majority of americans don't agree with the plan, a majority of the americans don't want the plan but we still have it. interesting, about a third of the americans don't think we have it anymore. when the house passed their repeal last january, one of the very first actions we took in the house, they thought we were

done with it, america could wash its hands of it. the repeal bill was sent to the senate where as many bills coming out of the house this year it suffered the same fate. it sits in the senate without the senate taking action to do what the american people want which is to repeal obamacare. america understands that that bill has many, many problems some of which we'll talk in the next few minutes to remind americans this is still there, it's still causing problems. the gentleman from texas spoke about our promise to our economy. as i go through the district i talk to business men and women every week. they tell me the same thing. they're worried about the economy, they're worried about health insurance for their

employees because they are worried about the effect obamacare has. it shows 74% of businesses surveyed by the u.s. chamber of congress say the recent health care law, that's obamacare, makes it harder for their businesses to hire more employees. the bottom line is they don't know what the rules are. the rules are changing. as we know 1,700 businesses and unions have to get waivers from that bill in order to keep their health care going this year. 1,700. and, of course, those waivers disappear in a year, businesses don't know what's going to happen once those waivers expire. real-life example. furniture business owner in the fifth district of texas, this is what he said. "i could start two companies and hire multiple people, but based on this administration and the lack of facts with obamacare, i will continue to sit and wait." ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker, america knows that you

can't possibly make another empty government promise to ensure -- insure 14 million americans while you can saveg money, increase ack -- safe money, increase access, increase quality. america has figured that out a long time ago. you can't expect all those things. they expect what will happen -- the quality will go down and the amount of money spent on other health care programs by the government will can -- government will go down. what's another program paid for by the government? medicare. obamacare bill takes $500 billion out of medicare over the next 10 years. $500 billion. most worrysome is how it takes the -- worrisome is how it takes the $500 billion out of medicare. they set up the independent advisory board.

americans need to know that term. it's when a parent gets old or when a loved one you know enters medicare. these 15 bureaucrats, chosen by the president, not accountable to anyone with no appeal of their decision will decide what gets covered and what doesn't get covered in medicare when the government runs short of money. now, mr. speaker, you read the same headlines i do. the government's $15.2 trillion short of money with no end in sight. the president's last budget submitted to congress a year ago, we're waiting to see the budget he's suppose to submit next year which we understand will be a week or two late, that budget never balanced. now, mr. speaker, i don't have that luxury in my household. i have to make a budget

balanced. and, mr. speaker, i would never make a financial move that i knew was passing along a debt to my children and grandchildren. i would not buy a house, car, pay for a vacation that i knew my children would have to pay. that's what the president's budget and obamacare does. it takes the big government credit card, which has already passed its credit limit, $15.2 trillion, runs it through the swiper one more time and says we are going to insure 15 million more people but don't worry, the cost will go up, quality will go down. this 15-member board, the independent payment advisory board, ipab is what we call about it here, it's the rationing panel, what they are, mr. speaker, is 15 bureaucrats

specifically excluding a practicing physician from making those -- specifically excluding someone who practices medicine from participating in the decisions of what medicare's going to cover and not cover if and when the government runs out of money but we know the government's going to run out of money. we know medicare will exceed its budget. it does every year. but if that was all that was bad in the bill we might be able to repeal that and just move on but it's not. we saw earlier there were provisions on small businesses called the 1099 provisions, making small businesses do paperwork so the government can collect money in taxes. this congress was smart enough to repeal that aspect. just last week we repealed another aspect of the bill. it was called strangely enough the class act. now, what this act did, it was long-term insurance, health -- long-term care insurance under the medicare provisions that

starts collecting the premiums now but doesn't provide services until the future, meanwhile spending those premiums on other expenses in the government. sound familiar? sound like what's happening to your social security dollars and your medicare employment taxes now, your payroll taxes? that's exactly what this does. set up what even democrats called in the senate a ponzi scheme that would make bernie madoff proud. so we repealed it. but last week and perhaps one of the worst parts of the bill which really had nothing to do with money was the secretary -- when the secretary of health held that religious institutions had to provide care under their insurance policies that was not consistent with their religious beliefs. that is sterilization, contraception and abortion, full coverage, no deductible,

zero deductible, putting in the same category as breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, the other measures that were meant to be covered by that clause in obamacare the preventive care clause. now, mr. speaker, that assumes if you want to prevent illness that pregnancy is a disease. or pregnancy is an illness. what a long way we have come from when society felt that pregnancy was something to be celebrated, it was an extension of life, it was an extension of society. the secretary, i will put it in quotes, pregnancy is a disease or illness that needs to be prevented. that's not a good recipe for the future of our society or

this country. and worst of all, it's a stark violation of the first amendment of the united states that the government shall not compel anyone to go against their religious principles. they'll tell you there's an exemption but there isn't. yes, if you're a church, youe the church itself you are but god forbid that church goes in the community and runs a center for social justice, a center for adoption, a hospital. that religious institution running that other entity would be forced to provide coverage for something that isant theycal to the religious beliefs of that religion. ladies and gentlemen, that is just wrong. it's bad policy and it violates the first amendment of the united states. mr. speaker, if i might inquire how much time do i have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman has approximately seven minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much. so let's walk through some of what -- some of what is so -- why do we need to repeal this bill? the bottom line is there is so much wrong with this bill. a bill that not only will cut $500 billion from current medicare recipients, because you'll hear a lot of talk of, oh, that ryan bill, it destroyed medicare as we know it. well, they forget to tell you it doesn't touch medicare for people over the age of 55. in fact, we restore that $500 billion for people who are currently covered or for people who are 55 and older who will be entering medicare in the next 10 years. the little secret of obamacare is it takes current medicare and cuts it by $500 billion. my mother's 88 years old. i don't want a 15-panel board of bureaucrats in washington making a life and death decision for whether she gets medicare treatment paid for by

15 bureaucrats sitting in washington who never met her. i think that decision ought to be made by my mother and her health care providers. no government bureaucrat in a room, no unappointed -- no appointed bureaucrat with no appeals who sess who can say, no, we don't really know your specific situation but, you know, this is what it sounds like to us and we don't think it should be covered so you are not getting that care covered. ladies and gentlemen, you know the cost of medical care. if the government says it's not covering, it's not getting done. is that the way we want health care delivered in the united states? is that what we want? do we want a bill that says what kind of care you're going to receive even if you're not on medicare, that you have to go into specific health care plans, your employer is shoehorned into them? promise, don't worry, if you like your plan, keep it. have 1,700 waivers in the first

year alone. 1,700 waivers. that's not the kind of health care we need. that's not the kind of health care plan we need. do we want a plan that can be taken to the extreme by the secretary of health to say that we're going to violate closely, deeply held religious principles in certain religions in the united states and we are going to force those people to do things against their religion? is that what we've come down to? so ladies and gentlemen, the cure is simple. we need to simply repeal obamacare. there is too much wrong with it. we tried to fix it piece by piece. we tried to pull out the things that hurts small business. we tried to deal with why you need 1,700 waivers. we tried to deal with that long-term care coverage. i'm convinced that bill will go to the senate and die. we'll have instituted yet

another ponzi scheme in the united states. and those are not words from this side of the aisle. that's the words of a democrat senator describing that long-term care plan that was part of obamacare. the one that takes your dollars, your dollars that you will have put it in it now, spends it with a promise, don't worry, when you get old and need it, there will be some money there. ladies and gentlemen, we've heard that before. that dog don't hunt anymore. we've heard it with medicare. we've heard it with social security. americans have realized, this congress has spent us into bankruptcy. with promises like that in the past. if we have made those promises in the past, we must implement those promises. we have not implement obamacare in the fullest and now is the time to repeal it before we begin that. so ladies and gentlemen, that's why over the next few weeks

we'll hear and, mr. speaker, we'll see things come to the floor that will deal with it that will repeal that long-term care act that that democratic senator called a ponzi scheme that bernie madoff would be proud of. a ponzi scheme that bernie madoff would be proud of. that's why congressional approval rating is at 9%. because america watches us. we come down to washington and create ponzi schemes. . it's just time to stop. it's time for common sense to prevail. common sense is we have to stop spending more money than we have. we have to stop burdening the hardworking taxpayers of america. we have to balance our budget. we have to pass a balanced budget amendment so that future congresses can't create more ponzi schemes. we have to deal with the debt and deficit. are they hard decisions? they certainly are. are they decisions the american public expects us to come together and make? they certainly do.

let's rise to the occasion. i join with the president who a week ago said let's work together to solve these problems. mr. president, you don't solve these problems by impeding people's first amendment rights to the freedom of religion. you don't solve these problems by proposing $300 billion new stimulus spending in your state of the union speech. you don't solve these problems by going out doubling down on solyndra. you don't solve these problems by denying the keystone x.l. pipeline. mr. president, we are red yes, let's come together and solve america's problems. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are he reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, preliminarily i'm

here to discuss today's very encouraging jobs report. i am struck the previous speaker said he would never engage in expenditures on a credit card when we were already deeply in debt on behalf of his family. i note that he was not a member of the congress when this congress voted to go to war in iraq, for example, and also in afghanistan. i voted for the war in afghanistan. i thought the war in iraq was a terrible mistake and still do. all of us voting on afghanistan was voting to go into further debt. war is expensive. we didn't want to send some of our young people without the best possible equipment. so -- i thought we had to go to war in self-defense. i thought the war in iraq was an error. every republican voted to do that. this principle you don't vote to spend money when you don't have it is apparently for some a fairly flexible one. in fact not only did the majority at that time under

president bush vote to go to two wars, they did it while voting for several large tax cuts. so they were exacerbating that very difficulty. as i said i voted to go to war in afghanistan. i was prepared to vote for some revenues to pay for it. mostly, though, i want to talk today about the very encouraging report we got today about the economy. we are in the early stages of a recovery. it's not going nearly fast enough. what is now clear is that the recession that president obama inherited from the previous administration in 2009 when he took office was deeper than people realized at the time. it was clearly the worst economic downturn since the great depression and many ways was more disabling in the sense of the interconnections. although overall it was not.

and president obama and others underestimated the depths of that recession. many of us did. so the recovery has been slower than it should have been in the interest of the american people. but the fact is very clearly it is under way. i want to talk about that and i want to talk about what's retarding it. one of the interesting things today was the job number, 257,000 private sector jobs created. a very significant number. enough if it is a pattern to continuously cut into the unemployment figure. but it was accompanied by a $ --14,000 job reduction in public sector employment. and that unfortunately is a pattern. if you go back to the worst of the recession, end of 2009, remember president obama comes in in early 2009, we did pass an economic recovery package which clearly by virtually every economist acknowledgement improved the situation.

it didn't cure it. it didn't do as much to reduce the rate as had been hoped because the deficit and the economy was deeper. but since that end of 2009, when things began to turn around, after we passed an economic recovery program that began to help, after the federal reserve under a bush appointee, ben bernanke, reappointed by president obama, continued its stimulative efforts, here's what's happened basically since the last months of 2009, beginning of 2010. we have had in this economy in a two-year period the creation in the private sector of 3,362,000 jobs, approximately, can't be exact, but over 3.6 million jobs. unfortunately during the same time period a couple months earlier, public sector

appointment has declined by more than 550,000 jobs. in other words, if the public sector had simply been allowed to stay even, if there hadn't been firings of firefighters and people who shovel the snow and clean the streets and maintain the parks and teach young people and preserve law and order, if we hadn't fired police officers, public works employees, municipal engineers, teachers, sanitary workers. if we hadn't required them to be fired by a perverse set of federal budget policies to have that negative impact on municipalities, we would have had a half a million more jobs. i'm not talking about the public sector increasing. if the public sector had simply been allowed to stay even, if this congress had not sent money to build afghanistan, footally in my judgment, if it hadn't wasted money in the war in iraq that never should have begun and

kept that money home and we could have had more police officers and firefighters and teachers and public works employees working here in our country, then the unemployment rate would be below 8% today. this is exactly the opposite of what my republican colleagues claim. oh, the public sector they say is strangling the private sector. no. the truth is exactly the opposite. the private sector has increased. not yet at the rate we had hoped although if the private sector can continue to add 250-plus thousand jobs a month, we will, that's three million jobs a year, that will substantially reduce unemployment to the point where we should be. if we can persuade our republican colleagues to stop forcing the cities and counties and states to lay off important public employees -- i got an anguished letter the other day from the mayor of the city of fall river, massachusetts, about a great addiction program. the stanley star treatment

program in his town. you want to know why? they were cut off from the million four they had gotten to deal with addiction. the answer is this congress zeroed out the whole program. i couldn't be their advocate and say this is a good program and give them money. i was told by the agency, you give us money. we can't give out money when you voted against it. that money's in kandahar and basra. if it was doing any good over there i would feel better about it. but we are spending money footally overseas in wars -- footally overseas in wars that never should have started. it should end. i heard my colleague, the previous speaker, talk about spending too much. in fact one of the major criticisms of the republican party, certainly their presidential candidates and many here in the congress, is not that the president is spending too much but he's spending too little. they have criticized him for withdrawing our troops from iraq, even though it was on a timetable president bush set forward.

they want more troops in iraq. nothing is more expensive than keeping troops in a combatation or near combatation and that's right. you don't accepted people into combat without doing everything you can to protect. there are people criticizing the reduction of troops in afghanistan. the wars in iraq and afghanistan at the height were costing $150 billion a year over and above the regular military budget. i can't think of anything less consistent than to argue today we should be reducing the deficit, and b., we should continue to spend money not just on military activity but nation building in afghanistan and iraq. let's go back to the jobs situation. 3.6 million private sector jobs created in two years. by the way, that has been reflected in the economy. on march 9 of 2009, then speaker pelosi, mr. speaker, convened a meeting in which we talked about some things we thought we should do for the financial sector. it was the beginning of our efforts to do financial reform.

i know the republicans think that financial reform is a terrible idea. apparently we should have had derivatives unregulated. we shouldn't have an independent consumer bureau. we should continue to practice whereby people make loans to people who shouldn't get them and sell those loans to other people so they had no interest in whether or not they were repaid because we began our financial reform efforts in march of 2009 and we were told it was terrible for the financial industry. the dow jones industrial average on march 9 was 6,500. by march 9 now three years later, it will very likely be double what it was then. the dow jones industrial average will have doubled in the aftermath of the passage of the economic recovery act, the financial reform bill. even the health care bill. maybe i don't claim that we did it, but we certainly didn't retard it. in that time period, 3.6 million jobs created.

at the end of the bush administration of course, we went to substantial job loss. in the first month of the obama administration and last months of the bush administration, job loss was in the hundreds of thousands a month. now we have begun to turn that around. again, les stress, if it hadn't been for federal budget policies forced by this congress and by others in the congress who were there to do the right thing, if states and cities had simply been allowed to keep their current level, in other words if we had had increases in the private sector and held steady over a three-year period in the public sector, we would have half a million more jobs in america today and probably more because these things have some multiplier effect. and clearly unemployment would be below 8%. it has dropped to 8.3. when unemployment went down to 8.9 and 8.7, the critics of the president said that's because the labor force has dropped. the labor force went up in this past month according to the statistics. more people were encouraged to

look for jobs and with more people looking for jobs we still had a drop of 8.3% in the unemployment numbers. that is an example of the wrong-headedness of the very conservative approach of the economy. yes, we have a deficit. it is a very large deficit. much of it incurred because of the policies of president bush supported by republican majorities in congress. i'm told, i didn't mean it, the bill we passed yesterday said the tax cuts under george w. bush did not add to the deficit. that is marxist reasoning. chico marxist reasoning. it reminds me of the time in one of the movies where groucho caught chico red-handed and chico denying that he had done it said who are you going to believe? me or your own eyes? bills are passed that cut government revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars and it didn't add to the deficit. of course it did. and it added to the deficit at the same time we were incuring

further deficits by going to war. i didn't vote for the war in iraq. i voted for the war in afghanistan but i have sometime now thought we should withdraw entirely. it is the republicans at the presidential level and the congress who are insisting we spend more. we have begun to reduce defense spending. the president made a very radical decision. he said that after the late 1940's when we sent troops to western europe and central europe to keep joe stalin, a vicious, brutal murderer from invading central and western europe, countries that were devastated by world war ii, having done that in 1948 and 1949, it was time to withdraw them. well, according to my republican friends that's a terrible mistake. they want to keep those troops in western europe. that would be good for the economies of europe these days, but it's terrible for the united states. the heads of the military have said, you know what, we can take

these troops out of europe and retire them. see the general say we will not dismiss anyone who signed up to serve this country. we are grateful for them. and they should be allowed to serve out fully what they did and get the full veterans benefits that a grateful nation owes them. but with the turnover military, you can reach your reduction fairly soon by simply not hiring new people. i will add that there's another great inconsistency on my republican colleagues' point, when i debate with them whether or not we should cut spending for firefighters or public works employees. whether we should provide money to build highways, whether we should do things where the federal government provides funds that i believe are job creating, they tell me you can look it up in all of the debates we have had here, that government spending doesn't create jobs. they deny that the government's spending money can create jobs.

with one wonderful exception, apparently that doesn't apply to military spending because when it comes to reducing military spending, they have all become the most devoted followers of john mainard canes -- maynard keynes. when we talk about reducing the military, all of a sudden government spend something a great fountain of job creation. the fact is that when you reduce military spending you can cut back on jobs in the interim as you can in other areas. i do believe that cutting military spending can result in less job reduction than for instance cutting the medical spending. yes, we should have comparisons of this, but i'm talking now about the shear hypocrisy of arguing that government spending cannot create jobs and turning around and invoking government spending as part of the

military. . in fact, as these numbers show, having states and cities to cut back. the reasons that states and cities have to cut back isn't simply because we haven't given them federal funds which i believe in a proper approach to this system -- community development block grants which was further put forward by that -- i never thought richard nixon in the 1970's. but the fact that the national economic crisis has hit with particular impact on cities and states since it manifested in low housing prices. of all the levels of government in this country, local, state and federal, it's the local governments that rely most heavily on the property tax. so when property is devalued, as it has been by factors far beyond the control of any city, the cities' revenues suffer. so it's a combination of their

natural revenue base suffering because of national policies because of the denial of funding on programs that have existed since richard nixon that they have had to lay off over half a million people. and because they played off half a million people instead of being a net of 3.6 million increases in jobs, it's 3.1 million. 550,000 jobs would be better than .3% on the unemployment figures. it would reduce unemployment. and here is, of course, the great mistake, the conservative ideologies makes and you're seeing it in europe as well. by the way, i don't think it's an accident that in america president obamaes that resisted this notion that we should make further and further cuts domestically. i do acknowledge that my colleagues are big spenders when it comes to iraq, afghanistan, bases in europe and other military expenditures. much less useful i think for our economy. but in europe they have been following until recently the notion of austerity.

as today's numbers make clear, while we have a way to go in our economy and we need to work to cooperate to keep this economic growing and get it more vigorous, of all the major developed economies in the world, america's economy is doing the best. obviously the developing ones, china, india, they're doing better. if you look at the major industrialized nations, we are doing better because we have resisted excessive austerity. now, sometimes intelligence requires an ability to make distinctions that is beyond some people. yes, we have a deficit and we have to reduce the deficit. but at the same time we have a serious unemployment bump which is getting less serious. it's still serious. 8.3% is better than 8.9% and 9.1%. and 7.9% would be better if they didn't force cities and states to lay off cops, teachers, firefighters. but what we need to be able to do is work on both of these. in the near term, some

stimulative activity to deal with the unemployment situation is a good thing. this is not a time to choke off this recovery. but precisely because we are in the early stages of recovery, we can if we do the right thing in the near term begin with the end of this current year start cutting back on the deficit. now, it's interesting, by the way, that one of the ways we do that will be to continue to reduce military spending along with other things. but what do my republican colleagues say? oh, no, you can't reduce another penny of military spending. one of the things i've been told, by the way, we've hallowed out the military. i wrote to secretary panetta who to my surprise claimed after the end of the cold war we had hallowed out the military, i was surprised because he was a budget director during that period during the cold war under president clinton so apparently this was a confession that he himself hallowed out the military but i don't think we did. i have written him and i have asked others, would anyone

please come forward and say on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, or elsewhere, given the argument that we hallowed out the military, can anyone show me where in the period after the demise of the soviet union, one of the great things that happened for human history, we needed to apply military force and didn't have it? president clinton didn't ask for the appropriate force in southern yugoslavia to accomplish his goals. george bush at the immediate end of the cold war was able to, iraq, first president bush. the second president bush had too much military from my standpoint in terms of what he used going to war in iraq and afghanistan at the same time. we hallow out the military is nonsense. with the reduction in unemployment we will be the strongest military in the world and will be able to defend ourselves. yes, if we are going to reduce the deficit we have to put cuts in a lot of playses. i receive social security. i'm prepared to have it all taxed away. that's an effective way to

means test it. not by a complicated process. if we're getting social security, give us a 95% tax. that will work very efficiently. i'm prepared to put some constraints in spending domestically on programs -- but exempting the military, as my republican colleagues want, trying to scare the american people to say if we're only five times as strong as our nearest adversary will somehow be in danger, that isn't remotely the case. continuing to maintain a if you compliment of weaponry to defeat the sofe yen union -- it doesn't make sense. here's the point. if we commit ourselves to longer term deficit reduction, then we can without in any way cause any less of confidence through the short-term spending that will help us. and by the way, the other area where we should be working to reduce the deficit is in taxation. one of the controversies we have right now is our proposal that many of us support to put a surtax on income for people

who earn more than a million dollars a year. it's called the millionaires tax. es that a misleading name. you can have -- that's a misleading name. you can have $10 million in your safe, in your account and still not be earning $10 million a year. we are not talking about people who have $1 million or more. we are talking about people who earn $1 million a year. we say every time you earn more than $1 million a year, for every $1,000 in taxable income, after all your deductions that you earn, we are going to tax you $56. $56 per $1,000 for people already earning $1 million. it's nonsense to suggest that would be disturbing to them or to their spending patterns but it will help us reduce the deficit. so, yeah, i want to shore up medicare. i have two complaints about the president. one that he's spending too much and, two, not spending enough.

he talked about cuts in medicare. those were not cuts that went to any beneficiary or even to the actual providers in the real sense. it went to some insurance companies that were getting more than they needed. if we, include the military, and put constraints elsewhere and ask the wealthiest people in this country to pay some taxes -- by the way, tax increases kill the economy, the last time i heard is when bill clinton asked congress to raise taxes on incomes above $100 -- $150,000. put it from 36% to 39%, a fairly small increase at the time, and we did it over the objection of the right-wing economists and they told us it would be the end of the economy. in fact, subsequent to that in the many years after that we had one of the best economic performances in american history. not necessarily because we raised taxes, but even though

we did. the fact is people who thought these arguments exaggerate the vast, complex, strong american economy to fairly small changes in tax rates. but the point is that we have been told before that increasing by a fairly small amount of taxes on the very wealthy. we were talking then $150,000. we are talking about a much higher way today, that's a way to help reduce the deficit. constrange the military will help reduce the deficit and that brings me back to the point of these job numbers. totally contrary to what the republican presidential candidates are saying when they take time out from saying terrible things about each other, but i will give them credit. as i listen to the republican candidates make the most devastating, negative, personal attacks on each other i have to concede they are almost always right in what they say about each other. but when they lay off each other, they make extraordinarily negative excessively denigrating

comments about our country talking about how this country is no longer respected in the world. directly contrary to all the other evidence. denigrating our economy when we are the best performing major developed economy in the world. not good enough. it would be better still if the republicans would cooperate rather than trying to make things worse. 250,000 new private sector jobs including increases in manufacturing. and by the way, mr. speaker, a significant part of that was because the government intervened over the objection of the republicans now running for president and many in congress to help the automobile industry. let me read from yesterday's "new york times." headline, surprise car sales start new year strongly. and it says that american and other automobile dealers are doing very well. nd chrysler ends with $225 million profit. come back from bankruptcy,

chrysler hit a milestone when the smallest reported its first full year of positive earnings since 2005. and as it makes very clear -- oh, it says this is a company that just three years ago needed a government bailout and a trip to bankruptcy to survive. the fact is that the intervention initiated by president obama and supported by this congress, particularly our democratic members with some republicans but most of them opposing it, rescued general motors and chrysler. general motors is today the number one automobile company in the world. wouldn't have been if we listened to the republicans. manufacturing employment has begun to increase. partly because we've gotten these jobs back at chrysler and general motors. by the way, among those that were strongly supported of the intervention was ford. ford had been prudent and borrowed some money or had mortgaged itself and had some cash. they didn't need a direct participation in the funds that came from tarp.

but they strongly supported it because they knew that general motors and chrysler weren't able to continue to function, the supply chain in america would dry up. that would cost more jobs and put ford at a disadvantage. so we have a thriving american automobile industry today that's on the upswing that we wouldn't have had if we listened to the republican argument that government is always bad. i'll make an exception. government is always bad unless it's the military. they have powers beyond what it has, it seems to me. i would make the point our military is a superb instrument for extraordinary people and they are very good what a military should do, stopping bad things from happening. it is not fair to them and unrealistic to expect them to be able to make good things happen. yes, they can stop murderers, but the best armed, most thoughtful young americans ever assembled aren't going to be able to get the shiia and sunni and kurds to like to each other or bring to afghanistan what

they need, sadly, but we don't do it with american firepower. but with the exception of the military, we hear only negatives about the federal government. in fact, we have a private sector that has begun to connect. we are now at a pace to reduce unemployment to a reasonable level. if it hadn't been for the job reductions in the public sector forced by many here, we'd be even better off. by the way, we are talking about people who pave the streets and shovel the snow and deal with the sewage and clean up the parks and police and fire, these are essential people. we have half a million less of these people. we're not talking about federal bureaucrats here. these job losses are mostly at the state and local level. we have half a million less of them. we have fortunately 3.6 million more private employees in this period of recovery from the recession. if we had been able to just to

maintain the private public sector we would lower unemployment. i hope, mr. speaker, they will look at this. they will stop this mindless, partisanly motivated trashing of america when we are doing better than any other developed economy of any size. even though we are held back to some extent by them. that they will instead join with us in saying, look, let's understand we need spending constraints across the board, including the military, that the wealthiest people in this country, the people who have hedge funds can afford to pay regular tax and not get that carried interest boondoggle that is no way an -- i understand why they want to be richer. many of them are spirited enough to say, let's change this. let's put some spending constraints across the board. let's raise revenues in a way that will not have a negative effect on the economy or the quality of lives of those people paying it. and let's lock in that so that