vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and has perform r. 2453 as amended. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 2453, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint counts -- coins in commemoration of mark twain. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 408. the nays are four with two voting present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> a couple purposes. first, mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3993. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i also ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been served with a

subpoena for testimony issued by the commonwealth of massachusetts, department of industrial accidents, in connection with a workers compensation dispute currently pending before that department. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that because the subpoena is not material and relevant, compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the privileges and precedence of the house. signed sincerely, james mcgovern, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of be a requested for mrs. napolitano for today and for thursday, april 19. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair is prepared to entertain requests for

one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman will proceed. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week we remember and recognize the sinking of the titanic 100 years ago. it is humbling to reflect upon the fraility of the even so mightiest ship. titanic-like, this country is dealing with things we must address. we can see the icebergs in the water ahate. interest rates on spanish debt, costs about our own future is

raised. president obama's trillion dollar deficites that have sunk us deeper in debt that we have ever been before. we see the fiscal icebergs looming around us. yet, senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. mr. speaker, we cannot spend money we don't have. we must be serious about finding ways to steer in open water. we owe it to ourself, our children and grandchildren to balance this government and this country. if we do not steer clear of the icebergs they will send us down, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair -- the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in defense of the

great state of nevada. for almost 30 years, out-of-state washington politicians have been trying to dump the nation's nuclear waste in my state's back yard at a place called yucca mountain. the site is 90 miles from the greatest tourism destination, las vegas, and in order to get the radioactive toxic nuclear waste to this location, they have to truck it on nevada roads through nevada neighborhoods and by nevada schools. a single accident would have devastating consequences to the health of the people of nevada, not to mention the economy. mr. speaker, this is the most dangerous substance known to man, but there are still those in washington trying to force it on the people of the state. one of those people is nuclear regulatory commissioner christine zinicki. thankfully her term ends on june 30. i strongly oppose the renomination of someone who puts the interest of the nuclear industry ahead of the people of the state of nevada,

and i urge my nevada colleagues in the senate to do everything in their power to ensure this yucca nuclear waste pusher does not have another term. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, yesterday the space shuttle discovery flew through the blue sky over the nation's capitol on its way to its final resting place at the smithsonian national space museum in virginia. they had cheers from some but tears from others. space travel in america is history. our government has chosen to abandon the space program as we know it. j.f.k., nasa and america put the first man on the moon, but we have been the leader in the space race for years. now the sun has set on the

american man space travel. now we are raising the white flag of surrender in space travel to the russians. j.f.k. might not approve. ironically american astronauts have to rely on an expensive ride from the russians in order to get to the space station. dr. anna fisher said it well when a bright young boy asked her how he could become an astronaut one day. she said, study russian. that ought not to be. but that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker, for your courtesies. i rise to salute the access suggestive committee's of the american bar association from states all over the nation and particularly my constituents that i just met with, the chair

of the access to justice committee, judge lindsey, and a number of others who have come to join us to again emphasize that when lawyers as myself take our oath of office and become members of the bar, we have an obligation and a duty to public service, that public service is to ensure that every american under the constitution has access to justice and to insist that they are able to be represented and their legal rights protected. i beg that this house accept the 402 million dollars that is the senate marked for access to justice program and not the $328 million that is the house mark. shame on us if we realize that more and more laws are complex, more and more americans suffer, more and more americans need help, more and more americans are under foreclosure over the years and even though we have worked hard in this government to restore those homes, they need legal rights. let us support the funding for

access to justice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this past weekend i attended the summit of the americas where western hemisphere leaders were in attendance to discuss regional policy issues and challenges. let this regime repeatedly criticize the united states for our strong opposition to communist cuba participating in the summit. . democratic nations. we should continue our commitment to the embargo and continue the importance of condemning the regime. human rights, civil liberties and free elections. the drug operation in our hemisphere, legalizing drugs is

not the answer. we must bolster regional security and directly target drug gangs and drug traffickers and america must stand strong against these efforts and in favor of democratic values. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. , the gentleman from is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: i recognize and honor the courageous volunteer fire department in long island in combating recent wildfires in my district. they have won our trust and admiration. while thankfully no lives were lost, the fire now out, consumed 1100 acres and destroyed one commercial building. if not for the actions of our local firefighters, the damage could have been far worse and we are fortunate that the three

firefighters who were injured are all recovering well. as a lifelong resident, i was inspired by the willingness to help shown by the 109 who participated in the effort to combat what turned out to be the seventh largest fire in long island history. mr. speaker, i ask that you join me in thanking all of suffolk fire department and our leaders who supervised this operation for their dedication and exceptional skills in subduing the recent fires. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. graves: tonight we are going to have a conversation that

impacts americans all across this country and it is about small businesses and what is the congress doing and the president doing and how is it impacting small businesses. and i will be joined by some great colleagues and champions of small business to talk about what are some of the solutions, what can we be doing here in washington, not creating more government, not spending more money, but what can we be doing to create an environment that is conducive for business development and for our small business owners? when i think about the greatness of america, we can list out so many items and characters of this great nation and one of those has to be small businesses, taking a small idea in a free market system and taking it to the consumer and growing a business. and we hear a lot from the administration. they say, you know, businesses are too big, yet they need to be smaller. for small businesses, you guys

are going too fast, too far, you need to slow down. when it should be the opposite. we should be encouraging small businesses to grow more, to grow faster and invest in their employees. there is no big business in this nation that did not first start out as small business and tonight, mr. speaker, that there are small business owners all across this nation here even in the eastern time zone who have yet to have gone home because they are still working. they put on their boots, chasing that dream, that idea that they have and turning it into a business or a concept and chasing that american dream to realize that american dream. to all the small business owners across this great nation, i want to say thank you and say thank you for your hard work for pushing against the burdens that come from the federal government, the high gas prices, the regulatory environment, this crazy tax code that we have and say don't give up. we are here with you tonight and

going to be speaking on your behalf tonight. and i have been joined by some members from across this country who are going to talk about small business and concepts that we can be promoting here in washington to help the small business and help small businesses flourish and not creating more government. before i do that, mr. speaker. i would like to read a letter and it's spore to share this. and this comes from mark. i just wanted to let you know i'm a business owner and i'm tired of all my hard work going to pay taxes, which the federal government squanders. federal income tax, we are all taxed to death and the tax system we have in place is not working or else we wouldn't be so far in debt. i'm in favor of passing the fair tax. it is not only equitable but

eliminates loopholes and it can raise revenue. that won't solve the mismanagement of our taxes by government but will allow us to keep more of the money that we earn. please vote for it. thank you. mark, i'm happy to tell you, not only will i vote for it, but i'm a co-sponsor of it. and next to speak is the sponsor and that is congressman woodall from the great state of georgia. tell us how it impacts small businesses. mr. woodall: what goes on next and i say folks are back in their officees are working. just because the customers leave, doesn't mean the doors are closed and we come down and fully debate some of these ideas that folks have been talking about all day, transportation, policy and talking about mark twain a little bit and been

talking about the rules but haven't gotten to talk about small businesses. when we talk about economic growth in this country, you are fl the great state of georgia as i am and we have fantastic big companies there. u.p.s. is there. delta airlines is there. we got coca-cola there, a brand name that is known the world around. home depot. but that is not where the jobs come from. the jobs come from the small businessmen and women who risk everything, everything that believe by the sweat of their brow and power of their ideas they can make their tomorrow better than today. that letter you got from your constituent, mr. graves, is the letter that i get from folks every single day who say i don't mind paying the taxes. part of the social contract, the government has to run but it

doesn't have to be this painful. h.r. 25, the fair tax, which you are a co-sponsor, and it's the single most popularly piece of lengths in either the u.s. house or the u.s. senate because voters are demanding it one member of congress at a time. mr. graves: i see we have been joined by a chairman here of rules. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding and i appreciate you yielding and the reason i have come to the floor is to share with our colleagues the sad news of the passing of my close friend dick clark. when i look to the topic of your conversation -- i had dinner with him two weeks ago and he said exactly what my friend from georgia indicated, he was a proud taxpayer.

and i know people are going to be talking about "american bandstand" who broke the barrier by bringing african americans into television in the 1950's and 1960's, someone who was an amazingly successful businessman. he was a very successful one. and i just want to say as i listen to your discussion, i was reminded of how he regularly said everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. and he said that not too long ago to me and i said i appreciate that, because he knew he was paying my salary and yours and yours as well. but i just want to share with our colleagues what a great loss this is for our country. the show that he started and initially became so famous was "american bandstand" and he was a very patriotic american and a

believer in the free enterprise system and a believer in encouraging initiative and opportunity on a regular basis and someone who provided inspiration to people all across the spectrum. and as you guys are here talking about the need for tax fairness and the imperative to ensure that we encourage more people like dick clark, i think it's important for us to remember the wonderful life that this man had. and i have to say a couple of things if i might. he was someone will recall on new year's eve will host up in times square. and in 2004, he suffered a massive stroke. and i have never seen anyone with more determination and fight than dick clark. a number of people said why did he continue to go out and be on television. you know what? people all across our country

and i had a conversation with him just before he decided to go this past fall to do this program, people said to him, the fact that you have suffered this stroke and are continuing to fight to get better and continue to be active is something that is an inspiration to us. and so that kind of fighting spirit is exactly what the small businessman and woman who are still working, that my friend was just talking about and the imperative to make everyone pay their taxes and no more, is something he should be remembered for along with all of the great, great accomplishments that he had. and i thank my friend for yielding and i wanted to share that with our colleagues here in the house. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman, for shage sharing that with us. you talk about small business owners, they are going to work extremely hard. they get up early every day and work late every night and want

to pay their fair share and want to know it is being handled properly and it is being fairly collected. mr. woodal, i hear criticisms of the fair tax. they say, this will impact one group more than another. how can something called the fair tax not be fair to everyone? how do you refute that when they come up with the criticisms to the fair tax and when they are criticizing the fair tax they are ending the tax code and 60,000 pages of mess that we have, the loopholes and corporate welfare, they must be defending that, but how do you respond to the criticism? mr. woodall: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding because that is what is so amazing about small business folks. you never have a person that says, i want a leg up on everyone else, unfair playing field so i can beat up on my competition. our small business owners are people who say give me a level

playing field and i allow any nation around the globe because nobody works harder or powerful ideas than the american workers. that's what the fair tax is all about. it says let's create a level playing field. my friend is not a freshman, he got here six months earlier than i am, but new ones to this institution know there are folks here who like to pick tax code to pick winners and losers. i see lights here in the chamber and put a huge tax on flourescent lights or played shirts. that is what happens with the tax code. but the fair tax says no, we are going to have a single tax, a single tax rate on everything the consumer buys. you are going to be taxed on

everything once, but only once because those small businessmen and women who write those letters to your office and mine say, rob, i spend more time trying to figure out tax decisions than i do figuring out business decisions. and when these are the men and women who employ so many of our friends and neighbors, when these are the men and women who create the job growth in this country, we have to have them focus on business decisions, not tax decisions and the fair tax does that. mr. graves: thank you. i hope you stick around and i will yield to the gentleman from ohio. the fair tax is not an additional tax or not something that is added on in a layer, but eliminating corporate tax, dividend tax, death tax and throwing that all out and

eliminating the internal revenue service and i'm sure people would be applauding on that day should it ever occur. we have the chairman of the republican study committee, a great mine when it comes to policy and a great advocate for tax reform, regardless of fair, flat or whatever it is. it is about empowering the taxpayer and not empowering the government and with us is congressman jim jordan. mr. jordan: i thank you for your leadership here in the congress and you said it right. you said it well, whether you are for fair tax, flat tax, one thing is certain, the american people have had it with the current tax code. when you think about this, any tax code that allows 47% of the population not to pay 37% of the citizens not to pay, 47% of all the people living in this country not to pay the main tax,

the income tax that we have, you can't repair it, you can't fix it, it's completely broke. you have to throw it away and start over. any tax code that now requires our companies head quartered in the united states of america to pay the highest corporate tax in the world is broken. we are talking about small business and tax policy, what is amazing to me, in spite of stupid policies from the federal government, how well our small business owners do. we are talking about the work ethic and interviewership and small business owner that in spite of that policy, they are still succeeding, imagine if we had a tax policy that actually made sense and a regulatory environment that made sense and an energy policy that made some sense and used the resources that the good lord has blessed us with and monetary and fiscal policy that made sense, we

wouldn't have 2% growth, we would be having 3%, 4%, 5% growth in this economy and as you said creating an economy that is conducive to economic growth, if we did that, get out of the way. let the american entrepreneur and small business owner make good things happen, growing our economy, creating jobs and making us the greatest nation in the world. that's what is at stake and it starts with the policies here at the federal government. we need to change this tax code and change the regulatory environment and change our energy policy and start getting spending under control. i know we have another speaker. and i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. . mr. graves: americans want an equal opportunity. that's the american dream. that's american exceptionalism.

just give me a chance and i will beat the next guy, the next nation. we are more competitive. when we have that more competitive advantage and it's a level playing field, we will win every time. that is the spirit of the small business owner. and speaking of spirit and small business owner, we have joining us also tonight is jeff landry from louisiana, and i thank you for joining us and look forward to hearing your insight. mr. landry: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, mr. speaker, this week marks another tax day. culminating another year that americans have been subjected to an outdated and overcomplicated tax code. three years ago on tax day i attended the first tea party rally in my hometown in new eye beeria set up within -- new iberia set up with an overburdensome tax code. as a small business owner in the oil and gas industry i have created jobs. i have made payroll.

i have paid insurance. i have balanced budget. i did these things like the majority of small businesses out there across america with hard work, determination and, of course, a fantastic accountant. you know to sift through the 3,800,1,008 words of the tax code, small businesses are the real drivers of the economy. today small business employ half of the workers. they have managed to generate nearly 65% of all of the new jobs created over the past 15 years. often outperforming their larger counterparts. i often speak with small business owners in my district. the one word i hear again and again from them is uncertainty. from looming health care mandates to volatile energy

prices, america's small businesses simply don't know what to expect. to the farmer out there who's watching his energy prices and his fertilizer prices increase, to the small business owner trying to determine if hiring that new talent is the responsible thing to do, to building a new factory, the uncertainty in the current environment is what is keeping them from expanding and from what's keeping them from creating jobs. you know, the oil and gas industry is a classic example and i'm not talking about big oil. i am talking about nearly the 18,000 independent oil and gas producers here in this country who are small small business owners. these small business owners develop most of the wells, produce 68% of america's oil, produces 82% of america's gas. in total, america's onshore

independent oil and gas small businesses support 2.1 million direct jobs here in the united states in 2010. in my state alone, over 47,000 people are employed directly by the oil and gas sector. when you add that and other aspects of the oil and gas industry, the refining transportation pipeline, there are over 111,000 people in the state of louisiana directly employed by the oil and gas industry. and just like every other small business, these businesses, the ones that literally fuel america, are faced with the crushing tax burden that threatens their very survival. and to hear from our president who's threatened to take away parts of the tax code that helps them. and i'm not talking about big oil subsidies. i'm not talking about lowering the corporate tax rate either. but most of our domestic energy

producers, they don't pay that corporate tax rate. they don't get a subsidy. they don't get a direct check from the government. they simply are taking advantage of the same credits out there that other small businesses around this country partake in. logically, when most small businesses deduct their expenses, these independent producers do as well. they do not receive a direct check from the government. instead, it's a cost of doing business. without the ability to expense these ordinary and necessary business costs, an independent producer would have to reduce its drilling budget by 20% to 35% almost immediately, bringing a drastic decrease of energy production here in this country. without this reinvestment, production would decline rapidly because wells depleted

or need to be replaced. americans cannot afford a decrease in american production and small oil and gas businesses cannot afford a tax hike. tax hikes would also hurt american retirees from mutual funds, pension plans, i.r.a., harming american energy. with so much uncertainty being created here in washington, the threat of billions of dollars in new job-crushing tax hikes, a federal takeover of our -- less access to taxpayer-owned energy resources, our federal lands, the permitting prosets still lagging, the -- process still lagging, mr. speaker, we can do better. we owe it to our spiss owners in every industry to pro--

small business owners in every industry to provide a basic sense of consistency and certainty in our tax code. tomorrow, the house will consider the small business tax code act, legislation that would allow small businesses to deduct 20% of their active income in order to retain more capital and create more jobs. i congratulate our majority leader for bringing this bill to the floor. i'm confident that with the strong step in the right direction we will continue to -- we will continue to work to make sure that our small businesses have the certainty they need to grow and to thrive. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. mr. graves: i thank the gentleman from louisiana for sharing your insight to want. you made a great point about small business owners. all the things they do that the government never does. they get up every day early and they work long and hard. they know how to balance budgets. they paychecks. they have to be held accountable by the consumer with their good.

is it meeting the demands of the consumer? is it the customer service there? every day they're heldable and every day they get up with that desire and that drive to produce a better product, a better good and provide a better service. and what a great tribute to the small business owners across america. and with that i'd like to shift over to mr. hannah from new york who is -- mr. hanna from new york who is going to share with us about small businesses in his region and i appreciate your leadership on this issue. mr. hanna: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. they are the catalyst for job growth and job creation all across our nation. they certainly are in upstate new york where i started my own small business some 30 years ago which i ran successfully for that same period of time employing hundreds of people from my community. friends and neighbors till this day. unemployment is still too high.

the over 8% in my home state of new york. our constituents want to go back to work. they just need the opportunity. that's what i heard from small business owners when i hosted a meeting of the central new york bissonette work earlier this -- business network earlier this month. they can advance policies that enable our 27 million small businesses to do what they do best, compete and create jobs. there is no silver bullet, but there are solutions that we can work together on starting today. here are a few -- tax relief. small businesses in america pay some of the highest taxes in the world, and the associated regulations are also an enormous barrier to growth. the average tax compliant -- compliance cost for employees for small businesses is three times what it is for large businesses. we need to make taxes lower, fairer, more predictable and

generally more understandable. we'll be voting on a bill of this nature sometime this week. freedom from government competition. too many of our small businesses find themselves pitted against their own government when it comes to doing commercial work like landscaping, construction and engineering. we should require federal agencies to use the private sector when providing goods and services that are available in the open marketplace. this gives small businesses in our community a chance to work efficiently and create jobs. and this has been shown to save taxpayers money. finally and most importantly, a jobs-based education policy. a major root cause of our long-term unemployment is the changing nature of the global marketplace. we are competing against developing countries like never before. competition isn't bad, but we need to be better prepared.

in order to maintain a high standard of living, we need to cultivate the value added, knowledge-based innovative sector of our economy. they can only be achieved through education and a new focus on the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, also known as stem. stem jobs on the average pay 27% more than non-stem jobs. the only effective long-term way to rebuild the middle class is through education. it's been this way since the dawn of time. with better paying tax generating jobs that provide at least those basics of the american dream, a home, a college education for your children and a dignified retirement. mr. speaker, there are few tasks more important than helping small businesses put our neighbors and friends back to work in america. let's join to work on pro-growth policies that will

enable them to do just that. i thank you and i yield back. mr. graves: thank you, mr. hanna. i appreciate your plea there. let's get government out of the way. let's let small business owners do what they do best and that is dream big and work hard, and next to share with us is mr. bartlett from maryland. thank you. mr. bartlett: thank you very much for yielding. i'd like to spend just a couple of minutes putting this discussion in context. i am from maryland, i've been there 51 years now and for 12 years my wife and i ran a small business, meeting a payroll every wednesday morning. that's pretty good. discipline. i want to give you some statistics. a little smaller than average thing. we have only eight representatives in the congress. we have something over five million people. but in our little state we have 106,441 small businesses. that is a a lot of individual

businesses -- that is a lot of individual businesses. they totally employ 1,105,200 individuals. this in a little state like maryland. it's interesting to see who employs these people. the top three industries by employment over 157,000 in health care and social assistance. one of the most rapidly growing sectors of our society which we have to kind of calm down or we won't be able to afford it. over 135,000 employed in professional, scientific and technical services. and maryland is probably either number two or three in biotech in the whole country. so we're proud of that. and we have 133,000 employees in construction. that's down. we used to have more than that, of course, and hope we can have more in the future. according to the census bureau, 15,717 are women owned, and they employ 147,751 employees.

. i wouldlike to note before the increase of hispanics, women opened the most small businesses in our country. they are better employers than men. and they are different. and they are ranked to be better employers by their employees. let's give a wave to the women who are entering the small business community. and in addition to this these small businesses, maryland is home to 365,000 492 sole pripetorships, these are businesses with one person. many of these small businesses benefit from the 20% small business tax cut in h.r. 9, which is one of the things we are focusing on this evening.

couple of interesting statistics. between 2005 and 2008, small business created a net total of 563,000 jobs in maryland. in 2008 and 2009 we lost 37,433. and that is because of how many of those small businesses we lost. one of the previous speakers mentioned the tax code and how we need to smake it simpler and fairer. let's talk about the fair tax and then i will yield. if we go to the fair tax, that's a consumption. let's repeal with the 16th amendment. if we did that, we could have a bigger tax revenue with no increase in tax burden because the tax burden today is not just the taxes that you pay but the $200 billion that it cost

businesses and individuals across our country every year to comply with the code. and i don't know if anybody would be happy to roll that compliance cost and receive news will go up with no increase in tax burden. that's one of the things we need to do to balance the bug. if we went to the fair tax with no increase in tax burden, we would have more money flowing into the u.s. treasury and small business would be a big part of that. thank you for yielding and i yield back. mr. graves: as i wrap up this segment that we have here this evening, i just want to say thank you to the small business owners across america. you have heard great reports from members of congress who are fighting with you and fighting for you, but we want to thank you, because every day you are getting up and going against some of the greatest pressures and burdens that a government can ever place on you but you don't give up. you get up each day and put the

boots on and take that dream, concept, and build it into reality and providing jobs and providing for families and we want to say thank you. while the optimism index is getting lower and the misery index is getting higher, americans haven't given up. in fact, statistics show that one out of two businesses across this nation hire one person in the next 12 months, unemployment would be near zero. that's how close we are because small business owners haven't given up. i want to thank you and applaud you for that and keep up the great fight. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot is recognized for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. chabot: i thank you, mr.

speaker and i appreciate chairman graves making it possible for so many of us who care about small businesses in this country this evening to talk about how important it is what we ought to be doing to support our small business folks all over the country. after all, 70% of the jobs created historically in the american economy aren't the big guys. not the huge corporations, although we want them to do well and hire a lot of people, even though a lot of people think it's the huge corporations that are doing all the hiring, it's small business folks, moms and pops places, fewer than 500 employees, sometimes 50, five or even one. these are the folks that have created 70% of the jobs. and unfortunately i would argue that this administration and the policies that have been implemented for many folks on the other side of the aisle,

unfortunately, have made it very challenging to these small businesses to be successful to hire additional employees and there is a whole range of issues we are going to talk about this evening. we have limited time and i will turn it over to a couple of my colleagues. i would like to recognize the gentleman from arizona, david schweikert, who has been a leader in trying to come up with policies that will be supportive for small businesses in this country. i would like to yield five minutes to the the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, and to my friend, thank you for yielding me a few minutes here. one of the reasons i'm standing here is over the last week, we have heard the president talk about what we call the buffett

rule. and the senate in its failure to move the buffett rule, thank heaven, and realizing for a lot of americans who don't understand, that, a, it is pretend math but also an absolute attack on the entrepreneurs, on the wealth creators and people who create jobs and economic growth in this country. i thought i would do another one of my clocks to try and help folks understand the reality of the math. think about this, we borrow about $3.5 billion every single day, which is an improvement, but $3.5 billion every day. 1,440 minutes in a day. how do you explain how little the buffett rule does to help us in our debt crisis, but how much damage it will ultimately do to our economic growth. and where this came from is two days ago, my phone rang and i

had a gentleman from my district who was absolutely insistent that the buffett rule would solve the debt problem. we made a clock and here it is. if you think about how much we borrow in a single day, $3.5 billion in a day, how much would the buffett rule with our math, how much of that day would it cover of the debt? remember 1,440 minutes in a day, it would cover 3.5 minutes in a day. it's fantasy. so why does the left, why does this president engage in this sort of political theater? maybe because it's good politics, but it's really crappy math. and here's the reality of our future and that keeps coming back and why we have to do things to get our small businesses to hire and grow. we here in congress are going to have to deal with a reality.

it's like a freight train. this year, 63% of all of our spending is medicare, medicaid, social security, interest on the debt, veterans' benefits. in 4 1/2 years, 2017 budget, it's going to be 75% of all of our spending. what we call the mandatory, the niflets. your government is very quickly becoming a health insurer with a shrinking army. we need the president to stop pushing policies that attack our wealth, our jobs -- job creation engines. the fantasies like buff -- biffeth rule isn't good policies. and i yield back. mr. chabot: the gentleman mentioned the buffett rule and i will talk about it briefly.

because i think the gentleman from arizona did a debate job in showing this is all about politics, this so-called buffett rule policy is. there is a gentleman named charles krauthammerer who is one of the smartest pundits in the land and i saw him talk about the buffett rule and he illustrated it differently but the same illustration. he indicated and he had the numbers run on this from a very repew tabble organization and if the -- republic you tabble organization and if the dollars were collected on the buffett tax, next 250 years, and he commented that is longer than the republic has been in existence, the united states of america, longer than our

existence, do you know how much we would actually collect on that relative to the deficit, which is is supposed to do, pay down the deficit, it wouldn't cover last year's deficit alone. not one year of the obama deficit would be covered by the so-called buffett rule if we collected it for 250 years. it's nothing but pure politics. don't be fooled by that. now, mr. speaker, as small businesses across the country fight to make ends meet and stay out of debt, the federal government continues to dig itself into a hole with its exorbitant spending habits. small businesses are burdened with massive regulations brought on by obamacare. they are further plaggede by the threat of tax increases, significant tax increases next year should the relief from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be

allowed to expire. and that's what some people, particularly those on the other side of the aisle would like to happen. they would like the tax cuts to go away. in other words, the tax cuts go away, taxes go up. this wasn't on the wealthy, but virtually all americans, middle-class folks, people who take advantage of the child tax credit, whole range in the middle and upper income as well. a lot of folks would be hit very hard with this, particularly small business folks, because the so-called wealthy in this country, many of them are small business folks, again as i mentioned before. 70% of the jobs in this country are created by those folks. if you are trying to bring the unemployment rate down, why would you put additional burdens on the people who are actually creating the jobs? mr. speaker, tax issues are the single most significant set of regulatory burdens for most small businesses. a recent nfib research

foundation, national federation of independent businesses, that study found that four of the top 10 small business problems were tax-related. just this week, struggling families and businesses were forced to give the government more of their hard-earned money to satisfy the hungry appetite of government bureaucracy. mr. speaker, enough is enough. tax rates and fiscal irresponsibility have got to come do an end. small businesses across the country are fighting to keep their doors open and keep their lights on. it's shameful for the federal government to expect these hard-working taxpayers to foot the bill for g.s.a. excursions to las vegas and inept corporate schemes while the backbone of our economy, which is the small businesses continue to suffer.

after all, american small businesses are responsible, as i said before for 70% of the jobs that are created in this country. why do we want to continue to make life so difficult for them? why are they the target for the left in this house so often? the america i know is a nation where hard work creates opportunities for success. after all, that's what our forefathers were seeking in the first place. at the founding of our nation, small business owners came to this land to escape excessive taxation and cumbersome regulation, families of farmers, builders, traders, inventors and merchants. it is dishartening today that it's our very own government that is creating the job-killing taxation and regulation. our economy is still struggling to rebound from the worst recession since the great depression and we must support

the engine that will propel america forward. this engine has always been fueled by hard work and an economic climate that rewards success. when i'm back home in my district in greater cincinnati, i make a point to frequently meet with small business owners to talk about their successes as well as their struggles. i too often hear that the burden of taxes and regulations, coupled with great uncertainty is keeping these businesses from growing and in many cases even forcing many of them to close their doors all together. i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 9 the small business tax cut act. it would amend the internal revenue code to allow american businesses a tax deduction of 20%. this is common sense. it's a fair bill that would help small business owners to keep more of what they've earned to invest in expansion and hiring. that's the important thing. hiring americans who now need

those jobs. we still have over 8% that are unemployed. i urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will be a shot in the arm to small businesses across the nation. and if there are any of my colleagues that would have any additional things they would like to say. if not -- can i ask the speaker how many -- how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 minutes remaining. . one -- mr. chabot: one of the other issues we have here, is gasoline, what kind of difficulty that's causing small businesses across the country. i hear this all the time from my small business constituents. and you know, it's not surprising that energy prices and gas prices in particular

have been going up so much. they're double the gas prices alone at the pump, they're double what they were when the obama administration took over. that's most unfortunate. but it's really not surprising when you consider that the person that poth because ma appointed to be the head of energy in this country, the chief mind about energy and what we should do about it, it's the secretary of energy, steven chu, a couple of months before president obama appointed him to that position, said it was his goal, what we -- what we ought to try to do, what we ought to strive for is to raise the price of gas lean in this country, energy costs, pries of gasoline, for example, to european levels. think of that. now they've got approximately, depends on the country you're talking about, but it's arnt $9 a gallon, they do liters there,

but it's around $9 a gallon. we're not there yet but unfortunately we're well on our way. it's approaching $4 back in my district in cincinnati. here in washington, just the other day, i had to fill up, it was about $4.50. we're not quite there yet but we're approaching that. it's just unbelievable that we're in this state and it shouldn't be surprising when you consider that the person that president obama put in control of our energy policy here in this country said it was his goal to get energy prices up to european levels and as i say unfortunately we're well on our way. , that's what small business folks have to pay who are delivering things to towns or other things, getting products from other manufacture manufacturers when they come in, they cost more. so they can't charge the

consumers as much or if they do, they drive those folks away. it's a vicious circle. we need to get energy prices down. and unfortunately, they're on their way up. another, i think, terrible mistake this administration has made is to basically shut the door on the keystone pipeline. this is oil sands from canada, our friendly neighbor to the north, our largest supplier of petroleum, by the way is from canada. this is a pipeline that would meep significant numbers of jobs here in the united states, tens of thousands of jobs, and if we ever needed jobs, we know it's now. those are good-paying jobs, many of them union jobs but the president decided, no, we're not going to make this decision until maybe after the election system of tens of thousands of jobs are at risk here. what can -- and canada has been

pretty clear what they will do. if we're not going to accept the oil and build the pipeline it's quite likely they'll build this pipeline through canada to british columbia and ship that oil that ought to be going to the u.s. to china, one of our biggest competitors in many ways, to china. if you know anything about china, the environmental controls they have over there are far weaker than what we have in the united states. so if you're -- if your goal is to make sure you're protecting the environment and that's what many of the president's allies, the really radical left wing environmentalists who are fighting against the keystone pipeline, if you buy the argument, what they're say, they want to protect the environment by not having that oil come down here and be refined in the gulf. but the controls we have here are much stronger than what they are over in chi in. you're not protecting the environment at all or -- or

climate change or anything else if you're going to allow them to spew out what they usually do in china when they handle refining and manufacturing oftentimes and a lot of other things. we all know how the administration and their support for an organization like solyndra, how much tax dollars were wasted there. and it goes on and on. the energy policy in this country, by this administration, is impacting consumersing it's impacting you and me and anybody who goes, fills up at the gas pump nowadays but it's also adversely impacting small businesses and job creation. another thing that this administration i believe has made a mistake which is causing these high prices is to continue to keep offlimits much of the outer continental shelf, the gulf, the moratorium was disastrous for jobs in the gulf region after the spill down

there. it should have been investigated very thoroughly but a lot of those derricks, the oil derricks, ended up leaving that area, they couldn't hold out with that cost, that expensive capital cost other six month's period of time, so they ended up off the coast of brazil, for example, and the president famously said, we'll be happy to buy your oil, brazil. well, you know, we can look at oil all around the world but we ought to be self-sufficient. and the president said he was interested in being energy self-sufficient in this country but his policies are anything but that. so he continues to put offlimits much of the outer continental shelf, the disaster in the gulf, anwr up in alaska, the administration has continued to put offlimits. now all these things we do need to do what we do in an environmentally safe manner. we have the ability to do that now. but again, this administration has shut this down, that's

affecting all of us in higher and higher gas prices. it's long overdue for this administration to take a look, a long, hard look at what their policies are doing to the country. and to reconsider this, to allow us to go after oil that we have available to us, clean coal, natural gas, a whole range of fuels that we have here in this country so we don't have to be borrowing that from countries that oftentimes don't have our best interests at heart. and it sends a lot of money over to countries that unfortunately a lot of the terrorism that's endangered the world and endangered us has come from that region. those dollars aren't always spent in a way that's going to help the united states. so it's time for the administration to turn its policies around. and mr. speaker, with -- without further ado i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's amounsed policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to spend some time on the floor thevpk -- this evening and i will be joined by other colleagues, we anticipate, to talk about an issue which is front and center for millions of families all across the country. as my poster next to me indicates, there is actually a very critical deadline that's approaching this country in terms of the issue of higher education affordability, about helping families pay for college, one of the biggest

challenges middle class families face today. back in 2007, congress made a very positive, progressive move when it enacted the college cost reduction act. a measure which addressed issues that have been long neglected by prior congresses in terms of helping students and families pay for college. the college cost reduction act in particular, took aim at the stafford student loan program a loan program that help lower income and middle income students pay for college. it's a program which has been on the books since the 1960's, but over the late 1990's, into the early 2000's, the interest rate in the stafford student loan program had fluttered upwards to 6.8%, almost the same levels as what private banks were offering for student loans. the college cost reduction act in 2007 correctly moved forward to cut the interest rate for

that program to make it more affordable for students, again, who are facing ever-rising tuition increases in public and private universitys and colleges, two-year programs, you name it, all across the country. as a result of that measure, which passed by a bipartisan vote in this house, we had 77 republicans, which joined a democratic majority that was in control at that time. sent it to the senate, approximately two dozen republicans voted in favor of the stafford student loan program and it was stopet president bush, who signed it into law. that measure has helped 15 million students with lower interest rate costs pay for college. that measure was sunset. it had an expiration date of july 1, 2012, and as my poster indicates, that's a date which, today, is 73 days away. for families and students who today are trying to budget for next year's school year.

that deadline in effect will return the interest back to where it was in 2007, it will double the interest rate from 3.4% to 6.8%, unless congress acts. president obama, during his state of the union address, alluded -- alerted this congress and the nation to the fact that at a time when student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt and car debt, we must as a congress move quickly to make sure wellock in that rate at 3.4%, otherwise, students who use this program, it's been calculated, will have added debt levels between $5,000 and $10,000. in terms of the stakes that exist right now for what that means, this chart, which is from figure pross deuced by the federal reserve bank of new york, shows again vividly the challenge that we face as a nation, that student loan debt,

as i mentioned earlier, exceeds credit card debt, exceeds car loan debt. for many families, particularly if you're talking about going to a four-year, private college, it literally is like buying a house, to try and figure out ways to pay for college. so if we do not act, if we do not lock in that lower rate of 3.4% between now and july 1, the 7 -day deadline we face literally as we stand here today, we will in fact compound that bar graph which shows again rising debt levels for students who are trying to pay for college. the stakes could not be bigger for our nation. back in the 1980's, america was number one in terms of graduation rates across the world. today, the national college board, which track this is data, and has been doing it for decades, reports to us that the u.s. now ranks 12th in the world in terms of graduation rates. that is a dynamic for

mediocrity, that's a dynamic that says our country is not going to be able to produce the work force we need for the future in terms of facing the technological challenge the challenges we face as a nation and we here in congress have that power within our hands to at least avoid worsening the situation that again has now in my opinion reached epidemic, critical proportions in terms of the country's capacity to refresh its work force. the republican majority has leadership which recently talked about this issue, the chairwoman of the higher education subcommittee, when asked last week on a radio program about the issue of student loan debt, basically stated, very clearly, that she has very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there's no reason for

that. well this morning's "wall street journal" had a very long story about exactly one of the couples, a couple who are exactly in this predicament, where they are carrying $74,000 of student loan debt, making monthly payments of approximately $900 a month, and the headline basically is that student loan debt is deferring marriage and children for young people. frankly, that is a -- an issue which is being compounded in terms of young people being able to go out and look for work and not be haunted or burdened, almost smothered and buried by student loan debt. and that affects the vitality of our economy, it affects really the career path of many of our young people who at that point in life really should be maximizing their attempts to really experiment and to innovate and to be, again, the leaders of a new generation in terms of taking this country to

new heights. . this a sad statement by the majority, where we have literally before us in 73 days a choice to make in temperatures of whether or not we are going to avoid this explosion in interest rates. we have leadership that says they have no sympathy or tolerance. as we are sitting here tonight, capitol hill is being visited in members' offices hour after hour by organizations like dental students, nursing students, folks who, again, excited about starting their careers and have issues about policy that we're taking up here in their different professions. but in each instance, when you ask a departmental student, what kind of student loan debt do you have or a nurse anesthetist and

in every situation, their debt level exceeded that the chairwoman of the subcommittee was talking about. we need a congress that isn't out of touch with middle-class families but we need a congress that is ready to move forward to look in that interest rate so we do not compound this problem of student loan debt skyrocketing. there is legislation which is pending, h.r. 3826, a measure which i introduced and now we have over 120 co-sponsors in the house democratic caucus and i'm joined by some of the folks who have joined in that effort that would lock in that rate, that would say, you know what? this is a priority that really matters in terms of the future of this country, which is to invest in young people, to help middle-class families and deal with as big a challenge either

buying a home or trying to save and prepare for retirement. for us at a time when the federal reserve bank is lending money for almost free and home mortgage rates are 3.1% for 30-year mortgage, to say we are going to stand here and turn our backs and allow student loans, one of the bedrock programs for families to go from 3.4% to 6.8% is unconscionable and we cannot let this happen. and i have been joined by some members who agree and have been working hard on this issue back home getting the word back out in this -- our states and congressman cicilline was here first and i yield to my neighbor from rhode island and thank you for joining us here this

evening. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman from connecticut for his extraordinary leadership, which is important to rhode island and important to students all across our country. one of the things that has struck me during this debate about this issue in the last several weeks as we have tried to bring attention to this issue is that this is really a moment in the history of our country where we need to recognize maybe more than at any other time, the urgency of investing in education and ensuring that young people have access to a quality education. and the idea that we are in a position to prevent interest rates from doubling from those who are benefiting from stafford stupid loans and this congress is poised not to do anything about it to me is unconscionable. there is a report from georgetown university and they found over the period from 2008 to 2018, 47 million job open gos

will be created and they will require some level of post-secondary education. if we are going to create jobs and be sure that we have young people who have the skills necessary to fill those jobs in this new knowledge of the 21st september try, we have to make it easier, not more difficult. and congress wisely cut the rate in half. we have to make sure it stays there. i come from a state that brought us the great senator pell, who is the creator of the pell grants which continues to a open the door for access to education and unlocking opportunity and keys to success. we all understand that not only the student been fits from that education but we all benefits when we have young people who are making new discoveries and

finding cures for disease and inventing new products and have productive lives, this is a moment when we have to be sure that we are protecting families from the consequences of this kind of interest rate increase, doubling. the united states public independent research group says without congressional action, borrowers taking up to $23,000 will see it balloon to $5,200. so this is a huge increase for families. many of whom in my state where we continue to have very high unemployment, second highest in the country, where families are struggling with the consequences of the housing crisis and finding work. we cannot allow this to happen. it will cause incredible

hardship for families in rhode island and my district. i was at roger williams university and several universities, meeting with young people, all are concerned with the pell grants and protecting pell grants and what happens when they graduate and have student loans, are these kinds of interest rates going to be in existence, which are not affordable to young people. ap the idea that we have 7 days, this is a moment we can get something done. my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem in addressing this issue. for rhode islanders and you recently had and event in connecticut and many of our colleagues -- rally young people to demand that the legislation which you sponsored, h.r. 3826 and i'm a proud co-sponsor and senator reed is a lead sponsor, we have to bring this to the floor for a vote. our colleagues need to hear from their families in their

districts and all across this country, this is about our own investment in our future as a country that we benefit and young people have access to higher education at a time when our economy is recovering and can't allow our student loans to double and i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and i hope we will continue to beat the drums on this for the next 73 days so we force action here on the floor of the house for the sake of the young people and sake of our future as a thriving and prosperous economy. and i thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue tonight. mr. courtney: we had an event where a public research interest group dropped off signatures from college campuses all across america and they will go out and get even more. 15 million college students benefited from that rate cut in 2007. eight million will be impacted

if we do nothing with higher interest rates. someone who can speak on this issue is congressman bishop, my neighbor across long island sound in the state of new york. and thank you for joining us here tonight. mr. bishop: thank you for the opportunity and let me begin by commending you for being the sponsor of h.r. 3826. i'm proud to join you in that effort and over 100 of our democratic colleagues have joined in this effort and i find it both distressing and shocking that we don't have a single member from the other side of the aisle who cares about students and wants to see the student loan rate maintained at 3.4%. let me start with a statistic that ought to give pause to everyone who cares about the future of our country. we have fallen from first to 15th in the world in the proportion of our population

ages 23-35 that has a college degree in an intensely competitively global marketplace, we will continue to struggle if we do not have the educated population that we need to compete in that global marketplace and if we continue to make it more difficult for students to go to college that is the outcome we will have. at the very moment when we ought to be doing everything that we possibly can to facilitate college enrollment we are in the house of representatives being led by people who are taking us in the exact opposite direction. the student loan issue is crucial. as you say, we have 73 days to act before we -- before students take on a significant additional hardship, doubling the interest rate. but look at what the house republican budget that has now been passed twice in this

chamber, once before easter recess and as recently as yesterday, look at what it does to higher education, cuts funding for the pell grant program. as representative cicilline said. the core financial student aid program that came about as a result of the leadership of senator pell, cuts it by $104 billion. $104 billion over 10 years at a time when we are trying to facilitate college enrollment and will render students in my home state inell i believe for pell. students eligible for it now won't be eligible for it next year. and at the very time that the republican leadership in the house of representatives is proposing that, they are also proposing to make it more expensive for students to do the only thing they could do to replace the dollars they are

going to lose from pell and that's borrow. we are going to take away nonpayable assistance, grant assistance and make it more expensive for them to borrow and it's just simply wrong. we ought to be about opportunity in this country. and when i hear a presidential candidate talk about how the desire to send more students to college is elitist, it gives me great pause and if we look at the history of higher education in this country, before world war ii, it was elitist and with the advent of the g.i. bill, education became accessible. it has allowed us to thrive and become the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. we cannot afford to take a step back and this dual effort to both diminish pell, significantly diminish pell and make it more expensive for students to borrow, the

consequence of that will be moving us backward when we need to be aggressively charging forward. i yield back to you, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: someone who has been a leader on this issue is congressman peters. this is a national issue. and thank you for joining us, congressman peters. mr. peters: thank you for yielding time and you're right, this is a national issue. in my home state of michigan, it is an issue of incredible concern young people and older people that are coming to me and say how can we be in a situation when interest rates are going to double when you look in the papers and go to the banks and they basically pay no interest to anybody. the treasury bonds are at a couple percent. you have mortgage rates of 4% and yet these rates will be

doubling to 6.8%. it defies logic that we even have to be here debating this for an issue that is so important to millions of americans who will be impacted directly or a member of their family that has to deal with these loans and high costs. and the thing that is so tragic and so sad, it is because of congressional inaction. we have the power to do it and it is very simple for us to make this change and lock in these rates at 3.4% and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle turn a blind eye and refuse to take the action necessary to help all of these young people and others that are going to be saddled with these additional costs. and it's going to have an incredible burden not just on their families, but also a major impact on the economy as well. we have all heard stories of folks who have to pay these loan amounts, these monthly payments that are very large. and as a result of that, people

are postponing marriage. they're postponing buying a new automobile and as the gentleman who represents the state of michigan, i don't want to discourage anybody from purchasing an automobile and to have the transportation they need. and yet young people are forced to do that because they have these loans that are going to become more expensive. it means buying homes and living that american dream and being able to make those kinds of investments that are being postponed. this inaction from congress, in addition to being a big burden, will slow down the economic recovery as well and our focus should be about jobs and should be about the economic activity, strengthening that and should be about helping middle-class families being able to pursue that american dream. we are kind of facing a perfect storm right now when it comes to this issue, not just in this interest rate, but we are looking at the fact that a growing number of high school seniors are now going into

college. and we have increased unemployment and underemployment, so more folks are going back to try to get an education and get skills they need in order to get those jobs. but as a result of that, they need to be taking on loans, otherwise they won't be able to afford that education. at the same time, we have folks trying to better themselves and pursue that dream. we see college costs continually escalating and getting increasingly expensive for most people to be able to afford college and certainly not what most people can do by writing a check. families don't have that kind of money and it is way too expensive. we heard from one of the presidential candidates saying this is a government subsidy to have a loan to help children go to school. i know that particular presidential candidate never had to worry about paying for anything. he had very rich parents and he is very, very wealthy himself and doesn't face what most american families face that in order to pursue a college

education, you need to have a loan. and so the fact that we are standing here just 73 days away, where nearly every family in america is going to find this is unconscionable. . this increase means it's about $11,000 more for the average family over a 20-year loan. $11,000 more for an individual or family to pay that loan back. it makes no sense, at a time when treasury rates are at 2% and mortgage rates are less that the federal government would be charging 6.8% to these individuals. we also know that the affordability of making these payments is becoming more difficult as new graduates are coming into a weak employment market right now, wage levels are lower, in fact, we've seen

the median wage for college graduates have gone down nearly $10,000 since 2009, to about $37,000. with the median wage of $37,000, having an additional cost of $11,000 over the 20-year life of a loan is something that is a huge burden for a family, especially young families trying to become established and move forward. i think we have a couple of options here as members of congress, policy options. certainly first off, we want to make sure that young people going into college have all the facts and understand what sort of obligations they're getting into when they take out these loans and incur these debts. i'm certainly very pleased that with the consumer financial protection bureau which we fought for aggressively to put into effect here in to this country, to protect people from predatory practices, that this -- that the consumer financial protection bureau is now launching a new tool to help families, i would encourage anybody watching tonight that they should go to the website

and look at those tools which will help them really get a better handle on how much they will need to borrow to go to school, how much they'll have to pay back and what those monthly payments are. if we can equip folks with information that helps keep them from getting in trouble, that helps them understand how to mag that -- to manage that debt, we have to make sure that in addition to that financial literacy, we're making sure the costs are not onerous. by doubling this rate in 73 days, doubling the rate is something that we cannot tolerate. i hope we can convince our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they need to be engaged in this debate they need to know that families back home will be suffering as a result of our inaction, of our ability, our -- i should say, the unwillingness of our colleague not to do our job, which is standing up for our constituents back home. i will say that i'm very proud to stand with you on this legislation and 3826, h.r. 28 --

3826 and i hope that as folks are watching here tonight, that they would realize they immediate to contact their individual member of congress and make sure that their voice is heard, that they cannot handle additional college tuition loan payments. it's something they're not going to be able to handle, it's going to put them in a very difficult situation. with action, get on the phone eric mail, contact their member of congress, let their voice be heard, hopefully in 73 tais we can avoid what's going to be a certain hardship. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. peters. the comment about why this should not be a partisan issue, i want to reiterate when we cut the rate in 2007, 77 republicans voted with the democratic majority to implement that law and other two dozen republican senators in the senate voted for it. george w. bush signed it into law.

ironically, the stafford student loan program, which we've talked about here this evening, many are familiar with it, it was named after a republican senator, robert stafford, from vermont, who again, was a passionality -- passionate advocate for education. just like senator pell from iowa. this used to be nonpartisan. abraham lincoln is the force that started land grant colleges in the middle of the civil war. it's amazing to think about, he had such vision in the worst conflict of the -- in american history to say, we need to invest in the future of this country, and started the land grant program. stafford from vermont was another guy, he certainly represented a party that at that time would have easily understood the fact that we cannot create new barriers at a time when historic levels of debt are rising again to a point which cheeds credit card debt and student loan debt. mr. bishop, your experience as a

college administrator. we are now in late april, kids are getting notices -- notices from college in their mailbox today, people will have to start planning in terms of how to pay for college. notices are -- notices are being sent out to people say, you may or may not have this rate right now. it's changing family decisions, literally, by the inaction. fankly, we should not have to wait 73 days. we should do this this week. we shouldn't go home until this gets done. families need to have some horizon in terms of planning, a decision that almost as big as buying a house. i know, mr. cicilline, you're on your feet, i want to keep -- mr. cicilline: i want to say, thank you again, one of the things that we sort of recognize and we are proud of as americans, we have always revered our system of higher education and we've always understood that people's ability to access education is part of

for many young people the way they help to realize the american dream for themselves and their families. we've always prided ourselves as a democracy on this mobility that, you know, no matter who you are, if you want to and work hard enough, you can go to college and afford to, you can build a better life for yourselves and your family. this mobility sake part of our -- of the american success story. i read recently, a piece in the "times," where we're in a time when that mobility is being threatened. college access is part of that challenge. and if we are going to preserve the mobility that made this democracy so trong and so great, we have to be sure we protect access to higher education for young people who are pursuing it. it's not only that it's going to be an incredible hardship on families but we'll be crushing the dreesms many young people. they're getting these decisions in the mail, some of the young people have to decide, i can't go to the college of my choice. i can't pursue this dream i have because i'm not going to be able

to afford to pay back these loans at these interest rates. we're going to be crushing dreams of young people, as you said, we can fix it. this is easy. this is something we can do by con gregs action action and we should do it, we shouldn't wait 73 days. i was always taught, i think we all were, that education is the key. i come from a state that understands that. home of senator pell. we understood education is the key osuccess and access to education for our future and the future of young people. this is wrong, it's going to hurt families, it's going to hurt our economy. we've got to take action. i thank you again for organizing tonight's discussion. mr. courtney: i want to pick up on a couple of points but certainly the point, congress -- mr. bishop: i want to pick up on a couple of points, but especially the point congressman

courtney made, students are making decisions right now, we have the obligation to give them the information they need to have in order to make an informed decision. if they're going to have a significant additional repayment burden upon graduation, that's going to affect their decisions. and if a student has excelled and worked hard and gotten into the college of his or her choice, for them to not be able to accept that offer of admission in part because we haven't given them the information that they need, that's unconscionable. it's unconscionable. the other point i would make, governing is about choosing. we -- we're talking -- what we're talking about here is an increase of $50 -- of $550 a rear over the life of a 20-year repayment for seven million students. if anyone walked into this chamber and proposed a tax increase on an annual basis for seven million people, our friends on the other side of the

aisle wouldn't discuss it and wouldn't hear it at all. yet they're willing to sit silently by while they propose that tax increase, payment increase on $7 -- on 7 1/2 million students. the last point i would make, there is this myth that increased student -- increased availability of student financial aid drives up college costs. and it is one of the arguments that is made, that when people argue for reducing access to student aid they say that if we reduce access to student aid, college costs will at least moderate, if not come down because that's what is allowing administrators to raise prices. it is a myth that has absolutely no basis in fact. it is insidious and it is damaging because it drives the kind of decision making or priority making that we're seeing here in this move to reduce pell, this move to increase student loans.

the principle driver of -- principal driver of student cost right now is diminished support from state and local government. we are funding public higher education at the lowest level we have funded it in 25 years. that's what's driving college costs, 70% of the students in this country go to publicly supported colleges. publicly supported colleges are increasing at a rate of 8.5% to 9% a year because the funding for f.t.e. from the state or local government is going down. that's what's driving costs. if our response to that increased need is to say, that's not bad enough, we're going to make it even worse, we're going to take away pell and make your student loans much more expensive, we are going to rue the day we did that because five years from now, 10 years from now, 15 queers from now, we're not going to have the educated work force we need to drive this country forward. thank you.

mr. courtney: and for our viewers, f.t.e. is? mr. bishop: full-time enrolled students. mr. courtney: thank you. -- >> you talked about how a stafford -- how the stafford loan was named after a republican, i red a book about senator pell and some of the bipartisanship that existed. mr. cicilline: why was it that access to higher education seem to end joy bipartisan support as recently as a year or two ago when the rate was cut, certainly the importance of higher education, access to college, remains urgent and important, the economy has become more competitive, not less system of what has caused this sort of willingness to sort of turn our backs as a congress, my friends

on the other side of the aisle to turn their backs on young people? what do you think has changed? mr. courtney: congressman bishop was around before the 2006 lech and was there when we passed the college cost reduction act but i think it's because there was an uns predened boost in involvement by young people, the 18 to 29-year-old voter turnout in 2006 was a historic high for a mid term election and frankly it did slip in the last cycle. when i'm out at the university of connecticut or other state universitys and higher education, i tell that story about how in 2006 the issue of higher education was front and center, it was an issue that was a national issue in the 2006 campaign, and frankly i think the pow over that issue and the message of that election from young voters turns -- turning out in record numbers basically shook this place up and people

recognized, they've got to start doing something for higher education. i think in 2010, there was a bit of a slip and this issue kind of lost focus. but again, i think, you know, as we get closer to this incredible doubling of interest rates on july 1, when i talk to people back home, and i've done a number of events like you and others have, people greet that with absolute disbelief. they know what house mortgage interest rates are they see what banks are getting from the federal reserve they see what the treasury bonds are selling for and to say that this one segment of the economy, college students, are going to have a 6.8% rate in terms of a loan program is just -- it's totally unacceptable and that's why i think, you know, this event we're doing here this evening, certainly the efforts with 130,000 petition signatures is the way we can shake this place up again and avoid this catastrophe. mr. bishop? .

mr. bishop: i would agree. when we passed the 3.4%, it was when congress was less racked by the antipathy. but we have lived through the last several weeks of perhaps the greatest example. we have taken something historically that has sailed through this congress on a bipartisan basis with little or no objection, the surface transportation bill and we have been unable to pass the surface transportation bill and it is an embarrassment. in 2004, 2005, we passed it written by chairman don young and it was a via good bill and passed it with 30 dissepting votes and written with -- 30 dissenting votes and that has

gone away. and when we passed the legislation that did the student loan reduction and interest, we had bipartisan support. we had bipartisan involvement. and i hope perhaps this is the issue around which we can bring it back, bring back that kind of bipartisan cooperation. mr. cicilline: i hope that what you are speaking about, the young people of our country, not only the students but families of students. i was at a portuguese social club and a constituent said she had three children and this question about what is going to happen to student loans and whether or not the interest rate is going to be up. this is an issue that is important not only to the student but for the whole family. i hope young people and young families that are affected will reach out to their members of congress and be sure their voices are being heard in this

discussion because that's our only hope that there be a national movement. and really bring pressure on our speaker and colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take legislative action because i think the point we have to underscore it's not just for the students but for the sake of our country. our young people are competing with not only people in connecticut or new york, but all over the world. and we owe it to them to ensure they have access to the best quality education we can provide and the interest rate doubling on their loans is clearly an emped meant and we owe -- impediment and we owe it to them and our country. mr. bishop: in president obama's state of the union address in

2011, he says we have to outbuild, outinnovate and outeducate the rest of the world. the innovation piece and that is about higher education. this is about our future competitiveness. this is about our future economic stability and economic security. and it's about filling the job that the economy of the 1st century is going to create. the economy of the 21st century is going to require post-secondary training and if we make it more difficult for students to access that training, our economy will continue to struggle. mr. courtney: an employer in our area, mr. cicilline knows well, electric boat, which has a new design project which they are going to be hiring 300-plus trying to find mechanical

engineers, these are high-value jobs. the fact of the matter is, it's a struggle out there to get these folks with hard science degrees for again, really good openings that exist in our economy right now. they are going to get there, no question that's going to happen. but the fact of the matter is, opportunities like that are going to continue to grow as this economy heals and recovers and we want to make sure these young people aren't discouraged to take hold of that opportunity when the time comes because of the indifference of this body to deal with an issue that just goes to the heart of creating opportunities. this chart sadly when we start d it, it was 75 days when the rate was going to go up and yesterday, it was 74. today it is 73. we are going to continue to make sure this countdown clock is

front and septemberer before the people of this country that they know that here in this body, we have control of this issue. so many other issues are so complex and affect such a small part of the economy and the country. this is a broad-based issue that affects eight million college students across america that we have a set deadline and either we do it or we don't. and again, this colloquy this evening is going to be part of the effort to build the noise to make sure we do it. mr. cicilline: i couldn't agree more. and i want to commend you for your leadership. mr. bishop: first in filing the bill, organizing this special order tonight. this is a very, very important effort and one thing i will say, to the students of america, what i have found the most compelling effort of advocacy that individuals can put forward is to put a human face on the consequences of our failure to

act. and if the students all across this country could make their members of congress aware of what this is going to be in terms of their repayment and in terms of the choices they are going to have to make, the decision we will have to make will be easier for many of our colleagues to make. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman from connecticut, and i hope that we will do everything we can to keep this issue alive over the next 73 days. if not, something which has a complicated answer. we can fix it. you have introduced the legislation that many of us have co-sponsored to fix this problem. the more members of congress hear from young people and their families, we are going to organize an event around this, to put a human face on what the consequences of the doubling of these student loans would be for families. if everyone does that, the voices of young people and their

families have to be heard and need to be represented in this chamber and i want to salute you for your extraordinary leadership in leading the charge tonight and being a leader in our country on this issue sfment mr. courtney: you are going to have a powerful event when you do that. the media,. this attracts a huge cross-section of this country. a lot of people aren't aware. interest rates are going to double on july 1 unless congress acts. again, it's something that people cannot -- can't even comprehend, the fact at this moment in the economy when interest rates are so much lower across the board that this one segment, college student particularly entering colleges,

frankly have as much if not more at stake than kids already enrolled in college that this place hears their voices and listens and more importantly acts to avoid this totally unwarranted increase in college borrowing from a program that has a proud bipartisan history. i thank you both for joining me here this evening. look forward to getting the bill signed to protect these interest rates. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut for a motion. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

host: congressman? guest: what the president didn't say if he approved the keystone xl pipelines, 700 million

barrels a day would come from canada and tar sands fields in western canada. that's the entire amount that is contained in the strategic petroleum reserve. he is talking about manipulating and short-term fixes, what is that releasing oil from the strategic reserve which is for a strategic emergency and treating it like something to be used for a political emergency, his own political emergency. host: the "washington post" said looks like gas might come down driven by consumer consumption. people are driving less, not spending as much money on gas and it says that the federal highway administration that the number of vehicle miles over a 12-month period was at lower than any year since 2004. goes on to say republican could have a tough time turning

gasoline prices into a political issue. my sense is if this is the peak for the year, it fades as a political issue. guest: i don't know. but last friday, the price of regular gasoline at the pump in one area of the united states reached $3.96. $387 average across 50 states. it may have a little dip down. but the summer vacation time is not even here and we could see $4.50, $5 at the pump by early fall and deep into the election season. it could be a political problem especially for this president. . . guest: we have responded, what you saw in the energy, the like

amount of increased production and as he pointed out in the clip a minute ago, that we were producing more oil and gas than ever before on private lands but not on public lands. that statistic is undisputed. he should allow more drilling on public lands, if any amount of oil is released from the strategic reserve. if he had only arrived in keystone x.l. pipeline, per day, the total volume in the strategic reserve could come to, this country, in the way of increased production from canada. host: the other piece of legislation deals with the e.p.a.'s clean air decision making power. what do house republicans want to do on that? guest: it's a piece of legislation that says if the

e.p.a. is going to continue to rein in and ha burdensome rules and regulations on the gas and oil industry in this country and they think that's a solution to the problem, let's wait 60 days and have an interagency study to include the department of energy to see truly if what they're saying is actual fact before we have more rules and regulations, we already have far too many from the e.p.a. host: your colleague on the energy and commerce said that that e.p.a. legislation is not necessary when you look at statistics quoted in "the washington post" this morning that people want fuel efficient cars and want clean energy. it says the trend toward more efficient cars is having a tectonic impact, the university of michigan study this month said the fuel efficient soif cars and sport utility vehicles jumped to 29 ppt 6 miles per gallon in a combination of city

and highway driving, up from 2007. guest: my party, the republican majority in the house of representatives and on the energy and commerce committee is not opposed to clean air and lean water and the clean air act and understand that we have to have rules and regulations but the president himself in an executive order a year ago said that before any additional rules and regulations are proffered and final rules put in the public register, that you have to have an economic impact study as well and so this is just an extension of his executive order this bill that chairman whitfield and the republican majority passed out of subcommittee yesterday. host: first phone call for you here. >> i'd like to ask the guest,

we have 2,000 more rigs drilling in this -- in the united states than we did when obama came into office, and are you aware that china has bought controlling interests in the tar sands in canada that's going to ship the oil to the key stobe pipeline. and when you talk about public rand, are you talking about drilling in the grand canyon and yellowstone in that's what we stopped. and the president of exxon testified that at least 40% of the cost of oil a year ago was from speculators speculating on oil. i'll hang up and listen to your answer. guest: i appreciate all -- all very good questions. you pointed out that there are more oil rigs in the united

states this year than there were last year, as i said earlier when we listened to the president's climclip from yesterday, sure, there are more. there's more domestic production this year than last year but these rigs and -- going after oil and natural gas in this country is on private land, it's the mar se ulous shale in pennsylvania, the oil and natural gas that's covered up in north dakota, not on public land, not off the outer continental shelf in the eastern part of the gulf of mexico, there is still essentially a moratorium put in place by the president, the deep horizon spill and it exists today and you, the other question you brought up about china buying the controlling interest of tar sand oil in alberta, indeed, the prime minister of canada only after president obama made that decision, i think a very political decision, as a

tribute if you will for the environmentalists that support him, to not approve keystone x.l. and bring $700 -- and bring 700 million barrels of oil a day down to the refineries in the gulf coast area, that, yeah, the prime minister of canada decided to go ahead and cut a deal with china, build a pipeline to the west coast and ship it in tankers, 70% of the spills, by the way, that occurred in the last 10 years have been tanker spills, not drilling rigs in the gulf of mexico. i think the last point you brought up about the drilling in the grand canyon or yellowstone national park, you know, we all know, all the listeners know, that there is no drilling, nor will there ever be in our national parks. host: victor on twitter asks this, or said this, the northern part of keystone pipeline isn't opened because of this e-- because of the nebraska republican governor

protecting aquifers as his priority, not the president of the united states. guest: that's what the democrats like to continue to say, the republican governor of nebraska has repeatedly said that's not the problem, nebraska has worked that out. if you listen to literry a senior member, a vice chairman on the energy and commerce committee, from nebraska, clearly that is not the problem. the state department studied this pipeline issue over two and a half years ago and said there was no problem. they're just making excuses for inaction. guest: well if he walked on water, i would tip my hat to him and pay great tribute. the president has in my opinion, he may be the nicest

guy in the world, may have the greatest personality, most wonderful family but he has had a failed presidency. host: an independent caller in new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm happy to be on, i've been trying to get on this subject for a -- for some time and i agree fully with representative gingrey. one thing that disturbs me is that we keep overlooking the economy when we talk about oil. and i don't think the american people are aware that we, the taxpayers, actually own a great supply of oil in the anwr preserve in alaska, right next to the alaskan pipeline, which was owned by the state of alaska. now, it troubles me that we don't consider historically the economic health of alaska. the answer is, one answer is, it appears to me that at tax

time, which we are in now, every resident in alaska gets a check of profits from the alaskan pipeline. how much do they get? $3,000. a year. and we have many, many, many times more oil in 12% of the anwr preserve than alaska has in the prudhom preserve and when -- this gentleman is correct, the president has not -- has steadfastly refused to open up anwr, which is owned by the taxpayer. it's criminaled by the department of interior, who have acknowledged that all the experts say it's a potential gold mine if you want to use that phrase. host: morton, i'm going to have the congressman respond. guest: you're right, the prudhomme reserve is not depleted but the supply coming

from that field has diminished and the qutelyization of the alaskan pipeline -- the utilization of the alaskaan pipeline that's been such a success and no danger to the caribous, thank you, it's underutilized and jobs are lost. you talk about anwr, alaskan national wildlife reserve, hundreds of millions of acres, and we're talking about about 2,000 acres of frozen tundra. and clearly that needs to be opened up. we've been debating it for years and it's time to open up anwr. you talk about jobs, just think about what's going on in north dakota in the oil field, the natural gas that's been discovered up there. people who are willing to drive to north dakota, some of them have to live in the back of their pickup truck because there's no housing yet, but people are making $70,000 a

year taking jobs in the fast food industry. so clearly, you bring up the point of the economy and how important domestic oil production, natural gas production, drilling for our own resources in an environmentally safe and friendly way, we'll continue to make sure that that's done and done properly. that's one great way to stimulate this economy and get this jobless rate below 8%. it's been above 8% ever since president obama was inaugurated back in january of 2009. it's time to end that. host: back to twitter. guest: it's something that's very important. if we allow states along both the eastern seaboard or the

west coast, example, my own state of georgia, florida, california, if we allow the state -- if the states allow the drilling, then they share in the oilities. the federal government gets a portion, they get the fees for the leasing rights and the states get to share in those royalties. maybe that would help solve the rising cost of health care, particularly in our medicaid programs, education for our states. there's so many additional benefits to be -- other than energy independence and national security, it's the economic health of the states that are at risk here. host: cleveland, ohio, mary, on the line for republicans. caller: hi. i'm a republican and i love c-span and one of the things that is incredibly frustrating to me is when republicans -- when a republican sits up there and spoon feeds us a pile of

pablum as to though we have no intelligence and congressman gingrey, you happen to be one of the best at that. number one, transcanada was given permission to go ahead and take eminent domain and put a pipeline wherever they wanted to. they threatened american citizens with the ability to take eminent domain, take their property away to run their pipeline even though the actual route of it hasn't been approved. i've heard of people claim anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 jobs, studies have been done, it's only 6,000 jobs. that oil is going to be routed to a port in galveston, that was going to export to china before obama put his foot town about the pipeline. by the way, since when do we allow a company in a foreign country try to take an american citizen's property away? that's what a lot of nebraska farmers, who are also republicans, are also upset about. host: let's get a response.

guest: mary, you sound like a great republican, i'm glad you called in on the republican line. in fact, you question the number of jobs, direct jobs that would be created if the president -- if president obama had arrived in keystone x.l. pipeline. i don't know if it's 20,000 but would you agree that a minimum of 10,000 direct jobs? i think that's a fair compromise. we've been saying 100,000 indirect job, would you compromise at 50,000? so we're talking minimum 60,000 jobs created by that pipeline approval. i have to respectfully agree with my fellow republican, mary that we should build that pipeline and we should build it right away. host: doug on twitter. guest: again, the market is a

global market and certainly the more production that we have, the more domestic production, we're probably importing something like 45 -- 45%, maybe as much as 50% of what we use on a daily basis. now most of that, of course, and frank pallone was on earlier, my friend from the energy and commerce committee, a democrat, he pointed out that oil comes from a lot of different sources, domestic, would increase the production, got a lot of oil, most of our imports come from canada, mexico may be number two. the opec nations in venezuela combined is probably 20% of our imports. so the more we produce domestically, the less dependent we are on others and the less money, quite honestly, that's transferred from our people to china or to these other countries that are players in the market, even though they're not big producers of oil, we don't get a lot of imports from iran, but

clearly, they're a player. you know, we need to have increased domestic production and that, more than anything else, will bring down the price. the speaker pro tempore: "washington post" this morning with this headline, panel faults panel for inaction. host: here's the quote, two years have passed and congress is yet to enact one piece of legislation to make drilling safer. guest: quite hopsly, the deepwater drilling is very safe. this was a tragic accident but as i pointed out earlier, you think the exxon valdez oil spill had anything to do with

drilling off our outer continental shelf? absolutely not. this was a tanker that ran aground and really literally destroyed the environment for years in the pacific northwest. so, is that what we want? do we want to stop all deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico and have all these big rigs and international oil companies go and create partnerships, for example, with cuba, midway between our outer continental shelf and theirs? that's what's happening. we took the exact wrong policy toward this. ask people like steve scalise and other congressional members, maybe even the democrat mary landrieux from louisiana what they think about the opaw ma policy in regard to safety and what we should have done in the aftermath of deep horizon. host: are the drilling regulations dealing with safety

that were in place before the b.p. oil spill adequate today? guest: i don't think they were adequate. a lot of work has been done on that. as a result of that tragic accident, i think drilling is safer. to put a moratorium and say, we're just going to wait, just like president obama is doing with keystone x.l., until after the election, until when the political climate is more favorable, i think that only spells economic disaster for our country. host: what about this panel saying congress needs to act and further legislation needs to be put in place for safety? guest: i think all the legislation has been put in place. it's time to get the economy stimulated. host: so you disagreed, they're saying not one piece of legislation has passed. guest: that's not true. host: what has passed? guest: we passed a number of things. i probably have in my pocket a

list of 30 different bills we passed in the house of representatives that we've sent over to the senate and they just stack up on harry reid's desk like cordwood because he doesn't want his 22 members that are up for re-election on november 6 to have to take any tough votes and offend the environmentalist the labor union, any of democratic constituency. that's why the bills have not been passed. not for inaction in the house of representatives and where our leadership under speaker john boehner, we have done the people's work. host: democratic line, todd in wisconsin. what's the name of your town, todd? caller: macausa. thanks for having me. the earlier caller makery, tole stole a lot of my thunder, the republican caller, about the keystone pipeline. if anyone thinks, i know you keep regurgitating this but if anyone thinks putting in keystone pipeline will bring down the cost at the pump or

bring down the cost of pro pain for rural heating needs, it's a lie. they're going to put it on a barge like they're doing right now and ship the excess over to a foreign country and you're going to still pay world market price. the price will not go down and i don't care how you explain it or how you word smith it, it's not going to happen. but yet you keep regurgitating this. host: i'll have the congressman respond, todd. thanks. guest: well, todd, again, you seem to agree with -- strongly, with mary, who quite coincidentally called in on the republican line, maybe she's a personal friend of yours, but in any regard, there is a strategic reserve of petroleum, heating oil, in the northeast. what are you -- are you going to recommend that the president solve that problem by releasing some of those reserves? what i pointed out earlier is

that these strategic, and that's why it's called that, reserves, whether we're talking about heating oil for the northeast or petroleum gasoline for the country, is, in a situation,, let's say, all of the opec nations in venezuela decided that there would be no more shipment of any petroleum products to the united states and we were cut off from 20% of our imports, that is a strategic emergency. that's a reason to release, i don't know, what would you say, 50, maybe 100 million barrels of oil. but if you released it all, of course, it would only last 5 days, but that would be a reason. just because the price has gone up inconveniently for president obama in this re-election year, to take the chance of releasing

these reserves for political reasons is absolutely a mistake. host: to denver, colorado. frank is injoining us, an independent out there caller: yes, representative, i. a -- i am an independent, i was a democrat until george w. bush in 2002, my great aunt work with mamie eisenhower, i understand the process very well. we are putting about a million cars on the day worldwide and else in republicans are going to dictate the price of oil to the world, we will sell oil, gas, everything else on the open market because that's the capitalistic way. so there is no way all the drilling in the world, all the pipelines in the world will bring down the price of gas, period. guest: well, frank, what do you -- what are you suggesting, then? that we continue the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico? that we don't drill off the

outer continental shelf? that we don't open up our public lands and of course not our national parks, to increased drilling that we continue the moratorium on the keystone x.l. pipeline, we don't go after the reserves in anwr and that would be, i think, one and a half to two million barrels a day is that what you're suggesting? that we do nothing? we've been criticized, mr. pallone was criticized before me, now i'm getting criticism that these do-nothing congress, republicans and democrat, congress and the administration, over the last 30 years, even since our own, my own, georgian, jimmy carter, was president back in the late 1970's, that we have just ignored one crisis after another. so are you suggesting that we simply do nothing because the increased domestic production will somehow seep into the

global market? that doesn't make any sense. and we are for and will continue to be for, we republicans, for an all-of-the-above approach, just as we were in 2008 when we stayed here during the so-called summer august recess from congress and literally had a sit-in on the house floor and talked to the american people every day about an all-of-the-above approach in a clean, environmentally friendly way. i'm not going to suggest to you that i'm opposed to fuel standards and clean coal technology as an example and carbon sequestration to promote solar and wind energy but we can't give away hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that have a cook yied approach to developing solar panels as political favors. the american taxpayer can't afford that. host: phil gingrey is serving

in his fifth term, from georgia's fifth district, serves on the house committee, is co-share of the g.o.p. doctors' caucus and that brings up the issue of medicare solvency. you released this report yesterday. what's your report about? what did you find out? guest: this report was issued by senator dr. tom coburn, senator dr. bo rass sew, dr. row and myself from the house. what we want to point out is that when the medicare hospital insurance trust fund becomes insolvent and one of the medicare trustees apointed by president obama, by the way, just came out with an op-ed piece and a report suggesting

that obamacare has created a 10-year deficit of something like 350 to 500 billion dollars. it's not saving anything because you can't double count the money, the $500 billion plus we're taking out of the medicare program to help fund this whole new entitlement program called the affordable care act. what we point out yesterday in this press release is that when this trust fund bblings insolvent, don't think seniors -- seenor, please understand this, don't think your doctor can continue to see you and have those claims honored from payment from the general treasury, from the general fund. it's against the law. it can't be done. it's against the anti-injunction act of 1898. so it's very important for people to understand, for the president and the democrats in

the senate to continue to whistle past the graveyard is a serious, serious, even, i don't think it's an exaggeration, to say deadly mistake for our -- for our seniors. we have to solve the medcare problem now. that's why the four of us in the house g.o.p. doctor's caucus with aarp -- have worked with aarp and we're encouraging them to get the message out to seniors, don't just say to seniors, don't let congress take away your medicare, make sure they preserve and protect and we absolutely will but we have to strengthen and we have to be on a trajectory not to let that hospital insurance trust fund go bankrupt. it could happen as early as the -- as 2016. host: what's the game plan from house republicans? what do you put on the floor to address this? guest: the game plan is very

much what senator wyden, the democrat from oregon, and paul ryan, the chairman of the budget committee have recommended in the house republican budget, a very responsible budget. the senate hasn't proffered a budget in over three years now. i can only imagine that the majority leader, democratic leader reid, doesn't want his members to take a difficult vote on a budget dumont, but you know, it's required by law. that by february 15 of every year both the house and senate produce a budget and come together with a dumont. so we know exactly how much money we have to spend. and basically how much money we have to borrow. clearly in the house republican budget is a plan to save medicare. what's the president's plan to save medicare? it's called ipab. it's a patient denial board to limit and ration care and that's no solution to the

long-term problem with insolvency facing us in the medicare program. host: back to our viewers and their thoughts. julie, a republican in st. joseph, missouri. caller: good morning, sir. guest: good morning. caller: if expanded offshore drilling wouldn't lower costs how come it did under bush? and isn't the e.p.a. one of the primary drivers of the price of the gas? because of all the required blends? and i read somewhere that the nancy pelosi-controlled congress passed a law that biocellulosic fuel was required to be mixed with gas, or blended with gas, but yet this fuel doesn't even exist and because they're not mixing it, it's being penalized and added to the cost of the gallon of gas. that's what i read in the "wall street journal." guest: julie, you bring up, we

had shifted to medicare but listen, you bring up important points that need to be addressed. and i think basically the point is that the cost of gasoline has many factors -- many factors. it's multifactorial if you will. the biggest cost driver, of course, is the price of crude oil. and when it's $100 a barrel, rather than $40 or $50 a barrel, you're going to see that at the pump. the cost of refining the profit you can't take a barrel of crude oil and put a gallon of that into your gas tank. it has to be refined, it's very expensive. once it's refined, and then as you oint out, the multiple blends that are required depending on what state you reside in also depending on what the e.p.a. has made us do in regard to rules and regulations and clean air.

then transporting that oil in the pipeline to the major metropolitan centers and finally into the trucks to the gas station and you finally pull up and get a gallon of regular and you find today, of course, it's $3.87 a gallon. the president in his address yesterday would want us to believe, the american people to believe, that the whole problem is these horrible speculators who are trading on the commodities future trading exchange in chicago. he knows chicago, that's where he live bus he obviously doesn't understand the commodities future trading exchange. i would say that no more than 30% of the people who trade on the exchange are speculators. the airlines, i'm sure, the big airlines, commercial carriers, have to hedge their bets in regard to the cost of jet fuel if they're going to possibly

have any kind of a bottom line. the president is determined to try to shift the blame, as he's done in so many other areas, and it's strictly crass politics on his part. thank you for that question. host: pomp noah beach, florida, jeff, a democratic caller. caller: thank you. my question for you is, on the keystone pipeline how much of this is going to be exported? also, too, on the alaskan pipeline, how much of that is being exported? also, too, you brought up subsidies for solar, what are we doing subsidizing oil company the most profitable companies in the united states? and it would be nice if you'd get behind the president to stop the se speculation because that is one of the biggest problems with oil. thank you for taking my call. guest: jeff a good point, i've heard this brought up many times by my colleague, particularly those on the democratic side of the aisle, who knows how much of the $7 --

much of the 700 million barrels of oil that could come from alberta, canada, to our refineries in texas and louisiana by way of oklahoma in this keystone x.l. pipeline, i don't know. we've talked about this at length on the program this morning that it is a global market and you know, all of these resources get mixed. the united states reserves are plentiful, we know that, it's available. but why should there be any objection to some of the oil that is actually discovered, recovered, refined in this country ending up being ultimately used in mexico or canada or brazil, i just don't really get your point there. the other question that you

asked, all of a sudden escapes my mind but -- host: subsidies for oil and gas companies. guest: when you talked about the subsidies and i mentioned of course solyndra and some of these subsidies that have come from the department of energy under the obama administration and it's cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in these failed ventures that should have been funded by venture capitalists but when you give tax incentives to oil and gas companies, like exxonmobil who employs tens of thousands of people in the united states and you know if you have, by the way if you have a retirement pension plan, 401k, inch r.a. or whatever and you happen to have a few mutual funds in that account, go look, today, and look and see what portion of your portfolio is invested in, as an example,

exxonmobil or one of these oil companies, and you're counting, particularly people on fixed incomes, counting on those dividends. let's don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg here. host: chris gray on twitter. guest: i am so glad you brought that up. i'm from georgia if you've been watching the program over the last 20 minutes. we have a great company in the state of georgia, called the southern company, the division in georgia is georgia power but we have four nuclear reactors at two separate sites in georgia. we are -- the nuclear regulatory commission has given final approval for two additional reactors close to my hometown of augusta, fwea.

these reactors are westinghouse, state of the art, that depend on gravity for cooling even if some catastrophe occurred, i don't think you'll get a tsunami in that portion of georgia, we certainly don't have many earthquakes or hurricanes, but if something like that happened and all power went out including loss of backup generator, you still would not have a problem with meltdown because the cooling is a gravity system. so yes, fukushima was a time to pause and look at and study and consider and think if there's additional safety factors that need to be put in place but if the other power companies across the country that also would like to be licensed to bring reactors online and i think you pointed it out, none have been brought online since the days of jimmy carter, after three mile island, that we know that nuclear power is safe,

it's reliable, it's efficient, heretofore it's been expensive, it's still expensive, but when you're paying $3.97 a gallon at the pump, and you realize overall energy costs, now is the time for more nuclear power to come online. host: one publication puts the cost at $14 billion for these nuclear plants if all go -- if all goes well, more if it does not. guest: that's an estimate, i've heard $12 billion to $14 billion. the rate payers in georgia are currently paying as we speak even though those reactors are not online yet. but again, we keep putting this off and putting it off and it is a -- what is the amount of nuclear power in this country

is only about 20% of our electric power generation and in fact the average is less than 20% and it's certainly in my opinion should be at least 25% of the mix in an all-of-the-above approach and georgia is the leader, i'm proud to say we are a leader in that field. host: we'll hear -- hear next from charles in blackburg, an independent. caller: i have a question for committee. i'm not here to dress you down this morning, like a lot of people. i have a request, if you would, sir. the containment company and the response company, i'm sure you know who they are, would you ask that they produce a patent number for their so-called

capping stack before the june 20 sale? thank you. guest: charles, i've been here most of the allotted time this morning and all the questions have been good, tough, from republicans, democrats and independents, i felt capable and adequate of handling at least an adequate response. your question has stumped me completely. i know not one word of which you speak and i'll just have to apoll swries for that. host: we have about 10 minutes left here with you. let me get your reaction to this "washington post" article.

guest: i can only say my colleague, pall ryan, the gentleman from wisconsin, who has been in the public eye so much lately, maybe even in the vice-presidential mix for all we know, on the republican ticket, as chairman of our house budget committee, it is his responsibility, along with leadership, to develop a responsible budget. to question a personal's morality in regard to what's put in the budget, you know, gep, i think he's a very moral individual with great integrity. but the budget is developed within the budget committee, it's presented to the entire house of representatives, it passed, i think there were a number of democrats who voted for the republican budget, for

president obama, maybe the person that tweeted would suggest that he had a very moral budget that he finally sent over to us two weeks late this year for fiscal year 2013 and not one single member of the house of representatives voted for his moral budget. they all voted no. host: i seem to not be able to tell time this morning. we only have a few minutes left here with you. we'll try to get in a couple more phone calls. jeff, a republican in kentucky. caller: yes, senator phil, i would like to ask you if you can confirm or tell me if it's true or not that we really can't be completely away from oils because, and these fossil fuels because looking -- look at all the plastic products and medical products and byproducts of oil, it's so rich, we can't get away from it until we find something to replace all the

stuff we created, automobiles and things we use every day. guest: let me respond to that, it's such a good question if you've been listening, you know a couple of callers brought up the fact that if we produce more oil domestically or import more, 700 million from albehr -- 700 million barrels a day from alberta, from the keystone pipeline if the president had approved it, some of that oil might end up in foreign markets. well, god forbid. as you oint out, it's not just gasoline and heating oil that comes from crude, there are residual petroleum products that go into the plastic industry, so many of the thicks we make in this country that we manufacture and would we say then as the democrats have said that none of those products can be sold to enter the foreign markets yet they complain that every time they go to wal-mart that nine out of 10 products they paycheck up say made in

china or made in japan, so you make an absolutely good point. i appreciate the opportunity to comment on it. host: last phone call, brendon a democrat in ohio. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a couple of questions. the first comment is, you were mentioning the energy program that the president has been trying to get out and that we shouldn't be trying to invest any money in it and that it's not worthy of creating any, but at the same time, the big subsidies that the oil companies are receiving and they are making billions of dollars of profits. that doesn't make sense to me. host: i'm going of the congressman respond, we're running out of time. goim i'm sorry we're short of time but you make a good point. i am not opposed to the government subsidizing energy

production and as long as it's an all-of-the-above approach, whether it's a loan guarantee to produce nuclear power plant, whether it's research and development tax credits for fossil fuel, clean oil, carbon sequestration, clean coal technology, as the previous caller pointed out, we're going to be using fossil fuels for a long, long time. you know, it would be nice if we could completely eliminate our carbon footprint in this country but to do that, you and i would have to stop breathing. >> this weekend on book tv on c-span2, live coverage if "the los angeles times" festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern saturday and sunday. saturday at 3:30 p.m., biographerson ferrell, jim newton and richard reeves on clarence darrow, dwight d.

eisenhower and j.f.k. and at 7:30, call in for steven j. ross, who wrote "hollywood left and right. at 5:00, surveillance an secrets with lori andrews, jacobsen and shermer. the entire schedule is online. >> jury selection began in the retrial of former major league pitcher roger clemens, narged with knowingly lying to congress on performance enhancing drug use in baseball. >> let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit. i i do depose and state in 1999 or 2000, andy told me he had had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger admitted to him using human growth

hormones. once again, i remind you, you are under oath. you have said your conversation with mr. pettitte never happened. if that was true, why would laura pettitte remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> once again, mr. congressman, i think he misremembers the conversation we had. our relationship was close enough to know that if i would have known if he had done h.g.h., that he was knowingly knowing i had taken h fwmplet h., we would have talked about the subject. we he would have come to me and asked me about the effect of it. >> watch his 2008 testimony online at the c-span video library. with over a quarter century of merp poll techs and public affairs on your computer. >> house speaker john boehner called the g.s.a. spending scandal outrageous and said those responsible should be held accountable. the government agency spent

$823,000 on a conference held in las vegas in 2010. speaker boehner also spoke about today's house vote on another extension of the highway and mass transit programs bill and the house republican agenda for the remainder of the week. this is 10 minutes. >> on sunday, secretary geithner said the obama administration's policies have been, quote, remarkably effective. now, i don't think there's anything remarkably effective about 38 straight months of unemployment higher than 8%. the longest such period since the great depression. i don't think there's anything remarkable -- remarkably effective about adding $5 trillion of debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. and this is nothing remarkably effective about doubling gas prices and blocking more american energy production that

could begin to address those rising gas prices. our country is facing some serious economic and fiscal challenges and the global channels we have continue to mount. all the american people are getting from the obama administration are political gimmicks like the so-called buffett rule that won't do a thing to create jobs in our country. even the president has squad mitted that his buffett tax is a gimmick that won't help our economy. yesterday's gimmick was this new focus on oil manipulation even though the white house can't produce one shred of evidence that this manipulation is taking place. if they thought it was taking place, they have the tools and the laws already in place to go after it. so here's the president using the rose garden for an announcement on tackling a

problem that they have no shred of evidence even exists. the president checked out last labor day, he spent the last six months campaign from one end of the country to the other instead of working with members of both political parties here in washington to address the serious challenges -- challenges that our country faces. he's shrinking from his responsibility to lead and rather not using -- not having any courage to help tackle these problems. as i said before if the president won't lead, republicans will. and we are. while the president continues to push tax hikes, republicans are focused on lowering taxes for small business owners. tomorrow, the house will vote on the small business tax cut prorksvide 20 million american small businesses with the resources they need to expand

their businesses and hire more workers. it's all part of our plan to help american job creators, we've got 30 bills sitting in the united states senate, this will be one more, if the president wants to help create jobs and get our economy going, he ought to be calling harry reid and pushing the senate democrats to take these bills up. republicans have also passed bills to expand american energy production that would address high gas prices and help create american jobs. today, the house will take another step, when we vote on the keystone pipeline. yesterday, president -- the nebraska governor signed legislation to get the pipelines moving again. and the fact that the president has threatened to veto the keystone pipeline just shows how out of touch he is. the american people want us to build the keystone pipeline. they want those jobs created now. republicans will continue to listen to the american people.

americans are working harder than ever to create new jobs and opportunities despite the obstacles that washington continues to throw at them. just think about what could be achieved if the president were serious about working with members here in congress on both sides of the aisle to address the serious challenges that face our country. >> speaker bayne every. >> you said the president is campaigning and not working with both political parties. you're passing tax cuts which the democrats a in the senate say they don't have any interest in, a highway bill they won't pass, how are you working with the other party? >> the president has been awol. the president -- if the president was serious about creating jobs, why doesn't he sit down and talk to us. maybe he doesn't like the 20% tax cut that will help 20 million small businesses, but

why doesn't he offer his ads. -- ideas. but when there's no conversation, we have to move our ideas through regular order. i spoke to the -- i told the president over a year ago that if there were ideas he and i could agree on i'd be there to support them. >> speaker boehner, i'm wondering if you consider the president checked out and had failure to lead yet there's his pass og they have jobs act and the bill in the senate, the highway bill, didn't get through the house. doesn't the house have a failure to lead? you guys have checked out? >> the jobs act that was signed into law was one of our ideas we pushed out there. they had bipartisan support in the house. i think the president saw that it was going to get a big bipartisan vote in the house, decided, hey, i'll sign it. good for him. that's how it's supposed to work. >> speaker boehner.

>> loud mouth, shut up. >> can you talk a little bit about the g.s.a. scandal? this isn't the first time this has happened, interior department back in 2008 waste, fraud, sexual misconduct, how much of this do you lay at the doorstep of the administration? because it happened on his watch? >> this is outrageous behavior regardless of whose administration it is. you know, i wrote my checks out on sunday to pay my taxes. and i can imagine millions of other americans wrote their checks out. and taking their hard-earned money, sending it to washington, and this is outrageous that their tax money is getting wasted in this fashion. there's an investigation going on and it's certainly appropriate and those

responsible ought to be held to account. >> what reforms need to be made, mr. speaker? >> let's make sure we understand what all the facts are and learn out of this lesson and then we'll determine, are there changes that immediate to be made. >> speaker boehner. you said that you supported mitt romney, you were voicing your support for him. do you have any advice for the other two candidates still speaking tissue seeking the g.o.p. nomination, newt gingrich and ron paul? >> no. >> on the scandal, what about the need for hearings on capitol hill and how much responsibility should the president have taken? >> i think we need to get to the bottom of it, again, from all the press reports i've head, it certainly sounds like behavior that was inappropriate and again, let's deal with what the facts are. i'm interested in getting to

the bottom of this, to understand what did happen and why it happened and again if there are changes that need to be made, we certainly will do that. >> speaker boehner. last week, the white house said he won't issue an executive order regarding preventing them to fire transgender he said he wants to work with the congress on this. what do you think about that? >> haven't seen the bill. >> arguably, 8.2% of the unemployed are in that situation because they faced discrimination? >> there are ample laws to take care of this, i'm familiar with employment law but if there are further changes that are necessary, i'm sure the committee will look at it. >> speaker, when you were last

here before the recess you said on the highway bill that you'd be putting the final touches on the measure after the recess. you're not bringing that bill, that's another exception. what went wrong and what's the future for highway legislation? >> if i had my druthers, h.r. 7 would be on the -- would have been on the floor six weeks ago. but there weren't 218 votes to do this. you know, i've -- you've heard me talk about allowing the house to work its will. it's not about the house working my will. the house ought to be allowed to work its will. we came to this bill, the house decided they didn't want to vote for it. so you have to go to plan b. and plan b is on the floor today and i'm hopeful we'll be in conference soon. >> speaker boehner. >> the tax cuts would cost $46 billion or $47 billion, an independent analysis posted on

majority leader cantor's website says that the one-year measure would only create 40,000 jobs. that's like $1 million a job. how does that make sense? >> i think we expect it will create far more jobs than that but listen, small businesses who file as individuals, as i did in my business, face enormous challenges. and rather than paying these taxes that money could stay in their business to help them buy more equipment, hire more workers and expand their business. the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? we're trying to do everything we can to continue to help them. we've got a plan. we sent 30 bills to the senate. when are they going to get off their rear ends and do something over there? last question for loud mouth. >> thank you, sir. recently the u.s. catholic -- conference of catholic bishops

sent letters to committees about the ryan budget saying it doesn't meet the moral criteria by disproportionately cutting programs that serve poor and vulnerable people. as a catholic what's your response to them? >> you know what -- what's more of a concern to me is the fact that if we don't begin to make some decisions about getting our fiscal house in order, there won't be a safety net. there won't be these programs. and i don't know how often some of us have to talk about the fact that you can't spend $1.3 trillion more than what you bring in, that's what's going to happen this year, $5 trillion worth of debt over the last five years and think that this can continue. and so, when you look at the fact that we have to make hard decisions, it's about trying to make sure that we're able to preserve these programs that are critically important for the poorest in our society.

>> do they have a moral argument, though? >> i want them to take a bigger look. the bigger look is if we don't make decisions, these programs won't exist and then they'll really have something to worry about. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]