the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 175. the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on engrossment

and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members kindly take your conversations off the floor, clear the aisle, clear the well. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentleman opposed? mr. deutch: i am opposed. the clerk: mr. deutch of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 9 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for theith with the following amendments. at the end of section 2, as proposed to be added by section 2 of the bill add the following -- c, denial of deduction for certain businesses. the term domestic business gross receipts shall not include any gross receipts after -- equitable to any of the following -- i, illegal activities. any illegal activity, including trafficking of illegal drugs or -- and prostitution. two, pornography. any property with respect to which records are required to be maintained under section 2257 of title 8 united states code. three, discriminatory golf courses and clubs. golf courses or clubs that

discriminatoryly restrict membership on the basis of sex or race. four, lobbying. activities described in section 162-e-1. five, those in violation of the iran sanction act. any activity of any person, including any successor assigned, affiliate, member or joint venture -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: i did unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. >> i object. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will resume. the clerk: person in violation of the iran sanctions act of 1996 or the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability anti-investment act of 2010. d, disclosure by members of congress. no amendment shall be taken into account as domestic business gross receipts by any

member of congress unless the amount of the deduction allowed under this section, any description of the business activities giving rise to such deduction are publicly disclosed in such manner and form as the secretary may prescribe. not later than the date on which the return of tax is filed. add at the end of the following of the bill the following -- section 3, can he nile of deduction for -- denial of deduction for moving jobs overseas. a, in general. subsection e of subsection 200 of the internal revenue code of 1986 as -- >> i move to suspend the reading. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? >> i ask for unanimous consent to suspend the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the clerk will resume. the clerk: as amended by adding tend of the following new traffic -- four, denial of deduction for moving united states jobs overseas. a, in general, no deduction shall be allowed under this

section with respect to any employer. one, which has fewer full-time equivalent employees in the united states for the taxable year beginning in calendar year 2012 as compared to the preceding taxable year and, two, which has more full-time equivalent employees outside the united states for the taxable year beginning in calendar year 2012 as compared to the preceding taxable year. b, employees outside the united states for purposes of this paragraph an employee shall be treated as employed by the employer outside the united states whether employed directly or indirectly through a controlled foreign corporation as defined in section 957 or a pass-through entity in which the taxpayer holds at least 50% of the capital or profits interest. c, exception for employees separated voluntarily or for cause. for purposes of this paragraph, the number of full-time equivalent employees shall be

determined without regard to any employees separated from employment voluntarily or for cause. d, aggregation rule. subsection d-5-a shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. b, effective date. the amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after december 31, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? no point of order. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. >> mr. speaker. can we have order? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. would all members please take your conversations from the floor, clear the aisle. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, this

debate has revealed deep differences between the majority and minority when it comes to how to grow our economy. we object how leader cantor's bill borrows $47 billion from china for tax cuts designed to benefit millionaires. that's why the c.b.o. ranked this proposal second to dead last in a long list of things we could do to create jobs. now, americans have learned by now there is no such thing as a temporary republican tax cut for the wealthy. they're all permanent. let's acknowledge the real price tag here. a half a trillion dollars in deficit spending over the next decade. not for education, not for infrastructure. another $500 billion in windfall for the wealthy. as i said before, our disagreements run deep. the fact that we are outnumbered means this misguided legislation will likely pass. given that reality, we should at least be able to come together and agree on which

businesses should be excluded from this new windfall. that's what my amendment aims to do. my changes are relatively small. in fact, leader cantor's legislation remains largely the same. for example, pass my amendment and h.r. 9 will still uphold the g.o.p. plan to take $46 billion from china and give half of it to millionaires. h.r. 9 will still count oil speculators, professional sports teams and corporate lobbyists as small businesses. h.r. 9 will still pick and choose winners and losers by arbitrarily adding new loopholes to our already overcomplicated tax code. and of course leader cantor's massive tax cut will remain available to businesses even if they create no jobs at all. so let me be crystal clear what my bill changes. it better safeguards our taxpayer dollars. first, my amendment will stop businesses engaging in illegal

activity, illegal activity, from drug trafficking to prostitution, from receiving this deduction. this is a no-brainer and i have no idea why it's not in the bill already. we should all agree, given the recent news from south america, that there is no such thing as being too careful with american tax dollars. secondly, this amendment ensures that no company that outsources american jobs will qualify for this windfall. certainly our constituents don't want us borrowing money from china to give to companies that outsource jobs to china. certainly we can all agree that cutting taxes for businesses that are american in name only, that choose foreign workers over american workers, do not deserve another giveaway. third, my amendment prevents companies that do business with iran from being eligible for this tax cut. as iran per sues an illicit nuclear weapons program, we

should not reward businesses that threaten the security of the united states and our treasured ally, israel. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman's recognized. mr. deutch: my amendment stops the bill from cutting taxes from pornographic empires that somehow qualify as small businesses under this bill. it also requires members of congress who are owners of small businesses to disclose any benefits that they get under this bill. it excludes golf courses that discriminate based on race and gender. and finally, my amendment bans lobbyists from cashing in on this deduction. now, look, i know as soon as i sit down a colleague from the other side of the aisle will come forward and claim i am pursuing some procedural ploy, attempting to kill the bill.

that's simply not true. adopt these changes so we can vote on the final bill right here and right now. join me and prevent americans' hard-earned tax dollars from subsidizing iranian nukes. cutting costs for criminals, padding the pockets of porn combraff ---- pornographers. it's the right thing to do. it's up to us to make these changes. we can make them right here and right now. i ask all of my colleagues to protect the american taxpayers, support these final protections to the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. camp: i seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: i would just say to my friend that i'm not going to stand up and say this is a procedural ploy, but i will

stand up and say it's a political ploy. we should not be picking winners and losers. the fact is small businesses are hurting because of the failed policies of the obama administration. it's time to stand up for small business and the people they employ. let's get america back to work. i urge defeat of this motion to recommit and support for h.r. 9, the small business tax cut act. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes any time for electronic vote on passage.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 229. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 173. one member voting present. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to withkragh my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2341. -- withdraw my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2341. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the pumpses of i quiring of the majority leader, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia, the schedule for the week to come. i yield to my friend, mr. can'ter. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet

at 9:00 am for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. among next week's suspensions will be a noteworthy bill, h.r. 2146, authored by congressman darrell issa and known as the data act. this is an important step in our continuing effort to make government more accountable, accessible, and transparent, especially when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. it is also possible that the house will consider a motion to go to conference and motion to instruct conferees on the surface transportation authorization bill. in addition, mr. speaker, we expect a full debate next week on the importance of our nation's cybersecurity. the house will consider a number of bipartisan bills to reduce obstacles to voluntary information sharing between the private sector and government. security our nation's infrastructure, better protect

government systems, and combat foreign threats. a number of committees have been involved in this effort, mr. speaker, including the intelligence committee, homeland security, oversight and government reform, science, judiciary, and energy and commerce. of the bills coming to the floor we will kr consider h.r. 3523, the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act under a rule. this important legislation is authored by chairman mike rogers and co-sponsored by ranking member dutch ruppersberger. and i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. the gentleman in his comments indicates we might go to conference on the surface transportation bill. as the gentleman knows the senate surface transportation bill passed overwhelmingly and with a very substantial bipartisan vote and a vote led by senator boxer and senator inhofe of oklahoma. there were 22 republican senators, about half the republican senators voted for

it. and so it passed overwhelmingly. i'm wondering given the time frame in which we are dealing whether or not the gentleman feels comfortable with some assurance that we are going to move to go to conference so we can get a conference under way. i know that's -- the majority indicated it wanted a bill so it could go to conference. i have had discussions with i think you, but i know mr. boehner, the speaker, and mr. mccarthy that that was the intent. to go to conference. would it be -- what would preclude us, i suppose, would be the better way to phrase the question, from having a motion to go to conference next week? as the gentleman knows we are going to be out the week following so that we will not be back until may, into may. and to the extent that we delay going to conference, we are

going to delay the resolution of what i think is a very, very important bill. i know the gentleman does as well. we believe this is a real job createor. as you know, mr. lahood is -- the secretary of transportation, your former colleague on your side of the aisle, has made it very clear that this is a very substantial jobs bill. and to the extent that we could move quickly, i think it would be in the best interest of our country. of infrastructure investment, and creation of jobs. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'll tell the gentleman we have every intention of going forward. at this point i don't know what could come up and preclude us from doing so, but we look forward to working with the gentleman over the course of the next two-plus months to come to resolutions so that we can provide certainty to states, industry, private sector, public, and the rest with regard to our transportation infrastructure. i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. in light of the fact he looks forward to my help, i want to tell him that if he brings a motion to go to conference next week, i will bring the overwhelming majority of my caucus to a vote with that motion to go to conference so that we can get that done. i would be glad to help in that respect. would that help you? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i didn't know whether that would help you get the job done that i think needs to be done. i don't say that facetiously. we want to go to conference. i have been told you want to go to conference and i hope we could move forward on that. the chairman of your committee, representative mica said during debate yesterday we should go to conference immediately. we would be very interested in helping you towards that process. mr. leader, the appropriations committee has started to mark up its bills.

and has dealt with reconciliation instructions. my understanding is that reconciliation instructions, the result of those instructions will be coming to the floor probably the first month, the month of may, is that accurate? mr. cantor: that is correct, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: with respect to the appropriation bills, much was made of the fact that you wanted to bring appropriation bills to the floor one at a time and under open rules. i think that's a good practice. frankly i would have liked to have done that when we were in charge and we didn't get that done. i said then that i didn't think it was good for the institution, for the consideration of appropriation bills. but -- and you, i think, rightfully criticized us for that. not you personally but the

republican side of the aisle. is it your intention to bring the appropriation bills to the floor singly, individually, with an open rule as speaker boehner indicated would be the case? if so, when will that occur? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman that as he knows the -- working through the committee at this point are the energy and water bill is their intention to bring one of those forward. the week he indicates, on may 7, to be debated and the speaker has consistently come down on the side of wanting there to be an open process and i think that given the house's track record on appropriations bills and the debates surrounding them, we are hoping that we can have a deliberative debate around the substance and policy of the issues and set as a model for going forward. i would say to the gentleman as

far as we go right now, we are looking at may 7 to be the time in which we bring one of those bills to the floor for deliberation and a vote. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i make the additional observation that we passed a budget, many of us voted against that budget as you know, that passed, we voted for our alternative, but the american people i think have an interest and frankly a right to know what the ramifications of that budget that we passed are. and obviously they will find that out as the appropriation bills move forward or considered on this floor, open to debate, open to amendment, that will educate the american people on what the consequences of passing budget a over budget b. your budget, our budget, or an alternative budget. it's really in the appropriation bill the budget doesn't do anything, as we all know, other than set a 302-a allocation,

that is the amount of discretionary dollars that can be applied to -- in the appropriations process. what that means is that the only thing it does is set that limit and does not apportion resources to particular objectives in the appropriation bill or for that matter in the ways and means committee bill in terms of action that is might occur with reference to taxes and revenues. so i say to my friend that the importance of bringing the appropriation bill to the floor is to give that transparency to the american public so they can make a judgment on which priorities they support. we think it's going to be very difficult, frankly, to bring appropriation bills to the floor under the constraints that have been imposed. we regret as the gentleman knows very much that we did not follow the agreement that was reached when we precluded the country's going into default. we agreed on a figure of 1.048

to be the figure that the appropriations committee would mark. i don't know whether the gentleman had the opportunity to see, but 12 out of the 14 senators on the appropriation committee voted to honor the agreement. that was reached today. when they had -- including senator mcconnell. regrettably we did not do that in the house. we reduced that figure very substantially. and we also shifted some of the resources from one object on nondefense to defense, which cuts even further than nondefense portion of the budget. by about $8 billion. so i ask the gentleman in that context is the committee going to mark to the house passed budget, which we have deemed adopted, notwithstanding the

fact it has not been adopted, is the house going to mark to those figures? and will it mark to those figures knowing full well what dollars are left for bills that are to follow? in other words, are you going to front-load and make those appropriation bills sweeter that will then not leave resources for those bills that will come after? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman first of all the gentleman knows we did pass a budget in the house. we didn't have a conference committee report to vote on because the senate did not pass the budget. which then forced us to have to deem the house passed. again the senate having gone way past 1,000 days without a budget. so i would say to the gentleman it is our perception that what the deal was in august was the ceiling. and that we want to try in every way we can to save taxpayer dollars and that is the rule by

which we are continuing to follow. the appropriations committee has taken up its obligations and is working on the bills and we will be bringing up those bills consistent with that rule. and again i say to the gentleman we look forward to a robust policy oriented debate on the spending issues facing this country throughout the appropriations process. and look forward to a deliberative civil process so that we can get our work done and deliver on what the people expect, and that is to begin to shave the spending that has gotten out of control in washington over the last couple decades. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i know the gentleman doesn't like to relitigate history, when he says spending got out of control over the last two decades, i may agree with him on the last decade that we went deeply into debt, but certainly the decade preceding that, my friend surely remembers that we ran four years of surplus and a net surplus over

eight years during the clinton administration. a $62.the billion -- net surplus after eight years and we had four years of surplus, two were actual surpluses, two were we counted social securities revenues, which obviously were borrowed money from the social security trust fund, so we swapped social security money for i.o.u.'s, but two of those years actually balanced. so that i would agree with him on the last decade, but i would not agree with him on the decade before that because frankly working from both sides of the aisle and a spurting economy we created those deficits essentially together. so i want to say to my friend that in that context, yes, the american people want to see us use their money wisely. i will agree with that. they need to know how we intend to use their money.

if they don't have appropriations bills on the floor -- the gentleman talks about the senate hasn't passed a budget in 1,000 days. it has had no effect, none, zero, on what we are doing. why? because all the budget does, as the gentleman well knows, is not allocate money, it sets a ceiling, as the gentleman likes apparently ceilings and not agreements, a ceiling on what discretionary spending will be. other than that, it doesn't do anything. and therefore it sets forth a plan, but the key is going to be how you carry out that plan. and let the american people know how you're going to carry it out. we do that in appropriations bills and the ways and means tax bills. does the gentleman have an idea of when a ways and means tax bill carrying out the budget might come to the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: as the gentleman knows, the ways and means is continuing in their mission to conduct hearings as far as tax

reform is concerned. they just had a hearing on retirement provisions and what comprehensive tax reform means when it comes to retirement provisions. the gentleman knows tax reform doesn't come easy in this town and we are all, i think, bound by commitment to try and simplify the code with the differences that we have. and we are going to continue to look to see what chairman camp and the committee's work produces, but with maintaining our commitment that we believe, as you do, mr. speaker, i would say the gentleman joins me in wanting to simplify the code, bring down rates, get rid of loopholes, and the rest. . the committees are doing good work to that end identifying issues to that end so we can get this in a way that is responding to what the public

really wants to see which is a simplified tax code in a much fairer way. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we passed -- if i could go to another subject briefly -- we passed a bill today which the gentleman was principal advocate of which -- cost $46 billion in terms of revenues in effect forgone, if you will. does the gentleman believe if that bill passes and is signed by the president that in light of the fact it's a one-year bill, does the gentleman believe that it will be only one year or does the gentleman intend, if his party happens to be in charge in the next congress, to see that lapse and that tax increased again on small businesses? what's the gentleman's thought on that? mr. cantor: i would say to the

gentleman -- mr. hoyer: i ask him that question, if i might, in light of the diagnosis "the wall street journal's" observation today this certainly didn't give small business much certainty. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman it's a very interesting question scheduling and going forward but i'll be delighted to answer the question. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. cantor: the bill we passed today in a bipartisan way is a bill that responds to the urgency that small business is feeling and frankly the people of this country is feeling that the economy is not growing quickly enough. is it a panacea? no. do we want to see overall comprehensive tax reform? absolutely. but as the gentleman knows, our side and his have big differences when it comes to tax reform. unfortunately, the discussions that ensued last year were hung up on the notion that your side really, really continues to advocate higher taxes. you want to start with the

baseline, it's just higher than ours. we don't believe right now we ought to assume washington has a revenue problem. this measure that we passed is something that is a progrowth outlook to empower businesses and men and women creating jobs, a little bit easier time in doing so, allowing them to keep more of the money to put back in their business and allocate the capital they see the best way of doing so, not washington. and, again, i know the gentleman knows we have a difference of opinion when it comes to that. but, again, it is a small step toward overall tax reform. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman is correct, we have a very

substantial difference of opinion. the indication is that this is a start. frankly, we were told it was a start in 2001. we were told it was a start in 2003. when we cut revenues very substantially. . unfortunately we didn't cut revenue very substantially. when you don't cut revenues after you cut taxes, what happens is you have deficits, and that's why we went to -- from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus after the clinton administration, projected by the bush administration, to $11 trillion deficit at the end of the bush administration. because he cut revenues and we increased spending. we were not in charge for 75% of that time. in fact, we weren't in charge of passing ultimately legislation any of that time. because the president, of course, had an eight-year term. we dug another $46 billion hole. my belief is that your side of the aisle will not want to

reinstate that tax next year, no matter what the economy is doing, now matter how good the economy is. that's my suspicion. that's based on 30 years of experience, i tell my friend. if that's the case we are not talking about $46 billion. we are talking about half a trillion dollars, which is $46 billion times 10 with us can lakes for inflation. -- with us can lakes for inflation. -- with us congratulations for inflation. -- escalation for inflation. the difference between us is you want to talk about tax increases. i want to talk about paying our bills. and i believe that if we don't want to buy then we don't have to tax. but if we buy, we have a moral responsibility to have the courage to ask people to pay for it. and very frankly, i think you've taken the discipline out of the system. i think supply-side economics takes the discipline out of the

system. now, very frankly, mr. greenspan thought for a while that worked. he said three years ago, no, he's wrong. i think he was right the second time. he was demonstrably, graphically not right the first time when he rationalized 2001 and 2003. we cut revenues. they did not raise sufficient additional dollars and growth in the economy, as a matter of fact, whether there was a direct result, we had the worst economy i have experienced in my adult lifetime at the end of the bush term and at the beginning of the obama term as responsibility for the economy went over to president obama. now, there's a lot of debate during this bill about how we lost jobs. that's true. those jobs were lost in the early part of the obama administration. as the gentleman knows over the last 24 months we had four million new jobs created.

10 quarters of economic growth in our country, and the dow has doubled. the dow has doubled since march of 2009. it's hard for me to see how that's a failure. it certainly has been the success we'd like but not a failure. i tell my friend, yes, we have a depirches, and the public needs to -- difference and the public needs to come to difference in that debate and that is whether or not we are going to pay for things we buy. and if we don't want to buy them, we won't have to pay for them, we cut taxes. unless the gentleman has to say something further i yield back the balance of my time. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, it's very tempting, but i am going to yield back to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i will yield back my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? the gentleman from arkansas

will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today it will meet at 11:00 a.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the g.s.a. spending scandal is a prime example of why americans lost faith in their government. i question about the now infamous conference hosted in las vegas. this one lavish conference left american taxpayers with an $822,000 tab. let me list a few of the items -- expense items from las vegas that are sure to raise -- $75,000 was spent on a bicycle building exercise to encourage team building. $3,00 was spent on mind readers to entertain the attendees. mr. crawford: the average break

for every attendee $44. that's $44 per person per stay. i safe the worst for last, $33,000 pool party. the chief organizer was approved for a bonus by senior obama officials for his work in organizing the conference. officials who organized and authorize wasteful spending must be held responsible. this body must work to end the culture of waste at g.s.a. and other government agencies and ensure that taxpayer dollars are respected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized, without objection. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of the national day of silence which is tomorrow. this is the 15th year we've commemorated the national day of silence, a time when students across the country remain silent at a hole day to -- whole day to draw attention of lgbt peers, lesbians, gay,

transgenders, questioned youth and their allies face physical bullying on a daily basis just for being who they are. mr. farr: at a time when these teens are at greater risk for suicide and self-harm, we cannot afford to be silent. i'm proud to say that my district, queer youth and allies work together to make life better. many scols in my district host student-run gay, stray alliances so that queer youth do not feel isolated. i'm proud of my constituents for calling for a stop in harassment of these individuals, and i encourage all americans to do the same. i'm particularly proud of two high school seniors in my district. joaquin garcia andalucia walters. i enter their statements in the record. congress must not be silent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

mr. thompson: 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 is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, over the past two decades our nation's small businesses have generated 65% of new jobs. according to a recent small business survey from the u.s. chamber of commerce, today 64% of small businesses stand idle at current staffing levels. with 52% not hiring because they're not confident in our nation's recovery. these concerns are justifiable, mr. speaker, with the senate continually choosing to ignore our jobs crisis in favor of advancing agenda that will only grow government, not our economy. the latest proposal surely wasn't about economic growth for it takes private investment away from small businesses and turns it over to bureaucracies. it wasn't even about fairness for it is fairer to know one not to the wealthy who pays even more taxes than investing in our economy and not to the rest of us who needs jobs,

growth and greater opportunity. with economic uncertainty still pervasive, every decision made by government must pass a simple test of whether or not it aids the nation's recovery. senate democrats either failed to understand our economic problems or have, as troubling as it is may be, chosen to ignore them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you. i ask unanimous consent all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend and extend their remarks on the topic of my one minute. today it was a service held at the state capitol and they were held at state compols throughout the nation. it's the celebration -- remembrance of the holocaust that occurred in europe. six million lives were lost. with the program is about is never to forget the holocaust and never to forget what caused it to occur. to remember the outstanding

military and people that helped jews survive, the military that liberated the camps and the hundreds of thousands of righteous gentiles who helped and risked their own lives to save jews, i wear a ronald for raoul wallenberg, for the swedish government sent him over here. there was testimony about how treasury secretary morguenthal and two people in his administration, mr. haley, and mr. dubois implored the president to help rescue jews and they did so. many, many were lost because we didn't get involved soon enough. never be silent to evil and remember the victims of the holocaust. i urge you to visit the united states holocaust memorial museum. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. bartlett: mr. speaker, baltimore, maryland, was the site of the first bloodshed in our civil war april 19, 1861. the next year in september 17, 1862, the bloodiest one-day military battle in america's history took place on farms along creek near the small town of sharkford in washington county, maryland. the 24th national battlefield millennial illumination will take place saturday, december 1, 2012. it will highlight 20,000 prepared by volunteers will be lit one for each soldier who fell there. 20,000 people personally witnessed 23,110 individual lives, not divided into camps, one union on -- union, the other confederate. the first illumination in 1988

was spearheaded by charles to coordinate this monumental effort. local girl and boy scouts and others take pride in preparing north america's largest memorial illumination. i highly recommend that you make time to attend the 24th illumination on december 1, 2012. it powerfully reminds us of the true cost of war and the sacrifices generations of the members of our military and their families. it's a truly moving event. please come. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to commend a publication that has played a central role in shaping the idea that have powered the conservative movement for decades. launched in 1944, human events is the nailings' oldest conservative news weekly. in 1961 a rising star by the

name of ronald reagan began reading human events. he enjoyed it so much that throughout his presidency he would received the very first issue each week hot off the presses. and back in 1992 i was honored to serve as an intern for human events where i worked closely with political editor john gizzy, whom i consider a good friend. this week, he would have -- they relaunched its print edition with a new format and expanded washington coverage. conservatives have long depended upon human events to carry out its mission, analyze event through the eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, free enterprides, and individual freedom. mr. rokita: that is a mission i wholeheartedly support and i commend human events to you, mr. speaker, and to this entire body. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the house just passed h.r. 9, purr pourting to

give a temporary tax cut to small businesses. i say purporting because it doesn't cut spending at the same time and thus it merely shift current taxes into the future. once a doll's bven spent, it's already become a tax taken either from today or from tomorrow to pay off deficits. nor does h.r. 9 do much to promote economic growth because it does little to reward new productivity at the margin. at best it produces a one-year sugar high until the bills come due. mr. mcclintock: tax cuts without spending reductions or real economic growth are an illusion. real tax reform would permanently reduce the marginal tax rate for all businesses and cut government spending concurrently. this would encourage and reward growth, shift investment decisions from politicians to entrepreneurs, and not rob our

economy of its future. i hope before the end of this session that we will do he so. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there any additional -- any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. bass of new hampshire for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: i want to thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. we'll claim the time on behalf of the progressive caucus. this is the progressive caucus'

moment where we come together and talk about our ideals u. our values, the things that are critically important we believe to all americans. and this week i'm joined by two outstanding leaders in the progressive caucus and in the congress and in america, hank johnson of georgia, and lynn woolsey of california. i want to invite both my colleagues to jump in as they feel inspired to do so. let me just set the groundwork a little bit. this week we saw a number of things occur. and one of the things that we saw this week is a -- is the buffet rule that was taken up in the senate. the senate voted on the buffet rule and the policy that requires millionaires and billionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families and working people, and i want to make it clear, we don't

begrudge anybody for doing well but we do believe in a country as great as america, if you have been privileged enough to do well, that maybe you should do something for america. and this wildly popular measure was filibustered and defeated in the senate. according to the cnn international poll, nearly 3/4 of americans support the buffet rule and believe it should be law. despite this republicans in the senate blocked the bill from even getting a majority vote. i mention this particular situation this way as i begin our dialogue over the course of this hour because i think that it's emblematic of the problem that we are facing today. we are going to talk tonight about citizens united, we'll talk about a lot of things, but one of the things i think is emblematic of the problem we are facing here in the u.s. congress today is this what the overwhelming majority of

americans want, the overwhelming majority of americans don't get, something like the buffet rule. and the reason why is the pernicious and corrosive effect of money and politics today. so we at the progressive caucus, we are honored to be before the american people today, mr. speaker, and we have a caucus who, yes, will stand up for civil and human rights for our people without hard to your color, culture, sex, gender, your sexual preference, your religion, wherever you were born, national origin. we believe that all americans are value and believe in liberty and justice for all. yes, the progressive caucus is a caucus that's going to say that if you work hard every day and you ought to be able to make enough money to feed your family in america. and, yes, we believe that if you have been able to be in this great country of ours and do well in this environment, you

ought to do something, you ought to pay taxes, enough taxes so that the needs and costs of our society can be paid for. and absolutely we believe we have a duty, obligation, responsibility to the environment in our natural world. we are not ashamed to stand up for these values. peace, working class prosperity and fairness, environmental sustainability, and civil and human rights for all people. we care about these things. but today we are going to discuss a number of issues, including the buffet rule, citizens united, alec, the budget, the ryan budget, and a whole range of issues. at this point i'm going to hand it over to my colleague and friend, lynn woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: i'd like to thank the chairman of the progressive caucus for bringing this together today. to talk a little about what's so important to the people of the

united states of america, our country, and in turn the world. i want to say a few things about the buffet rule. because -- just to fill out that discussion. there's some things we know. the buffet rule is fiscally responsible. according to the joint committee on taxation, the buffet rule would -- could reduce the deficit by anywhere from $47 billion to $162 billion over the next decade. the buffet rule is widely supported as the chairman just said. the buffet rule would restore the principle fairness of the tax code because it ensures that millionaires can't game the system to pay a lower rate than middle class families. overwhelmingly majorities of americans across the political spectrum believe millionaires

should pay their fair share. an overwhelming 76% of americans support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than $1 million per year, which includes 75% of independents and 56% of republicans. the majority of millionaires themselves support the buffet rule. in a recent poll of millionaires, an overwhelming 68% support the buffet rule. millionaires support the buffet rule. and remember, it's taxation above a million dollars and it's stepped up. it isn't the minute you hit a million dollars you're taxed at a greater rate. it's from $1 million up the taxes will go up.

7,000 millionaires paid no individual income taxes in the year 2011. 70,000 millionaires didn't pay any personal taxes in 2011. according to the tax policy center, 7,000 millionaires, it was that tax center that told us that. republican budget would shower even more tax breaks on million aires while putting more of the burden on the middle class families. while democrats are fighting to restore fairness in the tax code, the republican budget offers extreme right wing alternatives that my opinion, that would have billionaires with streaks at the expense of the middle class. that would further skew the system in favor of the wealthiest americans.

we have a lot of statistics. know the facts. we are ready to support the buffet rule. millionaires themselves support it. the question is why can't we get the people we work with in the u.s. congress to support the buffet rule. mr. ellison: much of it has to do with the fact we have a disproportionate percentage of wealthy interests. the fact is we got money coming in, lobbyists paid for, campaign donation, all this stuff, and now we got the super p.a.c., and citizens united decision. if you ask yourself why can't we pass the budget rule, the public option which is wildly popular, why can't we get environmental regulations to protect our lungs, health, and earth, the

reason why is the digs proportionate corrosive effect of our government. this is why earlier this week we were able to pass something, a declaration for democracy. which reads, i declare my support for limiting the constitution of the united states to restore the rights of people undermined by citizens united and related cases, to protect the integrity of our elections and limit the corrosive influence of money on the democratic process. we have a lot of people who signed this document, not just members of congress. some of the people who signed it were city council members, community citizen activists, there are people from a broad cross section of american life because they ask the same question, congresswoman woolsey, why can't we pass the buffet rule? why can't we pass environmental protections? why can't we pass the public option? why can't things that americans want get through? the reason they can't get through is because you got the

lobbyist money being poured in, you're going to about to see a whole plethora of ugly, nasty, divisive, corrosive attack ads in the upcoming president dention election. the bottom line is if we get this money out, what will happen is that we -- citizens voices will emerge past the money. citizen voice also come up and citizens will have their world reflected in the congress more so. it was an awesome lift to pick up health care. we didn't even get all the things we wanted in there, but we got a lot of the things we wanted. why didn't we get all the things we wanted even though they were popular? the corrosive effect of money. the health care industry was putting in $14 million a day to lobby against the affordable care act. of course with all that kind of pushing and shoving and cajoling, it just gets incredibly difficult. so i want to yield back to the

gentleman from georgia who has some important information about a number of things, but i think -- mr. johnson: i'd first like to address congressman, the issue of taxes and fair taxes. . day before yesterday i stood with a group of fair taxers, people who are recommending the fair tax as an alternative to our current system, and i stood with them and i spoke to them, told them that i was not there to endorse the fair tax. i was there to tell them that i believed that it was a -- something that congress should definitely study. we shouldn't just put it aside. there's no doubt that we need

fundamental tax reform in this country, and the fair tax is a vehicle to open the door for congress to start reviewing other possibilities, including the fair tax as a way of fixing our inherently unequal tax code, and our policies, if we can't pass the buffett rule which simply says that a millionaire would not pay a less effective rate than working people, the people -- so in other words, the maids and the -- everyone else, secretary, cops who patrol the area, the security guards that troll the -- control the estates of these rich folks. firefighters, ambulances will

come pick them up, they don't pay the same tax rates as those people. and 70,000 of the millionaires in the country didn't pay a dime in income tax and enjoying all of those benefits -- police, fire -- it's truly amazing to me that we are still not at the point in this country where we are willing to consider redoing a complicated and -- our complicated tax code is just ridiculous. it's not working and we can't even pass a bill in this congress which mandates that common people pay at a regular -- at a rate that is not in excess of those that the millionaires enjoy. that's just an issue of

fairness. it's not fair. it's not right. i would suggest to you and congresswoman, perhaps we are seeing this kind of favorable treatment afforded to millionaires is because almost half of the incoming freshmen, i understand, are millionaires. i think the figure is about 43%. and if someone can correct me on that, i stand corrected. but my information is 43% of the tea party freshmen are millionaires, and so they benefit from these laws, these triggle down economics laws, and they've -- trickle down economics laws and they've been enjoying them since 1980. that's when voodoo economics, as george herbert walker bush,

called it, trickle down economics, voodoo economics, or whatever you want to call it, has not worked. but we still have proposals today to make it work and it's evidenced by what we did today with a $46 billion tax cut for what is called small businesses but actually a small business with 500 employees. we only have about 1,000 businesses in the country with 1,000 or more employees. so we're actually talking about big business when we talk about 500 employees. it's a one-time, one-year $46 billion tax cut that they get according to this legislation that we passed today, and it's

totally unpaid for. and with that, congressman, i'd like to yield to -- if i may -- mr. ellison: absolutely. yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lynn woolsey. ms. woolsey: i want to add a few more things about the buffett rule because there's so much to talk about that i'm sure that the -- our c-span viewers and probably most of the members of congress are -- really don't realize. 400 highest earning americans in 2008 who made an average each of $271 million -- so, ok, 400 individuals averaged $271 million paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 18.1%. at the same time, a married

couple earning $70,000 a year paid a rate of 25%. is that just unbelievable? mr. ellison: amazing. ms. woolsey: the buffett rule seeks to restore balance to families so that the tax code would make sure that no millionaire would pay a lower tax rate than middle-class americans. in fact, the buffett rule is targeted -- the legislation will only impact taxpayers with a taxable income over $1 million who are not paying a minimum mum tax rate of 30%. so -- minimum tax rate of 30%. so realize that. of the 144 million tax returns filed in 2010, less than 500,000 of them, .1% of the taxpayers had taxable income over $1 million.

remember, taxable income. because there's lots of write-offs. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady will yield. so my question is, that small -- the people who have the kind of money you just described are actually a small part of the population. but i think they're punching above their weight because they have influence in the political process. ms. woolsey: you're right, they have an influence in the political process. and average working americans don't realize that that's not them. the family that earns $70,000 taxable income earned $70,000, is taxed at a rate of 25%. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady will yield. if you're making 70 k a year, paying 25% in income taxes, that means there is an increase in your property taxes. you're going to feel that. that's going to punch you right in the stomach. that's going to make a

difference in whether the kids can get braces or not. that's going to make a difference as to whether or not you can put a roof on the house. it will make a huge difference. $70,000 is actually doing pretty well. but small variations can change your life. if you're making $70,000, if you're a two-income household making $70,000 and if one of the partners to the relationship gets six or dies, that means catastrophic expenses on the family because if you're spending, you know, the a $70,000 a year level and you lose a household member, then you got all those bills with just the one person and then you're going to be in bankruptcy. this is why we know 56% of all bankruptcy filings are driven by medical debt. this is how this happens even to middle-class people. but the buffett rule and putting americans to work and doing a lot of things is really the progreive caucus is all about addressing these

systematic problems we are addressing today. i want everybody to know, if you want to check out the -- what the progressive caucus says about the buffett rule, you should know that we have the budget rule contained in our budget. we put america back to work by front loading jobs in our budget. we invest in america's future by investing in infrastructure. and we reduce the deficit in part by asking the wealthiest, most privileged americans to do the patriotic thing and pony up a little bit more to help america. so i yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, congressman. it's disturbing to me that with all that the congressional progressive caucus has done to try to level the playing field in this country for working men and women that we would all be lumped together and called names and i wanted you to

comment about one of our colleagues who in response to a question asked of him, quote, how many communists are there in the united states congress, and this congressman stepped up to the mike and in a calm and polite manner, thoughtful looking, a pensive look on his face and he said, i believe that there are 78 to -- between 78 and 81 members of the communist party who are members of congress. now, can you respond to that, congressman? mr. ellison: you know what, i have to say i am not -- i have to -- i have to say i am not that excited to respond. i've been -- i responded on

shows. i responded on -- blitzer. i responded on -- i just said it's not true. it's a false statement. it is -- it is untrue. it's unfair. it's unkind. it raises the level of vitrial and insult in this body. of course, it's tough enough around here already. we don't need to hurl false accusations against each other. i would just urge the public to remind members of congress that we need to have a little bit more civility around here, and if you don't want to make an ugly comment or negative comment about your colleague, at least try to make it somewhere between 10,000 miles of being true. this is absolutely false. mr. johnson: if the gentleman will yield? mr. ellison: i yold back. mr. -- mr. ellison: i yield back. mr. johnson: the next statement was released by the gentleman and the statement was to the

effect that the entire membership of the congressional progressive caucus, members of the card carrying members of the communist party and i just think that it's important that we say that first of all that's not true. and secondly that it has no place in the rational dialogue and the honest dialogue that we seek to have here amongst us, both sides of the aisle. ms. woolsey: if the gentleman will yield. mr. ellison: one thing i don't want to do, and i'm just speaking for me. he calls us names. i am not going to call him names. i am mott -- i am not going to call him ugly names like that. you could call someone who has a right-wing perspective on the extreme. we don't exchange in tid for

tat because we're adults. we are here to discharge our responsibility on behalf of the american people. we swore to uphold the constitution. that's what we're going to do. i am not going to be distracted by subwho is not clear on what we're supposed to be doing here. i am going to stay focused on what we're here to do. ms. woolsey: and i'd like to say that by caring about american workers, by caring about women and children, by caring about our seniors, by wanting to put food on the table of all americans and help them with clean air, good food, clean water, if that labels us, so be it. and that -- all that says to me is somebody is very frightened about the good things we do. and i'm -- and i think we should move on now to citizens united who -- mr. johnson: congresswoman, i agree but i also want to point out that for the -- to label

folks as communists and socialists just because they believe in fairness for the working people of this country is not true and i think that it should be called out because if it's left unaddressed, then some folks will think it's true. but with that i would like to -- i certainly would love for us to get into a discussion about citizens united, congresswoman. ms. woolsey: well, thank you. i believe that it's very -- ever more important that we do something about the supreme court's decision in citizens united versus f.c.c. which overturns nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws in this country that limits corporations' involvement in

political campaigns. and in so doing gives big business a much louder voice. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, will control the remainder of the hour for the majority leader. the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: all right, thank you very much. anyway, in that action by the supreme court, big business was given a louder voice than the individual in this country and if we want to protect our democracy, that's what we have to bring an end to. . all that money coming into the political system without transparency and making the average citizen feel like their voice means nothing. mr. johnson: congresswoman, i believe that you are -- have hit the nail on the head.

this citizens united ruling by the united states supreme court definitely puts corporations in a position of superiority over just the regular working people of this country. and the reason why is because corporations have now been afforded the same rights that individuals have to speak freely . and with no regulation. and congress refuses to even consider any regulations on that speech for purposes of campaigning and affecting the outcome of campaigns and so this is a decision that is devastating to the people of this country, the working people of this country, the people who don't have a voice like the u.s.

chamber of commerce or like some unknown superpac that is formed on the eve of an election, funded nonely -- unanimously and used to affect an election and used in such a way that you can't even mount a response to it because the cascade of money is in that pac and you have the slightest ability to raise the requisite amount of money to match it. and so they control the outcome of these elections with the money and that is a devastating blow to our democracy. ms. woolsey: and you know, hank, the entire time i've been in the congress, i mean, i've been here for 20 years now, and we've had republican majority, we've had

democrat majority, but when the republicans have been in the majority they use as their of their mantra that they're returning government to the people. well, excuse me, citizens united takes government away from the people. and i don't hear them trying to change that. they seem to be defending citizens united and the other thing they're doing at this moment is they're trying to upend the presidential campaign finance system. they want to give more money to the special interests in the presidential elections as well. and those elections go quite well with public financing,

people choose on their tax form whether or not they want to give to the presidential election. mr. johnson: congresswoman, that was something that has happened this year, that perhaps not a lot of people know about. that under this republican-controlled 112th congress, the house has voted to do away with or abolish the i believe it's a $1 checkoff on a tax form that you send in, you can check the box and it will automatically deduct $1 from the amount that you owe or the amount of whatever refund you are entitled to and that $1 then goes into a pot to be distributed among the candidates who applied for this funding. and so everything that had been

put in place to try to make everything equal, along with giving people their rights to invest to a certain amount in campaign-related donations, everything is being dismantled systematically and it certainly does not help the people on our side of the aisle, the democratic side of the aisle, who traditionally have depended on workers unions, labor organizations to be the deep pockets for our campaign contributions. and right now i had a visit from

one of my good friends in labor the other day, back in my district, and this the gentleman has -- this gentleman has grown to be a friend of mine, a good friend. and he's a good man. but he came to the office, he's a full time union worker, works for the union, the administrative part of the union, not just represented by the union. and he told me, with all of the people in the union who are out of work today, and we've got a few jobs in the atlanta area that are near completion, and after completion those workers, even those workers who are able to work won't have any more work and then there's nothing else on the agenda that these people can go and get jobs at.

he said it's gotten so bad with the attacks on labor, the unemployment to where the work ers represented about about -- by the union can't pay the dues and then the moneys have been drawn down by the unions to take care of the workers, to assist them during this extended period of unemployment are on the decline and almost exhausted. and after telling me that he said, and so today is my last day employed at the union because they had to let me go. and we both sat there and we cried. we cried. and it was really touching because that gentleman has been the same -- is in the same boat that many other workers are in

and then the union which represents those workers is suffering greatly. they won't be able to do what they have done in the past for campaigns. but these superpacs and wealthy individuals who fund them unanimously much of the time can afford to put millions in and so -- and billions in, actually. so this is a very serious situation that we face in this country. who's going to win? is it money or is it the people? ms. woolsey: and, congressman, the one beacon of light in the system is the public financing of presidential campaigns. and i have to remind everybody, that's voluntary. people volunteer $1 a year out of their tax return to support

the public financing of the presidential races. they have to opt to do that. they don't have to. it's served our country well and it's a very limited expense. it needs updating. it doesn't need dismantling. i mean, we need more public financing of our federal elections, not less. and actually if i had my way, we'd have public financing, we'd have a much shorter time campaigning and we'd also publicly finance advertising as well as set spending limits. and not turn -- campaigns, it's an industry in this country now, that certainly employs thousands and thousands of people but it spends a lot of our time and individual money in order to get

people elected. mr. johnson: yes. i would echo those comments, congresswoman. you know, members around here, some folks spend 60%, 70% of their time, instead of being in committee meetings, they are out making phone calls trying to raise money for their next election. it's not -- it doesn't all go well for the country's future, for us to have, you know, this kind of leadership. in other words, leadership that depends on others to make the decision, they come in, vote on it, and then go back to the phones, making calls. ms. woolsey: right. i have been so fortunate because i represent a district that i fit. you know i'm retiring, but i have represented this district for 20 years, that i have fit so well that i have not had to

raise millions of dollars but i watch my colleagues who are in these districts that could go either way and where now citizens united has brought this superpac money in against them and i don't know how they do it. i mean, what a way to ruin our democracy than to have the people you elect to represent you spend so much of your time raising money instead of raising consciousness, instead of raising issues, instead of fighting for what we know needs to be done in this country. and, you know, this corrupt campaign finance system we have, with the special interest money, is going to actually corrode our

democracy. and if we don't step up to it on both sides of the aisle, everybody's going to be affected by it. not just democrats. mr. johnson: i'm going to tell you, congresswoman woolsey, that's why i'm going to hate to see you leave and i know you've been here for 20 years, that's a long time to be anywhere. and you have certainly been an unrelenting spokesperson for equity and fairness for all and you've been a voice for peace and you have been a voice for telling the truth and you are indeed a rare breed in congress and i'm personally going to miss you and i know many others will too. but i'll tell you,

congresswoman, there are people on the other side of the aisle and some i know feel the same way that we do. they don't like the way or the route that our country is going. we've even had some good people over there who have already been defeated for re-election based on that special interest money coming in at the last minute, shaking things up and telling a bunch of lies and then the public votes a good representative out and so i think people on both sides of the aisle are being hurt by what's happening in america right now. and i'm hopeful that this next election will see the kind of change that needs to come here. we need to take care of the people's business.

this is their congress, this is not the corporations' congress. we should be of, by and for the people, not of, by and for the corporate special interests. and i'm afraid that's where we are now. i myself have been fortunate so far to be in sync with the people of my district and so consequently i've not been forced to go out there and raise $1 billion but i still have to raise money and i would prefer a system where i could just be a legislator and we could have fairness in our elections. everyone starting with the same amount of money to spend. and that way it's not the money, it's your message that counts.

it's your -- ms. woolsey: right. and if everybody has a certain amount of time on air, they can spend it putting down their opponent or they can spend that time letting their constituents know who they are. and if they want to be negative, they can do it the way they want to. but they'll probably find out it's much more wholesome and people will like them a lot better when they know them for who they are and not as putdown artists. so, you know, when you say that there's folks on the other side of the aisle, and i'm sure there are, i think that it's our job now to pull together a core here in the congress who are willing to limit the influence of contributors and who are willing to curb the power of political action committees and impose spending limits and not let corporate america have a bigger voice than the average voter.

and somehow or another i think it's going to be possible but it's going to take leaders like yourself, hank, to make that happen. . i'll be cheering for you. mr. johnson: i think you're right about that. but i will say the moderates on the other side of the aisle i'm preferring to are the prime targets of the interests that want to get rid of them and go to an extreme. so folks over here on the republican side of the aisle are forced to comply with the party line or else, you know, they'll suffer the consequences. even when they follow the party line, they think, ok, we don't trust this person over here because there's some new blood over here that talks much more extremely, so we're going to get rid of that person here and put this new person in.

ms. woolsey: if we eliminate special interest money, if we have the declaration of democracy and have a constitutional change, the united states constitution regarding this citizens united action of the supreme court, i think we can help turn that around. mr. johnson: you know, congresswoman, you lead into the declaration of democracy, which i had the pleasure to sign yesterday and along with many other of my colleagues and i'm sure that more, the longer that this is around, the more that people will sign up. have you had an opportunity to sign? ms. woolsey: i signed the little card, i haven't signed that one. why aren't i on there? that's how much i support it. actually, speaker -- well, leader pelosi has signed the declaration it's very well re--

received in the congress. mr. johnson: i'm going to read it. it's the declaration for democracy and it reads as follows. i delair my support for amending the constitution of the united states to restore the rights of the american people undermined by citizens united and related cases to protect the integrity of our elections, and limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic process. and so any time we start talking about putting limits on -- on any activity and creating more fairness, then we get labeled as socialists and communists. that's just -- we're just people that care and i don't care what you call us, we're in

support of this declaration for democracy which would put the range of government back -- the reins of government back into the hands of working people, poor people, everyone, even the corporations would have a seat at the table, but they would not speak any louder than you or i. and i think it's very important so i was proud to sign the declaration of democracy and you know, this -- we're in a climate where we have a -- an organization that is set up to connect the corporate influence, the corporate money, the special interests, we have an organization that is set up to pair those special interests

corporations with legislators from the various state legislatures of the nation. about 60% of the legislators in the united states, the state legislators, have joined this organization, it's called the -- it's called alec, and that's an organization, i think it's the american legislative exchange council, and what alec does is, it's funded of course by business interests, billionaires and millionaires and companies and what it does is it puts, it invites the legislators to join, it really entices them to join by offering them for a mere $50 a

year, and the taxpayers, of course, pay that as a professional fee, or professional cost, and so the legislator joins, then he or she gets to go off on these three -- on these three two- and three-day weekends at some location like hilton head or jack el island or martha's vineyard or wherever they go. los angeles, las vegas, wherever they can be alone and with some ano anymority and in a luxurious setting. so these legislators who join go to these locations for the

retreats, the business interests are there because they're underwriting it, and then they get together in committees and the committees work out various model laws that are produced before the folks even get there, they're told about these model laws in the committees that they work on, the committees being the legislators and the business interests, and the public's interest is not there, it's all done in secret, and so the result is that the legislators come home and they have legislation which they can claim as, this is my legislation and i'm introducing it and by the way, this is my 0th piece of legislation that i have introduced and that has

passed and i'm a busy, substantive legislator and you know, so it make thems -- makes them look good on the campaign trail, nobody know what is the substance of the leg is and what it actually does and how much it costs and then for introducing that legislation, the legislator is ready with a campaign contribution also from the same corporations and individuals associated with those corporations, so based on that, -- based on that formula right there, you've got business being done behind closed doors to benefit folks other than the people who elect these legislators and then you never know who those legislators are because that's

private information, they keep it private and -- but if you're a member, you can log into the website and then go to a page and find out who all the corporate and who all the legislative members are members. but you can only get access to that if you're a member and to become a member, you have to be prescreened in advance. to make sure that you are like minded. if you can pass that muster, they let you in. this is the same organization that announced yesterday that they would not be involving themselves, they're disbanding their committee that had to do with social issues, as they call them. including voting rights.

and so the trayvon martin killing the shooting, and killing of trayvon martin and the claim of self-defense, stand your ground, but really shoot to kill legislation, that legislation was produced by an alec committee. i'm glad to know that committee will no longer be in action but the damage has already been done and as a result of that, you've had some corporations that have decided that, well, this is not -- we didn't buy into this. we didn't buy into this social thing. we just joined alec because we wanted to deal on the committees that deal with our issues, taxation, you know, whatever.

f.d.a., we wanted to deal on those things but instead, alec has gone into, they've gone to an extreme and so now we have corporations who threatened with boycott of their goods and services are now jumping off of the alec bandwagon and that causes alec to then announce yesterday that we're not going to deal in any more social issues. so i think that is instructive of the power of the people. if the people only know what's happening. the people will come together despite the differences that we have. we can look at each other and say, ok, you are older than i am. plus, you are a white woman, and so therefore we don't have

anything in common or i could say that, look, you know, this person over here is -- doesn't have the same sexual orientation i think they should, so therefore i'm going to condemn them to purgatory on that basis alone. or we could look at somebody and say, well, they've got a hoodie on. he's got a hoodie, a black guy in a neighborhood. he can be 9 years old, he can be 15, or he can be 17, but he's still a threatening, he's threatening me. just by his mere presence. we size people up like that. but when we really get down to it, our interests are the same and if we can get past the fear we have of each other and the misunderstanding that we have about each other, we can come together and we can reclaim

this country so that it will be a government-run -- a government run by, of, and for the people. so that is my -- that is my goal, is to continue to work toward that, if my citizens think that i'm worthy of continuing to do that. and so, i don't know if you have anything else you would like to add, congresswoman. ok, with that, then i will yield the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones is recognized for 6 -- for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority

leader. mr. jones: thank you very much. i am coming to the floor again to clear the names of two marine pilots who crashed in arizona april 8 of 2000. not only two pilots, but there were 17 marines in the back. the v-22, which is the plane that gos from a helicopter mode to a plane mode at that time was really in an -- was really an experimental plane. and major gruber and colonel brau in the cockpit had no idea what was happening when the plane went into what's called vortex ring state and i'd like to go through this 10-year journey for the record, mr. speaker. it so happened that in november of 2002, major gruber's wife

who lives in my district, jacksonville, north carolina, her husband brooks gruber was the co-pilot and she wrote me a letter that i'd like to read. i contact you in hopes that leaders of integrity, free of bias, would have both the intelligence and the courage it takes to decide the facts for themselves. if you do that, you will agree that human factor pilot error findings should not stand as it is in the marine -- military history. again, i respectfully ask for your support. please do not simply pass this matter along to general jones without offering the support my husband and his comrades deserve. please remember these 19 marines can no longer speak for themselves and i certainly am not afraid to speak for them and

i believe someone has to. even though it's easier to put to rest than forgotten, please join me in doing the right thing by taking the time to address this important issue. mr. speaker, on march 9 of this year "the hill" magazine, and i would like to thank a new young man on that staff named jeremy herb who did an article in the magazine about this 10-year journey that started with connie gruber's letter to me. mr. speaker, over the 10-year journey, i have spoken to many, many experts, one that i would like to quote today for the record. the former assistant secretary of defense and he states, major gruber should not be blamed for an accident caused by loss of

lift due to the aircraft entering vortex ring state, a phenomena which no one in the marine corps adequately understood in relations to the osprey at the time of the accident. the secretary further states, not only did the marine corps not understand osprey performance under v.r.s., the root cause of the accident, but neither did the contractor, nor the marine corps had not tested the aircraft near v.r.s. conditions. something which following the accident it later took the plain corps years to accomplish -- took the marine corps years to accomplish. certainly major gruber and colonel brown could -- brow could not be blamed for something that the marine corps itself did not grasp until years after the accident and after the death of the 19 marines. considering that it was ignorance on the part of the marine corps that caused the april, 2000, accident, the

marine corps should make it clear to the gruber and brow family with no ifs and/or buts that gruber and brow were not responsible for the accident. he further stated, i don't suppose the marine corps ever apologizes but considering that the accident was their fault and not major gruber and colonel brow's fault, an apology to the family would be in order also. mr. speaker, i read that because this 10-year journey, and i will continue to add names in the next few minutes, of people trying to help me, these two marines were the very best of the pilots. major brooks gruber and colonel john brow, they gave their life for this new plane known as the

v-22 osprey. and those young marines sitting in the back, 19, 21, 23, 24 and 25 were selected from other marines to sit in the back of that plane. those in the marine leadership that caused for this mission in arizona, created the mission, they should join me in clearing the names of these two pilots. mr. speaker, i further read for the record a former advisor to the secretary of defense stated in a letter trying to clear these names and i read, the failure of the manufacturer, bill boeing, and the navy to characterize the speed handling qualities of the v-22 through flight testing to describe them for the air crew in the natops

and to provide an adequate warning system were the cause of the mishap, not the air crew. the secretary further states, with the passing of 10 years and the future of the aircraft now secure, i sincerely hope that the names of lieutenant colonel brow and major gruber can now be exonerated and cleared for posterity. i strongly support any and all measures and request this letter be included in any official record regarding the cause of the v-22 mishap at -- on april 8, 2000, or any resolution attempting to clear the names of loont colonel brow and major gruber. mr. speaker, what has been so ironic about this 10-year journey, of everyone that was part of reviewing the accident,

or maybe it was in the air like lieutenant colonel jim shafer who has joined in this effort, colonel shafer was a friend of john brow and brooks gruber. and colonel shafer was in a third airplane that night, a v-22, and he saw his friends and the 17 marines in the back flip, crash and burn and there is no reason that the marine corps will not give the wive what is they're asking. i'll explain that in just a moment, mr. speaker. in this 10-year journey, mr. speaker, i've gotten to know the two attorneys, jim furman in arizona who defended the families of john brow and brooks gruber before bill boeing. it was a major suit. and then brian alexander in new york who defended the 17

families of the marines sitting in the back of the plane. they have all joined in this effort to clear the names of john brow and brooks gruber. and, mr. speaker, what is so ironic, in their effort, jim furman and brian alexander, to see the names cleared they have given letters to the commandant that clearly state there can be no future lawsuits. it has all been settled. there can be no more lawsuits. i must say that along this journey, at one time i had the marine corps to take the findings of the experts and put it into the personnel jacket of colonel john brow and major

brooks gruber. but, mr. speaker, i knew at that time that was not enough, because the press continues to put articles about the crash in arizona and they say, pilot error. human factors. the jagman report, which was the official report that was written by and signed by colonel mike morgan, colonel ron radish and major phil stackhouse, they were the three investigators sent from camp lejeune, north carolina, to arizona the day after the crash and they were given the responsibility, mr. speaker, of determining what caused the crash. mr. speaker, on -- in the jagman report that i just made

reference to, on page 77, those three men that i just named wrote this, during this investigation we found nothing that we would characterize as negligence. or deliberate pilot error. mr. speaker, all the two wives are asking the marine corps is a letter from the commandant on his stationary that clearly states one paragraph, lieutenant colonel john brow, pilot, and co-pilot major brooks gruber were not at fault for the accident that occurred on april 8 of the year 2000. mr. speaker, the three investigators have joined in this effort. and i'd like to read from

retired lieutenant colonel ron radish, one of the three investigators that i just named, despite the fact procedures were not in the natops for the vortex ring state, there was no discussion concerning aircraft flight characteristics during high rates of dissent at low air speeds. no mention was made of a possible asemitic condition that could lead to an uncontrollable and unrecoverable situation with no knowledge, training or warning concerning the possible consequences of v.r.s., pilot were see essentially on their own in an uncharted territory. these two pilots did not know what was happening and it was the fault of bill boeing and the marine corps. he further stated, it was through this -- their misfortune

that the mv-22 v.r.s. hazard was identified. because of the accident they learned, so that nothing like this would ever happen again to a pilot. colonel radish further stated, the mishap of april 8, 2000, represents a monumental discovery that enhanced the overall safety and effectiveness of this high-capable weapons system, the v-22. made the marines -- may the marines rest in peace knowing that their ultimate sacrifice they made for their country also led to a critical advancement in v-22 safety and capability and overall readiness of the united states marine corps. my thoughts and prayers go out to the families who continue to cope with the loss of their loved ones and search for some form of closure.

mr. speaker, i further would like to add some comments from lieutenant colonel mike morgan. again, he was the lead investigator of this crash that happened in arizona. and i read, i applaud and fully support the extraordinary effort you have undertaken in support of john brow and brooks gruber. and the families who lost loved ones in the tragic crash of 72. one merely needs to look at what has transpired in the years since this tragic accident, after a second mv-22 crashed just eight months later, a blue ribbon panel closely examined the mv-22 program. now they also pursued a test program to understand v.r.s. and develop safety measures to educate and protect future mv-22 pilots from the dangers.

this was such a monumental undertaking that the lead developal test pilot, mr. tom mcdonald, was awarded the society of experimental test pilots kissler award for outstanding professional accomplishment in the conduct of flight testing. colonel morgan further states, john brow and brooks gruber did their job and did it well. i look forward to the day when d.o.d., department of defense, officials accurately recognize the sacrifice made by them and all the marines of nighthawk 72. mr. speaker, i'd like to read the third letter from the third investigator, major phil stackhouse states, i do not believe that it would be a surprise to anyone that it is in my opinion the mishap was not a result of pilot error but was the result of a perfect storm of circumstances.

during the conduct of this investigation, we collected some 20 binders of accidents -- evidence, excuse me, including, among other things, maintenance records, training records, operational and testing records and dozens of photographs. i do not feel, i do not feel that i investigate -- our investigation reflects that the mishap was the result of pilot error. and if the investigation was interpreted that way, it was misinterpreted. for any record that reflects the mishap was a result of pilot error, it should be corrected, for any that reflects it was pilot error, it should be recanted. mr. speaker, the problem has always been that after the jagman report, which i just made reference to, if the marine corps in 2001, 2002 had issued a

press release stating that new evidence has shown improvement -- shown and proven that colonel john brow, pilot and co-pilot brooks gruber were not at fault, mr. speaker, i wouldn't be on the floor today. . . but the marine corps has never in a press release corrected the misinformation that happened shortly after the osprey crash when the ma reap corps' original press release indicate -- indicated possible pilot error. mr. speaker, that's why all these names that i have read today have joined me in asking the united states marine corps, who i have great respect for, they're among the best, to give

the families, connie gruber and her daughter brook, to give trish brow and her two sons, matthew and mark, one letter on the commandant's stationery, clearly state to the brow family that your husband john brow, a true american hero, was not responsible for the crash on april 8 of 2000. the same for connie gruber. her daughter wrook down in jacksonville, north carolina. -- her daughter brooke, down in jacksonville, north carolina. the -- one let we are the same language as i mentioned for colonel brow, the same language for major brooks gruber.

i can assure you that as long as i have the privilege to serve in the united states congress and with all these experts that i've quoted today, that are willing to join me, that the right thing must be done for the family. and the right thing is that letter from the commandant. mr. speaker, i would not be the kind of person that i am without the faith that i have in my god. and my mom and dad taught me the bible, and they taught me right from wrong, and they taught me that truth does malter -- does matter. i have, with the help of god and the many experts, we have the truth, and the truth is

these two outstanding pilots were put into an impossible situation without any training to understand how to react to vortex ring state, so therefore , mr. speaker, we will continue to speak out on the floor of the house. i had told the families that when this clarification comes through and their husbands are cleared that i would like to go with the brow family to arlington cemetery and stand there with trish, matthew, and mark, and salute the colonel,

and say, colonel, rest in peace, you're not being blamed any longer. i would like to do the same with trish gruber down in north carolina where her husband is buried, i want to walk with connie and brooks and say the same thing to major gruber, rest in peace. you no longer will be blamed for the accident on april 8 of 2000. mr. speaker, before closing, there's a quote that someone sent me in this 10-year journey to clear these names by voluntary that says, to the living -- by voltaire, that says, to the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe the truth. that's what this is all about, mr. speaker. the marine corps could issue one paragraph to the two

families so that never again will they have to read in the paper the accident in arizona on april 8, 2000, was due to pilot error because as the families have said to me, help us get this clarification and we will make sure that any print about the pilot error on april 8, we will ask and demand that it be retracted because it is not the truth. i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniformism ask god in his loving arms the families who have given a child diing for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and i ask god to please bless the brow family and the gruber family, bring peace to this family, god, by helping us get this misinformation corrected. i'll ask god to please bless bless the house and senate that

we'll do what is right in the eyes of goth -- of god, for god's people, i ask god to bless the president, that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people and i ask three times, god, pleads, god, please, god, please, continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from the district of columbia for 30 minutes.

ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to

inform the congress of exciting new developments about the major priorities for the district of columbia for this year's congress. these developments have developed very quickly and they have developed both in the congress and in the nation. we now have unprecedented momentum both in the country and here in the congress to allow the district to spend its own local funds without coming to the congress of the united states. that will seem very strange to members of the public since they've never heard of a local jurisdiction having to bring its own local funds to a

national legislature which has nothing to do with raising those funds. it is an anomaly whose time has passed. and i'm very pleased at the response we are getting in the congress and that we have gotten in a scarce, small period of time, in less than six months. we see this culminating in a poll that in essence blesses the momentum we are seing in the congress for the united states. this poll was released just this week, and it's an important week for the district of columbia because the district of columbia has celebrated emancipation day, the slaves in america who lived in the district of columbia were emancipated nine months

before slaves in the united states and there's some analogy here, my friends. because what was not emancipated was the budget of the district of columbia. that's what we're trying to free now. that's what the american people seem to want by a very large majority. a poll by a polling organization that is nonpartisan called purple insights asked this question of americans in all parts of the country from both parties, the question was preceded with this fact. the budget of the city of washington, d.c. is funded by local residents' tax dollars.

do you think that decisions about washington, d.c.'s local budget should be made by washington, d.c. taxpayers and their own elected officials, or should those budget decisions be made by the u.s. congress? and here are the results. 71% of the american people said the d.c. budget should be decided exclusively by d.c. taxpayers, only 23% said that decisions should be made by the u.s. congress. but what is most gratifying is the way in which these numbers reflect both parties. and they broke down these

numbers and were careful to ask people from both parties, for depps the notion mat budget should be -- for democrats the notion that the budget decided only by local taxpayers was 71%. independents were at 75% and republicans were at 72%. so no matter where my colleagues come from, their constituents support the bedrock principal, no principle more american than if you raise the money, you get to decide how to use it. and you certainly don't go to a national body. and then they looked at men and women. men were at 68%, women at 72%,

who believe that the local taxpayers should decide the local budget and be the final decisionmakers. if you look at regions of the country, mr. speaker, you get the same kind of virtually even breakdown. if you look at the northeast, it's 69%, you look at the midwest, it goes up to 74%, you look at the south, it's 68%, you look at the west, it's 72%. no red-blooded american is going to say with a straight face that you can carry my budget with my money in it and ask the congress to be the final decider on that budget. that's what this poll shows and you can see it graphically here with red the republicans and

the democrats are virtually even but more republicans say that d.c. budgets should be made by local d.c. taxpayers. that's 72%. 71%. -- 72%. 1% democrats. -- 71% democrats. the opposition shows the same breakdown, you have 24% of democrats saying congress should control the d.c. budget, but you have -- and you have 22% of republicans. where is your majority here? the majority is where i think most people would have expected it but i am grateful for a local organization called d.c. votes for commissioning this poll and realize that the poll might come under some scrutiny so it went to a polling organization which is known for its bipartisan reputation and

polling. that, of course, should be all we need to hear. but the fact is, we have a parallel development right here in the congress. today, senator joe lieberman, not today, i'm sorry, this week, senator joe lieberman announced he was preparing his own budget autonomy bill for the district of columbia. now, senator lieberman, who works in a very bipartisan way, i must say, in the senate, i'm so sorry to see that he has decided to retire, senator lieberman has long been the foremost champion of equal rights for residents of the district of columbia. . this idea began with a republican chairman, chairman

issa and i will say something to say with how that happened and two more republican leaders, house majority leader eric cantor and the republican governor of virginia, bob mcdonald all weighed in for budget automy for the budget for the district of columbia. this week, citizens from the organization, d. vote, were here in the house speaking to members about these latest poll results. but let me say something about the members. it's the members who have the last say here. chairman issa is responsible for matters that come to the congress involving the district

of columbia. that committee, since i have been here, more than 20 years, has never had a hearing on the d.c. budget and decided to have one. he had one and listened to his witnesses and listened to the chief financial officer of the district of columbia and to other district of columbia witnesses. what he heard was that the district of columbia had the largest budget surplus in the united states here in the middle of a recession, and that its budget and finances were in better shape than virtually any state in the united states. and he heard the witnesses from his side as well as our side. the republican side as well as our side. objective witnesses from the outside saying that the major problem the district faced were inefficiencies that it pays for

on wall street, that it pays for in the way it measures the city because its budget cannot be implemented until it is brought to the congress of the united states and creates huge uncertainty among bond holders and on wall street and that d.c. pays a premium not of the making of our citizens but the fact that the budget doesn't get decided in its final form in the city. no one can remember when the congress of the united states has changed the budget itself. the budget is a very delicate thing to put together and you haven't had the kind of hearings you would know what to take in, take out and the chairman listened to the problems with bringing it to the congress and

heard even more problems than he expected. school begins in september. by the time congress finishes with the budgets even at the earliest point, you have the date, september 30. the reason that most jurisdictions are on a july 1 year and not a year that begins october 1 as the federal government does is precisely because of the importance of schools in every jurisdiction. but in the district, our schools and our city are handicapped by the fact that the budget isn't even out by the time school opens. that impressed the chairman pearge and he was impressed by the fact and i will soon get to this that the district has faced shutdowns because its budget was here and fights over the federal

budget has resulted even in the possibility of shutdown of the d.c. government. mr. issa sat there and did something that i never heard a committee chairman do before in my time in the congress. he listened so intently that he said or announced as the hearing ended, he intended to write a bill for d.c. budget automy. everyone was surprised. his staff told us they had no idea he was going to do that. upon hearing the witnesses at his hearing, that, i must say to my colleagues and to members of the public, this is a civics lesson in committee work at its best. the chairman listened. the chairman makes a decision. the chairman then went to work.

he worked on several versions of a budget automy bill and exchanged them with me and the mayor and other officials in the city and there were some problems in that exchange and we indicated what those difficulties would be operationally and then one day he announced his own final version of a d.c. budget or autonomy bill and while i tell you it has its own form that clearly bears his signature, in many way it mirrors my own d.c. budget how much we were thrilled that the chairman of the full committee had, indeed decided that it was in the best interest of the district of columbia and the best interest of the congress for the

district's budget to remain in the district and be implemented in the same way as every budget in the united states except the budget in the district is implemented. they prepare for school and they are ready when school begins. mr. issa's bill came to the attention of the president of the united states. the president had weighed in the year before for budget autonomy. but upon hearing of mr. issa's bill, he included in his own budget submitted this year the final language consistent with the principle of home rule, it is the administration's view that the district's local budget should be authorized to take effect without a separate annual federal appropriation bill. the administration will work with congress and the mayor to pass legislation to amend the

d.c. home rule act to provide the district with local budget autonomy. that's the president's statement inspired by the republican chairman's proposal for budget autonomy. i know that there are many in this chamber and the public that see rare instances, perhaps none, of bipartisan ideas from this congress. there, you see one. you see the democratic president and you see a strong republican chairman. and, mr. chairman, that is not all. mr. issa was moved in part to address budget autonomy because of the problems the district has had with federal shutdown threats. most of america is aware of the

shutdown threats. by the skin of our teeth, we barely missed a shutdown more than a year ago. why should that have anything to do with you or with me? it had everything to do with the district of columbia. no one believed, of course, that the underlying issues had anything to do with the district of columbia. those issues are well known. they involve disagreements between democrats and republicans over federal issues like the federal deficit. the district has had a balanced budget and as i indicated before, beyond its balanced budget, has the highest surplus in the united states. so why is the district of columbia caught in a federal fight over -- that leads to the possibility of a shutdown of the

federal government? if our budget is over here, if the budget of the district of columbia is here and has not been passed by the congress and it usually is not passed until, of course, other budgets are passed or certainly no sooner than september 30, then the district of columbia's local budget gets thrown in the pot with the budget of, i don't know, health and human services, the department of defense, all of the other federal agencies that get shut down and there is nothing that the district can do to extricate itself from the fight because the fight does not involve any concession that the district can make. it involves only federal issues. nevertheless, the district would get shut down. there were three shutdown

threats in 2011. and it is not the fact that we didn't get shut down that is the problem, the federal government didn't get shut down, although i can tell you it came so close to being shut down, i don't even like to think about it. what is the problem is that every time it looks like the threat of a shutdown, the local government of the district of columbia has to spend time and money preparing for a shutdown whether or not it occurs. imagine your county, your city, pulling people together three times to prepare for a shutdown, to prepare for which agencies can keep going and which agencies to shut down, because in the event of a shutdown, the only agencies that can be kept in operation are essential

agencies. three times the district of columbia had to do that. the district of columbia is going through the same problems that every local jurisdiction as we climb out of that great recession is having. you can imagine what a waste of time and energy that was. that was one of the issues that made chairman issa think through the notion of budgets -- budget autonomy. i myself have had several bills in each year, to keep the district government from shutting down in case the federal government shuts down. and another bill that i put in each year saying that whenever the federal government shuts down, the district can spend its own local funds, no other funds, no federal funds, nobody can spend those but its own local funds.

those bills have not passed. just two months ago, i warned the mayor that we could be headed for a shutdown in this year because the senate and the house have different budgets. an agreement was reached between the two chambers. under the budget control act about what the level of spending would be this year, 2013. but while the senate has stuck to that number, the house is using another number. so if the two don't agree and they each come forward with different appropriation bills, the country could be faced again

with the possible shutdown of the federal government. that's bad enough for the country, but suppose you were the mayor of the district of columbia or member of the city council and had to consider that there could be a shutdown of the district government because the house and the senate are using different budget numbers this year, that would make you tremble as i'm sure the district is now as it considers what to do. of course, we will try to reach some agreement, but at the moment, they are going in different directions despite having recent agreement on what the number would be for the budget this year. the president noted these shutdown threats, the cost to the taxpayers of the district of columbia, did something quite unusual.

he not only submitted his view, as he did with budget autonomy that he favors it, he submitted actual language that would keep the district open in case of a shutdown. and i would like to submit that language for the record. but when the president submits the language to the congress, that puts a very special emphasis on the need for what he is asking for. mr. speaker, not only have you had the president and mr. issa, the majority leader of this body, mr. cantor, has indicated that he supports budget autonomy. his spokesman said, and i am quoting, that he is certainly willing to work with the

district toward its goal of budget autonomy. that's the first time that a leader of my friends on the other side of the aisle has indicated public support for budget autonomy and this afternoon, i want to thank mr. cantor personally for doing so. mr. cantor may have opinion moved by his own governor, the republican governor of virginia. mr. bob mcdonell, governor mcdonell, wrote to majority leader cantor who is also a virginian, indicating that he supports budget autonomy for the district. and -- one of the reasons he gave was that 100,000 virginians come to the district of columbia to work every day, in private and federal sector.

and if the government shut down, that 100,000 residents from virginia who had nothing to do with this fight, just as the district of columbia had nothing to do with the federal fight, are seriously inconvenienced. i think the fact that these two virginians from our region have spoken out speaks to the practical reality behind budget autonomy. in addition, the governor of virginia made it clear he did not see how the mayor of the district of columbia even ran his city when he could not be certain when his budget would be passed. here you have one chief executive speaking to another and both from different parties. the case we think -- the case, we think, mr. speaker, has been made. it's been made here by the leadership of this body and the leadership of the senate and it's been made in the country as leaders have stepped forward

to indicate that the rational thing to do, the american thing to do, if you will, is to respect the right of a local jurisdiction to spend its own local money without coming to a national body who has had nothing to do with the raising of those funds. if i could inquire, mr. speaker, how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has four minutes left. ms. norton: i want to summarize how much on the same page democrats and republicans are. on the -- are on the proposition that d.c. should control d.c.'s local budget. there's nothing radical about that one, my friends. it would be hard to go out in the street of your city or your county and get a different response. it's not surprising but it's very important to have these

poll figures that back up where chairman issa is trying to take us, where mr. cantor is trying to take us, where the governor of virginia is trying to take us, where d.c. officials and i hope the congress will come this year. these are very gratifying number bus they are numbers that reflect where americans always are, they're first local people, they want to do as much locally as possible. they understand that there are national issue they know that one of those issues is not their own local money. mr. speaker, this week, the district of columbia celebrated d.c. emancipation day. and of course it's where the -- it's worthy of celebration when this jurisdiction was the first jurisdiction whose slaves were freed by abraham lincoln.

isn't it amazing that the nation's capital had slavery in 1862. but it is very hard to celebrate an emancipation day for the district of columbia when your own local funds cannot be spent by your own local people. we raise about $3 billion in this city ourselves. it is very diverse -- it is a very diverse city of people from all walks of life and all kinds of income and there is absolute agreement across political lines that the one thing we deserve is budget awe to bemy. this year -- budget autonomy. this year was the 150th anniversary of the liberation of slaves by abraham lincoln in the district of columbia. we noted that the slaves had to be very grateful to be liberated. because there was nothing they could do to liberate themselves . armed struggle was not possible for slaves here or anywhere

else. peaceful opposition to slavery would have brought armed struggle against their peaceful opposition. so they had to wait to be liberated. the people of the district of columbia understand it is up to them to liberate themselves. but they, too, cannot free themselves entirely. they do not have a member who has a vote on the floor of the united states congress. i vote -- our vote -- i vote in committee, i do not have the right to vote for final passage of any legislation. my residents have been in every war, the nation has fought -- have been in every war the nation has fought since the nation was created. we pay income taxes at the highest levels, third per capita in income taxes among the 50 states and the district of columbia system of you can imagine that it is with some anguish that we send our own local budget to people we

respect, but people who have nothing to say with the money we have raised. i thank all of those who have supported us here in the congress and i look forward to the day this year when there will be budget autonomy for the district of columbia. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from

georgia, mr. broun, for 30 minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. this afternoon i'm going to talk about health care. i'm a medical doctor, a primary care physician. as a medical doctor, i'm very concerned about where we're going as a nation. back during the debate over the patient protection and affordable care act, known as obamacare, i presented several alternatives to that bill. most people know in this country that the u.s. supreme court a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago, had hearings about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, whether the federal government under

the constitution can d demand -- can demand that every single person in this country buy health insurance dictated by the federal government. that the federal government actually puts out all the parameters for that health insurance. we recently saw kathleen sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, say that everybody's health insurance in this country is going to have to provide free birth control pills. free pills that are designed for nothing but to cause an abortion. and free sterilization for everybody in the country. that's whether you're male or female. who pays for that? we all will. mr. speaker, this is not about birth control. it's about government control. because you see, under obamacare, if it stays in place, it's going to be a tool where the federal government can mandate every aspect of our lives. what we eat.

in fact, justice scalia in the hearings a few weeks ago said if it stays in place, couldn't the federal government demand that everybody in the country eat broccoli? i love broccoli and eat a lot of it but it's not the federal government's business to mandate that i eat broccoli or anybody else for that matter. and he's absolutely right. in fact, under the auspices of health care, the federal government could control every aspect of our lives. could tell us what kind of cars we could drive. federal government could basically say, we believe everybody should drive a chevy volt or a ford focus and if you don't, we've got to fine you. there are already doctors associated with the c.d.c. in my home state of georgia that say it's a health hazard for people to have private

ownership of firearms. and it's particularly a health hazard to children. they can outlaw private ownership of firearms. they could outlaw anything that the federal government decided to do. obamacare is going to be a destroyer. it's going to destroy the doctor-patient relationship. it will destroy the quality of health care because the federal government is going to decide who can get care and who will not, it can decide whether a person is fit to receive surgery or go in the hospital or not. age is going to be a determining factor. it's all going to be based on economics, on cost. the high cost of health care today is because of government intrusion into the health care system. in fact, i'll just give you two quick examples. back when i was practicing medicine down in rural

southwest georgia, in my little office, i had a fully automated, quality controlled laboratory. if a patient came in to see me that had a fever, aching all over, sore, red, swollen throat, coughing, nose running, i was -- i would do a complete blood count to see if they had a bacterial infection, which needs to be treated with antibiotics, or whether they had a viral infection, which is not helped by antibiotics. the patient does not need to go spend the money on those antibiotics. actually, it's not the best practice, it's not a good standard of care to treat viral infections with antibiotics. i would do a c.b.c., i could do it in five minutes. i charged 12 bucks. congress in its infinite wisdom decided that i might make a few pennies off doing c.b.c.'s and thus would have an incentive to do too many.

well they passed clia, the clinical laboratory improvement act. so instead of being able to do the test for -- in five minutes, 12 bucks, i had to send patients over to the hospital. took three to four hours. $75. for one test. from $12 to $75, because of a law that congress passed. what do you think that did to everybody's insurance all across this country? what do you think it did to the cost of medicaid swems medicare? -- of medicaid as well as medicare? it markedly raised the cost. second issue, congress passed hipaa, a totally unneeded act, it has cost the health care industry alone billions, billions with a b, billions of dollars for a totally unneeded act and it has not paid for the first aspirin to treat the

headaches it's created. there are other industries like the insurance industry, accounting industry and a whole lot of others affected by hipaa also. it's government intrusion in the health care system. the president promised us that obamacare would not cost over $1 trillion. they went through a whole lot of budgetary gimmicks to get it under $1 trillion. just recently c.b.o. said that obamacare is going to cost $1. 25 trillion. the president said if you have insurance and you like it, you can keep it. nobody will be able to afford it. i talked to a businessman, his insurance went up this year over last year by 43% because of the mandates in obamacare. hopefully the supreme court is going to throw out obamacare because it's going to destroy the doctor-patient relationship and the quality of medicine. it's also going to destroy budgets, as i mentioned. it's very, very expensive.

the expansion of medicaid is going to destroy state budgets. the whole bill will destroy the federal budget and the economy. as i mentioned, it's going to destroy our freedom. so what's the alternative? what happens if the supreme court throws out alo because macare, as hopefully they will and they should, because it's blatantly unconstitutional. first thing, let me show you, this chart shows us what obamacare is like. this is the chart. this isn't all the new bureaus and agencies created under the plan. right in the middle is the secretary of health and human services. kathleen sebelius, if she's still in office a year from now she has the potential to be in the -- to be the greatest tyrant to take away our freedom because of this law. we must get rid of obamacare and replace it with something that makesence economically. . and would put patients and

doctors in the business of making their own decisions. i introduced a bill called the patient option act. what would it do? repeal obamacare, completely. as we should. it also makes health care cheaper for everybody. makes all health care cheaper for everyone. it will provide coverage for all americans. and also, it will save medicare from going broke. we heard today -- i heard some of my democrat colleagues talk about republicans want to destroy medicare as we know it. and that's what they keep saying, that their policy, the democrat policy is characterized

by four d's. the first d is that they deny that medicare and social security has any problem whatsoever. the actuaries of social security and medicare say they are going to go broke in a few short years, within the lifespan of almost every american, except for the extreme elderly. they deny there is a problem. they delay in fixing the problem. and their saying of let's save medicare as we know it is going to -- they denny there is any problem and third, they are going to destroy medicare because it is not feasible to go forward and not fix it. that's what republicans have been trying to do. and the fourth thing that my democrat colleagues do is they demonize us who want to fix it.

and we need to have policies to give patients, give people a whole lot more options. and that is what i'm trying to do with my patient option act. so, how does it make it cheaper for everyone? well, first thing it does, it provides 100% tax deductibility for all health care expenses, including insurance. most people in this country get their health insurance through their employer, at least working people do. and what this does is allow a business to just give the money to their employee and let the employees go out and buy their health insurance that makes the most sense for them and their families. so the employer is not dictating what kind of insurance the employee gets. it's a normal business expense just to the employer to give that money to the employee and

then the employee can go out and buy whatever kind of insurance that they want to. and in doing soy, they can buy health -- and in doing so, they can buy health insurance state lines. it will get rid of the state mandates, somebody can buy across state lines without the mandates that are given to the insurance companies. plus this issue breaks up the monopoly in every state. only a few health insurance companies are providing health insurance in that state. it would allow people to wrk an insurance agent and buy health insurance anywhere in the country and can have a whole lot more options. there are health insurance policies that fit their family's

needs the very best at a much lower cost and increases the contribution limit and does patient reforms to the health savings accounts. what my bill does it allows everybody to contribute up to $10,000 a year into health savings account and the employer can help provide the funds so the employee can fund their health savings account. and the employee will own it, manage it themselves. and my democrat colleagues seem to think nobody can manage their own health insurance or their own economic affairs and have to have the federal government telling all of us how to manage all of our affairs. that seems to be their philosophy. but i trust the american people. i think people can manage their own affairs if we give them the ability to do so and health

savings accounts would do just that. it is not a use it or lose it situation. that could continue to grow over the lifetime of the individual. and when they die, pass on, that health savings account will go to their heirs. so this puts competition into the health insurance industry and takes away all those mandates and lets have patients have multiple options and purchase health insurance at a lower cost that makes sense to them and their employer will not dictate it and neither will the federal government. so it will be a whole lot cheaper for everyone. now, it also offers coverage for all americans. well, in repealing obamacare, the thing about obamacare, we were told we need to have health care for everybody.

well, the thing is what is confusing to most americans is we haven't been talking about health care, we are just talking about health insurance. when obamacare says provide health care for everybody, health insurance for everyone is mandated. the president went on a national address just prior to passing obamacare and says he wants everybody in this country in one pool, one insurance pool. what does that mean? that means the federal government provides all health care coverage and all health care for everybody. that's socialized medicine. socialized medicine and that's exactly what obamacare is all about is forcing people out of their private insurance. we already are seeing that

happening today and force everybody in a national pool run by the federal government. which in itself is going to destroy quality health care and making decisions about the kinds of surgery that everybody can or cannot have, whether you can get a certain medication or not and whether or not you can go into the hospital. the doctor won't be able to make that decision. the health managed corporations as well as drug companies determine today whether a patient can go into the hospital or not. we have to stop that. we have to put patients into control where they can work with the doctors and get the kind of health care that they need without some bureaucrat, insurance company bureaucrat or government bureaucrat making a decision. but what this does, it allows, my patient option act, allows

businesses or individuals to come together and form an association and have huge insurance pooled all across the country. and that association could offer multiple insurance products. a cadillac plan or bare-bones plan or something in between, whatever the members of that association wants to purchase, the association can offer multiple products. and since you'll have such huge pools across the land, then the cost is much lower and it spreads the liability across many more people so health insurance is a whole lot less expensive for all of us. and in doing so, it will cover a lot of people who are uninsured today because they can't afford it and also allow people who have pre-existing conditions to join an association and buy

health insurance at a price where they can afford it. it will cover people with pre-existing conditions. this will allow those groups to make these associations as well as individual businesses to buy health insurance across state lines. it will provide coverage for virtually everybody. well, what about medicare? i'm going to come back to coverage for poor people. even with the lower prices -- i'll tell you what the patient option act. my bill will save medicare and make it that our senior citizens of not only today, but whose children i see, young people i see in the gallery today, they will be able to have insurance through medicare if that's what

they want to do. what it does, it allows seniors to opt out of medicare if they want to. i have a constituent that worked for a large cable company here in this country. the cable company wanted to provide health insurance to him for the rest of his life as an executive of a cable company but he couldn't do it because under the current law everyone has to go into medicare once you turn 65. you don't have the option. it's mandated. mandates like that, i don't think that's freedom, frankly, mr. speaker. everybody is mandated to go into medicare when they turn 65. my bill will allow them i want to buy private insurance and i don't want medicare. they can use their own insurance whether it's provided through a company or something they bought all along and moves medicare

into a more flexible program and actually sets up a medicare health savings account that medicare will fund. the patient will manage the dollars. it won't be managed by some federal bureaucrat. and if the patient doesn't utilize all those funds before they pass away, those funds actually go into the medicare recipient safe and the heirs wim get the money. and it gives the medicare recipient a lot of options and gives premium support for on top of the medicare health savings account so that the medicare patient will have comprehensive coverage for any medical emergency or even very costly

medical treatment. so it takes care of medicare patients. it gives them good quality care. it puts the medicare patient in control of those decisions and it will save medicare from going broke, which is going to in just a very few short years. now the next thing -- and this will help with those poor people who can't even buy the much reduced cost health insurance, even bare-bones policies and there are some people in this category. in my over four decades of practicing medicine, i have literally given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my services. that's what most doctors do, particularly my generation, a lot of the younger doctors aren't doing that as much because of the government

dictates to them and because the requirements that c.m.s. puts upon their practices so they don't have time to give to their patients, they don't have time to try to develop relationships with their patients, they don't have time to give good quality care anymore because of the federal government. but -- let me back up and say if i was accepting medicare as a physician and i was a provider, providers accepting medicare as a payment and medicare, by the way, sets the prices that says you cannot publish those prices. there is no transparency because of federal dictates, by the way, federal law -- if i was a preferred provider and a patient came in to see me that was

really struggling, trying to make ends meet, didn't have health insurance and trying to pay their bills and came in to see me and i said, don't worry about the bill. and i have done that to thousands of patients over my four decades of practicing medicine, i said don't worry about it, forget, i will be glad to give you the services for free, if i did that as a preferred provider, medicare can literally throw me in jail for treating for free. they could fine me. doctors today cannot give away their services who desperately needs their services. what my bill does is stop that and gives the physician a tax credit between $2,000 and 8,000 a year for giving away their services. give them a tax credit. i talked to a lot of doctors in

georgia and asked them if we did this, how many doctors would actually see patients for free. every single one and every single doctor meeting has held up their hand. i talked to a doctor who practices in a very upscale, wealthy community, he is in his office four days a week and has basically -- a retirement community with high-priced real estate and homes, and he told me if i would do this in a bill, he would set aside two of the four days he is in his office and see nothing but indigent patients. let let me repeat that. this would give half of his time to see indigent patients in his office if he -- if we

would give him this tax credit. that's what we did in this bill system of doctors are no longer under the threat of being fined and being jailed for just having compassion on poor people as the federal government has stopped that, prevented that, said it's against the law to have compassion on poor people, you have to charge them, you have to try to collect, you cannot give away your services. this stops all that. medicare has no compassion. medicaid has no compassion. it's all about money and government control. another thing that my bill does is it reforms the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, another law that congress passed that requires every emergency room in this cupry to see whoever comes in and to treat them. in my area in georgia, throughout my 10th congressional district in

georgia, you can -- a person can walk into any emergency room in my district and they'll find the emergency room filled with patients who do not need to be in the emergency room, should not be in the emergency room. i worked for two years before i moved to northeast georgia, i was working at a hospital down in southwest georgia, as director of emergency services. for two years, i worked full-time as an e.r. doc. way over 90% of the patients that came in that emergency room, as they do in most emergency rooms, had in emergency. and actually, emergency rooms all across this country are filled with illegal aliens that are going there and getting services, utilizing the emergency room and the hospital as their primary care provider. in other words, they're going to see doctors in the emergency room for stumped toes or colds,

sore throats, headaches, any medical problem. and they don't have to pay because of this law. the federal government has required emergency rooms to see, treat, everybody who walks in. whether they can pay or not, whether they're illegal or not, whether a citizen or illegal alien. it requires them to do so. what's happening with this, there's a tremendous economic burden upon hospitals, we have hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, going broke today so that nobody in their community gets services because of this law. it's not fair. it's not fair to the people in that community. it's not fair to people who really need to be in the emergency room. it's not fair particularly that we are forcing emergency rooms and hospitals to see illegal ail yeps.

it's not fair -- illegal aliens. it's not fair, and it's hurting people who have true emergencies because the emergency rooms are filled with people who don't need to be there and people can come in with severe injuries or severe medical problems, if it's not blatantly apparent, then people have delayed administering treatment they desperately need to keep them well or save their lives. what my bill does is allows hospitals to set up a basic screening process that -- so that the hospital can september up -- set up somebody with basic medical knowledge to screen patients and say to the patient, this is not an emergency, see your doctor, go to a free clinic, we can't see you. so it reforms that law and

makes it so that hospitals don't have this economic burden that's been placed on them because of federal law and federal dictate. well, i presented this bill to a lot of groups. in fact, i'm very pleased that i did an interview with "forbes" magazine recently. and they wrote up a blog and this article about my health care bill, they said this, this is a quote, now a new plan has come forth, packed by one of the most influential tea party groups, that i'll mention in just a second, that contains some intriguing and original ideas for bringing cheaper health care to more people. this is from "forbes" mag seeb -- magazine. broun's plan would

revolutionize the market, by incentivizing companies, particularly smaller ones, to pay their workers directly in wages, so the wage earner will control their own money, they're earning it, they should get it. and they should make those -- their own health care insurance decisions themselves and it will let the company pay the workers directly their wages and let those workers decide how to pay for their own care. "forbes" magazine. it's not a tea party magazine, it's a magazine that i think most americans know. the tea party group, a lot of people don't understand tea parties, what it's all about, the free -- but freedom works is a grass roots group, it's been dubbed a tea party group. actually, freedom works has

been around for some time. but freedom works has endorsed my patient option act. this is what they said. congressman broun has offered a bold, timely, principled plan that offers exactly what a majority of americans want a patient-centered health care, so that patients -- patients can make their own decisions, along with their doctors. it makes health care cheaper for everybody, it provides coverage for all americans, and it will save america from going broke, stop medicare from going broke. americans need to contact their senators and congressmen and the leadership of the house and senate, demand that we pass the patient option act, h r. 4224. with that, i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members should not refer to occupants of the gallery. the chair lays before the house

a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i am pleased to transmit the 2012 national drug control strategy which follows through on the commitment made by my administration to chart a new course in our efforts to reduce illicit drug use and its consequences in the united states. the balanced approach outlined in the administration's inaugural national drug control strategy has yielded sig cabot results which are detailed in the following pages. our nation still faces serious drug-related challenges, however. too many americans need treatment for substance abuse disorders but do not receive it. scripping drug abuse continues to claim american lives and those who take drugs are a threat to safety on our roadways. young people's perceptions of the risk of drug use have declined over the past tech cade and research suggests this predicts future increase in

drug use. there's much left to be done to reform our justice system and break the cycle of drug use and crime. our commitment to work with partner nations must remain steadfast to reduce drug production, trafficking and related transnational threats. based on the progress we have achieved over the last three years, i am confident we can address these challenges through concerted action along with the entire spectrum of prevention, early intervention, recovery support, criminal justice reform, law enforcement and international cooperation. however, we must match our commitment with the appropriate resources. ill list drug use in america contributed to an estimated $193 billion in crime, health, and lost productivity cost in 2007. the yore for which the most recent estimate is available. in today's challenging economic environment, we cannot afford to drain our economy and public resources. while difficult budget

decisions must be made at all levels of government, we must ensure continued support for policies and programs that reduce drug use and its enormous cost to american society. in doing so we will not only strengthen our economy but also sustain the national character and spirit that has made the united states a world leader. i look forward to continuing to work with the congress and federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial leaders, international partners and the american people in this important endeavor. signed, barack obama, the white house, april 19, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the message is referred to the committees on armed services, education, and -- education and the work force, energy and commerce, financial services, foreign affairs, homeland security, judiciary, natural resources, oversight and government reform, transportation and infrastructure, veterans

affairs, ways and means. the message is ordered printed. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on >> when members reconvene next week, live coverage from the house floor is here on c-span.

the congressional directory is a complete guide to congress. inside, you will find each member of the house and senate, including contact information and committee assignments. also information on the cabinet members and governors. you can pick up a copy for $12.95, plus shipping and handling. >> this is such a complicated conflict. we have never fought a war like this. the second thing is that what is referred to in washington as nation-building is very targeted war fighting. >> david wood has covered military operations for various news operations. heat w. owen -- he won a

pulitzer prize this week for his coverage with "the huffington post." you can watch a quarter-century of american politics and public affairs on your computer. >> house majority leader eric kanter sat down with mike allen of "politico" to talk about the republican agenda. we will also hear from congressional reporter jack sherman at this event. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for coming. i am mike allen, the chief political correspondent for political correspondent for