once congress is bumped up against that $12 trillion debt ceiling, congress is going to have a vote onwhether to ask the american people, and people buying our debt, whether we can increase the limits of our credit card because we maxed it out. media reports indicate that the majority intends to slip this provision into a bill on funding our troops in afganistan. because, frankly, they're embarrassed to have a stand alone vote on raising the debt ceiling. especially because they know that there are many of us here on both sides of the aisle that will insist on some measure to affect some discipline on this spending binge as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling. but whatever the vehicle that the majority leader decides upon, they cannot hide the fact that we are borrowing money so fast that we'll have to raise the debt ceiling another 15%. conveniently this increase will get the government through the next mid-term elections, it's reported, according to some experts. not a coincidence. no one, particularly those in control of the congress, want to have another vote on lifting the d

it did come to a vote in congress.did deal effectively with the problems before us at that time. so that i think serves as a possible model if we get to an executive order commission if a statutory commission can't pass. >> senator, this past week the speaker of the house nancy pelosi saying the idea of this commission really in her words cedes too much authority to a commission and takes it away from congress. will she go along with it? and if not what does that do to your idea? >> well, i can't speak for the speaker. i have absolute respect for the job that she does and all the challenges that she faces with a variety of views from her caucuses and her committee chairmen. but i believe this is an idea whose time has come. i believe that if we just review what's happened that we will see the chances of dealing with this through the regular process of congress is remote at best. and increasingly i think there is an understanding that we are running a great risk with the economic future of the country. and the risk that

and congress used this clause to require -- can congress use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service? one thing did change in the legal landscape between 1994 when c.b.o. called the health insurance mangedhealthinsurance. the supreme court twice found that there are limits to what congress may do in the name of regulating interstate commerce. imawf in united states v. lopez, the court rejected a version of the commerce power that would make it hard -- quote -- "to posit any individual by an activity that congress is without power 30 regulate." if ther there is no difference between regulating and requiring what people do, if there is no difference between incentives and mandates, if congressmen require that individuals indivie that individuals purchase a particular good or service, why did we even bother with the cash for clunkers program? why did we bother with other bailouts in we could require that americans buy certain cars or services or deposit their paychecks in certain banks. for that matter, adak the obesity -- we could attack the obesity problem b

the president did a charge to congress -- david charge to congress to deal with this equation -- thepresident gave a charge to congress to deal with this equation. what has happened? the finance committee bill makes things a little bit better, but does it solve the problem? no. it does not come close. the natural tendency in the regular order is that both sides get in there crouch. democrats in theres, -- democrats in their crouch and republicans in their cropuch. it becomes largely a partisan exercise and nobody wants to pay the price. nobody wants to experience the short term pain to deal with long term gain because it is not in our political system. people face election next year. it is so clear to me that you have to have a special process. history demonstrates that. we have reconfirmed it this year with health care reform. social security, a special process. the debt circumstance we faced in the '90s, special process. they are the only things that have actually succeeded. senator gregg says this as well. if anybody thinks that the regular order is one to deal with these planes -

once congress is bumped up against that $12 trillion debt ceiling, congress is going to have a vote on whether to ask the american people, and people buying our debt, whether we can increase the limits of our credit card because we maxed it out. media reports indicate that the majority intends to slip this provision into a bill on funding our troops in afganistan. because, frankly, they're embarrassed to have a stand alone vote on raising the debt ceiling. especially because they know that there are many of us here on both sides of the aisle that will insist on some measure to affect some discipline on this spending binge as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling. but whatever the vehicle that the majority leader decides upon, they cannot hide the fact that we are borrowing money so fast that we'll have to raise the debt ceiling another 15%. conveniently this increase will get the government through the next mid-term elections, it's reported, according to some experts. not a coincidence. no one, particularly those in control of the congress, want to have another vote on lifting the

all of our financial books are open to the congress and the g a zero.e are concerned about the independence and the integrity of the policies. our concern is that we would take action on monetary policy that would be unpopular in some quarters and that congress, by ordering an audit of that action, would be signaling strongly to the markets and the public that they disapprove and were putting pressure on the fed not to take that action fo we n. we think this would be bad for markets and inflation expectations and that for the dollar. >> do you expect the federal reserve will get all the money back it has injected in the system in terms of loans to corporations? >> yes, i do. i could we are in very good shape. in fact, the actions we took will help us get back the money. we will show the taxpayer a significant extra income. >> when you are minding your own business at princeton, did you ever have any second thoughts about coming to washington? [laughter] >> [laughter] >> it has been an interesting experience overall -- [laughter] it was once said that ec

madam speaker, this congress is acting. this house will pass the jobs for main street act, and even more jobs will be created. earlier this year, my republican friends chose politics over the needs of the american people -- over the needs of the american people, and every single one of them opposed the recovery and reinvestment act. they like the same old same old. while that was their way of thinking -- that's the old way of thinking. that way of thinking took bill clinton's accomplishments and creating a record njoumber and deficits and paying down the debt and turned it into george bush's recession, a recession that caused millions of americans jobs, a recession that -- a recession that add billions and billions to our debt. and add that debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. madam speaker, people in this country want us to create jobs and that's what we're going to do. i yield back my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. miss fooks: -- ms. foxx: i would like to yield three

afterall, common sense dictates that any time congress rushes, congress stumbles. it's whether senator so and so got a sweet enough deal to sign off on it. well, senator so and so might have gotten his deal, but the american people haven't signed on. public upo opinion is clear, wht have we become as a body if we're not even listening to the people that we serve? what have we become if we're more concerned about a political victory or so hallow call to history than we are about you actually solving the problems that the american people sent us to address. this health care bill is supposed to make health care less expensive. it doesn't. it makes it more expensive. few people could have imagined this is how this debate would end, with a couple of cheap deals hidden in folds of this 2,070-page -- 2,700-page bill and rushed early morning votes. but that's where we are. americans are asking themselves: how did this happen? how did a great national debate that was supposed to lead to a major bipartisan reform lead to a bag full of cheap legislative tricks inside a $2.3 t

congress has a constitutional role to play. we have the power of the purse and the responsibility to declare war. we haven't played that role in any meaningful way since 2001. that was the last time that this chamber had a debate on afghanistan. 2001. and those eight long years hundreds of american soldiers have lost their lives. thousands have been wounded. and we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and we still do not have a clear exit strategy. everyone seems to agree that afghanistan requires a political solution. the question i still have is this -- when does our military commitment to that political solution come to an end so we can bring our troops home? . in no way do i believe we should abandon afghanistan or its people. they have been through far too much trauma over the last several decades. nor do i believe that we should abandon our fight against the people who murdered thousands of americans on september 11, 2001. indeed, i am concerned that by committing over 100,000 american troops to nation building in a

congress's responsibility? >> it is. but, repeatedly, congress, and in the regular order, in the normal committee process, is not want to take on a challenge of this magnitude effectively. the reason for that is very simple. the regular order is geared for partisan divide and partisan gridlock and all of thawhat that entails. a special process is what has been required in history. i think that is what is required now. this is the only way you will cut through the clutter. it is the only way you will avoid the stumbling blocks that are put in place to stall the action. party control shifts back control appeared -- party control shifts back and forth. >> obviously, the leaders in each chamber would appoint the members for the commission. i imagine you already have some ideas of your own. you know the budget process pretty well. you think you should be on this committee? >> of course, i do. >> in names or positions, should it be appropriators? >> it should be people who need to be involved in this, people who are involved w

apparently congress is. the health care plan that the senate voted to send to the floor debate is a perfect example. one side says it will be deficit-neutral. will ensure competition, will not affect medicare and won't result in more tacks. the other side -- in more taxes. the other side says it will cost too much, slash medicare and tax us out of our underwear. barbara boxer touted medicare is a great example of how seniors are able to choose a public option. excuse me, when we turn 65 we're required to sign up for medicare. how is that optional? i think at this point both sides of the aisle are trying to sell us snake oil and somewhere in the middle is the truth. are you worried yet? your children and grandchildren are going to enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that we enjoyed? the future of my grandchildren should have been better than the life i had, and my life has been pretty doggone good. instead future generations are going to be paying financially and personally for the mistakes being made r

republican for congress. >> sound that again with the sound down a bit. sorry about that. >> i'm adrian smith and i approved this message. >> adrian has been named friend of agriculture by the nebraska farm bureau. >> know how important agriculture is to our economy. >> what will adrian smith do to help our farms? open markets. strengthen family farms. ensure fair prices for our farmers and ranchers. is of it is more than our work, it is our way of life. >> faith, family community. those are my core values. those won't change when i go to congress. >> senate senator adrian smith. republican for congress. >> so he with tried to take those three issues we talked in there, fair trade, open markets, i forget the other two we mentioned in there, take those issues and broaden them out to the fact, hey, we do understand agriculture is the big deal

how congress works.undamental touch on for anybody in the history, and i am sure there is a lot of junk in the papers, because part of the&cdrocess we go through is to get rid of the old newspaper files, extra copies of the congressional record, and get down to those records. there is correspondence between major issues, and you see have the numbers interact with one another. one of the letters that came in recently as president reagan writing to senator byrd looking for immunity for poindexter and north in the eonkonkoma hearings and investigation. and you see that level of information in which you might see some in the presidential libraries, but you will not see all of them. only a handful of people need to see the originals. when they are doing basic research. >> are you doing that now? >> yes. >> teleprocessing is it? >> it is a long process. we have 1,600 meters of microphone that will have to be digitized. we have to look at all of that. separate degrees of problems. >> so what do have, and what d

in my judgment, the current congress and the process in congress is simply broken. it's broken mostly because of a strong sense and a growing degree of partisanship. that disallows working together for common solutions. i think what this does in the bipartisan makeup of this commission is to show a way in which these issues can be dealt with. they've been dealt with in other countries. for example, sweden -- if you look just to the past two decades, sweden and canada had an unsustainable debt and they took care of it. they got their house in order. they made the political decisions. and they're on the right guide path now. i personally believe what's being talked about in the senate of the commission, a bipartisan commission similar to the base closing commission that comes up with bipartisan solutions and then forces the congress to accept it yes or no is the right answer. so i think we're really messing with a massive heart attack on fiscal issues. if we don't act. and that's why i think we have to do it right now. >> thank you. so jim makes the excellent point th

leaders in congress.ion officials would be the treasury secretary and one other official selected by the president. this means the bipartisan leadership at the highest levels of the government would be responsible for the panel's outcome. second, task force would have broad coverage. everything would be on the table. including spending and revenues. we can't solve this problem, i believe, by looking at only one side of the ledger. third, the task force would follow an expedited process. to minimize politicization of the task force, its recommendations would be submitted after the 2010 election. if there is a broad bipartisan agreement of the task force members at least 14 of the 18 members agreeing, the recommendations would get fast-track consideration in the senate. no amendments. no filibustering. and i know there are many who are concerned about the no amendment provision. senator collins, you referenced it. let me just say there are some who have suggested alternatives such as actuarily equivalent am

which president bush and his republicans in congress squandered. we ended up going from record surpluses to record deficits and debts. that's just a fact. i understand the frustration of my friends on the other side. their goal is to obstruct and make sure we get nothing done here. that's their -- i will not. that is what they think is a winning strategy. to basically get nothing done. they are failing in that because congress is moving and getting things done. we are beginning to turn this economy around. and we are responding to the needs of the american -- needs and desears of the american people. we are going to continue to do that. this bill with the inclusion of moneys for veterans, for our infrastructure, for health care, for job creation, and worker training during this difficult economy is vital and important and we are going to help the american people. at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. serrano: i ask una

congress, more testimony. congressional correspondent kwame holman begins our coverage. >> holman: hours before the hearings began in washington, secretary of defense robert gates got the red carpet treatment in kabul. he was the first u.s. cabinet member to visit since president obama announced his new war strategy. but afghan president hamid karzai quickly warned it might be five years before afghanistan can handle its own security, and even then, only with outside funding. >> for a number of years, maybe for another 15 to 20 years afghanistan will not be able to sustain a force of that nature and capability with its own resources. >> holman: gates did not dispute karzai. but he expressed a desire to see the u.s. timetable play out at least as well as planned. >> the reality is as the president has made clear it is our expectation that on a gradual conditions based premise, that we will reduce our forces after july 2011. >> holman: the u.s. role in afghanistan continued to be debated in washington, as well.

read it. >> that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion as mr.se thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peacefully to assemble and to petition the government. >> can you require them to saying? about their funding. >> one thing is and i forget exactly when it happened but we had mccain-feingold that released this and mcconnell said that you're going to weaken the par tis. you may not like party, but which they have to repeat and be accountable and the tresz gets a solid look at that. and basically ma what you're going to do is weaken the parties and lose accountability and create a plethora of an interest groups that will not have to account and so folk wills not know the origin of this money and you're actually going to take politics down a side road and i think he is's been right. >> it does raise the question of unintended consequences which will be present in senate reforms. >> my name is matt newmark. i'm retired but i want to point out during my peak learning years the government was not

congress rarely legislates with narrow margins of victory.ng, most successful legislations, including significant legislation on verbcontroversia matters garners widespread bipartisan support. according to yale political science, 80% of all important legislation passed by congress in the post-war period had the support of 2/3 of the membership of both chambers of congress. and fully 95% of these laws gained that kind of ascent in one chamber. the reform politics are not the norm for recent congresses and legislation. most of the legislation approved so far by the 111th congress has been approved by 2/3 margin in both house and senate, including on controversial matters like tobacco regulation, mortgage foreclosures, national service, and children's health insurance. intense party convict is a threat to -- intense party conflict presents problems for fiscal reform. there are obviously wide id ideological differences between the two parties on the appropriate level of taxation and government expenditures, but the goal of finding long-term balan

anybody in the current congress.i think i have an open mind. again, i want an environment that is as benign and supportive of mankind as it is possible to be, but i also want a modern lifestyle, to have hot water in the morning and air conditioning in the summer in texas, and i can hop in a private vehicle and take my family or myself or i want to in a convenient, comfortable way. i do not want to go back to the 1870's were my great parents -- great-grandparents' lived on a common form in texas with no running water and no electricity, and their power source was their own muscles or animal power. i do not want to do that. and 83% reduction from the 2000 baseline of co2 emissions in the united states, it could not burn fossil fuels in the u.s. in the year 2015. it cannot be done. so i am not going to accept at face the idea some of the scientific plans until they are proven. if these ipcc models are as great as they say they are, open them up. show us the data sets. there is one email were one of these guys is deathly

i was privileged to be a member of the congress, the 97th congress which convened in january of 1981. we were dealing with very, very serious economic problems. some of which, some of which were even more challenging than exist today. in the early 1980's, people will recall that interest rates were well into double digits. we had an unemployment rate that dramatically exceeded where we are today. and if you look at the overall challenge it was similar. and how did we deal with that, madam speaker? we dealt with that by doing under ronald reagan exactly what president john f. kennedy, a great democratic president did. under ronald reagan we saw broad reductions across the board of marginal tax rates. we saw reduction of the capital gains rate. and what happened as we encouraged those job creators out there in our economy? what happened, madam speaker, was we saw, again, a doubling of the flow of revenues to the federal treasury and we saw good, long-term private sector jobs created. now, the thing that's most troubling what it is we are doing is i'm very happy to see this reduction fro

leaders in congress.ration officials would be the treasury secretary and one other official selected by the president. this means the bipartisan leadership at the highest levels of the government would be responsible for the panel's outcome. second, task force would have broad coverage. everything would be on the table. including spending and revenues. we can't solve this problem, i believe, by looking at only one side of the ledger. third, the task force would follow an expedited process. to minimize politicization of the task force, its recommendations would be submitted after the 2010 election. if there is a broad bipartisan agreement of the task force members at least 14 of the 18 members agreeing, the recommendations would get fast-track consideration in the senate. no amendments. no filibustering. and i know there are many who are concerned about the no amendment provision. senator collins, you referenced it. let me just say there are some who have suggested alternatives such as actuarily equivalent

how is the host: free congress foundation is -- how was the free congress foundation funded?est: by donors. we would like people to go to our website and just like anyone else, was to arrive on the support of the community. we have also received grants from other nonprofits from time to time to work on different projects. we need to have a broad based a grass-roots support as well as a donor. host: before we go to phone calls a want to talk a lot this article in the "washington times" by michael steele. -- about michael steele. he is charging for a species that he gives -- for speeches that he gives when egos are raising money. do you agree with that? that he should be getting a speaking fee on top of his salary? i think guest: is worth writing about to the public -- a a guest: i think it is worth writing about a bookend for their own opinions, but i am a former prosecutor and the former chairman of the rnc among other posts. i think as long as it does not conflict with the work he is doing as national chairman, and a long as the committee is aware of his activities, than it

congress based on a theory that's been unpriven. and i will stipulate that this is not the biggest problem facing mankind. it is not an immediate threat. it is probably not even a long-term threat. and if you want me to support something that reduces co 2 levels in the united states by 83% in the next 40 years, you'd better show me real facts. and that just, they can't do it. these e-mails that are now coming out shows that the people, professors, one of the leading proponents of global warming have been intentionally, at least apparently intentionally, deleting data, changing data, falsifying perhaps data. that's not skinetisk methods. so -- scientific methods. so when i go to copenhagen, i will be a part of speaker pelosi's official codel. and she is the leader and her opinion is different than mine. and she is also the speaker of the house. so i understand that officially they're going to be very much more supportive of the process. but i will have an ability to have a minority view in that group. i was at kyoto, i was at beno ai

>> congress. >> congress. >> how many say congress is to blame? >> okay. and anybody blame obama? anybody blame the special interests? >> to a degree. >> okay. so this is straight on congress' plate. and -- and would you blame the democrats or the republicans or both equally? >> both equally. >> how many say both equally? >> okay. good. okay. let me move to the next thing. >> yes. >> one more thing about health care. i think that hillary clinton took it on in 19 -- i don't know. 1991. >> yeah, i think she took it on and she was going to reform it. yeah. so -- >> i don't know if anybody saw the flowchart on the health care system that they're proposing. >> this is 1993 and 1994. >> no. >> the one male. it is, it is quite complicated. and i don't know why -- everything the government does have to be so ridiculous. >> okay. let me -- let me turn -- was that a sarcastic remark? [laughter] >> let me turn -- tomorrow night, the president is going to speak, about -- afghanistan. and so, by the time people look at this, those people who will be watching this, it'll already be a policy. in

congress made exceptions and congress made regulations, congress essentially forbid the supreme court from hearing such a case under the detainee treatment act and did so anyway. i read that decision through carefully about this thick, madam speaker, and took a while. case came out on thursday and i got my hands on the printed document on friday and saturday, this must have been june and i was sitting in my back yard and reading through the supreme court decision, i marked up the margins. and it swells when you write on it and i looked up at the sky and i thought, my gosh, the supreme court has defied the constitution and the congress. and now they have issued this opinion, which as i said was all it was, is now going to redirect congress to go back and redefine the detainee treatment act. and so my position was that congress should simply pass a resolution that we restate the detainee treatment act and ignore the supreme court because they are outside the bounds of the jurisdiction in the constitution and i would agree with justice scalia that the cases of article 3, section 2 stripp

congress has had to retroactively extend it. american companies rely on this credit and upon it continuing to adequately -- so they can adequately plan for their long-term research projects. i support this proactive extension for providing that continuing, and ilcontinue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that will eliminate concerns for further explorations in in lapses. it will address the drop in charityible giving that's been caused by the -- charitable giving that's been caused by the current state of our economy. it extends charitable contributions of real property, food inventories, books and computer equipment. the bill allows tax charitable contributions of up to $100,000 per taxpayer per year. when i speak with constituents who work and volunteer their valuable time with not-for-profit organizations they tell me this is more important than ever today with our struggling economy. these provisions help those organizations continue to provide the assistance to those in need which is particularly important today

but congress would not. so to beat these affordable housing mandates, fannie and freddie straight into the junk mortgage market. they piled up over $1 trillion worth of subprime and alt a loans. and the housing goals were at odds of the liability of these firms and they led to 85% of their losses. as this past example has shown us, separating these two responsibilities can lead to unintended consequences like systemic financial failure down the road. if the ultimate objective of our regulatory reform effort is to ensure a more resilient and stable financial system, creating another agency with broad unchecked authority is not the right approach. i brought an amendment to the rules committee which would have sold this problem by ensuring the safety and soundness regulators, have a say on the rule writing process at the cfpa, and guess what? it's unfortunate. my amendment was not made in order. it won't even be heard on this floor. i urge my colleagues to listen to those regulators, every one of which urged us

leaders in congress. the administration officials would be the treasury secretary and one other official selected by the president. this means the bipartisan leadership at the highest levels of the government would be responsible for the panel's outcome. second, task force would have broad coverage. everything would be on the table. including spending and revenues. we can't solve this problem, i believe, by looking at only one side of the ledger. third, the task force would follow an expedited process. to minimize politicization of the task force, its recommendations would be submitted after the 2010 election. if there is a broad bipartisan agreement of the task force members at least 14 of the 18 members agreeing, the recommendations would get fast-track consideration in the senate. no amendments. no filibustering. and i know there are many who are concerned about the no amendment provision. senator collins, you referenced it. let me just say there are some who have suggested alternatives such as actuari

i was sent to congress to represent the people of the after watching as congress continues toç pursueand threaten our economy, and someone who is deeply concerned about the future of this country, i believe that joining with the republican these liberal policies is what is best for our country, best for our alabamaw3, as for ourq'r the kitchen tables of the fifth congressional district. thank you very much for being here. i appreciate it. thank you. >>u! what did nancy pelosi sayo w3you when you told her thedh% thenews? >> i have not heard from her. >> but you had to contact your office? -- her office? >> no, i did not. >> are you concerned about the election? ç>> mine? ñrno, this not about politics. the pundits, the handicappers, this election. this is and not about me winning or losing an election. this is about core beliefs and something i'mç convictedd8 abo. after seeing what has happened, this far, far adriftç the left that has happened in congress, -- farw3 driftçnb t(to thew3xt has happened in congress, there is no room in the democratic party for a pro-life, pro- busines

-not later than march 1, 2014, the secretary shall submit to congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the secretary determines appropriate. "(4) consultations.-in conducting the study under paragraph (1), the secretary shall consult with appropriate stakeholders, such as groups representing home health agencies and groups representing medicare beneficiaries. "(5) medicare demonstration project based on the results of the study.- "(a) in general.-subject to subparagraph (d), taking into account the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1), the secretary may, as determined appropriate, provide for a demonstration project to test whether making payment adjustments for home health services under the medicare program would substantially improve access to care for patients with high severity levels of illness or for low-income or underserved medicare beneficiaries. "(b) waiving budget neutrality.-the secretary shall not reduce the standard prospective payment amount (or amounts) un

in my judgment the current congress and process in congress is simply broken. it's broken mostly because of a strong sense and a growing degree of partisanship that disallows working together for common solutions. negative what this does and the bipartisan makeup of this commission is to show a way in which these issues can be dealt with. they've been dealt with in other countries flexible sweden if you look at the past two decades sweden and canada had an unsustainable debt and they took care of it. they got their house in order and made the political decisions and they are on the right path now. i personally believe that what is being talked about in the senate a commission as bipartisan commission similar to the base closing commission that comes up with a bipartisan solutions and then forces the congress to accept it yes or no is the right answer, and answered. so i think we are really messing with a massive heart attack on fiscal issues if we don't act and that is why i think we have to do it right now. >> thank you. jade makes the excellent point that a l

congress also bears some responsibility. often, over my objections here, we enacted housing policies that improu dentally encouraged homeownership to levels we now know with unsustainable. we also failed to curtail the activities of the housing gses, fannie mae and freddie mac. my record on that topic, i think, is well known here. after the recession that ended in 2001, which was preceded by a bursting of the dotcom bubble, the fed was concerned wi about sluggish economy and the specter of deflation. given those concerns, the fed chose to hold interest rates remarkably low for years. during most of that period, now chairman bernanke served as a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve and supported the low interest rate policies. in 2002, then governor bernanke warned of deflation. he stated, i'll quote, the fed should take most seriously its responsibility to ensure financial stability in the economy. irving fisher, 1933 was perhaps the first economist to emphasize the potential connections between violent fi

but what did congress do? kept right on going. by 2003, if you look at the treasury record, by 2003 income coming into washington was down to 16.3% of g.d.p., expenditures were over 20% because we had gone to war in afghanistan and iraq, among other reasons. what we do, we borrowed the gap. we started borrowing in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. a decade-long mismanagement by both parties. and for the people who just last week stripped out the pay-for and added another $70 billion on a motion to recommit to talk about debt and deficits now, when they ought to be trying to help us, what we are doing as allen boyd said earlier, we are putting the pause button on this. we must have statutory pay-go that was allowed to lapse in 2002 so that you didn't have to pay for anything. you could just blindly pass tax cuts, increase spending, and borrow the difference because you know something, the people we are borrowing it from aren't here. they don't have a vote. however one time they said will you vote for a supermajority to raise taxes? i said no

because in the end, the american people will get the kind of congress they want and the kind of congress they deserve, and i would hope it would be a kind of congress that embraces the transparency pledges that the president has made and in reality lets the american people know what we're doing here and asks whether they approve or whether they do not approve. mr. president, i thank the chair and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. dorgan: mr. president, it is interesting to listen to the discussion on the floor of the senate. we hear a lot about what's wrong these days, and let me just for a moment say that there's a lot right in this country as well. we are in a deep economic problem, i understand that. this is the deepest economic recession we have seen since the great depression. it's a difficult circumstance. but you know what? this country has been in tough circumstances before, and the american people are a resilient bunch. they have pulled themselves up and moved forward. and i -- i understand the an

madam speaker, leaders of the congress, members of the congress, my old colleague, my family and friends with deepest humility and everlasting gratitude. god bless you, god bless our leaders, god bless the president, and god bless our country and this world. [applause] [applause] bee[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the benediction. >> let us our heads. thank god for the blessing of this man and his list -- his wisdom. lord god, the nation naturally and last by a lifetime of public service. to your people by edward william brock at the third. -- edward william brooke roman 3 -- roman numeral three may his work inspired us to treasure our senior citizens. may his legacy inspired many young people to overcome personal limitations and any social stigma in order to develop their qualifications, all they need to follow senator brooke into a life of service and accomplish great deeds for the poorest of the poor and give you glory. lord, make your sovereign power plus each person of this great nation and their representative government with a sense of social responsibility th

you know, to focus in on what congress , jordan from ohio said the presumption one generation cares for a mother has been something we have all benefited from in our generation. but this is ultimately generational theft, isn't it? this is the sinkhole of self absorption. by this congress that says let's spend, spend, spend now and squander our children's future. no one is here cavalierly. no one is suggesting the choices are easy ones. but i think as congress man scalise and brady and others are trying to set a framework and it is a framework to stop this madness and turn back to prosperity. >> anytime we have record debt, record levels of spending and deficits, raising the debt ceiling and having a vote on that is as critical a vote as we will take and as a freshman member i can tell you the freshman class particularly

congress? john, let me see if i can bring you out of your show. >> if this function. they did not listen to the population. they have their own agenda. they do not respond to anybody who has a different opinion. they work on things which are not important to bring the country forward. they should be working on the economy. they worked on health care. what is the most important thing? a nation's power is economics. everything emanates from economics. if we are not a strong company -- if we are not strong country, we will not have health care or these other things. >> they are career politicians. a lot of the ladies and gentlemen in congress, that is the job they have had since they were 26 or 27. they did not respond to the public. they are concerned -- they spend half their term worrying about how to get elected again. they do it for 820, 30, or 40 year span. bernadette, what is wrong with congress? >> they have their own self- interest. that is really what it is about. they have all these peop

this was brought home to me early in my first term in congress.i a family nursery in texas, three nurseries, the parents had created it and built it up, two to three kids were working in it and they sat down with pen and paper and they showed me the value of their nursery. talked about the death tax. and worked it through and bottom line was that if they could take out enough insurance on their parents' deaths and because they are out of debt f. they could go back to the bank and borrow enough money, they might be able to pay their death tax bill. think of what they are saying. if we can make enough money off our parents' death and we can borrow enough money, the government might let us keep our family business. the government might let us keep our family business. that's why the death tax is wrong and that's why it is in many cases if not all simply un-american. today we have a bill that is the result of hard work by my friend from north dakota, mr. pomeroy. but i object because i believe we can do better. some say that this -- tend of the day if

once congress is bumped up against that $12 trillion debt ceiling, congress is going to have a vote onask the american people, and people buying our debt, whether we can increase the limits of our credit card because we maxed it out. media reports indicate that the majority intends to slip this provision into a bill on funding our troops in afganistan. because, frankly, they're embarrassed to have a stand alone vote on raising the debt ceiling. especially because they know that there are many of us here on both sides of the aisle that will insist on some measure to affect some discipline on this spending binge as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling. but whatever the vehicle that the majority leader decides upon, they cannot hide the fact that we are borrowing money so fast that we'll have to raise the debt ceiling another 15%. conveniently this increase will get the government through the next mid-term elections, it's reported, according to some experts. not a coincidence. no one, particularly those in control of the congress, want to have another vote on lifting the debt ceiling

-- member of congress. we look to you and your colleagues to carry out congress is our original intent when it in active sipa and help us recover a portion of our tax- deferred retirement account. thank you for the opportunity to prevent these matters. -- to present these matters. i'll be pleased answer any questions you may have. >> now we will hear from our friend from new york to introduce the next witness. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing. thank you especially for allowing us from other subcommittees to sit again. i want to thank all of the witnesses, and mr. leveton, i assure you that mr. ellison and i will be discussing your discussions. -- your suggestion. we are informed by the plight of our own constituents and don't know about all aspects of this. to represent some of the people in my constituency today, i am pleased to introduce a good friend of mine. mr. lancette has served as a chairman of the local steam fitters union since 2005, is also the president of

at least not in this congress. there are advertisements that accused joe lieberman of acting in self-interest. for your thoughts, donna? caller: i think it is a great idea. i receive medicare. i just began last year. i'm 57, disabled. i am legally blind. it has been absolutely wonderful. it makes me feel so bad that there are so many americans without insurance. to see these senators up there joking like mr. john mccain joking about how much fun he is having been there are people without insurance. they need them to stop stalling. get this done. medicare for all is fantastic. host: albany, new york? go ahead, we can hear you. caller: my name is betsy. thank you. i am 73 years old. i have medicaid and medicare. these little insurance people have been opposed in every way they can. i almost lost my second toe foot because i had gangrene. now i have it gangrene on my left foot and it is going away. thank god for the democrats and the president who want to see this health care go through. do not let anyone take your me

madam speaker, leaders of the congress, members of the congress, my old colleague, my family and friends humility and everlasting gratitude. god bless you, god bless our leaders, god bless the president, and god bless our country and this world. [applause] [applause] bee[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the benediction. >> let us our heads. thank god for the blessing of this man and his list -- his wisdom. lord god, the nation naturally and last by a lifetime of public service. to your people by edward william brock at the third. -- edward william brooke roman 3 -- roman numeral three may his work inspired us to treasure our senior citizens. may his legacy inspired many young people to overcome personal limitations and any social stigma in order to develop their qualifications, all they need to follow senator brooke into a life of service and accomplish great deeds for the poorest of the poor and give you glory. lord, make your sovereign power plus each person of this great nation and their representative government with a sense of social responsibility that all may jo

cohen: today ends the first year of the 110th congress, a congress tried to prove its place among the nations of the world, work toward against the global warming problems we have and protect our planet. so much we have has been a group effort. congressman robert wexler of florida, i was privileged to sit next to him in the judiciary committee. he was 13 years in this years. i watched him, i was sad to see him leave because he was an outstanding member of congress who are dedicated to making this country better, working hard, speaking his opinion to try to make this country a better place. i'm proud to have served with robert wexler and proud to have been a member of congress and you have been an outstanding member of congress. we'll miss you. the speaker pro tempore: does what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. coffman: the democratic majority voted to raise our debt limit. that vote we took today to raise the debt limit, roll call 988, served as a terrible reminder of all of the votes we didn't take. the debt limit increase vote is the direct opposite of the votes we

and not passed by congress.i think the announcement yesterday by the epa was more of a press release to be read outside of the united states than one to be read inside the united states. i would hope that our international partners and adversaries will not believe everything that comes from a political press release, because a political plus -- criticapolil press release does not do that. finally, there are two professors that have been placed on administrative leave as a result of this, and the u.n. should take the time to step backwards and not make any concrete recommendations until we get to the bottom of the climate-gate scandal and why the professors' whose e-mail and the dumping put on the internet said what they said. it could be a conspiracy, basically, to shut out any contrary scientific opinion. as the chairman of the science committee from 1997-2001, one of the things i vigorously protected was extensive peer review of science funded by the government. that means that peers debate the issue with a no

congress should decide how strong the safeguards are and what form they should tapered for example, congressalso opt for stronger safeguards. this would empower congress to make these decisions. there are several methods to insert a higher hurdle. this is one that our task force considered. at that failing non-depository financial institution were judged to be a threat to the stability of the financial system, the administration could seek congressional appropriation for what it sees the appropriation, it could into the bankruptcy process and the proposed bankruptcy court. congress would have a limited and fixed number of days in which to make such an appropriation. the fed could provide financing and collateral, preventing the firm to continue operating while congress deliberated 3 if congress did appropriate, the state of the firm would be translated to the administrative procedure for it if not, the bankruptcy would proceed and the fed would exercise its collateral what's ex's in circumstances permitted -- once an exigent circumstances permit it. we hope that this will complement the curr

there are several reasons why congress decide to pass 94142. the main ones were increased awareness of the educational needs of children to disabilities and the long-term benefits that provide these children within education. in addition, several lower court judicial decisions establish a right to education for children disabilities. and states argued that their lack of financial resources prevented the implementation of these decisions. financial problems are not new. statistics from the then department of health education and welfare indicated that of the more than 8 million children with disabilities in 1975, only 3.9 million were receiving an appropriate education. 1,475,000,000 children with disabilities were receiving no educational services. and 2.5 million children with disabilities were receiving and any appropriate education. the type of education deemed inappropriate was often not a minor difference. judy human intel 20 for the enactment of the ada noted her expense with education and 1950s and '60s. ms. human had polio in 1949 when

and we know what the record of this congress is. the highest unemployment rate, double-digit unemployment rate. and until you get rid of the looming storm clouds of obama mics, you won't get the jobs. if you don't get the jobs, people won't keep their homes. i hope to shine a little more transparency in this and i yield back. . ms. matsui: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: both sides have one minute remaining. ms. matsui: i yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: i support the amendment but do i have to comment on this job issue. once again it is clear that january 21, 2009, saw a mass disease outbreak, prolonged, profound republican amnesia. the gentleman from texas said thunderstorm administration we've lost jobs. yes. the obama recovery from the bush recession has been slower than we had hoped but it has begun. the bush recession began in 2007. according to the official national bureau of economic research. larg