there any other one-minute requests? hearing none, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for june 25 and 26. mr. jones for june 25 and 26. mr. moran for today, june 25, june 26. mr. olson for today. mr. burton for june 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. mr. duncan for today. mr. franks for today. mr. garrett for today. and mr. mccotter for june 23. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . ms. kaptur: i ask that any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to

address the house for five minutes revise and extend their remarks and include ex train material. ms. woolsey, mr. schiff, ms. kaptur all for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each, ms. woolsey from california. ms. kaptur: i ask to use ms. woolsey time. last sunday, treasury secretary geithner and the president's economic adviser, larry summers, both wall street men, wrote an editorial, laying out their case for financial regulatory reform or at least that's what they called it.

it fell far short of the mark. they stated the basis of their proposal is the theory, and i quote, the financial system failed to perform its function as a reducer and distributor of risk. let me repeat that. their fundamental principle is the financial system failed its function as a reducer and redistributor of risk. they advised the president to use that idea of the basis of what he proposes. i beg to disagree. the purpose of our financial system should be to assure sound credit. a financial system should be structured to promote responsible lending and responsible savings practices. we have seen the result of a financial system that lost its way. and travel down the road of high risk-taking with other peoples' money, a system with no boundaries, no accountability

and inherently unstable. securitization and risk were at the heart of that failed system. have we learned nothing? securitization may spread out risk, but it does not spread out damage when it fails. we see that clearly enough today. who on wall street who led the charge on high risk-taking is suffering today? they're getting bonuses. i cannot say that for those americans who are losing their jobs, their homes and their businesses. enshrining securitization and risk at the heart of their proposal is absolutely the wrong end of the road to be starting at. securitization has nothing to do with sound credit. securitization removes the connection between the lender and the borrower. it does nothing to assure sound credit, nor encourage savings and prudent lending. the lender sells the loan and

they're done. what does the lender care if a profit has been made? they don't. we don't need more securitization, more credit default swaps, more credit -- more derivatives and more obligations that are hedged so many times that no one can even find them. the financial regulatory reforms the administration released this week do not restore prudent financial behavior. that is what is necessary to lead us out of this economic darkness. america needs a credit system that is safe and sound, not risky and not overleveraged. yesterday in the "new york times," one said that if president obama wants to create regulatory reform that will last for decades, he needs to do what roosevelt did, and i quote, he is go to go have some make some bankers and i would add security

dealers mad. why are mr. geithner and summers protecting wall street? the executive branch has been barking about the too big to fail institutions, but the best they have done is nip at the edges of real reform and fixing what's wrong. did a.i.g. teach us nothing? an institution that is too big to fail is too big to exist. wall street's bailout taught banks exactly the wrong lesson. it taught them be reckless. the u.s. government will make sure you do not take a hit. just keep your campaign contributions rolling our way. look at derivatives in their proposal. why only regulate normal derivatives when the derivatives that got us here are the exotic ones that are being protected from regulation. do we need another credit swap did he backle to teach us that every needs to be regulated? didn't the president campaign on

transparency? isn't the best, sunshine? let the sunshine shine on the federal reserve. the federal reserve is responsible for regulating mortgage lending but did the federal reserve act when the f.b.i. warned in 2004 that the subprime mortgage fraud could become an epidemic? no. so if the f.b.i. warned an epidemic was ahead on something that the federal reserve regulated and the federal reserve failed to act, what makes us think that they can actually regulate anything and why should we give them more power, which the administration proposal does? many more questions need to be asked about financial regulatory reform. we should not rubber stamp the administration's first idea. our people want a sound credit system. we should act for no less. the first goal of our banking system as opposed to a security system should be to create a safe and sound and prudent credit system in this country.

madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i wish to claim mr. burton's time to speak out of order the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the state of texas lost a warrior this month in the forward operating base in afghanistan. a remote and december late place in the middle of the badlands in this war zone. army specialist garrett died on june 9, 2009 from injuries he suffered in afghanistan. he was just 20 years of age. this is a photograph right here, madam speaker of specialist grimmell. he is the 28th warrior to die in afghanistan with connections to my district in texas.

he was a young man who personified the best qualities of the young people in america today. born in texas, jarrett was living the life he always made to map plans to live, that being a life filled with achievement and adventure that he desired. he was a patriot and joined the army his junior year in high school and completed basic training before graduating with honors from high school. he was a member of the swim team and surf club and loved the outdoors and the beach and water sports. jarrett spent his spare time parachuting and cliff diving. jarrett lived his life to the fullest. in february of last year, jarrett married his high school sweetheart at a small ceremony in front of the justice of the peace. she joined him in alaska where he was deployed by the army to begin the young married lives together. jarrett had a lifetime goal of eventually becoming a surgeon. jarrett was an athletic young

man with bright red hair and an infectious smile. his brother say they were typical boys growing up. they spent time in the woods catching snakes and bugs. he wanted to travel, see the world and live a life of excitement and adventure and jarrett did just that. jarrett was a petroleum supply specialist assigned to the 425th brigade special troops battalion, fourth grade combat team, airborne of the 25th infantry division in alaska, home of the arctic warriors. the 3,500 sold year brigade is in the midst of deploying in support of operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. madam speaker, our american warriors live under grueling conditions in afghanistan. jarrett's experience would come in handy in the rugged terrain. having been to afghanistan

myself, i have witnessed how the hot desert sun is unrelenting as our soldiers patrol the dusty rocky mountains and deserts. the only relief from the heat is the freezing cold night in the desert, one harsh extreme to the other. even in the desert of the sun and valley of the gun, our troops are not deterred. the elements do not stop the best trained, best prepared, most lethal military in the history of the world. the united states army is on patrol in the mountains and occursed land of afghanistan -- cursed land of afghanistan. our brave men and women are unequal in the world. they are educated, motivated, but they are tenacious. they bleed red, white and blue. they meet and exceed any task our country sends them to accomplish with great skill and with great pride. they are america's backbone.

our heroes, the best of our nation are amazing examples of the youth of this country. jarrett was a proud and accomplished sold year and at just 20 years of age, he was only one day from becoming a sergeant when he died in afghanistan. texas is proud to have called him a sold year, a son and a hero. he will always be remembered by his family, friends and a grateful nation for his service. his love of country, excellence and achievement and love of his family will be engraved on the hearts of every life he touched. jarrett's wife, his mother and her husband and his father, michael and his brothers, chase, jason, brandon and his sister are living testimony to the memory of this one brave sold year's love of life, love of his country and love of fellow citizens. it's been said, without the brave efforts of all the

soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their families, this nation would not stand so boldly, shine so brightly or live so freely. madam speaker, jarrett grimmell was one of those soldiers. he was an american sold year, the rare breed who take care of the rest of us and we will forever be indebted to him, his life and his service to our nation. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. schiff from california. mr. jones from north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

without objection. mr. olson: i rise to discuss the differences between the democrat and republican energy plans. energy prices are creeping up as they do each year placing higher costs on those in our country who can least afford them. we need an energy plan that ensures reliable, affordable energy supply. democratic leaders in washington have proposed a plan that would replace our present energy supply with an unreliable and costly energy alternatives. the cornerstone of this plan would reduce carbon emissions through an aggressive cap and trade program. this program would set nationwide limits on gene house gas emissions and create a market-based training program for companies to meet the cap. the goal of this plan is to force reductions in carbon emissions through government

rashonning. the nonpartisan congressional budget office concluded that the potential job loss in my home state of texas alone, by the year 2020, could go as high as 311,600. let me say that again, over 300,000 lost in my state by 2020, resulting in a staggering loss of personal income of up to $22.8 billion. that cost is simply too high. it's not cap and trade. it's cap and tax. my colleagues, my republican colleagues and i believe we can achieve an energy plan that keeps cost affordable, lowers emissions and grows energy jobs right here in america. i'm opposed to a plan that dramatically increases the cost of energy for american

consumers. that is why my republican colleagues and i have crafted a comprehensive energy bill that not only increases energy production here in america, but ensures that all forms of energy have the ability to compete to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy for all americans. the american energy act is a blueprint of solutions for american energy problems. we must create an environment where all producers have the opportunity to compete to provide, safe reliable energy instead of the current stranglehold of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory obstacles producers face. we have an important opportunity to reduce carbon emissions sought by democrats through increased use of nuclear energy. the act would allow them to compete against energy sources based on its merit, such as

being affordable, domestic, and most importantly -- the u.s. department of energy is now in the process of awarding financing for four american power companies to build new nuclear power reactors and allow more nuclear power to come on-line between 2015 and 2020. and we can bring more energy into the grid if we streamline the process as the american energy act does. . this will allow the market system to determine which producers can achieve the goal of providing a safe and reliable energy supply to meet our nation's needs. americans need safe, reliable, and affordable energy not government mandated emission programs that increase consumer cost and kill american jobs. we need a plan that promotes all forms of energy to meet those

goals. the republican energy plan is a commonsense approach to increasing energy source, creating american energy jobs and promoting a cleaner environment without dipping in the pockets of american families. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. duncan: i request permission to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: probably the most needless, useless agency in the entire federal government is the air marshal service. in the homeland security appropriations bill, we will take up next week, we will appropriate $860 million for this needless, useless agency. this money is a total waste. $860 million for people to sit on airplanes and simply fly back and forth, back and forth. what a cushy, easy job. and listen to this paragraph

from a front page story in the "usa today" last november. quote, since 9/11, more than three dozen federal air marshals have been charged with crimes. and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct. cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding in human trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from afghanistan, unquote. actually there have been many more arrests ever federal air marshalls than that story reported. quite a few for felony offenses. in fact more have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshalls. we now have approximately 4,000 in the federal air marshall service, yet they have made an average of 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. this comes out to an average of about one arrest a year per 1,000 employees. let me make that clear. there are thousands of employees not making one arrest per year each, they are averaging

slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. in other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. let me repeat that, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. professor of the university of pennsylvania wrote last year about the money feeding frenzy of the war on terror. he wrote this, nearly seven years after september 11, 2001, he wrote this last year, what accounts for the vast discrepancy between the terrorist threat facing america and the scale of our response? why absent any evidence of a serious terror threat is a war on terror so enormous, so all encompassing, and still expanding the fundamental answer is that al qaeda's most important accomplishment was not to hydrogen our planes but hydrogen our -- loig our politicalcies -- hijack our political system. for corporations, media

organizations, universities, local and state governments, and federal agency officials the war on terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, project grant, and contract proposals. finally he wrote, for the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste. there is no agency for which those words are more applicable than the federal air marshall service. in case anyone is wondering, the service has done nothing to me and i know none of its employees. but i do know with absolute certainty that this $860 million we are about to give them could be better spent on thousands of other things. as far as i'm concerned, it is just money going down a drain for the little good it will do. when we are so many trillions of dollars in debt, a national debt of over $13 trillion, we simply cannot afford to waste money in

this way. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message from the senate. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed with s.con.res. 23, supporting the goals and objectives of the preying conference oner-ea assets in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: mr. moran from kansas. mr. garrett from new jersey. mr. king. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the

gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i appreciate the honor to be recognized. address you this evening on the floor of the house of representatives. and at the conclusion of what some consider to be a long week here in congress. i'd like to go back and reflect upon some of the events that took place this week and perhaps look into the future and always our deliberation here on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body should be be about perfecting legislation and moving america forward in the right direction. looking back upon some of the things that have taken place this week, that are unprecedented, some would say that yesterday, it was unprecedented, more votes on the floor of the house of representatives than ever in the history of the united states ever america. after all of these years, from

1789 until 2009, we have more votes on the floor, almost a third more votes on the floor, than ever before. previous record was 40 votes, i think yesterday, 54. one would ask why is that? and the answer to that is, because the majority decided they were going to shut down the deliberation and the debate here in the house. and i take all of us back to think about the continuum of events, the constitution that underpins us, the directive in the constitution that all spending has to start in the house of representatives, not in the senate, madam speaker, but in the house of representatives. in fact f. we shut this operation down here, no new spending could be initiated in the united states government at least actually because it all has to start in the house. that is our duty. it's one of our most important duties, not our only duty by any means. we have had a tradition of going through a number of

appropriations bills, 13 in number as i recall, and it gets change add little bit from year to year as the configuration of the appropriations committee gets changed. we have run through those appropriation bills in the years i have been here under republican leadership, starting by my recollection, at least, every one out with on open rule that allowed every member of congress to introduce an unlimited number of amendments and offer and debate those amendments on the floor of the house, ask for a recorded vote if they chose to do so. ask for a revote if they chose to do so. there could be a movement for reconsideration if we chose to do so. if every member offered amendments of course this place would slow down dramatically and it would come to a halt. but for all these years of the united states congress, we got our work done under open rules because we found ways to come together and come to a

conclusion so this government's business could be done in a legitimate fashion with debate on both sides, with amendments that are offered that seek to perfect the legislation that's there, with fiscal responsibility on our part of the aisle at least, sometimes on the part of the delogs who used to come in and try to slow the growth of the government of their own party. but that has not been the case this week, madam speaker. and that is the reason for the unprecedented number of votes that took place here on the floor. that's because the majority party decided to shut down the process and disallow amendments and disallow debate. in order to shield their spending, in order to protect them from let me say an alternative view, some would call it criticism, but addressing you tonight, speaker pro tempore, speaker pelosi received the gavel that you hold this evening in january of 2007.

first woman speaker in the history of the united states. i have been here to witness the swearing-in of that historic event as well as the swearing-in of the first african-american president of the united states. historical moments and both of those moments were coupled with a degree of optimism that flowed on both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, although i will stipulate that there had to have been more euphoria on the democratic side of the aisle than the republican side of the aisle. just the same a level of euphoria on each side, a sense of optimism, a sense of we have reached some historical milestones. madam speaker when, we reached that moment, that is no time to rest on our laurels. that's no time to come to a conclusion that the people who have been honored so in such an historically unprecedented fashion should be exempt from criticism or exempt from dissent. nor should they be handed all the power of the government of

the united states whether they are the president or the speaker of the house. but it seems as though that's the attitude of significant numbers of members here in the house of representatives. so if i take you back to the 12 years the republicans were in the majority here in the house from 1994 until 2006, those were elections sworn in in 1995 until january of 2007, where actually the times that are spanned, we offered -- we offered appropriations bills under an open rule that allowed amendments, an unlimited number of amendments to be filed. they didn't have to be filed in the congressional record. nobody had to come here with their playbook and open it up and say here's the play i'm going to run, do you think you can play defense on that? we just said, offer your amendments into the record and we'll deal with them when they come up. as long as we haven't passed that title of the bill in our deliberations, the amendment will be in order. and if you have amendments that you'd like to offer at the end of the bill, we are going to

allow for an unlimited number of amendments to be filed at the end of the bill as well. so democrats and republicans were able to record their dissent from each of the appropriations bills by filing amendments, seek to perfect the legislation that was there, and either expand the spending or reduce the spending as their conscience and their constituents dictated. that went on through the 12 years of republican leadership. and i will also make a point that there were times when we had too many amendments, there were times when leadership came together and negotiated a unanimous consent agreement, and there were times some people didn't agree with that but didn't have much opportunity to object. and i have been one of those people that saw unanimous consent agreement reached and didn't have an opportunity to object. but at least the leadership was talking about how to perfect legislation, how to bring the most important amendments to the

floor for debate and for vote so we could bring the will of the american people and the wisdom of the american people together and move this country forward. that's how it was here in this congress from 1995 until the beginning of 2007. , when speaker pelosi took the gavel, named a whole group of new committee chairs, a new appropriations chair, a new ways and means chair, a new financial services chair, the list goes on. and as the appropriations bills were brought to the floor, republicans and democrats offered amendments to those bills. and there were -- and that debate although it was extended more than it was this year, was shut down by unanimous consent agreement. ok. i can accept that. i don't like it but i can accept it. but that was the last time we had a legitimate process, madam speaker. because the 2007 appropriations