security of the world -- we share a lot relating to the security of the world and this region. we have been cooperating with the united states, with the u.s. national council, the security council in the last year, because we are a nonpermanent member of the security council. .

>> my defense minister should be coming to the united states, as of this month. we had to postpone the visit. from now until the end of the year, i will receive four out of five deputy prime ministers. they are visiting the united states. we understand the besides -- both sides are looking for closer cooperation on the defense and military aspect. due to lack of submitting this year, my president will be in new york late this month.

he will attend the annual meeting of the u.n. security council, which mr. obama will attend and they will have a talk. maybe not a long one. but it is a leaders' summit. there is no official -- no official meeting between the two leaders, but they will try to talk to each other, and surely they will discuss how we will move next in our relations. the deputy foreign minister will come down to washington, d.c. for an official visit. i am arranging -- they

certainly will meet. as an official visit, they will have a dialogue. in washington, i am trying to arrange a meeting with the head of the national security council and a meeting with robert gates, the defense secretary, and also the secretary of commerce. that is what i am working on. hopefully -- it will end in the way that i expect. we are determined to foster relations with the united states. i understand that the u.s.

shares the same desire for better relations. and i want to quote one of the former presidents, george bush, talking about relations. he told my president in 2007 that we were enemies in the past. "now we are major allies." everything is in a good mood. we need to deepen the mutual trust. the confidence between the two countries. because if we lack a trust and

confidence, there will be some hindrance to the development of relations. while we are working on this, we're also working on the building of mutual trust and confidence. to bring people closer, to make the two administrations were card for the mutual interest and the interests of our respective countries. thank you. that was over five minutes. [laughter] >> we were certainly ready to give you some leeway. we have a very full house. we will open it up for questions. lau why don't we start with -- why don't we start with a couple questions from the floor? you go first. >> please make it easy

questions. >> please identify yourself as well. >> i never really easy question. in the introduction to be unseen hand in u.s./vietnam's relations, which is china -- i want to ask you to what extent do you see china playing our role in the u.s. and vietnam, looking for ways to improve the bilateral relationship? secondly, on a commercial question related to that -- u.s. companies say they are sometimes under little pressure from china because -- if they are looking to explore offshore in the so-called disputed areas, as you call it the eastern sea, do you see the pressure from china on companies being a factor in the levels to which u.s. oil and

gas companies are able to or interested in investing? thank you. >> this is not an easy question. [laughter] you talk about what china is going to do and how they look at u.s. international relations. i do not want to interfere with their country here. we live next to china. thousands of years. it is good to have a big neighbor. sometimes we are -- we were invaded by chinese feudalism for thousands of years. repeatedly, pulled against each other. now i think, the vietnam-china

relations are developing in a direction that the two countries can respect. i work with china for a long time. i was in beijing in 1979. i was the chairman of the national border committee, negotiating with china on the border. this was in the south china sea. i understand that china always wants to be a superpower. that is understandable, because it has a huge population, a huge land area, and it is

growing fast. nobody can in any way prevent the growing of china. we have to limit a stronger -- we have to live with a stronger china. we have to live with a china that is now getting stronger. politically, we are in a good mood. economic investment, vietnam- china relations, it is great. what we have to question china about its territory sovereignty. sometimes, it creates a problem.

we understand that china also wants to have -- wants to enjoy the stability in the region like everyone else. so we keep talking to china and tell them in a candid way that we're is our territory and we are determined to -- tell them in a candid way that this is our territory and we are determined to defend it. of course, it is not easy to negotiate with the big guy. i used to suffer that. when we talk about the border. the chinese have a good solution, and i understand that the south china sea problem is a long-term problem. and makes a lot of constructive

attitude through peaceful negotiations. the u.s. is really thinking -- they will not interfere in the conflict between elements of the south china sea. what the u.s. cares about is the security of the region. that is a good contention, but sometimes i am asked -- and maybe people from the defense -- what would happen if china occupied the whole south china sea?

and claimed that the whole south china sea belongs to china, and which way the u.s. can go -- to japan? south korea? tie one? -- taiwan? these conflicts occur in the south china sea. what would happen to the transportation to japan, u.s., and every other country relating to the region? the city would try not to let that happen -- they say they would not lead to try -- they say they would try not to let that happen. i think it is very, very complicated. but we have to work. we have to work. and we have.

we have to work in a very good will attitude. we want to avoid any troubles that may occur in the region. we need to have good relations with the u.s. at the same time, need to have good relations with china. -- we need to have good relations with china. because our people, a generation to generation, will be there. we cannot be separated from the mainland and flowed down to new zealand, which will be very peaceful. we have to learn -- we have learned -- and you're trying to find a good way to live with china. -- and we are trying to find a good way to live with china. we have a struggle. we will have to live with that.

we know how to live with china. on the fact of russia coming to china -- it is true. the number of companies, particularly oil and gas, from the u.s. like konica phillips -- conoco phillips -- they have felt pressure from contacts with vietnam. the u.k., is also true. -- it is also true. we do not blame them. those who have a share in working partner with china. we tell our people and we tell the foreign companies that when

everyone comes back this time, ensure we can ensure the interest of the company investing. we have recently reestablished contract after eight years of negotiations. that is worth $5 billion of petrol and gas. we still have some companies from the u.s., from france, australia, malaysia, russia. we are working on that aspect. there is a pressure coming from china, but how far the pressure can work depends on how the

companies look at it. this cannot happen in a moment. but it will. i remember last year, secretary robert gates speaking at a function in singapore. he mentioned about the way china bullied the neighboring companies. he mentioned that the chinese press put pressures on the u.s. companies to stop their operations in south china sea. he was direct -- he

characterized as a direct threat to u.s. interests. i hope he will be -- it will be better in the time to come. >> of follow up on something you said during your remarks. you mentioned several times the importance and the need to develop mutual trust and understanding, particularly between the u.s. and vietnam, and last year, when prime minister -- when you're prime minister was here, they announced a series of initiatives. in education, as you mention, but also the intention to explore opening the peace corps in the a bomb and other person to person connections -- peace corps in vietnam and other person to person connections. also, the u.s. navy hospital ship visited vietnam and they were treating thousands of vietnamese patience.

there is a lot of depth of exchange occurring here. it should be pointed out, a lot of people in this room were involved in these efforts. the navy, some of the pharmaceutical companies that are here. they are not only investing in vietnam, but they are providing a lot of support. what more can the government of vietnam, the government of the united states, the private sector do to build that mutual trust? water initiatives you would like to see in the near future? -- what are initiatives you would like to see in the near future? >> these are not easy questions. [laughter] >> your answers were too short. >> i stress that we need to build confidence because the relationship goes up and down. the u.s. on sauce, -- the u.s.

bombs us, and -- this is the thing. the roots of the wall is a difference -- is it different, differently viewed by other people. the war generation in vietnam is still there. they have suffered. they mistrusted the u.s. administration. it is the same on the u.s. side. the veterans of the war remain. it is important to build the trust and confidence.

the war in vietnam, every plan of action, every plan of operation was produced there. last year, my friend -- my prime minister visited to see how it changed. it is not an easy thing to do, to tell you. i had to arrange the visit. this is one of the things that makes people from both sides -- the military people are working together. in the past, the u.s. war with vietnam was the fact. in the last seven, at 18 -- seven, eight years, u.s.

warships have visited the ports and the non-has recently allowed u.s. warships -- and vietnam has recently allowed u.s. warships to visit in our waters territory. we did a good operation on land. that is the thing. the very crucial step for our cooperation. that is something -- there is something that remains. we are still under sanctions by weapons from the united states. this is really tough. really tough. you are going to allow us to buy the weapons from the u.s., but we do not have the money. it is very expensive.

we are still poor. it is a wonderful thing. talking from the u.s. side, that we are moving forward, up being better countries among each other. when the private corporations -- i think we appreciate the greater contribution from mean ngo, -- the ngo, from the administration, from the companies that help us, in cleaning the toxic chemicals in vietnam, helping the handicapped, helping the clearance of ordnance --

ordinance. the u.s. corporation is there. we appreciate that. we see the love of students -- doctors and nurses visiting vietnam between the young generation of vietnam and the first generation. it helps a lot. it really helps a lot. the ambassador was showing his daughter a photo, saying she is in vietnam with the new family and he is afraid she would not come back to the united states. [laughter] [unintelligible] >> i will not. more and more, would come together.

one other thing i have to relate to you is that many of our leaders are studying in the ninth states. -- united states. this is not a normal thing. sons and daughters of the communist leaders studying in the capitalist country -- it is a different thing. it is quite a different thing. it did not happen 10 years ago. it is now. so i can tell that. we can work together to build that kind of thing, to serve our interests. >> good. vincent? you have a question? >> a question. >> please identify yourself. >> visit miki -- vincent mcgee.

we have been the largest funding source for projects in vietnam. now, medical clinics, and we're hoping -- with the government -- to repair a pediatric hospital in hanoi. i will be going in a few weeks to visit. it is in process. i have not had one before. my question, i suppose, is how to work with you and what you're thinking is about bringing more philanthropic investment into the medical, educational, other programs. we've had very good cooperation. you mentioned the toxic chemicals. atlantic, gates, and for corporate it. -- atlantic, gates, and ford cooperated. you have any idea about how to

expand those contacts will -- which will contain -- continue to improve the relationships? >> relating to education and health care, i would like to inform you that our government stressed these aspects because we have to look gatt's the life -- we have to look at the life of the people. not only in the city, but in the country. lately, the country is still 80% of the population. that is in the countryside. is huge. we need the assistance. we need the medical assistance. on education, including --

we are trying to set up some of u.s.-vietnam universities in vietnam. we have got to have more students to retrain. in the u.s. program, in job education programs. we're sending students from the vietnam -- from vietnam to the u.s.. it costs a lot. if the u.s. curriculum were in vietnam, we could have students study -- 20 students study if we send one student to the united states. >> [unintelligible] >> yes. we have the u.s., australian, british one, and we are working hard.

i travel around the country. different states are working with the universities, and i am sure we are going to set up not one. more than one u.s. universities in vietnam. on the medical, i think -- the interesting thing, when the delegation comes in from vietnam, there was a big delegation. madison was requested in -- madison was requested in a huge amount. -- medicine was requested in a huge amount. these people bought all that they saw. i think that we need, we have a big need for medicine. medicine from the u.s.

and we have programs -- my government has a program -- for joint venture investors to invest in medical production. one of the shortest way is you have to -- they will show the way. it will show how we should do that. >> thank you. mike? >> thank you. i am from the congressional research service. mr. ambassador, one year ago, and went to vietnam to research a number of subjects on behalf of congress. >> do you want to come back? >> most definitely, i do. during that time -- there were a

number of different officials from the vietnamese government -- the talk about the process of normalization of relations and the sense that i had from those conversations from the vietnamese officials was that normalization had not yet been achieved, but it was -- we were in the process of achieving a. i think on the u.s. side when i came back and spoke to people, they were surprised. they taken the attitude that with the exchange of ambassadors, the establishment embassies, diplomatic recognition, the u.s. support of the lamont -- vietnam's secession into the wto, relations were normalized. you share that sense that normalization has not yet been achieved? if so, what would you like to see change in the relationship between the united states and vietnam that would move this along to the achievement of normalization?

>> there are different ways to look at the so-called normalization. when you do not have diplomatic relations -- you come together and signed a contract and say we agree to normalize our relations and recognize our representatives at the ambassador level. someone can say, we have accomplished normalization. but some people think that normalization is no word to start -- is a word to start.

normalization is the first step that we need to build our country better and better in the time to come. we can establish ambassador- level relations overnight. i agree with that. but to normalize relations, it is a process. it takes some time. like i talk about trust and confidence. we cannot build it overnight. we need to process. we need to invest in each other bit by bit. last year, when my prime minister visited the united states, i told him, "hanoi not

believe that our relations with the united states have completely normalized." normalized is different from full normalization. it takes some time to do that. what we need to do now is to beautify that relationship we have achieved. of course, we cannot expect that we do not have any different things. the more traits wheat -- the more trade we deal with each other, you can plane something,

we complain something. one thing that we are not normalized yet is -- u.s. weapons. that is not normalize the head. this is just one thing. not many. even with that, our military people have a good cooperation. your commander in chief, the defense minister visited the united states -- the first time in 2003. the next defense minister came to visit the united states. early next year, the first quarter, what they are working on because he has to delay his visit.

so if you can say normalization is the part in the process of building our relation, if that is completed. to normalize the relations, to intensify or deepen the friendship between the two countries and the drop people -- and the two people, to make the u.s.-vietnam relationship a bilateral relationship between the countries in the world, we need to work. we need time to work and work hard for that. >> it really quickly -- do you have any specifics on that? i am an economist. my apologies for economic-type questions. would you consider recognition as a market economy or a session

into the gsp program part of that process? >> we are working on not during the last administration conceded it. -- we are working on that. during the last administration, they conceded it. you have your korea, north korea -- nuclear weapons. particularly, there is the health care reform. i think they will continue to concede that there is a case for joining the gsp. we are also lobbying for the

recognition of the market economy because we feel that our economy now is a market economy. the private-sector, a joint- venture, foreign part, and state economy is mixed together and respect the rule of market economy, so we would like to ask other countries to recognize that. first we got recognition from australia and maybe new zealand. it is important. it is important. having any relationship with china and japan and india -- we

have to respect the rule of economic organizations. we have to join the game and respect the rule of the game. so that is why. that is why we are requesting other company -- other countries to look at us as a market economy. >> thank you. >> i am just go from the house foreign affairs committee. like many diesel on this -- people in this room, i was very happy to see you recently. >> it was very hard though. >> we had a very great set of meetings. we had a chance to speak at length. i think the ambassador is personally increase -- interested in increasing

educational programs in south vietnam. as i said, a work in congress on the house side. i know on the senate side, we have many senators like senator kerrey, senator mccain, who served in the vietnam war and have very strong views about our country, really going to improve relations. i am in full agreement that mutual trust is very important. the question has to do with some of the concerns that have been rising among some members of congress, that there is a deterioration of conditions in vietnam, specifically related to speech, religion, even internal issues. i know this is a difficult issue. this is something we have discussed at length with officials in your government,

including the ministry of religious affairs. i just wanted to hear from your perspective how the government can address those concerns to members of congress who are eager to learn? >> at this is an interesting question. -- this is an interesting question. the problem that we are looking at -- we are working for the people. here in the united states, people in vietnam, people in russia, people everywhere in the world. any government who wants the stain -- staying as the leadership, who wants to develop a country want to bring the reputation of the country up.

you have to respect the human rights of the people. i could take a long, long time to explain this, but i know that our gentlemen and ladies here understand this division in vietnam. i will tell you this. we were under the invasion of many big imperialists and colonialists. our people in the past did not have any faith, and the french and the japanese, chinese. what our people has been fighting for his freedom of the country and freedom of the

people. in the past, we were not under the full determination -- we were not really a people. we could leave. we could leave if our domineer would let us leave. we should die if they asked us to die. once we bring back our dependence on freedom, we are free from domination. i think that is the biggest human right, that our leaders have brought to our people. nothing of the same sort has been done by our government. you all remember that after the war in vietnam, we reunify the

country in 1975. there's a lot mention of russia. massacres of former officials. but that did not happen. they are people. we are people. we are the same nation, the same country. they were on the other side. i think that is human rights. that is human rights. respect the people. after the war, we have about 3 to 2000 vietnamese machine -- missing in action. in the u.s. -- how much?

about 55,000-something. the vietnamese government and organizations reserve to work with you, our former enemy, to find those who were missing in vietnam. 350,000 missing, and we could not see them. we respect the feelings of the families of america. it does not mean that we do not care about missing in action. we can find them later, sooner or later, but for the u.s., the missing persons -- it creates different emotions and feelings to us. that is why we look.

even before the normalization 25 years ago, we start looking, started looking with the u.s. to find out. the u.s. missing in action. i think that is a human right feeling, that is the sentiment and the dignity of the vietnamese people. in the past 25 years, we have reactivated our country -- we have innovated our country. we understand we have to produce good policy. the government is not the wonderful carrier of that policy. we take great success because our people are participating in the innovation policy. they are participating to

implement that policy because of the interest -- the interest in all of that. i think this is a human right. one other thing i had -- every country has a law. our constitution is there. we have to respect our constitution, like the u.s.. you have to respect the law. we will reach our policy. is there now. one thing i do say to you there -- the u.s. administration has been set up over 300 years? 230 years? from the very beginning, the human rights have not been like now. black people could not enter the

restroom where there was "no white, no black." the u.s. has been modified all the time until 1945, when the u.s. women were the first time allowed to vote. i do not know. i may be wrong in that. i think that is a fact. just keep moving on. you can change things. until now, last year, you elected a new president not of white collar. -- of white collar. -- color. this is a long process. >> thank you.

>> our administration, no, all it is -- from 1975. 1945, we started, but we had to go through 30 years of war. a lot of things are solved. a lot of things to look at a different way with the u.s. in 30 years. >> we have about 20 minutes left and a few more people who want to ask questions. i want to make sure everybody gets a chance to weigh in. people will have questions -- especially easy ones because we know he likes those -- i have colonel millard next. if i could ask one short question -- i believe there is a human rights dialogue between the u.s. and vietnam, and it meets periodically. is there an upcoming session of

that plant? >> we are having a human rights dialogue with australia, it eu, norway, finland, and the u.s. it took twice a year, the deputy minister, whatever. it is a good exchange. a lot of good things have been done. >> thank you. colonel miller? do you still a question? >> thank you. i am from the joint staff. right now i am with the southeast asian area. i was a defense attache in vietnam in a previous life. in a stand a little bit -- in your stand a little bit. subsequent to that i was in china in beijing, and they

consistently -- vague, the chinese -- they say the toughest negotiators in the world are the vietnamese. i think that maybe a testament to your border negotiations. [laughter] one of the things i learned when i was there for my counterparts is the feeling from the vietnamese that they never want to be beholden to a single security sponsor ever again. you mentioned that a little bit here, just previous to this, what i meant. you were disappointed in the french. you were disappointed in the chinese. you were disappointed later in the russians as security sponsors, and our security sponsor of the second half of the country, perhaps. the lesson that i was told he

learned was to always try -- you learned was to always try to gain on multilateral sponsor. my question is as we are always looking for a more secure and stable asia-pacific region, what is vietnam's's perspective on the framework -- what is vietnam's perspective on the framework. -- framework? what multilateral organization or approach would be best to provide for everyone to achieve what we need in that very multicultural region of the world? >> i should have asked you -- i recognize you were a military attache in hanoi.

let's see. for the security and stability of the region, no individual can do to maintain net. -- maintain it. great efforts must be produced from all countries concerned. so i think our position is that everyone needs a security and stability. everyone has to respect that, and everyone has to constrained from using force, to take action harmful to the second circumstance.

relating to vietnam, i can tell you that we really want to have the collective mechanism to safeguard the security, the regional security and stability. it is not easy. the security of vietnam, we have had to do by ourself. we have had the military pact with the soviet union in the 1980's, and the soviet union did not have the base right. when the chinese attacked, the

soviet union did not take any action. they were the military ally in this pact. we understand that because the soviet union at that time was trying to build a relationship with china as well. so what we tell ourselves in the past or present, vietnam has to defend itself. we have to work and take care of our security, and at the same time we need to have good corp. with other countries for the security -- good cooperation with other countries for the security of the region. so they can tell the kind of economic development smoothly. we do not expect any assistance from foreign countries to defend our sovereignty and security.

you have to do it. how to do it? you have to have a good maneuvering. you must be strong enough. you're not going to use any nuclear weapons yet, so you have to think how to defend the country effectively. >> thank you. >> [unintelligible] mr. ambassador, if i could skip back to china. kind of of follow on to the answer you gave to colonel millard's -- miller's question. i've heard a lot about the code of conduct from the south china sea. i think that was signed in 2002. in any event, it has been in place for a couple years now. how is it working? >> 2002?

>> [unintelligible] >> i was the one who worked on that. we signed that contract, because by that time i was the sub- leader of international affairs. they wanted to have a code of conduct. finally, we agreed with china, because the chinese wanted to have doc. we wanted c to weoc.-- have coc. it is a different technology. >> what does the "d" stand for? >> declaration of conduct.

that is different than code of conduct. code of conduct is more legal. declaration is formal. still we are working with china to move from doc to coc. it is not easy. we are still in discussion. doc -- with d.o.c. in 19920 -- the countries concerned are more or less restrained from threatening the people.

we respected or recognize the conflicts with the claimants has been deduced. believe me. i cannot tell what will happen tomorrow because the chinese navy and air force is going very fast. even the u.s. people do not know what china will do. you can monitor the moving of the u.s. ships, china's ships or submarines. you cannot discover. you do not know how many chinese submarines are in the south china sea. nobody can tell what will happen next. the d.o.c. will help a lot.

so far, china and the concerned countries respect the spirit of the declaration of conduct. we do not want to have a conflict take place there. >> can you talk about the power cells? >> we have talked to china about the power cells. we have a different position with china on that. sometimes, china says that is their territory, and we keep talking with china on this. historically, the facts -- we are stronger. we can prove strongly it belongs

to vietnam. with power, we are weaker, and in 1978, 1976 -- we are keeping talk with china over this. because that is our territory. >> we have time for one more question. . .

you can remember that the first private company started about 15 years ago, not very long. but now it is booming, and the private sector, shipments are 44%. the state economy is less than 38%. and the foreign sector, 15%. it is getting stronger and we have to rely on the private sector for economic development. and for that country

development, and china. any more questions? >> a look quickly, but the mechanisms for the private sector to help shape policy in vietnam? >> the first thing the private sector helps is that the operation is a good thing -- and once they operate successfully and have progress, the policy- making circles has to take care of that. that is the first thing that the private sector helps. secondly, we have the parliament, our congress, including a number of private sector -- we have an economic

council, and national council that the private sector takes part in. the recommended advice column or request the government at any time in producing policy and implementing the policy. >> thank you very much. you been very generous with your time. this is a fascinating conversation and i was grateful to hear your comments and for you to participate in this. thank you -- please thank ambassador phung for spending his morning with us. >> thank you very much. >> this was a good dialogue. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> houses in a break while waiting for members to return to their districts -- from their district. this afternoon, they will vote on bills debated this afternoon. later, that will discuss hybrid vehicles and removing private lenders from making federal lands -- federal subsidize student was -- federal is subsidized student loans. senators are spending most of the way, $122 billion for the housing and transportation department. you can see live coverage of the senate on c-span2. dollars n.y. democrat steve israel on how he uses social media to keep his constituents but to date on a congressional issues tonight on "the communicator's" on c-span2. >> the whorunsgov.com --

"washington post) has a new web site up. we talked to the editor of whorunsgov.com for about a half- hour. host: we're joined for final 25 minutes by rachel von dongen. she is the editor of whorunsgov.com. what is behind the reason for the site? guest: it is the paper's website. there is a dearth of political biography out there. you have other sites that deal in the reference guide manner with other areas. we're looking to fill this niche. host: if people come to the website what is the main thing they're searching for? guest: is basically a reference site launched in january of this year.

we have been quickly building the site with about 700 profiles. there are members of the obama administration including cabinet secretaries and behind the scene people. we will have a political nominees, senate-confirmed people. there will also be lawmakers, governors, profiles of interest group leaders, lobbyists, and political strategist. host: who is using it? guest: last week we just began with moderated wiki. we keep you get deals with not only people but topics. it focuses on everything. we're looking for political users. we opened last week as a

moderated wiki which means any member of the general public or policy maker in washington can enter the site and choose to add or aidedit profiles. we only opened last week. any contributions or suggestions from the public will come into the editorial team at the post. we will review them before they are published. host: you can join us on the phone lines. we have discussed the word transparency quite a bit this morning. on the website who are some of the top searches people are looking at? guest: oftentimes it is the people behind the scenes. like reggie love, the personal

secretary or personal aide it to barack obama. more commonly known as the famous do university basketball player. another popular figure is the speech writer who has made about 20 speeches for the president. he has been drafting a major health care speech. host: for instance, on john the speechwriter, are you able to find out which particular speeches he has a hand in? guest: yes, we make an attempt to interview the subject. we have been able to get quite a few exclusive interviews with several of barack obama aids. host: good morning to larry, an independent caller. caller: good morning, these profiles on the website, how the

you approach them? do they approach you? guest: so far it has been us picking them. but now that we have an open the site to the general public we are asking you to nominate or add profiles. we hope to get ideas from the public and expert policy community here in washington. host: thanks for the call. last week the story about van jones changed. how did his profile change our website? guest: one of the nice things as we had him up before anyone knew much about him. we have not yet opened the side as the moderated wiki by the time he resigned, but through

the team we had updated continuously as the news broke. host: you're the editor. how big is the team? guest: there are three other reporters and one blogger. host: what is that all about? guest: it is basically just his take on politics. it is quite popular. host: you have only three reporters but you are a washington post publication, said the benefit from other reporting? guest: we do draw on those stories, link widely on the web, and have had some washington post reporters write some of our profiles. as with the ted kennedy profile. host: good morning, lynchburg, va., a caller on the line for democrats. please mute your television.

caller: i want to give my opinion on the way the democrats run. i don't think we have the government anymore. the elderly, we're getting shoved into the corner. they do not want to give you help with the cost of living. i do not believe the government is doing a proper thing as it used to. the need to be things brought up about this that are not being brought up. you hear about hospital care and this and that. host: things for the comment. would you have, was it in the planning a matter who won the election? guest: yes, it was. we tried to seed the site with

lawmakers who would have been in congress regardless. we have something called a reform tracker and are asking the general public to update the positions of their lawmakers or others on health care. we are telling them to find work congress stands in general. host: how you verify? is a part of the moderated wiki? guest: it is indeed. we ask people to go to local newspaper articles, or cite things in some way like that. we can. verify and then publish. host: so, it is a 24- 24-- things change constantly? guest: yes, that is the hope.

with participation from the committee we hope to keep up with the ever-changing news. host: louisiana, good morning to steve. caller: yes, sir, it seems to me that the newspaper is running whorunsgov.com is no different iscbs, abc, or nbc. it is itpravda from russia. it was six months before van jones had any trouble. then the day that he resigned cnn gave him credit for creating two million jobs. i don't understand the difference between pravda and mainstream media, and the czars mainstream media, and the czars and polit

guest: than john's was on our web site back in february. -- van jones was on our web site back in february. as we reviewed what the most popular profiles were on the site, i change the whole page every day and we look what is out there on the internet and try to update the profile at whorunsgov.com, so we were aware about mr. jones, and one of the only reliable sources for news about him. host: this is wichita falls, texas. the morning to carry. -- an morning to carrie -- good morning to carrie? i'm going to put you on hold and make sure that you turn down your television. we go to akron, with michael r.

democratic line. caller: i was wondering if you list people like the trilateral commission and the council on foreign relations. i hope that you would do that. guest: we don't have those people at this moment, but we have members outside of government white thing takes and political strategy groups already. we are expanding into those areas and we would invite people to come in and invite people that would like to see on the site. morning, minneapolis, on the republican line. caller: i have been active trying to get pro-small business legislation here in the state legislature for 29 years. i know who runs the government. it is members of both sides of the aisle who are influenced by

lobbyists. i will put forward legislation and the matter which side of the aisle, the lobbyist will step in to make a case. that is the way that it goes. host: lobbyists have often been called the fourth branch of the government. do you cover them? guest: yes, we're just beginning that it and we want to. we want people to help us understand the obvious players behind the obvious ones running government. host: you launched in january? what surprised you about the eight months we have entered. guest: yes, and there really is a niche out there for political biography. there might be a lot written about your congressperson. who is the new chief of staff to michelle obama?

when her old one left there was not much information about her on the website at all. people are coming to us in large numbers to find out. we keep the deer or others cover public figures. there seems to be an interest and a desire for more information about those who are not necessarily political nominees. host: here is idaho, on the independent line. hello, david. caller: yes, i would like to thank the lady for her website. i think this is very important at this time to get some transparency here. personally, my take on the entire washington, d.c. crowd is

they are all crooks and thieves. i have no confidence in the majority of those running this country. the gentleman on their previously talking about the market's -- he was very careful not to say one thing about punishment for any of these people who have taken advantage of the situation. i listened to mr. obama's chief adviser who said never waste a crisis. do you feel like you might be getting taken advantage of? there is no credibility. it is disgusting. host: we will get a response. guest: basically, there are a

lot of those who feel like you do. we invite you to share your views on the website. take something from your local papers and submit a contribution. host: i'm looking at the news section of your website. you have norquist of the americans for taxpayers reform, and andy stern who heads the international president of the service union, and howard dean. what caused you to choose them? guest: we have been doing a lot about health care reform lately. especially with this protest last week by the more conservative activists. some of these have been involved

in that. we just wanted to point out that it is not just lawmakers to influence the debate. there are outside influences to make a difference. good morning on the republican line, texas. caller: i have not yet visited your website, but i hope you will report unbiased. i have to stay on fox news or c- span to get the unbiased report because all the other channels lean to obama's aside. the lobbyists are just running this country. -- they lean to obama's side on other networks. the lobbyist pay people to do what they want. if they have enough money, government officials side with them.

if you have anything to say about that? thank you. guest: we encourage, in fact the role of participating is that everyone uses a neutral point of view. anything biased that leans to either the right or left, we do have the obligation to reject. the major difference between this and other such that there is we invite the public to participate and contribute important facts to profiles important to them. host: how difficult is it for you as an editor to determine that? looking at two different views or two different pieces of evidence on the story. guest: that is always challenging. so far, the moderated wiki has only been open for one week but

we have been very happy with the contributions. they have found news stories or pieces from their congressional representatives are website stopping go host: what did your side differently saturday? guest: we basically tried to highlight some figures who might have been involved. we did not go out there to cover it. host: next, macedonia, ohio. caller: part of my question has been answered by a previous caller. i had a concern about manipulation of the government officials behind the scenes.

by being exposed so much to the public -- do you have a thought on that? you answered the question about being unbiased and how you go about trying to get to that point are you put out information that is neutral. that is my concern. will this undermined any administration by having so much detailed scrutiny? guest: that is a good question. more than ever before there is so much out there on the internet so quickly about to government figures. the challenge is to get reliable and unbiased information. that is where we are trying to moderate. on another site they might publish something immediately.

we are trying to take a look and publish responsibly. host: is your website sold for advertising by the paper as well? guest: yes, it is. host: the obama administration talked about transparency a great deal. how would you rate them through their website? guest: they obviously come in with the big challenge. i don't know whether it is fair to grade them so far, but they have begun important initiatives are around transplanted policy itself. members of the technology office have submitted public comment on how to do it. host: 21 to find out background information, and you mentioned michele obama is chief of staff, how forthcoming is the

white house? guest: it depends on the individual, but we have gotten lots of interviews. there is a much out there about them already. they are interested in speaking with someone who will verify the information. host: good morning, georgia, on the republican line. caller: i have a couple of questions. one is whether u.s. their credit scores. another is if you have organizations or groups you give information for? guest: we do not lose their credit scores. there is some information that will be too private. we do have detailed biographical details in terms of former jobs, the dates they were, at were-- e

days that there were at those jobs. we do read them on issues relevant to their jobs today. host: if the credits for were publicly available why would you and exclude or include it? guest: if they were relevant to their current position or had come up in a controversial way relevant to their jobs. if it is an official in the department that overseas finance or the treasury, then maybe it would be relevant. i am not sure. host: here is an e-mail. guest: we have not gotten there yet. we are considering going into profiles of supreme court

justices and some u.s. attorneys. we have profiles on department of justice figures including various nominees in the new offices there and the top staffers. host: is that just a workload, staffing issue? guest: pretty much. we're hoping to build out to several thousand people by early next year. the judicial branch is something we are interested in expanding. host: good morning, frank. caller: i'm grateful there is the type of website you are establishing available to the public. just prior to your coming down we had mr. gary gensler on and i was so upset. an individual like that in his

position spatting about reform when he was part of the cause. instead of talking truthfully he holds the line of the administration. it is so upsetting when they put the theives right in front of us to see on tv. so your website is refreshing. guest: thank you. we tried to make sure we put a focus on some of these financial officials at the treasury or at these independent agencies. we urge you to go on to the site and check out the offerings for these if the interest you. host: you have a profile of gary

gensler on the website. the last call comes from tennessee on the line for democrats. caller: it is big money and creeks and liars. i worked on the b-1 bomber. we knew when we voted that it was just a bunch of junk, but it was big money. we had people on the payroll seven days per week, 24 hours per day. things come sam. -- host:

>> going live now to the house of representatives. member is expected to vote on three bills that debated earlier today. that will consider a $3 billion energy program for the sale of hybrid vehicles and engine turbines. also, remitting private lenders from making -- removing private lenders from making federalese subsidize student loans. that is coming up later in the week. a publisher and editor and chief of 12 books will discuss his work with senator ted kennedy on mr. kennedy's memoir. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal," starting at 9:15 a.m. eastern time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken ined to thing -- following order. house resolution 6 by the yeas and nays, house resolution 459

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 387, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. members will take their discussions off the floor. . the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois will proceed. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss h.r. 3427, the state ethics law protection act. in the day and age where indictments and allegations of wrongdoing have become all too common, in fact, illinois people read scandals of the day in

their newspaper. many states and local governments have enacted laws to reward contracting based on pay to play, a practice of transferring campaign contributions for government contracts. a loophole in the federal highway contracting requirement is making it difficult for states to enact these laws. it is up to us in washington to make sure our constituents are best served and the taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. by amending the federal highway administration contracting requirment, we can ensure that states have every tool to encourage and ensure transparency and accountability. please join me in supporting h.r. 3427, the state ethics law protection act to ensure dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their discussions off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. fortenberry: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, this month, lincoln school of nebraska is celebrating its 40th anniversary. started in 1969, lincoln school was one of the first schools in the united states to be custom built to facilitate the curriculum. the school has served hundreds of families over two generations and fully apart of nebraska's diverse educational community. mary and larry are still the school's mode of force and guide children daily with purposeful materials and offer after-school enrichment classes, conduct classes to help parents understand and implement the

philosophy and lecture on nebraska. the result, children, who are self-disciplined, joyful and eager to learn. the children are free to discover the world. mr. speaker, on behalf of the first district of nebraska and the united states congress, i thank them, two twoord people for their dedication to the formation of young children and congratulate them on the 40th anniversary of lincoln montes sori school of nebraska. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to praise pennsylvania national guardsmen who just arrived home after serving eight months in iraq. members of the 56th striker

brigade, combat team's 112 infantry aifed in new jersey. 1,500 flags will line the route along with yellow ribbons. the soldiers come from bradford and ridgeway and guardsmen game home. the brigade operated and was home to iraqis and captured hidden supply dumps and disrupted enemy operations. as these men and women are reunited with their families, we realize the sacrifices they made, child births and report cards. they can't radio place those lost moments but we can say thank you and god bless and welcome home. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, as we continue the debate on health care, we must remain cognizant of the impact on jobs and health care innovation. that's why i strongly oppose the $40 billion innovation tax on the medical device industry that's being proposed in the senate. minnesota and the 3rd congressional district in particular is home to many of the top medical device manufacturers responsible for lifesaving technologies. hundreds of businesses and entrepreneurs in the medical technology field call minnesota home. i visited and i met with many of these entrepreneurs. they are hard working and employers who provide thousands of good paying jobs. these medical breakthruse save money and improve the quality of care. a increase will stifle job growth and innovation and will harm quality health care.

i urge the senate, the president and my colleagues to oppose this misguided new tax. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.. mr. poe: mr. speaker, freedom's bell is sounding across this nation, it is loud and clear. the people's resistance to big bloated government is in the hearts and minds of the american people. it was shown over the weekend. over one million americans took time off from work, brought their flags and families and came to dst with the cry for government to listen. their message, we have had enough. they have watched and stunned at how this congress has made government bigger and less accountable. money that does not belong to

government but to the people. the threat of government takeover of their health care has made it personal to them. it doesn't matter how many times it is said otherwise, the american people understand what government-run health care looks like and they don't like it. thomas jefferson said, the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground, but the tide is turning, mr. speaker. the american resistance is awake, on its feet and on the move. people are not happy and we ignore them at our own risk. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, as i have been in my home district and spoken with many individuals who have attended my town hall meetings, they have exercised their right to bring their grievances before this member of

congress. and one of the issues they talked about is the question of the constitutional importance of the so-called czars. we now have over 30 czars. those that have not been subject to the scrutiny of consideration by the united states senate. those who apparently have decision making responsibility in areas that have traditional been in cabinet-level offices and who in fact have been vetted by the senate. it seems the longer i'm here, it seems that political life in washington seems to follow art. now you might say we have come to a situation in which washington, d.c. we now have a new show and it's called "dancing with the czars and last more than a full tv season because we have more than 30 of them and can continue onto the summer. it's not a joke. it's serious and the american people deserve answers.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burton: mr. speaker, this weekend on national television, mr. axelrod who works for the president said the meeting on the mall didn't amount to much and didn't represent what the american people think. i don't know what that guy is smoking down at the white house, but i think it might be illegal. the people in this country at the tea parties and on the mall are telling every member of congress and in the senate they want to cut spending and don't want more government intrusion into their lives and want to be left alone. but this body here and my colleagues on the democratic side continue to come up with new proposals, new spending and we are spending trillions and trillions of dollars that we simply don't have and our kids are going to bear the responsibility for that because we aren't doing our jobs. secondly, wainted to say one

more thing. this acorn group needs to be investigated. they are getting $10 billion and we know there are a lot of crooked things going on and needs to be investigated by this body. my colleagues on the democrat side go, who are the chairmen of the committees need to listen. we need to investigate acorn. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. it was one year ago today that lay man brothers collapsed as we mark this one-year anniversary, the federal government today is the leading insurer, the leading lender and the leading car maker in the united states. the federal government. since the inception of bailout nation less than one year ago today, an economist from arizona

state university has documented, today the federal government owns or controls 30% of private business profits, that's right. 30%. and if president obama gets his way and nationalizes an additional 18% of private wealth in the health care industry, that would be nearly 50% of private business profits. think of that. 50% of private business profits nationalized in less than one year's time. we can do better. let's enjoy freedom. let's embrace freedom and let's say no to bailout thation and to the federal government taking over the private economy and let's investigate acorn. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. tanner of tennessee for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, just a few months ago, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the apollo mission for nasa. we were excited as a nation to think of the brightness and the genius of our country. tomorrow before the science and technology committee, the author

of the report will present his findings regarding nasa. as a representative from the houston area where the johnson space center is, i encourage america to be that same genius. let's continue manned space flight and continue our exploration in space as well as our support for the international space station. out of those efforts come new inventions, new cures for diseases and new opportunities for the genius of america to be seen around the world. we must continue manned space flight, supporting the space centers in florida and alabama, california, mississippi and texas, i know america can achieve for the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permit todd address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. burton today, september 15, 16, 17. mr.ing else for today. mr. forbes for september 15. mr. souder for today. mr. neugebauer for today. ms. fok for today. ms. bachmann for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> 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 for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, ms. woolsey of california, ms. kaptur of ohio and mr. grayson.

the speaker pro tempore: 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. mr. jones of north carolina. mr. poe: i request to take mr. jones' place. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, a few days ago, there was a town hall meeting not too far from here in reston, virginia, over 3,000 people were inside and about that many outside. this town hall event was held at south lakes high school and one of the security officers there, did not like one of the signs that the protestors were carrying and holding up. the sign apparently was not to the officer's political liking. so the security officer demanded that out of the thousands of signs at the event, the one he didn't like was going to come down and he ordered the person

to take it down because it was obviously critical of the administration. note, mr. speaker, there was nothing illegal about the sign. this officer told the man with the sign to put his sign away horror he would be arrested, yes, arrested for freedom of speech and the right to protest. the protestors said this used to be america. officer weeks said? response, well, it isn't anymore, ok? well, mr. speaker, it's not ok, not by a long shot. this is still america, the land of the free, the land where we can disagree with government whether government likes it or not. the land paid for in blood by bold man of noble character and noble heart and free speech undergirards liberty and freedom and the right to speak the truth is granted by theal mighty by those able to stand that right. no king, no dictator and no high school security officer has the

right to abuse their authority and suppress freedom of speech. . one of the founding principles of this nation is freedom of the speech. it is so fundamental important that our founding fathers put it first in our constitution bill of rights, made it the first amendment to the bill of rights because it is the most important. without the first amendment, the rest are meaningless. the first amendment simply says, congress, that's us folks, should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech. or of the press or of the right to people peaceably assemble and petition the government of redress of grievances. it is the den densy of all governments to encroach upon the rights of people in this nation and other nations. and while many governments are going about -- or while many americans are going about their daily business of work, taking the kids to school, to football

practice, to the boy scouts, grocery shopping and going to dinner, mowing the grass and living their lives, don't underestimate that these people are paying attention to what government is doing to this them. freedom of speech is crucial for folks to get the attention of fellow americans when the size of government no longer fits the constitution. freedom of speech is sack row sanction and not just those who agree with government but it is a holy right, especially those who disagree with government oppression. it is the right of a free people to speak truth when the government is wrong. it is the right of the people to gather and stand in the face of their elected officials and speak what they see. tyranny of a government gone amok. it is the right of a self-governing people to come together in cities around the nation to speak out and to hold the government accountable when those who seek to rule over us have stepped out of their constitutional bounds. there can be no more fundamental display of our god-given right to freedom of speech than what we're seeing from the american

resistance movement today. from town halls to city streets, the right of free speech is one of the very guardians of the freedom and liberty that makes this nation the greatest in history. and it is the government that would do well to listen, be silent and then act in the interests of the american people. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? without objection, so ordered. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, today marks the one-year anniversary of the fall of lehman brothers. just prior to that, former treasury secretary and former goldman sachs executive, hank paulson, and fed chairman ben bernanke and then president of the federal reserve bank of new york and now treasury secretary, tim geithner, bailed out fannie mae, freddie mac and orchestrated the first of multiple traunches of taxpayer money to a.i.g.

some marked the fall of lehman as the start of our financial crisis. but it started long before. it started on wall street, the very place that president obama gave his financial regulatory reform speech today. the president stated and quote, restoring a willingness to take responsibility, even when it is hard, is at the heart of what we must do. very carefully worded, mr. president. but what real reform will assure it? willing to take responsibility. mr. president, wall street has responsibility for the greed they bred, for ripping off american taxpayers and taking exorbitant profits, destroying anything and anyone in its path and then taking more bonuses and continuing to live their high life. wall street will never willingly and openly accept its

responsibility for their role in our financial system's down fall. it's our responsibility to hold them accountable. it is too late to ask wall street to play nice. and make reforms. they had their chance and they blew it. you can be sure they are going to pay millions to lobbyists and pacts to protect their bonuses loopholes, their safety nets and the current structure of banking in this country. it's time to face down wall street and stand up for main street. the time spent waiting for wall street's willingness to change is over. the results of the taxpayer bailout are clear. more profits for wall street plus massive bonuses while foreclosures skyrocket across this country. wall street had its chance to open credit lines to business as well as to direct funds they got from the taxpayers to help millions of families facing foreclosure work out those loans, but instead they took the money for themselves and racked up huge profits in the last quarter. wall street had its chance to be responsible as stewards of the

tax dollars they got. they failed. they didn't even try. wall street banks cannot even tell us where the tarp dollars, that is the taxpayer dollars, went. the arms of their businesses, which service loans, are moving at a snail's pace to help people find ways to work out their mortgages and why? because they can make more money when loans are delinquent. the pace of loaning to businesses and people is almost stuck. what are fast and furious are the payouts of bonuses and profits. wall street executives like lloyd blankfein of goldman sachs are walleting around the changes but talk is cheap because it costs them nothing. it's a good press release. name me one wall street money-centered bank that has restructured its compensation structures. wall street is fighting to have custom credit default swaps and other derivative instruments

remain unregulated in the coming so-called reforms this congress might consider. this moment in history marks the time for each member of congress and public servants at the fdic, the s.e.c., the federal reserve, the treasury, and associated regulators to act and create the kind of reform that creates a credit system which stnds -- stands strong for generations and contains moral hazard. will america allow itself once again to be bought out by wall street? or will we stand together thoughtfully, deliberately, to empower regulators and reform this system with a new banking system that respects communities, encourages savings, assures sound credit? will we break up the megabank trusts or continue to allow the concentration of financial power in the few greedy hands that are holding it today? will we move forward with a stronger, more creative, more prudent, more sound community-oriented financial system again? it's time to work on a

bipartisan basis to do this. we can't race, we have to debate real financial reform here, not cosmetic bills that are brought up on this floor. we must share the rationale behind reform and make it real and we must shift the balance of credit power from wall street back to main street and the american people. our challenge is -- the challenge is crystal clear, the question is, do we have the will to do it here, to create a financial regulatory system again for the betterment of all people in our nation, to strengthen community lending and sound and prudent credit practices at the local level and in turn the world's financial system? the jury is out. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized for

five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. thank you for the time. mr. speaker, last week we commemorated a sad anniversary of the september 11 attacks on our nation. on that fateful day eight years ago we realized that protecting our homeland and defeating our enemies would require innovative approaches and an unconventional view of the threats that we face. however when looking at the iranian nuclear threat, it would appear that some have forgotten the lessons of 9/11. many believe that because iran has not yet mastered all of the elements needed for an operation of nuclear weapon, we have the luxury of time. mr. speaker, that is not so. iran has already produced 1,400 kilograms of low enriched uranium which can easily be used for a dirty nuke. as former president clinton noted in the year 2005, if you have basically a cookie's worth of fizzle material and you put it into a traditional bomb, you

can amplify the destruction power by hundreds fold or more. so the nuclear threat from iran already exists in a radiological form. yet the u.s. and the u.n. security council have actually lowered the requirements imposed on the iranian regime with respect to its nuclear activities. the initial u.s. position with respect to iran's nuclear program was to demand its complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement. then it went down to a mere temporary suspension of uranium enrichment and now reportedly only a commitment from the iranian regime that they will not use growing supplies of enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons. this, as a u.s. government official was quoted as saying just last week, iran is now either very near or in possession already of sufficient low enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon and is closer to a dangerous and destabilizing

possible breakout capacity. and this means a breakout capacity for producing not a dirty nuke, but a conventional nuclear weapon. iran is pouring ewe enormous resources into its -- enormous resources into its nuclear program. it can strike u.s. forces and israel and our allies in the middle east and europe and it is only a matter of time before it has the capability to hit us here at home. inexcuseably one administration after another has not fully implemented the range of sanctions that are called for in current u.s. law. nor have we leveraged our resources to secure cooperation from our allies, particularly those on the u.n. security council. and this year we have filed another bill for another range of sanctions on iran and we have yet to get that bill out of committee, in spite of over 300 sponsors for that bill. next week at the united nations in new york for the first time a

president of the united states will chair a meeting of the u.n. security council. the council will be holding a special summit on the general issue of nuclear nonproliferation, but will ignore the actions of specific countries, such as iran. the u.s. will also not use its presidency on the security council this month to pursue further sanctions targeting the iranian regime. in fact, rather than using our platform at the u.n. to urge immediate action against the regime, the u.s. has again succumbed to iranian manipulation. joined by france, germany, britain, russia and china, we'll meet with the iranian regime in brussels on october 1, to resolve the disputes over tehran's nuclear program. let's get this straight. as the threat posed by the iranian regime increases, as the iranian regime inches closer to weaponizing its nuclear program, the response from the so-called international community is to schedule more talks,

legitimatizing the regime by engaging them directly. by its own statements, the regime has committed to the destruction of israel and the u.s. as well. ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the existence of the holocaust, called for israel to be wiped off the map, spoken of achieving a world without america and zinism. his quote. iran is also the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, assisted the attacks on our soldiers and continues to this day in iraq and afghanistan and poses a growing threat to the persian gulf, a major source of the world's oil. this threat is becoming global as tehran expands its presence and influence throughout the middle east and south and central asia and right here in latin america, as well as africa. but right here in our own hemisphere, one need look no further than the 1994 bombing of the jewish community center in argentina to demonstrate iran's willingness and ability to attack targets half a world

away. in july, secretary of state hillary clinton called for even stricter sanctions on iran to try to change the behavior of the regime. i couldn't agree more, but we need them now. let's act now. thank you, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. grayson: i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: i rise this evening to honor the united states constitution. earlier today, the house passed my bill, house resolution 686, the teach the constitution week resolution. congressman ron paul and i combined our efforts on this important resolution because society is losing its knowledge of our nation's most fundamental principles. the constitution lays out the tenets of our republic and it proposes that seniors in high

schools across the nation be taught at the constitution at the start of their senior year for one yeek. the constitution is the highest law of the land ffment we aren't teaching our students about a document so fundamental about our nation's past, present and future, then what are we teaching them. americans have no real understanding of the historic significance of this document. they can name the three stooges than can name the three branches of our government. this is a true disservice to our nation and its citizens and this is the reason why we should promote a better understanding of the constitution on the part of our nation's youth. the resolution also encourages seniors to petition the government on the issue of personal importance to them. to demonstrate their understanding of their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the united states. they can write letters, organize a trip to washington, d.c. to seekonk in action or call their

representatives to voice their opinions about bills and laws in which they have an interest. mr. speaker, i am so pleased to say earlier this afternoon the house of representatives passed house resolution 686 just three days before we celebrate constitution day, which marks the 222nd anniversary of the original signing of the u.s. constitution by members of the constitutional convention on september 17, 1787. i want to thank the 222 representatives who signed on as co-sponsors of this bipartisan bill. i hope that it will help to reinforce the great importance of the u.s. constitution to our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> address the house for five minutes revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. neugebauer: like many members in the house i spent time visiting those from the 19th congressional district that ep sent me here. i had several coffees across my district and one of the things they spoke about is they are concerned about the the direction of their country. as i listened to the president and his advisers they think these people are not main street america and are somehow disillusioned. this they see their government bailing out banks and car companies and see their government taking over every aspect of their life and want to taking over their health care. i want you to hear what they are saying. i'm self-employed and pay my taxes. i believe we have too much government in our business and daily lives.

jennifer, keep the government out of health care, remind them of our broken system, social security, medicare and medicaid. we don't need another one. bobby, i do not want the government to run my health care. america does not need any more debt. rick asked this question, why can't the government cut back on spending like the rest of us have to? meld, my husband and i were born in a very poor families. we are able to realize the american dream. i want this opportunity for future generations. michael from lub objection, reform is -- lubbocks. read, understand, apply the constitution. mandy, we want to keep our great insurance that we pay premiums for. we don't want our tax dollars to fund another fee as cow and become another canada.

holly, stop the spending. when i get in debt, i pay for things slowly, but surely, i'm out of debt now and i don't want to ask people to print money for me. bob, promise me you will put yourself and your family on the same plan you are going to force upon us. grace, i hope you look at the people who don't have insurance. james, u.s. congress and the executive branch of the federal government should limit their reach to what is allowed by our founding fathers' documents. robert, we must stop this crazy deficit spending and borrowing. marilyn, i hope you will find a way to find the programs that are available to cover all americans. rosa lee, government is spending too much money, back off. larry, in the bill, there is language limiting the growth of

physician-owned hospitals. they supply health care services more efficiently than other community-based larger hospitals. i'm against this bill. sandra, we need to slow things down. people need to read the bill before doing any voting. taylor who attended with her grandmother, i'm nine years old and i'm wondering why you are spending my future. thank you for listening. ron, when my kids were in college, my friends called me the a.t.m. i don't want to be the president's a.t.m. george, as big government continues to expand, there is a loss of individual freedom accompanied by excessive spending and amassing of ridiculous deficits. michelle, i am in a registered nurse in a local emergency room. i'm personally against the health care bill. how do we fix overcrowding. nurses are working very hard.

and jack, say no to the government health care and protect our borders. and joel, please do not -- please say no to all of this excessive spending. some of it does not fit within our constitution. susan, i have been an r.n. for 34 years. i'm tired of seeing patients turned away. this takes a toll. and mary jo, please do all you can to keep the health care in our hands and not the government. mr. speaker, mr. president, these are not people that are off on some tangept, but people who are concerned about their country and concerned that the government is taking over every aspect of their lives. they are concerned that we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren and skerpped that their personal liberties and freedoms are at risk. mr. president, madam speaker, it's time to listen to the

american people and quit giving speeches. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: one of the things that concerns me is the media, the more liberal media seems to ignore some of the things that are extremely important to the people of this country and to the freedoms we enjoy and the money that's being spent by the congress. this weekend and today, i watched a number of these shows that i watch on a regular basis, because those of us in this body, we follow the news very, very closely. and this mr. beck, glenn beck that's on fox and sean hannity on fox and mr. o'reilly, they focused attention on this acorn

organization. and it's really interesting to find out that acorn, which helped the president get elected with such a strong force for him and whom he congratulated on the support they gave him and told him at the wanted advice on issues of major concern, so he is very close to acorn, acorn that received $53 million from 1993 till now, that's 16 years, they have now access to $8.5 billion. now i mean that's a heck of a reward it seems like to me for being supportive of the administration. $8.5 billion. and mr. frank, on the banking committee, pushed legislation through that would give them access to an additional $1.5 billion.

that is $10 billion that acorn has access to. and if you were watching any of these television shows in the last week, you will see some people went in and posed as a prostitute and a man who was soliciting for a prostitute, i think they call him a pimp and asked the advice of acorn and they gave them advice how to hide what they were doing from the law, how they could make money and not report it to the government of the united states. and then these people asked, well, we want to bring some young people in from south america. and they are under age and we want them to work for us in this prostitution ring and the people at acorn said, they said, well, here's how you do it and they explained how they could claim them as children or dependents and expand their ring of prostitution. it's all documented and in television and in some papers.

acorn is going to get almost $10 billion. they have been involved in other activities. and were supposed to work on the census. the way the states get money from the federal government is based in large part on the census that's taken, how many people live in a congressional district, how many people live in a state. and the money that comes from the federal government is broken up on the basis of the census. acorn was going to have a major role in working to count the number of people throughout the country and in effect decide where this money is going to be going. this is an organization that has a tremendous amount of corruption. they are finding more and more corruption every single day and the taxpayers of this country are allowing them, through the congress, to have access to almost $10 billion of our taxpayers' dollars. that is insane. and we have asked the congress

and leaders of the democrat party, the chairman of these various committees, to hold hearings on this to have an investigation. and we have yet to have any investigation whatsoever. not one. so today, i wrote a letter to chairman towns of the government reform and oversight committee, a very good friend of mine and fair man and i asked chairman towns to have an investigation into acorn. when you're talking about $10 billion going to an organization that we know that has been involved in activities, corruption, we certainly should at least look into what they're doing and stop them from using taxpayers' dollars to do these things. this is something we shouldn't allow anybody to shovel under the rug. and the administration should take responsibility for conducting an investigation and the members of congress on the majority side that has the

chairmanships need to push very hard for an investigation and we need to do it now. and we need not to give them one dime until that investigation is completed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scalise: as we're having a debate on the issue of health care and a lot of different ideas and different things are being passed around, i think it's really important that we look at the real reason why we need to make reforms to our health care system in america. clearly there are problems with health care, but there are very narrow problems with people who don't have the ability and the access to get health care at an affordable price. what we need to do is focus on fixing the problems in the

system that don't work, but at the same time, we need to be very careful not to destroy the things that make medical care in the united states the best medical care in the world. i think what concerns many of us is this proposal of a government takeover of our health care system where the government would come in all under the guise of competing against private companies. of course, anybody that understands what competition really means and looks at the concept of the federal government with taxpayer backing coming in as your competitor when they write the rules that both of you have to play by, they've got this health care czar that they are creating in their bill, which, by the way, i think it is up to 30 czars now created in this administration. we need to sunset these czars and get rid of these czars and shouldn't have people with these unbrideled powers that have no accountability to the publian