force a non-military reduction in our effort at this critical juncture, which would not be good for the country. >.

>> it cannot be said that it isn't a anticipated expenditure. >> let's be clear, this does not prohibit emergency funding. it is obviously not an an anticipated emergency in creating a process by which we can budget the normal way. historically this is been done in other major work situations, like the korean war. in the second year, 98 percent of the funding came from the regular process. the vietnam war included funding in the regular process less than a year after recent the truth,

and within three years, 86 percent of the funding was appropriate to the gregoire process. this is not -- i voted for the afghanistan war. i voted for some of the funding for the iraq war, even though i voted against it. i voted for the funding until i came to the conclusion that this was just going on too long and we need to stop it. the point is that this is about whether you are for the war against it. it is about having responsible budgeting, which is what this committee is all about. >> there is a real problem here if you approach it as senator feingold would like to approach it. we have a baseline budget, and if all of the emergency designations were done in regular order, where were the

defense baseline budget be presently? not where we are budgeting it. it would be extremely high error than the baseline -- it would be extremely higher than the baseline that we are budgeting presently. if you add up all the emergency designations and do it regular order, you would have an unbelievably high baseline budget for the defense department, and i only argue this because when we decided to do emergency spending for the war effort in iraq and afghanistan, it was decided that we would not build it into the base line because it would become too high, but we would do it with emergency spending.

>> i would like to respond to that. that is a fair point if that is what we are doing. we are not building into the baseline defense budget. >> this is a cap adjustment. this is not that -- does not add to the baseline of the defense budget. i certainly would not want to do that. that is not what we are doing. >> just to remember now how many years we have done these emergencies. if we had done them in regular order, is it true or not true, ask your staff, would that not be built into the baseline of the defense budget? >> the point of senator feingold's amendment is

threefold. number one, it does not preclude emergencies. three elements. you are in a feisty mood today. [laughter] but let me go back. as i understand it, number one, emergencies are not precluded. is that not the case? >> i agree with that 100%. >> number two, he does have a requirement to pay for ongoing war costs, which we are currently not doing. but he does not do it over one year. he spread it over multiple years. no. 3, he does it as a cash adjustment so that it does not go into the baseline. that has been a concern center greg had, that i had, he did not

want to put war funding into the base budget, otherwise we would be forever on an inflated base. >> so my point is made that if we had not done it in an emergency, our budget baseline would be much higher for defense than it is now. >> that is correct. but senator feingold is not doing it in that way in this amendment. he has crafted in a way to prevent that problem. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just to talk more broadly about what i think this is about, and i want to commend senator feingold for the amendment, i know we have honest differences about the way we have chosen to go after al qaeda. we all agree that we have a threat and a global threat as it relates to terrorism.

we can debate whether or not iraq was a choice or necessity. we agree on afghanistan. i did not support going into iraq because i did not believe that it was where we ought to be fighting in terms of terrorism. but we all agreed that once the commitment was made, we should support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we had stepped up over and over again. we have gone through emergency spending, what was needed to be done to support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we have also stepped up for our veterans and under your leadership we have dramatically increased what we are doing on veterans' health care and so on. i say that as a backdrop to say this is not about supporting the troops are not wanting us to be safe or not supporting our veterans. it really is how we view the economics of how we are going to operate in a country. we are going to hear all day

about the concern about deficits. we share those concerns, and we will debate how we got there, not because it is about blame. it is not about going back and climbing. it is about what kind of policy should we use going forward if we want to make sure we do not see the same mistakes that were made in the last eight years, or even before. what happened in the eight years of the prior administration is that they chose to remove revenue by tax cuts for wealthy americans and then create major expenditures which included two wars. the people that were asked to sacrifice for the troops and their families, and they are still sacrificing. we all know that. but in general, after 10 years, we have not said it is time to step up and pay for the wars that we have created and the situation we have gotten into.

i think that after 10 years, what senator feingold is talking about makes perfect sense. we are talking about tough choices, but i do not think tough choices are just deciding whether or not in an economic emergency we ought to find teachers or schools. tough choices are howard going to contribute together? how are we going to ask -- how are going to ask those who are most blessed in this country to step up and help us get out of a deficit hole and truly paper wars that are going on for 10 years. i think it is responsible if we want to talk -- talk about tough choices. this is probably the toughest one we will be asked to make. >> senators sessions. >> just to follow on that statement, this is the only part

of our deficit as i understand that we are requiring to be paid for. we passed an $800 billion stimulus package and much of it went to social programs and aid to states and things of that nature. that is defined as an emergency. we did not start this war. we were attacked, and i believe if anything in our budget comes close to an emergency, this would be it. i think it is targeting the one particular appropriation that has more justification than a lot of the others that we are using to hit our debt with. that is the reason i was concerned that we are heading in that direction. >> let me just say on that matter -- >> will we pay for these others, are just the defense department spending? >> no, emergency should be dealt

with as emergencies and treated as such for budget purposes. but to assert now that war spending -- of war that has been underway for years is unanticipated is not a program budgeting. in previous wars, we did not treat ongoing war costs as emergency funding. we did not do that in vietnam. we did not do that in korea. it was entirely legitimate, certainly when the attack occurred to treat that as emergency funding. and perhaps for some time after that, but at this point, we know what the expenditure rate is, not the budget for it. not to pay for it. it just creates another problem for us, but emergencies really

should be emergencies, whether in any category of our spending. >> later, the committee passed senator gramm's amendment to end the troubled asset relief program. members approved senator fine gold's proposal to offset war spending. that vote -- that vote was 15 to eight. continuing with more menaced the budget resolution, one on using tarp funds for small business loans. another on designating emergency legislation, then a proposal to end certain programs, and another to use stimulus funds for debt reduction. this portion is about an hour. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i know senator gramm had an amendment earlier this morning regarding that our funds. i have a potential side by side

to his. it is a slight modification. it is to put all the tarp funding -- eliminate all the tarp bunning that has been paid back and put it back to paying down the deficit. the only thing we do is set aside $30 billion for small business lending in my amendment that is being passed out right now. it is almost exactly the same except for one variation, and that is that we put into reserve, put aside $30 billion for small business lending. if the congress in the future decides that is the focus, which i believe it is, it is a huge gap in our market. i know in alaska, with 52% of hiring employment generated by small business, this is a huge gap that is out there.

put it toward the deficit, put it back to where the american people see it is having a positive impact now that is being paid back. eliminate the remaining authorization, but leave $30 billion as a reserve for the purpose of small-business lending. why would not be surprised if folks from either side would have 30 -- a problem with $30 billion for small business lending. they will get a decent return, but at the same time, get rid of all that other top money and put it back to the deficit and no longer having that out there, i think that is the right move. the idea is to have something to be available for discussion with his amendment.

>> let me say i appreciate very much the senator's amendment. i had reference this concept earlier when we were discussing senator gramm's amendment. i think is very important that we fence the substantial part of that party funds that remain available so we know that it goes for deficit reduction. as i hear you describe it, you are allowing $30 billion to be available for small business credit, which i think all of us have heard is one of the most important challenges remaining in this economy, credit for small business. i have certainly heard it all across my state. good businesses that have had their credit lines extinguished, not because they have not made their payments or even been late with payments, but because the balance sheets of their lenders

are impaired and the regulators are requiring them to call in loans. i think that has merit, but even more important that you are fencing the $148 billion and saying that has to go for deficit reduction. >> you are absolutely right. this is my simplistic way of looking at it. the original allocation that when the bush administration put together was $700 million. the goal at the end of the day, there is $30 billion left that will be available only for small business lending. all authorization, all repaid money goes back to reducing the deficit, but what is left is $30 billion available for small business lending our credit, however the congress chooses to use it, but it must be for small business. i met with homebuilders'

yesterday'. they have presold homes but cannot get extended credit, based on the current market conditions. the idea is to set this aside for congress to make that final call, but for the public that may be interested watching what we are doing here, it complements what you have done in the budget proposal as well as taking it one step further and saying that all of it is going back to deficit reduction except for $30 billion. i know there technical ways to explain that. i am trying to explain it so the people watching clearly understand that all we have done is keep $30 billion for small business lending. all the rest in stock for deficit reduction which is what this is all about. >> i would point out that all this amendment does is spend $30

billion. the tarp lot already says specifically that all money that is paid back has to go specifically to reduce debt. all this does is create a $30 billion slush fund. why not set one up for education? why not set one up for high tech? why not set one up for any number of good social causes that need money? the whole press of tarp was not to use it as a general operating accounts for the federal government's needs or concerns. if you want to set up a $30 billion fund for small business, it should come in the regular appropriated process. it should not come as a part of what was once a crisis situation with funds directed at the financial industry, in which funds are being paid back and bylaw they have to go to reduce the deficit and the debt. this is not a debt reduction exercise. this amendment is a spending

exercise and the creation of a new program exercise, using tarp money. we ought to be honest about this. >> if i could respond, your characterization that a small- business lending program is a social program. i have been in small business over 30 years. the business community of this country, who under the gains of the last decade or so have gotten left behind, and this economy is driven by small business. you can call it whatever you want. this is a clear message to the american people, even though you can talk about that yes, the law requires it, we are making it very clear. it is not a slush fund. everyone likes to use terms to get good sound bites. the small business community has suffered.

they are the drivers of this economy and they will be the ones that drive this economy into the future. we may disagree, but i would ask in the debate we have here, using terms like slush funds and social programs -- i have had to pay back with interest. that is not a social program. i want to be sure we are talking about the right terms here. i understand you have been on the budget committee for a long time and i am new to this. yes, you are right, it is required to be paid back. we are saying when all is done in said, i know last year a lot of people were talking not using this money for other purposes. 39 republicans sent out a letter and i was the one democrat that signed on at that said this exact thing. all i am doing is what i have heard from both sides here,

especially the majority if not all republicans. the difference is on the $30 billion for small business, it should have been the approach in this first page of utilizing this money. it damaged the economy, what the big banks did. that is my ran for the day. >> the accurate terminology is you are taking tarp money and creating a new program. that is what you are doing here. so if you believe this is an essential program, that is fine. it should not come from park money. it should come from the basic mechanism of the federal government'. park money by definition and by law is supposed to go -- tarp money by definition and by law is supposed to go to reduction of the debt, so the american

public does not have it on their back. we borrow the money from china. we borrowed somewhere around $580 billion. it came from china. what you are suggesting is that rather than paying that money back, we should take $30 billion of it and create a new program with it. if that is what you want to do, fine, but do not wrap yourself in tarp as the just a fire of a source of revenue for this, because it is not. -- do not justify it as a source of revenue for this. >> i was not here when he tarp finding was passed. my understanding was that it was to shore up the financial system that was in crisis, and many parts of the financial

system have recovered. one part of the financial system that has not fully recovered has been small business lending, and this is just a question for senator gregg. i thought it was not talking about returned tarp funds, but there is a portion of tarp funds that have not been allocated today. my understanding is that while not creating -- whether this is creating a new program or whether it within the original con fines of part, if part of -- if small-cap debt markets have not returned, i do not understand how this would not fit within the original parameters of tarp, if there

were portions that had been unused today. on the return to tarp funds, i agree 100%. $148 billion has been appropriated or budgeted to be put out. to claim to reserve part of that to use for shoring up the financial system which is part of the intentional -- original intention of tar, does that not fit within the parameters? >> my analysis of the men and by the senator from alaska is different -- my analysis of the amendment is different from senator gregg's. >> my analysis is that this extinguishes the authority for the $148 billion. the authority does exist for

the $148 billion to be used. if it was payback, it would have to go to deficit reduction. there is no guarantee that if that money were used, it would be paid back. therefore it might not ever reduce the deficit. what the senator from alaska is doing is the authorizing soak it can reduce some can be assured -- what the senator from alaska is doing is deauthorizing it so it can be assured. it is not a social program. i totally disagree with that characterization. it is credit for small businesses that would have to be paid back. you called it a slush fund. i totally disagree with that characterization.

or as a social program as others have asserted. others have used the terminology ago social program." if the money is paid back, as we hope and expect it will, it goes to pay down the deficit. >> so it goes on the debt, correct? >> it goes on the death until it gets paid back -- goes on the debt until it gets paid back. we have already seen the money extended to the banks is now expected to make a profit for the taxpayers of $7 billion. >> so you want to use the tarp to borrow money to add to the debt for whatever the initiative is, whether it happens to be small business or some other initiatives. why stop here? >> the part of the financial system that is not normalized is

small business. the whole purpose of tarp was to help normalize the financial structure of the country. let me finish if i can. i did not interrupt you. the purpose is to normalize the financial system. the one part of the financial system that is clearly not normalized is small business credit, and it is entirely reasonable to use tarp funds for that purpose. it is not reasonable, in my judgment, to use tarp funds for other purposes. it is also entirely reasonable to extinguish the authority for additional tarp funds to be used for other purposes. that is also part of the senator's amendment, and it assures that that money will go for deficit reduction, not to be

used for other purposes. >> if i might respond to that. tarp was not designed for this purpose. the fact that it was not designed for this purpose is reflected in the fact that when the president proposed this concept of using -- creating a small business fund, which is essentially what the senator from alaska has proposed, he said he was going to have to change the authorization of tarp to do it. the testimony was that they would have to change our authorization to do it. the reason was because tarp was never perceived to be basically for the general operation of the government in general activities of the government. it was an emergency fund set up to stabilize the financial structure of the country, and in fact, the envelope was significantly pushed, and probably push beyond the envelope, when it was used in the automobile industry. but it cannot be used for general operation of the government, which is what essentially this program is.

the representatives of the president came before this committee and said this cannot be done. what the senator from alaska is suggesting is -- would create a borrowed event of creating debt, which whether it is payback for not, is not consistent with a tarp. >> the need for a change in authorization is because of the way the administration wanted to handle the $30 billion extension of credit to small business. under their current authorization, under the current law, they could extend credit to small business and be within the parameters of existing tarp. senator bunning. >> i sat on the committees when tarp was trying to be sold

directly. our former secretary of the treasury, the current secretary of the treasury, the head of the federal reserve, all came and asked for tarp money, but there has been an expansion of the purpose for which partarp was created. i will guarantee you this. if they would have come and asked the committee of jurisdiction for tarp money to be spent on new york banks and other financial institutions, they would not have got one pendinny. they came and asked the committee of jurisdiction that they needed the tarp money to

buy top six securities from banks and other entities to get them out of the system, to stabilize the system. you can go get secretary paulson. you can go get secretary geithner there. you can go get chairman bernanke, and if you can find anything in their testimony before the committee of jurisdiction that explains that tarp was going to be used in the manner it was used, i missed it. so i think the argument is kind of what you do with the existing tarp. there can be many, many other uses. some have been described by the

omb director as not available for the use of tarp. others have been used -- the buying of general motors, chrysler stock -- that was unheard of. that was not even mentioned. that was an expansion of tarp money, and the fact that we are going to get a return on it is insignificant, because we had to borrow the money to start with. all of the money was borrowed. i thought all $700 billion was borrowed. to my surprise, only $570 billion was borrowed. $507 billion. tarp was set up to alleviate the problem with credit of all

swaps -- credit defaults swaps and other entities that were driving our economy into the tank, and not for other purposes. >> i am not unsympathetic to what senator bunning just said, but it does come down to the fact that we were in a financial meltdown when president bush, secretary paulson, and others came in. i share great concern about that initial $700 billion and how it was structured and so on. but is absolutely true that when the big banks were bailed out, the assumption was that they were going to unfreeze credit, and that in fact the auto companies who were frozen out, small businesses and others would be able to get credit to get the economy going again.

i am very proud gm paid back their loan yesterday, five years early. a good investment when you are talking about investing in jobs and people, and what we really were focused on is not -- or should not have been focused on were big banks and wall street. the impact on main street, the impact on people and communities, on people being able to have a job. i strongly support making sure we actually need one of the goals i thought this was originally set up to do, which was to unfreeze credit markets to support small business. we heard over and over again, all of us from all kinds of small businesses that have not been able to get credit, that are laying people off, that cannot meet their obligations, closing their doors because of what happened in this tonnage crisis.

i cannot imagine anything at this point more significant to move the economy forward and to invest in small businesses. so i want to thank the senator for his amendment and senator warner for his work on this as well. this really is about how you view the economy and what you think is important. frankly, when the money was given to wall street, they did not turn around and landed. a short up their books. they bought other banks and left a lot of small businesses and manufacturers and families hanging, and this is an attempt to right side that. we want the money to go back, but we also want to make sure that the people who did not cause this, the people who were hit the first time because of the lack of credit do not get left hanging out there and hurt again. i view this very much as a jobs amendment, mr. chairman.

>> i just want to add my perspective from citizens in oregon. there is little they would like to see more than moving money from wall street's to main street, and to move in a form that is recapitalizing and providing the opportunity for small businesses to get the loans they need to put this economy back on track. it is the local businesses that will create the jobs, the local businesses that have been crunched because of wall street money-management that blew up our country's economy. i applaud this effort to move money from wall street to main street to strengthen our small business, strengthen our recovery, and create jobs. if that is not stabilizing our economy, i do not know what is. >> i just want to say for the record, senator merkley has been

a real leader with his legislation on this. >> can we go to the next amendment? we go to senator bunning next and then to senator warner. >> i will wait until the amendment is passed. >> thank you for that. >> i am offering an amendment to the chairman's mark that seeks to curb the abuse of emergency designation for spending bills. my amendment creates a point of order against any bill that is designated as emergency spending that does not first collect the signatures of 16 senators supporting the designation. this would create a process for designating legislation as an emergency similar to a cloture

petition. the senate has used emergency declarations too many times for too many things that should not be considered emergencies. we talked about that earlier. they-go rules passed by the majority were supposed to rein in excess spending. however, this has not been the case. as pay-go is consistently bypassed by these emergency designations. since the final appropriations bills for 2010 were passed in december, congress has approved over $90 billion in extensions and designations and designated them as emergency spending, and still has about $140 million in the mix between the house and

senate in emergency designations that has not been resolved as yet. for instance, unemployment insurance benefits have been extended three times since december, and so have lending limits for small business. we have even used the emergency designation to extend satellite television copyright fees three times over that period. there were about nine designations for emergencies. i have just mentioned three of them. each of these times, we need these programs were going to expire -- we need these programs were going to expire. none of this was a surprise to us. my amendment requires the 16 senators to sign a document indicating that the legislation is truly an emergency and meets

the following requirements. first, it is necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial. the need for it is sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time. 3, it is urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action. forur, it is unforeseen, unpredictable, an unanticipated, and five, it is not permanent but temporary in nature. this point of order would not be able to be waived, and it would apply to each emergency designation found in any piece of legislature or any bill. i would also like to know that

my amendment does not remove, does not remove the 60 votes appeal of the emergency designation that is currently on the books. the goal of this is to simply add more accountability to the emergency designation process. if a piece of legislation is truly deserving of an emergency declaration, then it will be easy to get 16 senators to sign a document supporting that designation. balancing our budget starts with getting the use of emergency designation for the spending we do around here under control. this amendment would not be able to end all abuse of emergency designation, but hopefully it would enable curtailing a bit of it. i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment. >> senator, i have not had a chance to fully review it, but from what i understand it, i think this is a pretty good amendment. the only question i have about it is whether it is in our jurisdiction, our rules committee jurisdiction. >> i got a ruling from the parliamentarians and they say it is us. they had another one that they ruled out of order. >> let me just say we will confirm that with the parliamentarian. i completely believe you, but we need to confirm it. it will be my intention to support it. i think it is a thoughtful amendment, and there is no question that what the senator says is true. the emergency designations sometimes have been used for real emergencies, but sometimes -- >> then you would not have any

trouble getting those 16 signatures. >> i agree. is a very thoughtful amendment at all for reform. if we get confirmation from what you heard from the parliamentarian, it would be my intention to support it. senator warner. >> it sounds pretty good to me. i want to mention an amendment that i am offering and my staff will be passing it around right now. let me acknowledge on the front end, this may be the result of the opportunity that you as the chair and senator gregg gave me to look at repetitive programs. one of the things that president reagan said that one of the hardest things to eliminate was actually a government program. while i commend you and ranking member for some of the activities in overall lowering the deficit, sometimes we lower

but do not actually eliminate programs. what i am suggesting here in this amendment, as we are all aware, every year omb comes out with a list of programs that they think ought to be eliminated. that list often has been summarily put aside and the appropriators ignore that. this past year, president obama's omb put together 50 proposals to be eliminated. most of them continued. let's try to make this a truly bipartisan, so let's narrow that lest to those programs that both the president bush's omb suggested should be eliminated and it president obama's omb suggested should be eliminated. that lowered us to 18 programs. it is only $1 billion in savings, but it is actually program elimination it would set up a deficit reduction program.

some of these programs sound good, but if you dig a little deeper, and let me cite one example. we have an enormous duplication. the department of agriculture is broadcasting grant and the telecommunication facilities grant. they sound good, but these varied activities are already done by the corporation for public broadcasting. we are paying three times the overhead, and no basic business function would have that kind of duplication. we are simply taking 18 programs that both president bush and president obama both agreed need to be eliminated and saying, let's put the onus on showing why these programs need to be continued. it is $1 billion. it would not get us all the way there, but it would lead to program elimination.

>> this is a very thoughtful amendment as well. i think one of the real deficiencies around here is things get authorized and over time they become calcified and no longer do what the intention was when they started. but they never get killed, and what you are saying is, here we have an agreement between presidents of two different administrations and two different parties. they are in agreement. these are programs that should be terminated. >> a lot of these programs on the surface sound good, but there is a reason you have to dig into why the omb's under both president bush and obama have said they ought to be eliminated. even though their functions may be important, they are

duplicates. >> i just want to speak up in support of the amendment as well. i have been working with senator warner for some time. even though this is a small step, it is an important step. it is important for us to start going through and identifying those programs, projects, and are authorizations that have outlived their usefulness or are part of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we have in our government right now. if we have an opportunity to start that process, i say we should do it. >> senator gregg. >> i think he should say that they shall reduce, rather than that they may. you agree to modify that? >> absolutely.

>> amendment so modified. >> i would want to look that more closely. i may not be able to support the amendment with that. i do not know. >> i want to congratulate senator warner on this step in the right direction. i would also ask for his consideration going forward with some legislation that i previously introduced, creating in effect a sunset commission that would look more comprehensively at the federal government, federal agencies' spending. we have had successful efforts by sunset commissions to look at agencies and programs that no longer work, that actually have a process to go back and start with zero based budget. what we know in the federal government is, once the program is created, it develops a constituency. that constituency invariably comes in and ask for a cost-of- living increase or some growth

in order to justify its existence. i am absolutely convinced that we need a comprehensive way to do with this bill tries to do, and i commend you again for it. >> as governor i was very proud of the fact that we eliminated a number of programs. what struck me as i looked through these and did some of the due diligence, that sounds great and many of these are very were the areas, but what you find as you begin deeper is that they are often functions that are duplicated by another program. what we have tried to do, narrowing this effort so there is not a partisan effort here, is look at the programs that both president bush and president obama both concurred could stand to be eliminated. >> i would again commend senator warner for this amendment, but i would take these comments even a

step further. there are things that sound good that may be good, but we simply cannot afford, particularly when it comes to deficit spending, which seems to be more the rule than the exception these days. but i thank you for the amendment. >> i just want to congratulate senator warner on the amendment. i think it is a step in the right direction. it is a first step. obviously there are many other places that we could look, and i am sure we will do just that in coming years, and i will applaud you from the sidelines. >> senators sessions. >> i likewise would applaud the senator's amendment and appreciate the fact that it allowed when the saving occurred, that the money not be reached spent on something else, but actually to reduce the debt. we need to be focusing on how we

can contain debt increases. i believe this has some -- i think we need a strong attitude on that throughout the senate to make sure it works effectively, but i appreciate that very much. >> i just had a question to understand, is it accurate to say that this would leave the determination on whether or not individual items should be changed or terminated up to the normal process of committees and so on? what you are saying is if, in fact, things are cut, it goes to deficit reduction? >> we are saying it should go to deficit reduction. we are also saying these are programs that have been designated by the omb, oftentimes repeatedly.

it puts the onus back on the appropriators. >> i certainly support having any of these cuts go to deficit reduction. i am looking at the list. great lakes of restoration is on there, and that raises a big red flag for me. i will have to take a look at it more, but i think that as we make cuts, it makes perfect sense to have the savings go to deficit reduction. i am concerned about the process of determining what the cuts are. >> there enough. center court and, for an amendment. >> the chairman, my amendment is straight forward and proposes to rescind $42 billion of the remaining and obligated stimulus funds and to use that for deficit reduction. i remember because it is so

memorable, i think speaker pelosi said that the object of the stimulus was to have a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus of the economy, and i certainly understand the need for that stimulus. we had differences of opinion on how to accomplish it, but nevertheless, the bill did pass. according to the congressional budget office, about $70 billion of discretionary stimulus funding remained an obligated at the end of march. -- obligated at the end of march. in june we will likely take action on a supplemental appropriations bill where rican rescind these funds. i am reminded when i look back at the 2009 report of cristina romer, who was chair of the

president's council of economic visors, when she predicted that enactment of the stimulus legislation would result in unemployment rates peaking at 8% in the third quarter of 2009 and then declining to 7% at the end of 2010, looking back on that now i am reminded of the quotation from john kenneth albrecht said that the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look good. notwithstanding the hopes and aspirations of ms. romer and economic forecasters of the time, it did not quite pan out. the report projected that a stimulus bill similar to that that was enacted feb. 2009 would add 3.7 million jobs by the end of 2010. instead, the economy has shed more than 3 million jobs since the stimulus bill was enacted, and 48 out of 50 states of the number of jobs for -- saw the

number of jobs decline relative to february 2009. in october, ms. rahm conceded that the promised results from the stimulus bill were unlikely to materialize when she testified. she said the current forecasts do not predict substantial employment gains in 2010, and unemployment is unlikely to end 2010 much below its current levels. so i think it is fair to say, to repeat myself, given the hopes and aspirations of those who supported the stimulus bill, which of course was deficit spending, that now we have an opportunity to take what is an expanded by june, $42 billion,

and apply that to deficit reduction. i am not only one that tries to figure out both in talking to their constituents and reading public opinion polls and otherwise, what the predominant concerns are of the american people, in addition to jobs. with much higher unemployment in various regions and states across the country, they are very worried about the runaway spending and the deficit and what that will mean to our children and grandchildren. i think this presents a wonderful opportunity for us to take money that was not spent in a timely, target, or temporary way and applied to the deficit, so i would ask my colleagues for their support. >> we have asked senator warner 2 d again to what is remaining -- to be in again to what is remaining in an extended

recovery act funds. >> let me first of all say that the conceptual point center cornyn has made, i tended to agree with, the notion of timely spending, when you look at some of the omb numbers that actually had some of the spending appear at all in 2017 or 2018, it raised a lot of red flags with me. it has taken a number of inquiries to get the administration to be forthcoming on the data, to say how much is actually left, and i shared with some of the colleagues on my side that conceptually, if there was an

ability to squeeze some of the dollars out, whether it be for deficit reduction or other more immediate job producing activities -- i can cite a number of these programs that even by september 30 look like they are not obligated. they have been awarded, but the contracts have not been signed. one is to make europtwo major jk like they have been obligated. they have made the awards, but they have not signed contracts. one is for good.

-- one is fort hood. we have a similar circumstance at a hospital in virginia. has taken me three or four times to understand it, but within the additions on the food stamp program, where a lot of the dollars look like they are not obligated, it takes awhile for inflation to get back to where it was. perhaps we can get a better explanation than from me on this item, but a lot of the out years spending is mandatory, based on what we did on food stamps. . .

>> it is only in the last 10 days here so. >> i appreciate your diligence. if the numbers we had where numbers that came from a staff concentration. we read by upon it. -- rely upon it. the whole premise of the stimulus was to get the economy moving again. some of these are good programs. they are ones we should be paying for as part of the

regular function of government and not spending money under the guise of providing an economic stimulus. if the only question we look at -- that we try to answer is it this is a program that has some merit, then we will never pay for anything. there is an endless list of things, for example the extension of the unemployment benefits, that we support as a matter of policy. the point of contention was, are we going to pay for it? there are two ways to pay for things. you can raise taxes or you can cut spending and re-prioritize. that is a simple exercise that

we are asking to be done here, to pay for things that are good meritorious programs that did the run-up the deficit. i did that think raising taxes during a recession is a job creating exercise. i think it is a job killing exercise. i love to get access for the information. i do not know other than the congressional budget office where we look for the most reliable information. i think the premise is still the same. it is an on obligated discretionary funds that could be used to pay down the deficit. it should be used for that purpose. >> can i briefly say -- and we have been bought the amendments pending. i will try to be brief. we try to pierce the veil on

these numbers the concept that the center halves is a correct one. -- numbers. the concept that the center has is a correct one. it depends on the language one uses. i assume it is the money was available. it turns out that in the language of omb, they have programs that are awarded but not considered obligated until the prime to contract is signed the difference between what we see and what i thought stickout was money that was on obligated. it is making the same assumption that the senator from texas is making. let me give you two examples we found. it is 100% but not yet

obligated because the contract has not been formally signed because they are in a legal review. on this margaret program, it was 100% awarded, with much of it not obligated for the same reason. that create an issue. we -- >> one other thing. if i look at the top line numbers, there were still large out your numbers. we all have human predicament he said applied for broadband funding -- we all have

communities that have applied for broadband funding. the number is much lower than the top line. >> can i just respond briefly? i say with all due respect, the stimulus did not work. they kept unemployment under 8%. i understand. economic forecasting is a very dicey business. that is why it is a very dicey business. now, with the benefit of experience, we ought to learn from that lesson. the fact that there may be projects should not dissuade us

not to take the moeny and use it to pay down the deficit. we ought to learn from our experience, not be condemned to repeat it projects that is a place where i fundamentally disagree. if there is anything that is clear, it is the combination of federal actions have worked. i put into three pieces of evidence. all this know what is happened on the stock market. there has been a 70% increase since a year ago. that is working. number two, the jobs market. we were the easing in january of last year, at 800,000 jobs per month. in march of this year, we had a gain of 162,000 jobs. on economic growth, the first quarter of last year it was

negatived 6.4%. the last quarter of last year, it was positive but 0.6%. if we want to learn from history, if we want to learn from what is actually happening, the evidence is quite overwhelming that the series of federal initiatives have worked. in fcat, if you go back in eco nomic history, rarely have you seen one with a turnaround as dramatic as this one. i think that it has the word is fundamentally wrong. >> the facts are what they are. the stimulus, which was sold as a means to create jobs until fully keep unemployment under 8% has not worked. i can see some of the other

points he made about the stock market's rebound in purdah we are all glad that our economy is resilient enough to overcome anything that washington throws at us. my point strictly has to do with the effect of the stimulus on keeping unemployment low. i do not think it has worked. >> let me just respond to that. cbo says that the recovery act contributed between 1.5 is term and 3% of gp growth over the course of last year. if it had not been enacted, unemployment would have been in the range of 2.5% to 11.1% without the recovery act. that is the cbo analysis. you are saying we have to use their analysis. their analysis is that the

recovery act has prevented unemployment from being much higher. >> i will conclude a you just made the argument for senator cornyn's amendment. the recession is over. the step that has been the fastest in history. we are on a strong economic upturn. all that being said, i say we do not need to spend any more of the stimulus money. >> if i may just briefly point out, cbo has said that it is "impossible to determine how many jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." given the lack of verifiable results, and we have a chance to recover 1/7 of in order to pay down the debt -- i think this is

a great opportunity to do so. >> i understand we need to move on. i do feel a need to mrespond specifically. only because of the recovery act we have nine new companies that are manufacturing advanced battery technology for the next generation of vehicles. it only happened because of the $2 billion that was put in. because of the expense of manufacturing tax credit, 150 companies across the country, 14 companies in michigan, have received the ability to create new investments and jobs in manufacturing. we have a longer way to go in michigan than anywhere else. that is for sure. we are seeing significant advancements and changes as a

result of the recovery act. >> later, the amendment was left unresolved. members approved the bunting and warner amendment by voice vote. the cornyn amendment failed. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span studentscam documentary. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] they submitted videos on one of the country's great strengths or challenge the country is facing. what it every morning at 6:50 a.m. eastern before "washington journal." at 8:30 p.m., meet the students who made them. for a preview of all the winners, visit studentscam.org. >> now a round table discussion on wall street regulation from today's "washington journal."

this is about 45 minutes. on your screen right now is kara scannell, "wall street journal" reporter. i want to show you a headline i want to show you a headline from the dai how important is the president's speech in wall street today? guest: he is trying to get to the belly of the beast and get down to wall street. it speaks to that constituency in the people who doubt that there needs to be reform. he has been trying to rally the troops and get people there on board. host: she right about this for the "new york times." what is the sense of the street and the president's arrival today? guest: this reminds people -- after he was elected, he called wall street bonuses shameful.

when he comes in on the topic, often it is scathing. he was here on the anniversary. add that time, he was down by the new york stock exchange. he spoke about the need for financial reform. there is a feeling that he is coming back. you have a lot of wariness in the industry. host: there is so much to talk about. we are going to skim the surface. >> here is how you doing in. -- call in. we also have our e-mail address. you can send a message also by twitter. this move into the sec lawsuit against goldman sachs bur.

they suggested that the timing was politically motivated predict any talk to us more about the debate? guest: the sec came out with the lawsuit against goldman on friday. it was in the middle of the debate about what to do about derivatives. it was right in the middle of one of the final individual arguments about the bill before the senate takes it up. derivatives are a hot issue. the goldman complete its an area that is very complicated. a lot of people do not understand it. people feel there's not enough oversight of wall street. what goldman is alleged to have done shows the shade near side of what everyone on wall street was doing. at the same time, the sec had another report from the inspector general that was slamming the agency's enforcement division's

aggressiveness. this complaint was filed hours before that i.g. report was made public. that is what got republicans saying that this had to be politically motivated. host: it also went forward with a 3-2 vote. guest: that is unusual for enforcement cases of this magnitude. goldman sachs, until now, had been completely unscathed in the financial process. they had a record profit last year. the commission has slipped before, but often not on a high- profile matter like this. host: what does the sec and the white house say? guest: they absolutely deny this. robert gibbs and president obama said they had no heads up.

yesterday, the chairman of the sec said it was not politically motivated and no one was tipped off, not the committees, not the white house, not the. -- not the administration. host: louise story, let's take the goldman point of view. the financial times is reporting on the front page that the head of goldman is making telephone calls to clients to stem the damage to the firm's reputation. the stock price is down. as we just heard from kara scannell, they have reported record profits. what does goldman say in response to these charges? goldman says there was adequate disclosure. emphasize that they have their clients' interests at heart. in the earnings call, they

talked about how clients have faith in them. this is a court case. if there is not a settlement, this should be heard in court. the facts need to be brought out and examined. right now, there's a lot of spin. one thing you have to wonder is, the financial regulatory reform debate has been going on all year. it may last for many more months. do you not want the sec to bring cases during any of this debate? at any moment, you could bring up these accusations. there's very much a political feel on all sides. goldman is talking to its clients, as well as many people in washington. they will be testifying in washington next week. the ceo will be testifying in

senate. host: louise story, will you talk about that congressional inquiry? what is it looking at? what are the likely outcomes? guest: the senate committee has been looking at all kinds of things that contributed to the financial crisis. tomorrow they will hold a hearing on the rating agencies. the hearing next week on goldman is looking at the essential question of conflict of interest. did goldman not disclose things to its clients that it should have? did it have a conflict? these are very central questions for wall street coming out of the financial crisis. years ago, there were only client focused. in recent years, they have taken more proprietary positions, and trading positions for their own books. some people feel there are legitimate questions if their

own interest get in the way sometimes. host: kara scannell? guest: i think it will be very interesting if one of the people that the sec sued will actually show up. he is the one person who is charged. he basically handled both sides of the deal. he is apparently -- he had agreed to testify before the charges were filed. the big question, will he testify, or will he pull out at the last minute? host: last question. yesterday the agriculture committee reported derivatives regulation with the vote of one republican senator, chuck grassley. kara scannell, what does this do for forward movement of the financial regulation process? guest: there's still a long way

to go. have to reconcile it with the bill that dodd has. they will have to meet somewhere halfway. even grassley said it by no way guaranteed that he would vote overall for the financial regulation reform bill. host: louise story, what does the debate in washington look like with the advantage of your distance? guest: they're discussing things people in new york for talking about years ago. it seems like it takes a long time in washington for these topics to move through. wall street has already kind of moved behind this. in a sense, there is this disconnect. in washington, is about reform

feedback on wall street, is making profits. host: what is the response in washington? guest: congress always takes a little bit longer. the new york fed was ahead on the derivative issue in 2005. in some ways, wall street wants to make a profit. it will take a lot more muscle to force them to do things. they got somewhere from what then new york fed president timothy geithner was trying to do, but not to the extent necessary. host: let's get to your telephone calls and your questions. we begin with a call from ohio. tom is calling on the line for democrats. caller: c-span is truly the pulse of the nation on "washington journal."

i remember a quote, "just remember the money." everything that touched goldman sachs in one way or another -- and the panel's we had that have bernanke and paulson -- if perjury comes up, what kind of repercussions will we have if these guys lied outright about goldman? host: louise story. guest: there will be a lot of scrutiny if these charges turn out to be correct. one of the questions we all have, will this be the only case brought on these sorts of investments? or will the sec bring more?

if they do, people will certainly be asking what the sec, the fed, and the regulators knew about these deals. guest: i think it will be interesting to see how many additional cases there are. this case is narrowly focused on this one deal out of a number of deals. as far as i know, all the banks are looking very closely at their deals, making sure their disclosures were accurate, and looking for where they might have problems. as far as the administration officials go, there will of course the scrutiny. i'm sure there has already been scrutiny. congress has had a number of hearings. if there is something, i think it will be some time before we get an answer to that. host: george on the independent line from jackson. .

the reason why i became an independent is because of this very fact. when someone is accused of a crime, and a titular at goldman sachs, the republicans -- are to go to ed goldman sachs, the republicans talk about politics . >> limits of the question in half capi. guest: the justice department is investigating a number of companies.

the doj is looking at that. they are also looking at statements that lehman brothers officials made during the course of 2008. they eventually filed for bankruptcy . the cases are, unlike in run where it was a fraud on the company, these pieces a more difficult. these cases are more difficult because there was more happening in the market at the time, more people doing the transactions and business was all in a part in ways that people did not anticipate. so it is hard to prove what was bad judgment from what was a criminal offense. host: police story, where is christopher cox? guest: he is now working for a

long effort in california. we have not been hearing a lot from him. certainly, people have questions about what he knew. as we look into more things, like the accounting tricks that a court examiner said that lehman brothers did, that would raise more questions for him. host: talking about the fine edge crisis and the response in washington to it. caller: i am wondering about investigating greenspan and his connection to this. all this is this a revolving door from goldman sachs or j.p. morgan and then they become head of the fed or treasury secretary. working people will not have any

money left. host: in recent weeks we have heard alan greenspan defends his record at the fed. are there any investigations are there any investigations going on that is more of the judgment they made about housing and how to manage the economy. i've not heard many things looking -- about anyone looking at things the fed has done. guest: people are questioning how much effect there has been bedew they are saying the bill interest policy rate really feels the housing bubble. some people say he only had influence over a certain number of reits and it had -- rates. people are still very split. there is not the kind of hero

worship for him that there used to be predicti. host: at the new york times, she writes about wall street and finance bur. ñ(xn'4a> the structure itself is complicated. the hard part is knowing how extensive it was but a there is a lot that we still do not know. what they knew and did not know. it keeps them together.

and how far that really extends. guest: this market is incredibly opaque. guest: this market is incredibly opaque. i have had numerous days were i call around and i cannot get any information. part of it is, the data providers to track these things only get the information to investors. i have heard literally, you are not a sophisticated investor. with derivatives have there is no central party that tracks all of these deals. agencies only have some of them, so we do not know how many synthetic cdo less were created, how many bilateral swaps were

done. just getting your hands around these things is a challenge. and if we are having this kind of trouble working on it month after month, it speaks to the question of how regulators, the public, or anyone would have been able to see these problems, ahead of time. host: there is a description today in the papers about derivatives -- any reaction to that?

guest: derivatives were pretty much under the radar. only in the 1990's were they being put together. back then, a credit default swaps were so small. it has only read it exploded in the past few years but nobody really understood how big it was. exactly what believes must same, who was -- louise was saying, who was involved? guest: i have to admit, i am not a "star trek" fan, so i cannot really comment on that. some people say that part of the reason the market is so opaque is because it makes it easier

for these profit spreads the easier to get in this area. host: another question that we are hearing is is there any analogous experience in canada or europe in terms of derivatives transparency or policy? guest: they have been non- transparent everywhere. they really started spreading in europe and many areas in europe before the u.s. certainly, eu regulators are taking a harder look at this. one thing they are looking at our capital rules are around derivatives. those conversations will be interesting to see how they fleshed out. host: run on the democrat's line.

caller: thank you for c-span, and thank you for these three intelligent women trying to get their hands around a complex question. it seems the problem we had in america is the profit center has moved from our farms, land, communities, to wall street, where it is one big casino. the people willing and dealing are doing so in the dark and we have a government that is on whether to regulate -- and women to regulate. where has the sec been for the last 10 years? is this new bill really going to regulate derivatives, or is it that the service? guest: depending on the form that it is passed in, will put oversight on derivatives.

the sec specifically card, any kind of derivatives through the modernization act in 2000. in that respect, they could only look for fraud. that is how the market was able to trade with abandon. this legislation would force derivatives through a clearing house that would require banks to have more and more margins set aside, have more cash on hand, so that they did not create the run that it did when they are called. there is discussion now on how big these loopholes are for these swap dealers. depending on that, people might say, it did not go far enough, but there will be oversight that never existed before and it will be up to the regulators to implement it. host: louise story?

guest: the bill is pushing for clearing, and there are many parties and there, including hedge funds, asset managers who are on the other side, and they would like to see this go further. they are managing money, often for pension funds, and feel that they need more transparency for pricing. host: elkton, maryland. george on the republican line. caller: i would like to see financial reform. but i would like to see it without any locals. -- loopholes. i am not a financial persiaperst i understand goldman sachs, one of the things they're being accused of is betting that their

deal will fail. how do financial firms benefit from this? host: louise story, could you briefly explain shorts? guest: this included a bundle of insurance policy that would pay out if certain mortgage policies with that. the people who bought it were essentially the insurers. they agreed to pay out some of these mortgage bonds when the day but that. the case says that goldman sachs led a party who was very negative on the bonds pay could be injured. the allegations are that it was designed to fail because if these mortgage bonds were selected by someone who is very negative on the housing market, he selected ones that he thought would fail, and that information

was not disclosed. it is all about your incentive, what you want when you are, but -- creating these complicated vehicles. host: at the end of the day, who one man who lost? guest: those who were positive on housing lost big. less than one year from when the deal was created, 99% of mortgage bonds have gone into default, a very dramatic figure. certainly, these mortgage bonds were pretty bad. host: we are focusing on the legislation in the senate. what about the house of legislation? -- representative? guest: the house passed a bill in december, and that bill would require clearing througpassage a clearing house.

basically like airlines who want to head for oil. they would allow them to have an exception from being forced upon to an exchange. it is similar to the senate bill. but there are still areas where they need to find a direct connection. host: i want you to think about this question. we have asked reporters about this in the past involved in this financial story. the question is, if you could get to one person in all of this to ask an important question, who would that be, and what is the question? think about that. we will get back to phone calls. cleveland, ohio. dale. caller: a few things that people have talked about, where was the sec earlier, and when will they

get enough t so that when someone -- teeth so that when someone lies and they are as rich as oil sheikhs, there is not much encouragement for them not to be criminals. also, the reform act of 2000 passed under the clinton administration and that changed the percentage of capitalization that companies had to have in order to buy these things, that is what allowed this house of cards to be created. finally, if this is to be reformed, hopefully, it will be reform and not another aspect of our society being federalized.

if you could comment on that. host: karen scannell -- kara scannell? guest: the sec's morale hit a low last year with the burning in the scandal breaking. it seemed as if there was more of a slowdown. -- bernie madoff scandal breaking. it seemed as if there was more of a slowdown. the new sec chairman mary schapiro has taken a number of steps to take the handcuffs off enforcement, and they're trying

to speed things up. but one of the criticisms of the sec is that they often take a long time to get things done. now they are trying to delegate more evenly through staff. we will have to see how it works out over time. host: louise story, comments on those remarks that wall street's tightened, and asking where the policy makers and washington were in all of this? guest: i think some of the reasons why people are focused on wall street is because they were the ones making the money. one of the most common things that i hear is, why has the money not been given back? these banks had record bonuses paid out to executives as well as traders, based on revenues of mortgages that turned out not to be real.

no money has been given that, and people are wondering why. host: grace sends us this twitter -- is there any discussion, kara scannell, over is there any discussion, kara there is a discussion to may it. that was fought back. people say the cut derivatives out, then you cut away for real businesses to cut away. it does not live off the risk. we learn that it does not laid- off that well. no one is really talking about making it illegal.

it is about making sure there is more money on the side to deal with any potential problems. >> people are more negative. these are the ones that do not actually include any actual mortgage deals. what they include our derivatives simply on insurance policies. you can have one home in california that, if there were no synthetics, they would only be one mortgage bundle that was included. many trade the synthetics, you can have thousands. what it does is exposes a lot more people to the upside or the

downside. host: they have just the kind of story this morning. host: i wonder how many people will agree. of these guys moving out of his home who says he bears no grudge against mr. paulson and goldman. guest: that is surprising but funny because most homeowners have no idea what happened to their mortgage after they sign the paperwork. i give them credit for not being

better about the experience, but i am sure that there are others who do not share that in view. host: jo said on the democrat's line. conn. -- joseph on the democrat's line. connecticut. caller: what key to financial firms from simply creating a different financial tool to get around the new regulations? the second part of the question is, risk is part of investment. by limiting risk, do you limit investment and the potential for financial gain? host: louise story? guest: one of the things that people are focusing on are the accounting rules. there have already been a number of changes their including bringing a off-balance sheet from vehicles that banks

originally hit, back on to the balance sheets. the question is, will they get around these rules? part of the question is if accounting rules stay up to speed. a lot of how they set up new creation is sort of going in between the holes in accounting rules. host: any perspective on the question? guest: on the accounting rules issue, there is still a broader debate whether the u.s. moved to more international rules. each accounting body has their own issues in keeping rules current, not letting people manufacturer around it. as they get closer together, it gets harder for them to do that. host: how about the dust -- a philosophical question of risk compared to investment? if you limit risk, do you limit investment?

guest: i think you would limit returns. people are always on the scale of how much risk their appetite has. but it is true, if you limit risk, it has implications down the road. indiana host:. brian on the independent line -- host: indiana. brian on the independent line. caller: brooksley morn, back in the 1980's, she had the strength and courage to take on alan greenspan. she won. she was questioned by a panel and said that derivatives were a

bad thing, they were so secretive, and she warned that the fed does something bad was going to happen in the 1990's. then in a few weeks, it came to pass. back then, alan greenspan, it has been said that he was not even interested in investigating fraud back then. since all this has happened, alan greenspan has been before congress and has admitted he was wrong. host: do you have a question? caller: i am just frustrated with all of it. the government and corporations, all the rich people are connected. i do not care if it is republican or democrat.

they are all crooked. whenever you talk on the right side about smaller government, be warned. that smaller government that they want would take away from the general population. we are already seeing crimes go up because of what is going on in the country. an example is the guy who ran his airplane into the irs building. host: at 9:15 eastern time, richard wald will be with us. it will be telling us about the his report on the rise of unaffiliated voters as a result of recent politics. you nodded when he mentioned berkeley born -- brooksley born. guest: she was the former head

of the cftc. in the late 1990's, she was part of the president's working group, and she was pushing and then while day, saying that they needed to regulate derivatives. it did not get very far within treasury. certainly, when it went in front of the banking committee, and then chaired by phil gramm, they did not have much appetite for it. that idea was essentially pushed aside. now she can take her victory lap. host: more on this from twitter -- does the president have any influence in shutting her down

directly? guest: i think it was more the administration itself. alan greenspan had no interest in regulating derivatives. he was a hard hurdle to get beyond in the debate. host: louise story, an answer to my question of any one person that you would like to interview? guest: yes, i would like to know how much money goldman sachs made from the mortgages, negative betts. they have spoken about the money that they have lost. in 2008, they took a $1.7 billion writedown on their mortgage investments and pointed to this as evidence that they did not number the housing market was going. but i know many people that worked there who say that they also put that on the other side

which made them profitable. of love to see their books to see how they'rir bets lay out or a multi-tier period. host: kara scannell? guest: i would like to speak to a group at the sec and know what they were doing and tied the board room with lehman brothers. they give us some and you into not being able to press firms into doing more. i would like to know what they knew about and what they fell about what they could and could not do. host: last phone call. new jersey. richard on the republican line. caller: i think we need more practical solutions rather than ruminating about the details to the complicated problem, like this.

the state that you made earlier, falling money, is most profound. we should already adapt what is being done. if people obtain a mortgage fraudulently, eventually, they are going to pay the piper because the bank will lien their home. and the irs does the same thing. if you defraud the same thing in taxes, they will clean your property. what i mean is these are disincentives to do that act. rather than allowing these people cart launched -- carte blanche to do these things, we need to provide disincentives so

that they do not do any of this. i think that is a practical solution, and i would like to hear more from your test and other members and a c-span community. host: we started by noting that the president would be on wall street today. the head of goldman and colleagues will be testifying before congress next week. legislation seems to be on the move. kara scannell, what should people be looking for in the coming weeks? guest: look for how the bill is forming. it will come down to how many books they have. but the bill looks like in the last couple of weeks will be important.

host: louise story? guest: it will be interesting to see if there is any new evidence that the senate committee brings out next week in the goldman sachs investigation. they have been doing their own investigation, so it will be interesting to see what kind of evidence and questions neighboring. host: thank you to louise story and kara scannelell. >> he has the latest on integration reform. they discussed the use of the value added tax as a means to curb u.s. debt.

we look at their second debate among the candidates for british prime minister. how britons and americans are responding to the debate. "washington journal" on cs-span. >> i think there is a huge black of knowledge about how congress works. -- a lack of knowledge about how congress works. >> historians will talk about their work, their books, and their profession, and revisit their first appearances. >> booktv is live this weekend. it is just some of the featured

authors taking your calls and e- mails. cover start saturday and thursday. get the whole schedule at booktv.org. >> the house approved a motion today to me to a senate representatives to work on a compromise version of legislation concerning sanctions against iran. it was approved by a vote for a three-11. here is a portion of that reported402-11. -- it was approved by a vote 403-11/ . >> the senate has agreed, recognizing the leadership and contributions. >> mr. speaker, i am in strong

support of the motion to instruct. the world faces no security threat more than nuclear arms to tehran. -- iran. >> we must make certain that the prospects never comes to reality. it would intimidate and dominate the newspapers. it to be impervious to any type of correction. it would touch off a nuclear arms race. it would lead to catastrophe. iran might actually use the nuclear arms. the urgency of this issue is beyond.

iran will be capable of developing a nuclear weapon in the next three-five years but. . . nuclear weapons capability is made more complicated by the fact that we all know that our best weapon for fighting this battle, economic sanctions, takes time to work. so we need the strongest possible sanctions and we need them fast. that's why i support this motion to instruct. the house bill, h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, is a good, strong measure, and i and my colleagues will fight for it in conference. we will work with the senate on we will work with the senate on measures to help iran's brave mvent regime efforts to block their communications. the gentleman from florida, our colleague from florida will speak about an additional provision with respect to state

decisions to disinvest that we want to include in this conference report. and i want to send this bill to the president by or before the may 28 deadline proposed in the motion to instruct. this bill, along with the senate bill, has already done much good. in recent months in anticipation of our sanctions becoming law, several major energy companies have ceased selling refined petroleum to iran. others have announced they will not make new investments in iranian energy. they are making the sensible choice that our bill encourages, choosing the u.s. market over the iranian market. more will make that choice when our bill becomes law. meanwhile, our bill is goating other nations to intensify their efforts to achieve a sanctions resolution in the u.n. security council, and our own executive branch is getting the message that congress is able and willing to take the grave matter of sanctions into our own hands. april 30 will make one year

since we first introduced this sanctions legislation. since then iran has increased the number of its working centrifuges and reached the one bomb equivalent level on the stock of low-enriched uranium. it has reached uranium to 20%, a big step to mastering the process of weapons-grade uranium and has installed 21st century sentry fugse and has built a secret reactor near kohm that could have only been intended for bomb-making purposes and has announced plans to build 10 more reactors. iran is contempt of the international community, and i had hoped that a u.n. security council resolution requiring tough sanctions following immediately thereafter by additional muscular sanctions imposed by the european union would have happened by now. i know the administration is doing everything possible to

bring that result about. unfortunately, we're now nearly four months into 2010 with iran on the verge of nuclear weapons capability and a u.n. security council resolution remains an uncertain prospect. we cannot wait any longer. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, i think my colleagues have very eloquently explained the contents of the bill and what we need to do. but the thing i'd like to talk about for a minute or two is the ramifications for america and the rest of the world if we don't do something. we get about 30% to 40% of our energy from the middle east, and if i were talking to the american people i would just say to you that if you look at

your lights and you look at the energy you need for your car and for everything else, heating your house, you need to realize that if iran develops a nuclear capability and that whole area becomes a war zone, the persian gulf, where a lot of oil is transported to, we will see a terrible problem as far as our energy is concerned and that would directly effect our energy. it's important we do something and do something very, very quickly. we've waited too long. we've talked about negotiating with iran and putting sanctions on them for the past four or five years, trying to get our allies to work with us. the fact of the matter is nothing has happened and iran continues to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. and this is a terrible, terrible threat, a terrorist state, iran, with nuclear weapons is not only a threat to the middle east, to israel, our best ally over there, but it's a threat to every single one of us.

and they're also working on intermediate range missiles and possibly intercontinental ballistic missiles. and if they get those, nobody's safe. so it's extremely important that we take whatever measures is necessary to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons. now, today we're taking a great first step, and i hope that when this goes to the conference committee we will come out with something strong that it will have an impact on what iran does. but if it doesn't, it's important that everybody in the world realize we have to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons because it's a threat to every single person on this planet in one way or another. we got to stop nuclear proliferation, but the first thing we have to do is stop iran, a terrorist state, from getting nuclear weapons. i thank the gentlelady for the time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much both for his leadership and for this opportunity with the ranking member to really discuss and reinforce some of the principles that many of us support in a bipartisan manner. i rise today to simply encourage the conference on this legislation and to be able to chronicle simply efforts that i think were not wasteful but constructive. i do believe the administration's effort at engagement was constructive and not wasteful. it is always important for those of us who are lawyers to create the record. the building blocks for the final decision of the court of law. in this instance the court of law is the combination of the american people, this congress, and this administration. and it is likewise the world

community, the united nations. also the people of iran are speaking and they are speaking loudly. no one can forget that fateful picture of a young lady lying in her own blood during the rising of the people of iran, not provoked by any world standards or provocation, but for the people of iran simply saying, enough of the despotism of this administration of their country, enough is enough. and they were willing to die in the streets. they took to the buildings to make loud noises at night. and they continue to pounce over and over again. iran is a challenge and it is a terrorist around the world. having just come back from yemen, bahrain, qatar, and pakistan, everywhere you went individuals, leaders in government were willing to indicate what a threat iran was.

just yesterday in a hearing on syria, questions are now rising as to iran's participation in funding hezbollah to go into lebanon. of course some of those particular points are being denied. but frankly i think if there is any reason to move forward on a conference, it is the concept of the disruption of iran in the region. there are those in the middle east who want peace, from jordan to israel to other places around, they want peace. we begin to look at yemen, that is in a distant low case, place where i visited, we know it is an al qaeda cresse pool. we know there are -- cesspool. we know there are young men there susceptible to recruitment. we here in this country must provide the moral standarding of peace and democracy for those who desire so. so i rise to support the people of iran, those who are willing

to sacrifice their lives and go into the streets. it is well-known that whatever we have tried to do, the engagement of a cold war, the standoff iran continues to seemingly put forward its nuclear efforts. i ask for support of this legislation and i ask for our colleagues to vote for this motion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time. as ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, i strongly support this motion to instruct. i think it's important for all of us to realize that right now iran is at its weakest point in terms of its capacity to manufacture enough refined

petroleum. it has to, it has to at this point for its gasoline import that into the nation. and already the impact, the effect of this legislation even coming up on the floor has been effective in backing companies away from doing business with iran. imagine what the effect will be if we pass this legislation. imagine the impact it will have and the pressure that it will bring to bear, because the threat of this legislation has already produced a situation in iran that is very, very difficult for civil society and is making people understand the costs and consequences for iran to continue down this road. now, this morning the g.a.o. will release a report that shows that foreign commercial activity in iran's energy sector is going to begin to increase. and that will provide cash for iran's nuclear program. that's why this bill is so important.

a similar report three years ago showed half as many companies involved in this sector. now it's on the increase. the usual way of doing business, of not standing up to the russians and the chinese and to others, cannot continue. we have to take action. time is not on our side. enrichment capability, the key aspect of a nuclear weapons program is being mastered by that government. not so long ago i remember talking here on the floor about iran's 164 center fugse and now the progress is -- centrifuges and now the progress is measured in thousands. it is working on a weapon design, my colleagues. and may have a missile to carry that warhead to the united states within five years' time. today the world's top terrorist state has its tent cals throughout the region. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm

pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. as the chairman knows, i have some reservations about the effectiveness of a sanctions regime, but there's no question in my mind but the worst thing that can happen is military confrontation, because that would, in fact, unite the iranian people against america and on the wrong side of history. you no, 7 -- now, it is too easy to think of iran as a monolithic people. the reality is that iran is the successor to the great persian civilization and is a very diverse civilization. i share the chairman's concern about the current government of

iran, which i doubt think is consistent with persia's history. and in fact their actions have been inexplicable and inexcusable. and the chairman is right, obviously, to respond. but the reality is that a very substantial portion of the iranian population, perhaps the majority, in fact embraces american values of democracy and human rights and individual freedoms of expression, collective gathering, and freedom of worship. but they are not able to do that today. and i appreciate the fact that the chairman is determined to allow the technology that would enable the population to communicate, to communicate their ideas. in fact, to mobilize for the best interest of their nation and their future. we also limit the availability

of technology that the regime is using for precisely the opposite purposes. to censor and provide -- perform surveillance against those people who would like to empower the iranian people to take control of their own future. this bill will be supported, it should be supported. i appreciate the chairman's leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from -- mr. royce, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, he was about to finish his thought and i wasn't looking up. i apologize. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: for those of us who have engaged this region and watched neighboring countries to iran watched their propensity to react as iran has sped up its development, each of these countries are now looking at going nuclear. and i'd ask my colleagues to

think about those neighbors of iran that would create a heavily nuclearized middle east should iran succeed in this and what the impact would be. we can only imagine the turmoil and the tensions that will come to the middle east should we not succeed in this effort to prevent iran from developing these nuclear weapons. tomorrow's nuclear iran would thus have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and as i pointed out earlier for u.s. security. the time for action is long past -- passed. this bill will greatly help because it targets iran's achilles' heel at perhaps the only time that we can effectively do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california.

mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the author of florida legislation, with respect to disinvestment from iran's energy sector, our newest member, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion before us today is based on the simple fact that a nuclear armed iran is an unacceptable threat to our national security. poses an exy tension threat to our vital ally, israel, and unite a destabilizing arms race. we must take whatever action is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. its president denies the holocaust and openly declared his intention to wipe israel off the map. to be included among the powerful sanctions in this legislation is the removal of

barriers that state pension boards raise which prevent the divestment of holdings in companies that help to fund iran's nuclear weapons program. in 2007, the florida legislature passed critical legislation that mandated that workers' pension funds could not be used to support iranian nuclear weapons. in florida alone we removed more than $1 billion from companies that put their profits ahead of this nation's national security. that is but one state. this legislation will permit every state to die vest from iran just as florida and 20 other states have already done. the divestment effort will become a full-fledged movement. the threat from iran is real. this threat is unacceptable and it demands this aggressive effort on the part of the united states and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, a member of

the committee on foreign affairs , because that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, iran is the world threat. they along with north korea are working together to plot and build nuclear weapons to threaten the rest of the world. ahmadinejad, the little fellow from the desert, has already said that when he gets nuclear weapons his first target is tel aviv in israel. he's made it clear to the world he wants to destroy israel and he wants nuclear weapons. he wants missiles from north korea to do that. but his threat is not just to the israelis, it's to the entire region. and even to the united states. he continues to rant about how he wants the destruction of the west. he helps hezbollah in the north and he helps hamas in the south. both to engage and cause terror in israel. his answer, our answer has been let's talk to them. let's tell the iranians they are

not playing nice. that they are going to cause problems in the world. mr. speaker, we cannot adopt the neble chamberlain philosophy and fool ourselves that the iranians will honestly negotiate with the world. they lie to the world and the united states so they can buy time to build their nuclear weapons. more talking will not bring peace in our time. it will only allow them to build nuclear weapons. so this sanction must work. it must be enforced. prevent companies from dealing with our enemy government, the iranian government, and not allow iran to receive refined gasoline. and we must mean it and we must enforce this. the long-term solution with iran is, there is a regime change. we hope the good people of iran change their rogue government. a government that doesn't even represent the people. a government that had fraudulent elections last year and took over control again. our government, our country, our people must be vocal about the

support of the resistance movement and hopefully remove their government by themselves and peaceably set up a government that represents the world and will bring peace to the world. that is the great hope for iran. that is the great hope for the world as a peaceable regime change in iran. but right now we need sanctions. and we need to let them know we mean it because we are not going to continue to talk forever and hope that they will negotiate and play nice. that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. harman: i thank my california colleague for yielding to me and commend him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, in the course of my service on virtually all of the security-related committees in this house, i have visited some of the most dangerous and austere places on the planet,

rugged and remote areas that has terrorists. i am asked to name those countries i think poses a threat to the united states. iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, yemen. my answer every time is iran, iran, iran. given the zeal with which it promotes and supports instability in the middle east, it's my -- it's arming of and financial assistance to hezbollah and hamas and its march towards a nuclear weapons capability in my view no other country comes close. the question that confronts us is how to confront their government to abandon a nuclear weapons program. most agree that a multilateral approach is likely to sked. our efforts with the e.u. led

by stuart levy have been effective but they haven't yet changed iran's course. our country must continue its leadership role, our efforts to diplomacy and economic sanctions must drive stronger, multilateral diplomacy and sanctions. that's why congress must move to conference on iran sanctions legislation and enact by an overwhelming bipartisan package that includes sanctions on iran and cripple iran's ability to import refined petroleum products. let me be clear, mr. speaker. our problem is not with the iranian people but with its government's reckless policies. iran with nuclear weapons not only poses an exowe tension threat to israel, but to us and to countries everywhere which espouse democratic values. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, an esteemed member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kirk: thank you, mr. speaker. as the iranians accelerate their nuclear program, indications are that america may be losing its nerve. in its latest report to congress, the c.i.a. said iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment. this follows a report by the u.n.'s iaea that iran has enriched uranium and is halfway to its goal of making bomb-grade fissile material. we know that iran's greatest weakness is its dependence on foreign gasoline. they have mishandled iran's economy since 1979 that this leading opec leading nation is

depending on gasoline for 40% of its needs. i wrote a material -- an article trying to end gasoline sales. i want to thank chairman berman and ranking member ros-lehtinen for bringing this bill to the floor. in these partisan times now, when have 54 senators and congressmen agreed on anything? but they agree on cutting off iran's gasoline. but now without decisive bipartisan action soon, the security of our children and our allies may depend on the good behavior of a terrorist nation now armed with the most dangerous weapon. so as congress has been sleeping, i think we should wake up. we should finally sign this bipartisan bill. to congress, pass this legislation. to the president, sign it and

then seal off iran's gasoline. without unilateral actions to cut off iran's gasoline, no other sanctions policy is serious. we it we have a chance to remove a great danger to the security of americans and israeli children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the chair of the foreign operations subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chair for your leadership on this very important issue, and i want to express my strong support for h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act that mandates tighter sanctions against the iranian regime. with its continued defiance of

the international community and the clock ticking on their nuclear capabilities, now is the time for action. this week iran announced testing of various missiles and weapons capability. u.s. officials have said that iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of striking the u.s. by 2015. and iran's continued threats to our strongest ally in the middle east, israel, presents dire global security implications. i urge the conferees to act with haste to address these urgent challenges with tough, crippling sanctions. but the speed with which congress finalizes this legislation, to sanction iran, the message to the international community that time is of the essence if we are to contain iran's threats through security, stability and

prosperity worldwide. again, i thank the gentleman from california and the gentlewoman from florida for their efforts. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion to instruct, and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, sir. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, not long ago i was briefed by an official on iran's provocative action and he gave a challenge in that briefing and he said, print out on your computer a red line. print a big, thinking red bar on a white sheet of paper. you think it's a solid red line, but if you look at it up

close what you will see is a series of tiny little pink lines all pushed together. but they're individual little lines. he said what iran has figured out is they have figured out a way to break through one tiny little line at a time, just one at a time, one at a time, one at a time. and that is why we're here today, because we in the west, we in the united states are onto what the iranian leadership is doing. they're being incredibly provocative. there is no nuclear ambition for iran. this is a regime that has said that israel, our greatest ally in the middle east, has no right to exist. they said one provocative thing after another. and history is filled, mr. speaker, with examples of weakness and ambiguity in foreign affairs. and what is the result? largely the result is calamity. now, we have a chance to be united, for all of us to come

together and say we are not going to stand with this, we have come up with a remedy and it's time for the conferees to move forward and to create this very tough and solid sanctions against the petroleum products going into iran. and i urge the conferees to move quickly, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i support the obama administration's historic efforts at nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security. it's a recognition that our security depends on dialogue and negotiation between nations. it was reflected in a proposal that was made last year to freeze iran's nuclear programs at existing levels. now, in december of last year, i led the effort to oppose h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i

stand here today almost five months later to reaffirm my objection to the underlying bill. five months later we have not come any closer to diplomatic resolutions to objections to iran's nuclear proliferation program or attempted to amend the language of the iran sanctions bill to ensure it has not come at the cost of the well-being of the iranian people we come to support. iran imports 40% of its gasoline. leaders of iran are not going to lack for gasoline, but the people of iran will suffer. we have to ask ourselves, will this cause them to turn against their government or will it cause them to turn against the united states and our efforts to bring about a succession of iran's nuclear program? if we cared aboutite rainian people, we would not be -- if we cared about the iranian people, we would not be on the house floor talking about this. we need to focus on efforts to address the egregious human rights, civil liberties and civil rights abuses that they endure. the legislation under

consideration will only play into their hands of the iranian regime by diverting attention away from the significant social and economic problems that must be addressed. i fear that this legislation will actually strengthen the hard liners in iran and i'm sure that's not what we want to happen. this legislation will undermine any future references by the administration to engage diplomatic low with iran by limiting the tools the administration can use, reports suggest that had iranians have delayed any agreements with the united states for fuel swap due to internal divisions. we must stand in support of the courageous battle for human rights and democracy that the iranian people are engaged in. many at the cost of their lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, a member of the armed services and judiciary committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: and i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, the ominous intersection of jihadist terrorism and nuclear

proliferation has been relentlessly rolling toward america and the free world for decades. we now find ourselves living in a time when the terrorist state of iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, if that occurs, all other issues will be wiped from the table because whatever challenges we have in dealing with iran today will pale in comparison in dealing with iran that has nuclear weapons. and yet, mr. speaker, the obama administration seems to remain asleep at the wheel. we see repeated signals that the obama administration may already be adopting a policy of containment. it is beyond my ability to express the danger of such a policy, mr. speaker. i am afraid that the last window we will ever have to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. and while it is unlikely that the bill before us will be enough to prevent iran from

gaining nuclear weapons by itself, it is a step in the right direction, and i applaud its sponsors and i only pray that the obama administration will wake up in time to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation and begin to threaten the peace of the human family and bring nuclear terrorism to this and future generations. and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. could i get the time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 6 1/2. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i am going to yield myself -- i am going to yield myself one minute at this time. the speaker pro tempore: one minute? mr. berman: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you. my friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, articulated his reasons for opposing this

legislation. we are now, of course, voting on a motion to instruct on the legislation, but i want to just take issue with several of his points. the reason there has not been a diplomatic resolution of the problem is because the regime in iran has refused to engage in any meaningful and serious way in a resolution which would require them to change their behavior, to end their ambition to obtain a nuclear weapons capability and that is where the blame lies. it is not because diplomatic alternatives have been ignored. it's because they've been undertaken and rebuffed by the regime in iran. secondly, i very much disagree with the notion that our response flew hopefully tough robust sanctions, the kinds of sanctions -- i yield myself an

additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: the -- i disagree very much with the gentleman's contention that our effort to seek to change iranian behavior and reverse iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons through the imp position of strong -- imposition of strong, robust, meaningful legislation through tough international sanctions by the community of nations is going to cause the iranian people to turn against us and on behalf of their regime. . these are people who have been subject to execution, murder, imprisonment, all kinds of repression, efforts to suppress their speech and their political liberties by that regime and have taken great risks, notwithstanding the way that regime has reacted. i would suggest that those

people will no more than anyone that the consequences that are befalling the people of iran are a result of the regime's behavior not the international community and american efforts -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, our esteemed republican whip and a member of the committee of ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady and thank you, mr. speaker. i want to salute first of all the gentlelady's leadership on this issue as well as that of the gentleman from california in bringing this to the floor. and would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor as well. mr. speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a nuclear iran. by talking to and engaging with the regime in tehran, the

administration said we could convince the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. and if that didn't work, america ostensibly would gain the moral authority to galvanize china, russia, and the rest of the world to go along with a regime of crippling sanctions against tehran. 15 months and countless missed deadlines later, the administration's strategy has failed. our lack of resolve has only enabled iran to accelerate its illegal activities. let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. the danger of a nuclear iran is not hypothetical. it is real. it is a direct and serious threat to america.

it is a game changer that would set off a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east, permanently destabilizing the world's most dangerous region. top u.s. military officials recently warned congress that within one year iran will have the fiffle -- fissile material it needs to make a nuclear weapon. once iran gets the bomb, the concept of deter rens that underpins u.s. -- deterrence that underpins u.s. national security is no longer valid. the resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. that's why congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world that the united states will not tolerate a nuclear iran. it's time for a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth.

and that begins here today with the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. we must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to iran, and we must cut off all international companies who do business with iran revolutionary guard from the u.s. financial system. iran's trading partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with the regime in tehran with impunity. mr. speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our nation's capital, but today we have a chance to together to take a major step forward in the interest of world peace. the time for decisive action to head off the regime in iran's nuclear program is now. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself -- before i yield to the majority leader, i'm just going

to yield to myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berman: one year and three months ago america's goal -- america was pretty isolated in its goal of trying to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we absolutely need to move quickly because iran is moving quickly. but there can be no doubt that the result of the events of the past 15 months have changed the dynamic fundamentally where the international community now recognizes the threat of iran's nuclear weapons proposes, and it is iran that's isolated not america. that is a direct result of the fundamental change of power. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. berman: i now am pleased to yield one minute to the great advocate of this legislation, and achieving this goal, the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend of

some 45 years, the chairman of the committee, for yielding. and i want to, before i start my remarks, say that i agree with you. with respect to his observations regarding the obama administration's efforts that are bearing positive fruit with respect to our allies around the world. we are not where we need to be and they are not all allies, but they certainly are partners in responding to this threat to the international community. we know what a grave danger a nuclear iran would pose to america's security, to our ally israel security, and indeed to the security of the international community. that is why, mr. berman, ms. ros-lehtinen reported out a bill, that is why we passed a bill, that's why the senate has passed a bill, now it's time to go to conference. it's time to resolve the differences that exist and send a clear and unmistakable

message. the dangerous consequences of inaction range from a fierce regional arms race to a nuclear umbrella for terrorism, to the unthinkable with american and international security at stake, iran's nuclearization is a grave, proximate threat and cannot stand. that is why the united states must do everything in its power, mr. speaker, to stop iran's nuclear pursuit. through years of diplomatic silence, iran's nuclear program grew. president obama took a course of patient engagement. and while iran's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has been exposed to the world, it has grown even closer to its goal. today the international atomic

energy agency feels that iran has enough low enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs. so time is of the essence. by proceeding with this motion, congress moves closer to the imposition of sanctions that will hit the iranian economy at its weakest point. its banking system, the revolution card -- guard corps, and the refined petroleum that iran defends upon. i support strongly this motion knowing full well that sanctions are never a perfectly precise instrument and that they may mean hardship for ordinary iranians who already suffer under the repressive regime in iran. but i support sanctions nonetheless because they can work with the international community recognizes the outlaw nation poses a common threat to us all.

a case president obama and secretary clinton are making persuasively as was the point of the chairman of the committee to our fellow security council members. and the case the administration continued to make at this month's nuclear security summit. an extraordinary summit, i might add, of historical precedence, where 47 nations from around the world came here to washington to meet together, including the president of china, to say that nuclear proliferation poses a danger to all, not just a single nation, not just to a regional group of nations, but to all. i support sanctions because tehran can choose at any time to negotiate in good faith and setaside its aggressive nuclear pursuit. i support sanctions because when properly designed they can be a source of powerful pressure on the iranian regime. pressure both external and internal.

as britain's telegraph newspaper reported on monday, i report, there is now increasing resentment that iran's once popular nuclear program could be distracting from more urgent needs in the face of economic mismanagement and sanctions. far from resenting the u.s. designed sanctions, iranians blame the slowdown on their own government. going on to quote, nuclear energy is something that i supported but why go about it in this way? asked an iranian citizen. a pensioner and father of two. he went on to ask, if it is legitimate, then why are we suffering for it in this way? if it's not legitimate, then do it in the right way or give it up. we are paying too heavy a price. so said an iranian citizen about that country's nuclear ambitions.

it is my belief, my colleagues, that if smart sanctions take effect, more and more iranians will come to the same conclusion. and so, hopefully, will the iranian regime. sanctions will show the regime that its embrace of nuclear proliferation carries a cost that is far too high. we cannot expect a change of heart from tehran, but we can demand a change of behavior. my colleagues, this action is timely and perhaps past time, but it is always timely to do the right thing. to speak up, to act, and to encourage our allies as well. and our partners, and our fellow citizens in this globe to act in a way that will protect them and protect our international community. so i rise in strong support of

this motion to go to conference. and the motion to instruct and i thank my chairman for his leadership on this issue. he is working both to have effective action taken by the congress and to assist the administration in reaching the objective in as positive a way as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we all know that the prospect of an iranian state armed with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable for the world. it o poses an exi sention threat to our ally, israel. it would pose a threat of

terrorism all over the middle east under a nuclear umbrella so we wouldn't be able to oppose what iran was doing. it poses a threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it poses the threat that we cannot rule out that this regood morning, america will give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group like al qaeda to use, we can only guess where. and finally, some people say, you know, we coexist with a nuclear soviet union for 40 years, 50 years. we deterred them. deterrence works. deterrence cannot work when you have a government that is religious in nature, many of whose elements are of the belief that the final destruction of israel, even if it cause as nuclear war, would bring on the return of the hidden i amman more -- imman more quickly. you cannot deter a suicide

bomber which is in essence what parts of the identify rain government are. we must prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. we must avoid the hobson choice of having the situation where the advisors come into the president and say, mr. president, here are the two choices. one, do nothing and iran will have nuclear weapons in a couple weeks. military action or nuclear iran. the bush administration was here for eight years. they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a tooth pick. they talked tough, but stopped nothing. and for eight years the centrifuges increasesed -- increased in number and went round and round and came closer to a nuclear iran. now we have an administration that comes with a policy of big sticks and carrots. and says first we will engage the iranians. we'll show them the advantages and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against iran if necessary. now we have reached the stage where we have to start engaging

in real sanctions. and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the hobson's choice. this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the iranians to make them reconsider or to make it impossible to them to develop nuclear weapons. . so we must pass this resolution because we don't want a hobson's choice of a military action or a nuclear iran. the latter of which is intolerable and the first of which is something we should not ever want. so i urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, and i thank the gentleman from california, the gentlelady from florida for bringing it to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady. ms. ros-lehtinen: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to

the gentleman from new jersey, one of the original creators of the concept to refined petroleum sanctions two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. there is a jfble broad consensus in this country -- justifiable broad consensus in this country and in this congress that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the issue is how to achieve that objective and why to achieve that objective. we cannot act in isolation to achieve the optive. we must act to isolate iran. this has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by our chairman berman, our ranking member, that has brought us to the point where the world is now isolating iran. iran stands essentially alone

in support of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable. the sanctions that are proposed by the underlying bill will be effective because they will force the iranian leadership to choose between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear she connery and the certainly of economic distress if they persist in retaining it. the sanctions -- the iranians should switch from gasoline to natural gas as a means. in the early 1930's there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out of europe. people insisted that people who worried about that were exaggerating the threat.

so much of the world, including, sadly, the united states turned away as those ugly signals were sent. the tragedy was of unspokeable proportions, six million people killed in the holocaust. today, there are ugly words coming out of iran -- i would ask for 30 more seconds. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. andrews: there are some that say that one holocaust is not enough, that the jewish state should not exist. we should learn the terrible histories of the 1930's and not repeat it. we should act decisively, swiftly with the rest of the world to impose sanctions on the iranian government. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a yes vote and the swift

adoption of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have one additional speaker requesting time. i believe the gentlelady has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has the right to close. mr. berman: so shall we -- my speaker and your right to close. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, chairman of the committee on the western hemisphere, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman for yielding to me. i thank the gentlewoman from florida for her strong voice. boy, if there's anything that is bipartisan it's this resolution. the one good thing that iran has done is brought us all together because we realize that the iranian threat to the

world is the world's biggest threat. iran remains the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world, and as mentioned before, the president of iran, ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe israel if the face of the earth but the threat is not to i ale alone, it's to europe, it's to the united states, it's to the entire world. and the entire world must be with one voice. i am a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i want to commend chairman berman for this initiative and congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen as well. only a few short months ago the world learned of the secret iranian enrichment uranium facility. if there was ever any doubt that iran was going to build a nuclear weapon, this was kept secret from the iaea, the international atomic energy agency.

it was built on a mountain near a protective military base. this is how a country conseals a nuclear weapons program and defies u.n. security council resolution, not how it develops peaceful energy technology. however, although iran is the leading producer of crude oil, it has limited refining capacity. and this bill will increase leverage against iran by penalizing companies that export refined petroleum products to iran or finance the refining capabilities. it's my hope that the administration will make clear to the iranian regime that the world will not accept its nuclear ambition. as commarme of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere of the house foreign affairs committee, i'd also like to raise one additional concern which arose at my october hearing on iran's role in the western hemisphere. venezuela leader, hugo chavez, agreed to provide 25,000 barrels of gasoline to iran. the deal may be covered by the bill we are considered today. while some question whether

venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to iran, since it imports some gasoline to meet its own demand, chavez is meeting a perilous area. i hope chavez considers this unwise step. we must consider and keep focusing on iran in the western hemisphere as well. the u.s., our allies and the u.n. security council has agreed that a nuclear armed iran would be a danger to our ally, israel, the middle east, the entire world. the regime murders its own citizens, represses people who want to demonstrate against its stolen election, and it's time for us to stand up. so i'm glad in a bipartisan so i'm glad in a bipartisan voice this morning we say no to iran, no to nuclear weapons for >> tomorrow on washington journal, john stanton has the latest on immigration reform.

curtis dubay discusses the use of a value added tax as a means to curb u.s. debt. john bua looks at the second debate for british prime minister. help britons and americans are responding to the debate. washington journal, live on c- span. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentcam contest. watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 eastern, just before "washington journal." at 8:30, meet the students who made them and for a p