presidency. george bush. stark difference in the impact of the economic policies pursued by the two parties. i would hope some of you would say to yourselves not because we are trying to place blame but we are trying to learn from our experience. you might come to the conclusion, at some point in time, you know what, what they have suggested works. what they pursued has worked. contrary to mr. armey, your former majority leader, who when we adopted that program in 1993 said we would have deep deficits and exploding unemployment. . we had exactly the opposite. we had declining deficits and four years of surplus and an explosion of job creation, 216,000 a month. we continued to surf sue creation of jobs. that's what this bill is about, creation of jobs. also pursuing closing tax loopholes and making sure people

don't offshore jobs, so we keep jobs here in america. since inheriting the worst economic crisis since the great depression and our economy sheding almost 800,000 jobs per month. that's not creating jobs, that's losing. during the last three months of the bush administration, we lost about 750,000 jobs per month. 1.5 million in three months. as opposed to creating 573,000 in the last four months. president obama and the 111th congress have been dedicated to standing up for the middle class, its interest, and its future. the work continues today with the american jobs closing tax loopholes and preventing outsourcing act, which will support millions of american jobs. this bill is a significant investment in america's entrepreneurs and its workers. it helps to restore the floor of credit for small businesses, which is high on america's jobs

workers. it helps businesses innovate, grow, and create jobs. that's what we need to be about, creating jobs for our people. it invests in the successful build america bonds and recovery zone bonds, which create jobs and build much-needed projects like schools, hospitals, rorkeds and public transit. it puts young people to work with summer jobs programs so they're not out in the streets, so they have some skills so they have something to do with their time. that's good for them to learn jobs skills and good to get projects done that need done, and it provides for idle hands having work. this bill also protects the safety net for americans who are out of work through no fault of their own, extends their unemployment insurance and helps them keep their health coverage. that's not only the right thing to do, it's also one of the most

effective ways to boost local economies. in addition, by preventing physician reimbursement rates from falling, it ensures that millions of seniors, military retirees and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors. let me say something about what the ranking member said, for whom i have a great deal of respect. he said the docs didn't like this. i don't like this. unfortunately, none of your colleagues in the united states senate voted for a bill that we sent to them. i don't think any of you voted for it over here either. which made a permanent fix to this doctors roller coaster of pretending that we're going to cut doctors' reimbursement. we're not going to do that. we're not going to do it because we want to make sure that our seniors, that our folks on disabilities and ores have access to their doctors. so we're not going to do that. so we play a game. it is a game of dollars, of

course, an important game. but we're playing a game that we're somehow not going to do it, so we do it in short stretches. you did the same thing when you were in charge. we're doing it again. we should do this permanently. the speaker is for permanent fix. i'm for permanent fix. if we need to payer it, i will vote to pay for it. we do need to pay for it. whether we need to pay for it immediately all up front, or we pay for it as we do spore -- sporadically, but either way, we all know we need to do this. i'm not pleased, the speaker is not pleased, mr. levin is not pleased, and certainly mr. waxman is not pleased. i presume your colleagues are not either. but frankly, this is what you did when you were in charge. and we're doing it for the same reason. we need to get the votes. and i'm hopeful that we can join together in a bipartisan way at some point in time, and because

we don't have a bipartisan way, frankly, we've got to carry the load ourselves. it's much easier being in the minority. when i was the minority whip, nobody ever asked me did i lose by one or did i lose by 20. they assumed i was going to lose and it didn't matter how much i lost by. now, of course, if i lose by one, they know that and i get a lot of flak, properly so. so we could do better policy if we would do bipartisan policy, if we could do a broader outlook. so i invite you to engage. i don't think you'll do so today, but i hope you will in the future. that's not the only right thing to do. it's almost one -- it's also one of the most effective ways to boost our economy. in addition, it ensures that millions of seniors, military retirees and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors. we hope you don't vote against that. it will be a separate vote. you won't have to vote for the rest of the stuff if you don't

like it, but vote at least for the next 19 months to say to doctors we're going to reimburse you at a proper rate to serve seniors, military retirees and people with disability. at least vote for that one, if you think docs ought to be reimbursed. if you think docs ought to have a 21% cut, vote against it. those are some of the many steps this bill takes to create jobs and protect americans struggling in hard times. but just as importantly, this job creation is funded by efforts to close unfair tax loopholes and enforce corporate accountability. this would close the loophole that forces wall street to pay taxes at a rate 20% lower than the rate for ordinary working americans. we differ on that. i understand that. and a lot of people have talked about how we can tweak that, if you will. it's a question, however, of basic fairness, of taxing

people, money they earn at similar rates. further, this bill -- and i want to say something on that. because i think there's been some misinterpretation. i can't speak for every one of my democratic colleagues, but i'm a strong believer that if people take money out of their pocket, put capital at risk, that there ought to be a differential tax rate, and there is, and there will continue to be at least with my support, there will continue to be. further, this bill closes the tax loophole that lets multi-national corporations profit by shipping jobs overseas. and putting americans out of work. i believe most of you on the other side of the aisle, my friends and colleagues, don't believe that's a proper way for us to do. i hope you'll join us on that. i take the advantage of the foreign tax credit these corporations are able to avoid, american and foreign taxes, giving them incentives to move offshore and take jobs from people here at home. again, tax fairness and the

needs of our middle class both urge us to close this loophole. another loophole for the privileged that republicans have defended for years. finally this bill takes the first step to hold the oil industry accountable for the historic mess it made in the gulf of mexico. british petroleum will be millions of dollars in debt when this concludes. it increases the amount the oil industry must pay into the oil spill liability trust. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. it's a good bill for jobs. it's a good bill for closing tax loopholes. it's a good bill to dissuade people from taking jobs overseas. take this step for america and continue to build on the economic progress that we have made over the last 17 months, and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired, pursuant to house resolution 1473, the previous question is ordered. the question of adoption of the motion is divided. the first portion of the divided question is will the house concur in the senate amendment with all of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment to the house other than section 523. the question is on the first portion of the divided question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are y ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20,

this 15-minute vote on the first portion of the divided question will be followed by a five-minute vote on the second portion of the divided question if ordered. fund fund [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of e closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> they decided to leave the key additional funding for the joint strike fighter engine. senator carl levin held a briefing this morning to talk about that particular will show you of that if we're able during the series of votes.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- on this vote, the yeas are 215. the nays are 204. the first portion of the divided

question is adopted. question is adopted. he house will come to order. members will take their seats and clear the aisles. members will take seats. and take your conversations and take your conversations outside the chamber.

members will please take seats on leave. -- or leave. madam speaker? the speaker: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con sent to speak out of turn for one minute? the speakepro tempore: without objection. the speaker: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor herb shank, the teant of the house democratic cloak room for the last 38 years. herb is retiring today after serving this institution much longer than probably most members of the congress. indeed, he has served under seven speakers of the house and

generations of members have depended upon him. as a door keeper and cloak room attendant, herb has ensured the security of house members a staff by controlling access to the demoatic cloak rook. he has also been a face of warm welcome to all members. herb's dedicated service is representative of the many staff who serve this institution, particularly those who work in both the democratic and the republican cloak rooms and the non-parent officers who ensure a smooth operation on the house floor. they may not be household names, but they proudly serve our nation's families. herb is joined here today by his twin daughters, andrea and angela. we thank them for sring their we thank them for sring their father with us.

the speaker: we also note that herb is the proud grandfather of father and greatgrandfather of three. today, we will present herb with a flag that flew over the capitol in his honor, on this, his day of retirement after 38 years of service. it is a fitting tribute to this great patriot, her shanks. great patriot, her shanks. thank you, herb.

the speaker: i would now like to yield to -- i'd now like to yield to distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker for yielding. i had the honor of representing herb. he was born in april of 1936. he's a young man, for those of you who is much younger, i want you to know he is still a young man. herb, let me say to you -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: as the speaker has pointed out, herb has served with seven speakers of the house, from speaker albert to

speaker pelosi. for those of you in the republican conference room, i had the -- cloak room, i had the opportunity to come over to your side, and i love the folks that you have working on your side. and like herb, they treat us all alike. there are no republicans or democrats for them. they're just members of congress who serve together and work together on behalf of our country. and, herb, you have been a wonderful friend. and you have made everybody's day brighter every time they come in contact with you. you have been someone who has been so thoughtful, so courteous, so kind that all of us have been advantaged, and our lives have been made better by your service. and, herb, as you leave, not our hearts, but this house, at least the cloak room, we know that you will hopefully come back from time to time and visit with us,

and we will be, again, enriched with your presence and your demeanor. we wish you god's speed, and we say to you thank you, good friend. the speaker pro tempore: wiout objection, five-minute voting will continue. the second portion of the divided question is, will the house concur in the senate amendment with the matter proposed to be inserted at section 523 of the amendment to the house? the question son the second portion of the divided question. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 245, the nays are 171. the second portion of the divided question is adopted. wok, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

-- without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. we will proceed when the house is in order. proceedings will now resume h.r. 5116, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to invest in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tfor what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to instructions of the house in the motion to recommit --

the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. the house will be in order. the chair will remind members not to traffic in the well. >> pursuant to the instruction, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment offered by mr. gordon of tennessee. the clerk: the amendment offered by mr. gordon of tennessee. mr. gordon: i ask annapolis consent that the read being dispensed with. >> objection. the speaker pro tempore: objection is heard. the clerk: strike page 163, line three, through page 164, line 11. strike page 176, line 15,

through page 187, line 13. strike page 187, line 14, through page 195, line 11. strike page 235, line 15, through page 244, line one. page 245 lines 12 through 24, amend section 702 to read as follows. section 702, persons with disabilities. for the purposes of activities and programs supported by the amendments of this act,ne, institutions of the higher education chartered to serve large numbers of children with disabilities, including gmbing allau dembings t university, and institutions offering science, engineering, mathematics, research and education activities and programs available to veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration and have a designation consistent with

designation consistent with other institutions serving institutions underrepresented in stem to ensure that institutions chartered to serve benefiting from such research and education activities and two, agencies for which appropriations are authorized by this act oar the amendments made by this act shall also conduct outreach to veterans with disabilities, pursuing studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to ensure that such veterans aware of the education activities and programs authorized by this bill. at the end of the bill, insert the following new sections. section 704, new salaries for viewing pornography. noner of the funds may be used to pay the salary of any individual who has been officially disciplined for violations of pub part g of the standards for ethical conduct of the employees of the

executive branch, reveal, down loading, or exchanging pornography, including child pornography, on a federal government computer or while performing official government duties. section 705, ineligibility for awards or grants, none of the funds shall be available to make words or provide grants for an institution of higher education under this act if that institution is prevented from receiving funds or contracts or grants r education under section 8983 of title 10, united states code. the speaker pro tempore: the reading has not been complete. the gentleman -- the house is not in order. the house will come to order. the gentleman can proceed. the clerk: section 706, alternative authorizations, notwithstanding sections 212, 402, 611, and 622 in any year

following a year in which there's a federal budget deficit, the authorization levels in those sections and the amendments made by those sections shall be as follow, one, alternatives authorizationers in national science foundation, a in general, they're authorized to be appropriated, $672 billion for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013. b, specific allocations of the amount authorized under subparagraph a for each fiscal year. one, $5,563,920,400 shall be made available for research and related activities. two, $87760,000 shall be made available for education and human resources. three, $117 million, --

$117,290,000 shall be made available for facilities construction. four, $400,000 shall be made available for operations and award management. $545,000 shall be made available for the national office of the science board and six, $14 million shall be made available for the office of inspector general. two, alternative authorizations for the institute of standards and technology, a in general, there are authorized to be appropriated to the secretary of commerce $839,330,000 for the institute of standards and technology for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013. b, specific allocations, of the amount authorized under subparagraph a for each fiscal year, one, $515 million shall be authorized for scientific and technical research and services laboratory activities.

two, $120 million shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance of facilities, and three, $204,300,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities of which, one, $70 million shall bh authorized for the technology innovation program under section 28 of the national institute of standards and technology act, two, $124,720,000 shall be authorized for the many manufacturing extension partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such act and three, $9600,000 shall be authorized for the national quality program under section 17 of the stevenson-wide ler innovation act of 198 0. three, alternative authorizations for the office of science of the department of energy. there are authorized to be appropriated to the sex retear for the activities of the office of science $4,904,,000

of which for each fiscal year a, $1,637,000,000 shall be for basic science active it is under section four. $604 billion shall be under section 605 and c, $605 million shall be for computing research activities under section 606. four, alternative operations for arpa-e. no funds should be appropriated for the director of arpa-e for deposit in the fund for fiscal year 2011 through 2013. mr. gordon: adoption of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend, will the gentleman suspend? the house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. gordon: mr. speaker, i demand a division of the question on adoption of the amendment to enable the separate votes on the portion of the amendment proposing to insert a new section, 704, and on the portion of the amendment proposing to insert a new section 705. -- stion, 705. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will divide the question on adopting the amendment under those three separation portions. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. >> i demand that the amendment be further divided. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman specify? will the gentleman please specify? >> to put a question separately or adding section 702 relating to the disabled veterans and 705 relating to military recruiters

right here on the eve of memorial day. mr. gordon: mr. speaker, i demand that the question on adopting the amendment be divided among its nine separate parts. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will divide the question about the amendment among nine separable portions. the first part of the divided question for is the portion of the amendment proposing to strike section 228. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the recorded vote is asked for. a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on adopting the first portion of the

amendment will be followed by a five-minute vote if ordered on subsequent portions of the f t amendment. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

2:30.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 24. -- are 241. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 175,

the nays are 243, the first portion of the amendment is not adopted. the second portion of the divided question for voting is the portion of the amendment proposing to strike section 406-b and c. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible b the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with e united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposess expressly prohibited by the u.s. use of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas 163, the nays 263, the second portion is not adopted. the unfinished business is the vote on striking section 2. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. t noes have it. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a record vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of reesentatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas? for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hall: i withdraw the request. for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the request for a recordedote is

withdrawn. portion 2 as ordered by voice is not adopted. the portion of the divided question for voting -- excuse me. e third portion of the divided questiofor voting is not adopted. the fourth portion of the divided question is for voting is on the portion of the amendment provose -- proposing to strike section 503. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the fourth portion is not adopted. the fifth portion of the divided question for voting is the portion of the amendment proposing to strike subtitle c

of title 4. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the fifth portion is not adopted. the sixth portion of the divided question for voting is t portion of thamendment proposing to amend section 702. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. hall: i ask for a recorded vote. i really do. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will ri. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is orred. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 197, the nays are 215. the sixth portion of the amenent is not adopted. the seventh portion of the divided question is voting -- is the portion of the amendme proposing to add stion 704. those in favor say aye. those posed, no. the ayes have it. >> i ask for a record vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the ited states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on in this 409, the nays are zero. the seventh porpgs of the amendment is adopt. the question for vote something the portion of the amendment oposing to add section 705. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the eighth portion is adopted. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 346, the nays are 68. the nays are 68. the -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 347, the nays are 68.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vose, the yeas are 346, the nays are 68. the eighth portion of the amendment is adopted. the ninth portion of the divided question is the portion providing to add section 706. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vos by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation withhe unid states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is presy prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 234. the ninth portion of the amendment is not adopted. the questn son the engrossmt and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes visit, third reading. the clerk: a bill to invest in innotion through research and develoent to improve the competitiveness of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the

bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have . >> mr. speaker, i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representates. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: thon vote, yeas are 262, nays are 150. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to without objection, the motion to reconsider is laion the table.

the speaker pro tempe: pursuant to house resolution 1404 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5136. will the the gentman from new yorkmr. seano, kindly take the chair? the chair: the committee will be

in order. committee will be in order. the houses of the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for the further consideration of bill h.r. 5136, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the department of defense, to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, may 27, 2010, a request for a recorded vote on en bloc amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-498 also by mr. skelton has been postponed. mr. skelton: mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does does the gentleman from missouri arise? mr. skelton: i ask that a demand for the vote on amendment number

81 be withdrawn? the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. skelton: thank you. the chair: the amendment stands adopted by the earlier voice vote. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on en bloc amendment number 9 as modified by the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the eyes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendments en bloc number 9 offered by mr. skelton of missouri, consistent amendments number 8, 13, 30, 32 as modified, 55, 61, 64, 66, 67, 74, and 77, printed in house report number 111-498. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request

for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will re will record the by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 4616, the nays are one. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the committee amendment in thnature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye.. opposed, say no.

e yeas have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5136 and pursuant to house resolution 1404 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5136 and pursuant to house resolution 1404 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and adoption of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the department of defense to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed with amendments h.r. 4899 making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady

from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. bachmann: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? mrs. bachmann: yes, in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: objection it qualifies. clerk will read. the clerk: report the same back to the house forgete with. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the ntleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. it is not germane. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: report the house back to the house with the following amendments. add the following new titles, pay freeze. section 1, pay freeze. a, notwithstanding any other provision of law or computing compensation for service drk mrs. bachmann: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. mr. skelton: i object.

the speaker pro tempore: the reading will continue. the clerk: the rate of salary or basic pay for any office or position within the civil service as defined section 2101 title 5 united states code shall be deemed equal to the rate of salary or basic pay payable for such office or position as of september 30, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with continuing of the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? objection is heardnd ordered. mr. skelton: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: make a point of order against this motion because it is not germ ain and i insist on my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota? mrs. bachmann: i ask to be heard on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. the gentlelady from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: the motion to recommit proposes to add a new amendment to the bill freezing the rate of pay for ourselves, members of congress, and for the nonuniformed federal employees. the amendment relies on the definition of civil service, provided in title 5 of the united states code, which covers positions in the executive, the judial and the legislative branches. the bill before us contains numerous and repeated references to title 5 of the united states code, yet the gentleman makes a point of order that this amendment is not germ ain to the bill. -- germane to the bill. the bill before us includes provisions such as the recently adopted sarbanes amendment, that amendment then affected the policies of all executive branch

agencies, not just the department of defense. and on that basis, i believe that the chair will find the provisions of the amendment limiting pay for civilian executive branch employees germane. i also believe that the bill is broad enough to cover judicial employees as well. so, mr. speaker, that then leaves the question of ourselves , our pay, and that of nonuniformed federal employees legislative branch employees. therefore, mr. speaker, i believe it would be improper for the chair to use a point of order for the purpose of protecting the employees of the legislative branch and for the purpose of protecting and shielding we, members of congress, from the pay freeze herein being proposed and it would other wise be in order for employees of the executive

branch. mr. speaker, i ask the question, do we really want to go on record saying that the rules of this house should not be used to shield our own members of congress and also the salaries and also those of the legislative salaries of the nonuniformed branch from being fiscally responsible? mr. speaker, i urge you not to sustain the point of order, because when the average wage and benefits for government workers is double that of private employees, then we should not use -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized. the gentlewoman will continue to make her statement. mrs. bachmann: when it is double of private employees -- i'm speaking on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is reminded to confine her comments to the point of order.

mrs. bachmann: we should not use the arcane rules to somehow exempt ourselves as members of congress our own pay increases and that of the nonuniformed federal officers from the responsibility of tightening our belts -- from the responsibility of tightening our belts. mr. skelton: spl speaker, i insist -- mr. speaker, i insist on my point of order. it is not germane. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman makes a point of order that the instructions proposed by the the gentlewoman from minimum sotesotea are not germane. and this range of subject matter implicates the jurisdiction of several committees. the instructions proposed in the motion to recommit seek to prohibit future increases of pay for employees within the federal government. this prohibition by addressing the legislative branch involved the jurisdiction of the committee on house administration. one of the fundamental

principles of germaneness is that an amendment must confine itself to matters within jurisdiction of the committees with jurisdiction over the underlying bill. the underlying bill is devoid of subject matter within the jurisdiction of committee of the house administration. the motion is not germane and the point of order is sustained. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, -- for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: i move to table the a peel, ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. mrs. bachmann: i request a recorded vote the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause

9, this 15-minute vote will be followed by passage of h.r. 1536 an and adoption of h.r. 407 unless by further proceedings on recommital. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 227 and the nays are 183 with zero answering present. the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise. >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. clerk will report. the clerk: mr. forbes moves to recommit the bi to the committee ol armed services with instructions to report back to the house with the following amendments. strike section 1032 and insert the following. section 1032, prohibition on the use of funds for the transferor release of individuals detained at united states naval station guantanamo bay, cuba. none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act may be used to transfer, release or exist in the transferor release to or within the united states, its fer towers or possessions of sheik muhammad or any other detainee who is not a member of the armed forces of the united states or two was or is held after january 20, 2009 at the united states naval station guantanamo bay, cuba, by the department of defense. in section 1037 a 1 c strike

within the exclusive investigative jurisdiction of the inspector general of the department of defense and insert in the united states. section 1037, strike subsection b, strike paragraph two. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members and staff will take their seats. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, sometimes things are not as complex as we try to make them here in washington. in fact, our best decisions come down to simple truths and one of those truths is that americans are safer when our government fights to keep terrorists off u.s. soil ran bringing them here. in january of 2009, 17 months ago, the worst terrorist who had ever attacked in the united states was being held in

guantanamo. the most experienced and best prosecutor the u.s. had against terrorists and a full prosecution team had been prosecuting these terrorists for almost two years. they had handled 56 motions, countless hearings and according to them, would have had guilty pleas out of all five of the 9/11 defendants within six months, in other words, june, a year ago. but this administration issued an order 17 months ago that destroyed all the work that prosecutor had done, all the work his entire team had done, every motion they had won, done away with every hearing for nothing and forced us as a nation to begin this prosecution anew sometime somewhere. today, 17 months later, there's not a single individual in this chamber that can tell us a clue as to when, where, how or even if these terrorists will be

prosecuted. all we know is that we are now 3 1/2 more years down the road and the clock is still ticking while the attorney general continues to debate whether we should prosecute them here or prosecute them there. while the victims of 9/11 have been waiting, the aclu has not. they have moved forward with the john adams project to defend these terrorists who by the way, admitted their guilt. and while the victims of 9/11 have been waiting, there are allegations that the identity is key military and intelligence personnel have been passed to the 9/11 defendants more than a year ago, allegations that such passage could have come from the attorneys involved in the case. there are further allegations with the passage of this information could have been a criminal act and could have jeopardized the safety of the individuals involved. and finally, mr. speaker, there have been concerns that the

secretary of defense and the attorney general have failed timely to investigate these matters. what's the difference between our motion to recommit and this bill? first, we say enough is enough. try the terrorists in guantanamo and we therefore prohibit the transfer of the detainees to the united states, simple, straightforward, no more waffling. the majority's position in the bill, mr. speaker, is that the president can continue to take all the time he wants to determine if, when, where, how he'll prosecute the terrorists and where he'll house them until he do. and all he has to do is file a plan, when and if he ultimately decides to do so. now my good friend, the chairman of the committee, loves to tell us just read the bill. well, if you just read the bill, you'll find that the bill prohibits the department of defense from spending nip money to reinforce security or other

facilities but does not stop them from coming but just stops us from preparing for them to come. secondly, this motion to recommit, says that the inspector general shall investigate as to whether or not there has been a crime from any of these allegations of distributing this information about military personnel and intelligence personnel. the current bill only allows him to investigate matters within the department of defense. this bill makes sure that any crime has been committed, he can investigate it, but the bill gives two get out of jail free cards. if the secretary of defense or the attorney general decides this would impair or interfere with an investigation, they can stop it. same attorney general who has not prosecuted these terrorists. mr. speaker, i would just say, if the attorney general won't prosecute the terrorists, he's

not going to investigate the attorneys that are checking on them. and mr. speaker, let me just say this in conclusion, the bottom line is we can't stop every terrorist from coming to the united states but we can stop the ones that are coming from guantanamo. this motion to recommit does that. we can't protect all of our military and intelligence personnel from terrorists, but we can help the ones involved in this case. and that's what this motion to recommit does. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit, although i'm not opposed to it. mr. speaker, we have dealt with these issues strongly in the committee. this adds to those particular issues. and we're in a position to accept this motion.

and i just wish to point out that there's no difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back? mr. skelton: i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes vit. the motion is adopted. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. an gin susht number has arisen, members will record their votes by electronicectronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, this 15-minute vote will be followed by five that all

members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks minute votes in suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 407 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for politicaor commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: pursuant to the instructions of the house in the motion to recommit i report h.r. 5136 back to the house with an amendment. the speaker pro mpore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. skelton of missouri. insert the following, section

1032, prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at guantanamo bay, cuba. none of the funds authorized appropriated may bused to transfer, release or assist in the transfer -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? the clerk will suspend. mr. skelton: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: in the transfer or -- mr. skelton: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and precipitationed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. quet is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

third reading. the clerk: h.r. 5136, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for mitary activities of the department of defense, to prescribe military personal strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question he is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will risand remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 229 and the nays are 186, with zero having voted -- the bill has passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections of the engrossment of h.r. 5136 to include corrections in spelling, section numbing and cross referencing and insertion of appropriate headings.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing on h.r. 407. the clerk: house resolution 407, expressing support for designation of may as national asthma and allergy awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. bordallo of guam for today and mr. jones of north carolina of north carolina for today and mr. latta of ohio after 11 a.m. for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5116. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. the chair will suspend. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to commend dr. nathan ford for the celebrate our successes award for his life achievements as an alumni of the

school system in newport, tennessee. dr. ford has devoted his life to providing health care through his practice, education for children of all ages and public service to tennessee. dr. ford began serving at age 27 when he was elected to the cobb county board of education and has since served as economic development chair, director of the chamber of commerce, chairman of the hospital board and served four terms a tennessee state representative. i commend him for meeting these roles with dignity and wisdom. dr. ford's love of serving others, medicine and community involvement continues to this day. it is a great example to those not only in east tennessee, but to our country. i encourage my colleagues to join with me in commending dr. nathan ford for his contributions and earning this honorable award. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute

requests? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the use, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. first, mr. witnessfield, then mrmccaul, then mrs. bachmann and then mr. gohmert, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes and include extraneous material, ms. wasserman schultz of florida, ms. woolsey of florida, ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. holt of new jersey, mr. defazio of oregon

and ms. watson of california. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. wasserman schultz of florida. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the patrick murphy amendment from yesterday and i am proud to have joined my colleagues in repealing the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy. as a member of the house approiations committee and select intelligence oversight panel, i did so not only because i believe this is an important step towards full equality, but because i believe repealing this policy will make our military stronger and our nation more secure. mr. speaker, since the don't ask, don't tell policy was created in 1993, more than 13,000 able bodied patriotic

people have been jetisonned from the military. we owe these americans a debt of gratitude not disrespect and dishonor. this was not a difficult vote for me. the preamble states, we the people in order to form a more perfect union to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution. our president often says we are in the constant process of making our nation a more perfect union. in my view, this amendment is vital if we are to uphold the constitution's promise of equal protection to gays and lesbians in my home state of florida and all across america. my friends in the community know all too well that serving their nation openly and honestly in the armed forces is one of many rights they are currently denied. that's wrong and with this vote,

we made it right. yet as important as this amendment is towards bestowing full civirights for gays and lesbians, it is equaly important to make our nation more secure. we are told in this chamber that we must choose between our security and our liberty. and i generally reject that false choice. but in this case, with this vote, we both expand civil liberties and make our nation more secure. mr. speaker, since the attacks of september 11 when our nation has been waging wars in iraq and afghistan, at the very time that we have been under serious and sustained threats from global terror networks, the united states military that is discharged more than 800 soldiers in mission critical positions including arab bilk and farsi languages. why? were they bad translators or poor soldiers? nor, they were discharged for one reason, gay or lesbian. they were discharged the fact

that they made valuable contributions to our intelligence community. they were discharged the fact that we have an alarming shortage of translators. this is not only an afront to civil liberties but at a time when we are fighting two wars, it is idiotic. it is important to repeal this policy for a third reason. it is dishonorable. they are currently serving in our armed forces with great distinction. they always have. the only question is whether our government must continue to ask them to lie about their sexual ownertation in order to do so. it is the only law in the country that requires people to be dishonest about the personal lives or face the possibility of being fired. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, no matter how i look at this issue i cannot escape the fact that we have a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend fellow

citizens. it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution, end quote. i couldn't agree more. no one should have to lie to perform any job. i think it is only fitting that this amendment was offered by the first iraq r veteran to serve in congress, representative patrick murphy of pennsylvania. he served in bosnia and in the famed 82nd airborne in iraq. when he bought his amendment before this house, he did so with deep love for his country and our military's best interest at heart. it is a policy he crafted in cooperation with our commander in chief. it unties the has of leaders at the pentagon but removing the don't ask, don't tell statute and ensuring that a new personnel policy takes place without disruption to our fighting force. in the spirit of equality and a more perfect union, with the confidence we are making our nation more secure and with

pride that we arending a policy of dishonor. we uphold our american values by repealing don't ask, don't tell. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise does the gentlewoman -- without objection. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, today this congress had a chance to save our american taxpayers

$2 billion next year by housing another scheduled pay raise for federal employees. but this chamber refused once again to listeno the crice of the american people -- cries of the american people. today we know that our budget deficits are clearly unsustainable. they are falling off the cliff, dropping off the cliff of financial sanity and we simply can't afford anymore to continue the out of control spending policies that have marked both republican and democrat leadership here in washington, d.c. i think my colleague, representative eric cantor -- i thank my colleague, representative eric cantor, for spear heading the youcut where we ask the american people to tell white house they would like us to cut here in washington from the federal budget. clearly government doesn't create the wealth or the jobs in this country. it's the private sector that does that. and when the government taxes

and spends the way it has been thlast several years, well, then innovators and entrepreneurs are stripped of the flexibility that they need to create jobs by excessive taxes and burdensome regulations. we're now at the point, mr. speaker, where we have over $13 trillion inebt who ran the debt up? this is under democrat leadership, but this is under republican leadership. both parties have been at fault with increasing the debt that the next generation has to pay. it isn't a republican or democrat issue, and the american people are outraged by all of the out-of-control spending that's been going on in this city by both political parties. under president bush the federal employees received across the board raises of 3% in january of 2008 and 3.9% in january of 2009. the same thing happened under president obama.

he recommended increases in pays for for federal employees in each of the year he's been in office. in fact, since the year 2000, federal workers have received annual pay raises of 3.6% a year. but we could have today eliminated the latest federal employee pay raise and also put the kabash on the pay raises for members of congress. but that was voted down. unfortunately primarily by the democrat majority of this body. according to the newspaper "usa today," this week they reported the typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private sector worker in the same occupation. in fact, mr. speaker, in 83% of all job categories between the government worker and the private worker, 83% of the time federal employees are made -- are paid more, in fact, substantially more, than their private counterpart. this doesn't include the value

of benefits like health care and retirement. when you take them into account, this graph shows federal employees are making double what people in the private sector are making. in fact, the numbers, mr. speaker, is average wage and benefit package for a government employee today in america is almost $120,000 for their counterpart in the private sector their average wage and benefit package is just under $60,0 per year. double is what people who are government workers are making over those in the private sector. in this chamber today -- and this chamber today couldn't even bring themselves to freezing the pay increases of these government workers that are making double what people in the private sector are making today. here's one example. federal employees making over $100,000, when the recession started 18 months ago, 14% of

federal employees made over $100,000. the recession has been very kind to government worker now it's 19% of government workers make over $100,000 a year. here's an even more specific example, in the department of transportation only one government worker made over $170,000 a year. 18 months of the recession and we have 1,690 employees now making over $170,0 a year in the department of transportation . that's even before you consider overtime and bonuses. the recession has been very kind to the government worker, not so much for those in the private sector. this proposal -- my proposal today would have prevented members of congress from getting pay increases. unfortunately the majority party did not want to prevent their own pay increases we would have kept in place the pay increases for our military.

why? because they deserve it. at one point -- at 1.4% increase during a time of war we should not ask our military to make that sacrifice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? i'm sorry, the gentlelady from texas. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the votes that i missed on the following dates. may 12, due to the passing of my mother, i missed the following vote, roll call vote number 259 i would have voted aye. roll call vote number 260 i would have voted aye. roll call vote number 261 i

wold have voted aye. and roll call vote 262 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 263 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 264 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 265 i would have voted aye and roll call vote 266 i would have voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that this be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jackson: tuesday -- ms. jackson lee: tuesday, may 18, due similarly to the passing of my mother, roll call vote 273 to 275, motions to suspend the rules, roll call vote 273 i would have voted aye, roll call vote 274 i would have voted aye, roll call vote 275 i would have voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: on the 20th of may, due to the passing of my mother, i missed the following roll call vote, 284. i would have voted aye. roll call vote 285 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 286 i would have

voted aye. roll call vote 287 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 288, providing i would have voted aye. roll call vote 289 i would have voted aye and roll call vote 290 i would have voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that it be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: accordingly, i continue to miss time on the passing of my mother othe -- may 24, and i missed roll call votes 291 to 293. i wld have voted on roll call vote 291, aye. roll call vote 2 the 2 i would have voted aye, roll call vote 293 i would have voted aye and i ask that it be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: on tuesday, may 25, accordingly, i missed the following votes pursuant to the earlier statement. call vote 294 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 295 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 296 i would have voted aye and roll call vote 297

i would have voted aye. roll call vote 298 i would have voted aye. roll call vote 299, aye. roll call vote 300 i would have voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that it be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: wiout objection. ms. jackson lee: on may 26, i was unavoidably obtained on business. roll call vote 303 i would have voted aye, 304 i woulhave voted aye and 305 i would have voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that it be placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we heard all of the arguments before we had our votes yesterday on don't ask, don't tell. but in the past we heard very similar arguments. the secretary of the army said he was concerned about how the

proposed change would affect the efficiency of the army. a five-star general warned of social experiments and worried that with reform in military personnel policy, we may have difficulty ating high morale. those are not quotations from 2010, mr. speaker. those are not quotations about the right of gay and lesbian americans to serve openly in the military. they're from more than 60 years ago, during the debate over racial integration of the armed forces. does anyone believe they were right? if so, please speak up. if anyone or is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the full participation of african-americans in its ranks? thankfully a majority in this body remembered this history lesson last night when we made history by ving to repeal the

don't ask, don't tell policy. an embarrassment unworthy of a great country and a great military. it has been responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable americans, men and women who were told their service is dispensable, not because of how they behaved but because of who they are. it has done violence to cherish the american values like equality, inclusion and tolerance. and it has damaged our national security, too. given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're still unfortunately fighting two wars, it is incomprehensible to me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve. it was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language specialists who could speak farsi and arabic were dismissed just when they were needed the most, when our occupation of iraq began.

the idea that openly gay members would undermine cohesion is just bunk. it is an argument based on fear, not fact. the research suggests that iraq and afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side by side with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian. to suggest otherwise is to insult our troops. as the author of the amendment, mr. murphy, has pointed out, because it assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional and even unpatriotic, that they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from the mission. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of stf, may have put it best when he said, and i quote him, i cannot escape being troubled by a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me personally, it comes down

to integrity. theirs as individuals and ours as an institution, unquote. and last night, mr. speaker, it came down to our integrity. the integrity of those of us privileged to serve in the people's house. i can't remember too many prouder moments during my time here because at last we have the integrity to do what's right, to support our troops and strengthen our military by repealing the cruel and unamerican don't ask, don't tell policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mccaul of texas. without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. as we go back home to our districts to honor the veterans on memorial day, today i rise to honor a true american hero,

corporal jeffrey johnson. third battalion, first marine division. born january 27, 1989 in charleston, south carolina. jeffrey joined the marines in july, 2007. he was killed on may 11, 2010, in the helmond province in afghanistan. where we have seen some of the fiercest fighting in the war as the surge moves forward to victory. he was three weeks into his second deployment when he was killed by an i.e.d. while on patrol. corporal johnson is a graduate of waler high school and is now being touted as a son of texas. jeffrey loved ford treks and he loved the outdoors, especially hunting and fishing. corporal johnson joined the

military to provide education and other options. he wanted to attend the university of texas and become either a game warden or a state trooper. . i spoke to the family the day jeffrey was brought home to his final homecoming to offer my condolences on behalf of a grateful nation and to give them flags flown over the united states capitol in his honor. to his family, his wife katey, his mother and stepmother, his mother, sisters and his brother, his grandparents, we cannot --

it's hard to put in records how you must feel to know that the united states congress and the american people are so grateful for your son's service. unfortunately, i have attended too many military funerals as many members of congress have, but i have never seen such an overwhelming support and love in the welcoming home of this fallen hero. he arrived by airplane from afghanistan in texas. he was greeted by the marines, who carried his casket to the hearse. and it reminded me of the greatness of this country. it was so inspiring to me that at a time of great tragedy and sorrow, that over 30,000 people

in a small town showed up to pay their respects, to show their appreciation for a man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. to signal to the rest of the nation that patriotism and love of country are still alive and well in america and it restored my ith in america. the fire department hung a large u.s. flag from two extended ladder trucks as captain johnson's body traveled to the funeral home. thousands of friends, veterans, school chiren, ordinary citizens showed their support and ned the streets waving american flags. this is what it's all about. as a member of congress, the hardest thing we have to do is to comfort families when they have lost a loved one at a time

of war. my het goes out to the family. but jeffrey did not die in vain. he was part of something greater than himself. he was on a mission for freedom and liberty, on a mission to liberate the world from the scurge of terrorism. my father a world war ii veteran was part of what we now call the greatest generation. jeffrey is now part of a new great generation of heroes. his life embodies what we see in the gospel of john, chapter 15, greater love has no man than this then a man lay down his life for his friends. jeffrey, you're home now with god. well done, good and faithful servant. my god bless you and may he hold you in the palm of his hand. i'd like to close with a quote

from abe abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, which i read to the family, his words are timeless today, when he said, the world will note or long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they, who fought here have so nobodyly advanced. it is for us to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us that fromhese honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. that we here highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain and that this nation under god shall have a

new birth offreedom and government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth. god bless you, jeffrey. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. watson of california. >> permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. watson: it is with great sadness that i learned of the passing today of actor gary wayne coleman, although short in statue, gary stole heart of american viewers with his humor and smile. he lived his life with a spunky sense of humor. coleman was born in illinois. he was adopted by a nurse

practitioner a forklift operator. he suffered from a congenital kidney disease which halted his growth at an early age, leaving to his small stature. he was known for his role on "different strokes." he was cast in the role of arnold jackson when he portrayed a child adopted by a wealthy widower. the show was broadcasted from 1978 to 1986 and was a huge success. at the height of his fame on "different strokes," he earned as much a$100,000 per episode. gary also appeared on "the jeffersons" and on "good times" d appeared in a 1978 pilot for a revival of the "lilrass calls"

as stymie. his life was tough after he was off the screen. he struggled, but he won the attention of the world as an actor. and i want to join with his family and the rest of his fans and those who admired and loved him and extend my condolences to his family, his friends, his fans and those that he worked with throughout his career. we all mourn the passing of gary wayne coleman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. holt of new jersey. for what purpe does gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this has been a whirl wind of a week. and i believe it is more than appropriate to summarize for the american people the real work that has been done, the triumph, the challenges, but also the admitted courage of those who recognize that without heavy lifting, this country may not have been explored and stretched to the far reaches of the west coast where many who traveled beyond the original settlement went west, young man courage of americans. this country would not have been

great had abraham lincoln not stood up to a divided nation, spoke against the evils of slavery and unify this nation. and although we have traveled a rocky road in the 20th century, moving to ensure the equality of all persons through the civil rights movement and women's movement, there has been men and women of courage who have made america different and better. i'm grateful we voted on the american jobs bill that will provide for small businesses, that will create summer jobs, that will stop the moving of jobs overseas, that provide the closing of tax loopholes, that provide for the physicians who nurture us, provide for our families, and it will create jobs. and the position that i have

taken, language that i had written that would allow those unemployed to receive training and stipe ends without losing unemployment insurance. oh, yes, we have work to do. and i ask the governors of our states to stand up and be heard and provide for the medicaid. i will fight with you. and we need to work on the cobra. but what we have done is to provide for jobs and then we have said to the men and women of the united states military, we believe in you, providing for more benefits, more quality of life support for their family, more post-traumatic stress disorder counseling and counseling of civilians that might have suffered a violent act on a military base such as those at forth hood, provided opportunities for small businesses to do business with the defense department, and then

to stand up for justice and stand up for a man who lost his life because of his sexual orientation and ugliness of hate and we eliminated don't ask, don't tell because men and women in the uned states military are well aware what justice is all about. they're well aware what political grandstanding is all about and well aware that this amendment only says we'll move forward after we have scrutinized your opinion. thank you to the men and women who are courageous enough to send us home, along with my own vote, to say to those who are in america in need that we believe in you and fought for you. i close by thanking my beloved mom and acknowledging that her teaching gave me the grounding to be able to say that all men and women are created equal. she is no longer here, but i

truble believe the teachings of our mothers and fathers have always brought us to the higher calling of being able to help all people. on behalf of myself and my brother and extended family we're gaitful to those who expressed their concerns and i believe in all seriousness that we must continue to help people to make their lives better and change america for the best. and i think we've got the best constitutional institution of democracy the world has ever seen, and that is the united states congress. as we disagree, we still uphold this flag and the constitution of the united states of america. we have now been sent home with a great amount of bounty for the american people and those who are in need and we have gone home to say thank you to the men and women of the united states military and to acknowledge and to appreciate and to honor those who have fallen in battle. may god bless you as god blesses america.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. jones of north carolina. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. moran of kansas. mr. wittfield. mr. gohmert of texas. without objection, the ordering of five-minute special order, mr. gohmert is vacated. under speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: friends across the aisle got up and talk about how we expanded civil rights in the military, unquote. and i appreciate the fact that friends believe they did a wonderful thing for the military

just as they think they did a wonderful thing to expand civil rights in courts martial that occur in the military. the fact is under our united states constitution that they keep referring to when it's convenient, it anticipates that there will be fferent rights afforded in different areas, one of which is in our united states military because the purpose of the military is not to be some socially geared experiment. it is -- enengineered experiment, but to protect our homeland, protect our way of life. and for that reason, the constitution anticipated that

congress, under its authority to create courts could set military commissions, could set up and pass the uniform code of military justice, which gave the military an entirely different type of structure when it comes to processing their rights and adjudicating different aspects of military life. because to do otherwise, to give everyone in the military, as i was for four years, the same rights that are afforded in the civilian court means that you can destroy the function of the military because so often the military doesn't have time to do all of the same things the

civilian court does. that's why the ucmj was created and that's why the constitutional and that's why we needed some form like that for our military. so, it is always an honor to get to speak in this hallowed hall, but hopefully we can cast some light on what it means to be in the military. because, for example, if you are suspected and there's probable cause to believe that a military member has committed a crime then it can be pursued as an article 15 nonjudicial punishment and as we saw with the outrageous pursuit of an article 15 against three valiant service members, they had the

right to choose not to accept the nonjudicial punishment, they could have forced them into restriction, extra duty, taken away pay, dropped them in rank, insteaof having that forced onto them ey were afforded their right under the ucmj to say, i'm not going to accept this, i want to go to trial in a court marshall and that's what occurred and all three were acquitted. fortunately and appropriately. but that's one of the ways. another is the commander at different levels of command can order a court marshall be convened, a court will be convened. and a military judge is appointed and if it is the commanding general of a facility, he can order a general court marshall, the highest level court marshall, under the ucmj.

you can have a dishonorable discharge and depends on the crime, as to how serious the punishment could be, but it could be as serious as a dishonorable discharge. so it's a very serious matter. but during the days when i was a prosecutor and attorney, a judge, a chief justice, when there was a jury selection in a civil court, you randomly sent out notices and randomly brought people in and then you went through a jury qualification with all of those and called out those who did not meet the requirements of the law to be a juror in a particular case. and then once the jury was qualified, the jury panel, that is, was qualified, they were brought before the parties of the particular case and they went through what we in texas call voir dire, but most of the

country called have a dear. it's just the way we talk in texas. but during that, th attorneys had the opportunity to ask questions of the jury panel so that they can determine whether or not there are people who can be struck for cause and to also allow them to exercise or call prementtry strikes so they can go through and in texas could you have as many as 10 strikes in the right cases to strike them for any reason, as long as it was not prohibited by the constitution, strike people for no reason. in the military, if a commanding general convenes a court martial, it means he has signed off ordering that that service member be prosecuted. so he's the convening authority for the court martial, he has

ordered that this person be prosecuted, so he is satisfied in his mind, he thinks this guy ought to be prosecuted,rought to justice and then that same authority gets to pick the people who will be on the jury and the attorney for the defendant in the military will have no rights to challenges as he would in a civilian court. he'd have no right o try to determine who he would like to strike, you know, for reasons. and the a very difficult process for a defendant or a defense attorney and there are cases in which someone can get life in prison in the military and may only have five members hand picked by the commanding general to be on the jury.

now, why would that be allowed? that probably just really infuriates some who are so concerned about civil rights. well, that's not fair. well, what they don't understand is that in the military, you can't go through all the processes that we have so luxuresly been bestowed with in the civilian sector. and still be able to fight wars and protect us against all these enemies, foreign and domestic. there have to be a difference, there has to be a difference in the rights that are afforded those in the military and those in the civiln sector or the military cannot function. if they're out on the battlefield, they don't have time to go through a full civil trial and afford all of the civil rights because if they

did, they would lose every battle. you can't do that to them and expect them to defend us. so there are different rights for those in the military than those in the american society. and it has to be so to have the strongest military that mankind and the world and history has ever known and ever seen and that is exactly what we have today. but our military was made promises earlier this year from the white house and the leadership here in congress, they were promised that we're looking at changing the policy of don't ask, don't tell, which will allow those who practice homosexuality to do openly and overtly.

for the entire history of our nation, in fact, more most of the history of our nation, the military has maded so omy a crime fowhich could you go to -- sodomy a crime for which you could go to prison. so we've made a dramatic turn in more recent years. so that people could feel comrtable that they afforded all the siff right -- civil rights. we're moving to giving our military all the civil rights that we all have in the civilian sector, not realizing a military can't function like that. not realizing that the military has to have different rights to some extent in order to function properly. because those in the military and most who have served in the military, obviously not all, out of the millions and millions and millions, our colleagues across the aisle keep talking about

13,000, but of the millions and millions and millions who have served in our military, most understand that when you are in harm's way and you have people firing at you and you're hungered down in a bunker or you're in a fox hole, you're in an untenable position and lives are at risk, that one of the strongest tendencies in the human body, the sexual urge, needs to be one that is not an issue. so whether it is those who cannot control their urges of heterosexuality or homosexuality, it absolutely should not be an issue when it comes to combat. and because those in the military have been scared to death of what kind of transformative change the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would

have, what it would mean, what it would do to their functioning, their ability to function as a military and protecting us, they ask, at least let us submit our opinions, let us give you our input. we're the ones out here willing to lay down our lives for you in congressfor new america, for you in the aclu. we're the ones out here willing to lay down our lives for you, let us have some input, let us tell you how it is in the military because we're not sure you understand, it has to be different in the military for the military to function. and our white house and our majority leaders in congress said, we hear you and we'll listen to you and we're going to do a study and it's due december 1 of this year and we will get

your input because you're out there willing to lay down your lives for us, so we'll get your input and we'll have a study on exactly what kind of transformation this will make in the military. will there have to be separate quarters for heterosexual males and homosexual males and heterosexual females and homosexual females? i mean, what is this going to look like in the military? what are we going to need to do in the way of facilities to accommodate the different types of sexual attraction? and it's going to be an interesting question and i think it's very important to get tha study. we need to know what it's going to do. how much is it going to cost our military in the way of time and transformation at the very time they're losing their lives in afghanistan, we still lose some in iraq and what many people don't know and what broke my heart in peace time was to attend funerals of military

friends during peace time because people die even in peace time in the military. what is it going to do to the military trying to adapt to a potential another war. what if iran gets their nuclear weapons because all we're doing is playing footsy talking about sanctions at a time when iran's centrifuges continue to spin, they're spinning, they're continuing to enrich uranium, they're getting closer err day, every day to not having the small amount they've got but moving toward full enrichment and the full bomb that could take out israel and if you read the quotes from ahmadinejad he makes it very clear, even though reporters in america have been scared to ask him anything other than ridiculous questions and not get to his claims that he is going to destroy the great

satan, america. he's made clear our way of life needs to be wiped off the planet as does that in israel. he's made it very clear and in furtherance of that goal, he has made clear they're continuing to move toward nuclear weapons and we're not going to stop them. and we talk about sanctions. now, china, to their credit, has been honest. they say, we don't want to go along with sanctions. i've been very concerned that china had come along and say, you know what? we'lagree to sanctions just like germany, france and russia did against iraq during the oil for food sanctions and they we -- then we found out later that germany, france and russia had been cheating and had made billions and billions of dollars. they loved having the sanctions because it meant they had no competition because everyone else was observing the sanctions.

so it is to china's credit that they've at least been honest enough to say, we're not -- we don't think the idea of sanctions is a good idea. because if they did and russia said -- russia and china said, ok, ok, we'll do sanctions, and then they start cheating, not only have we not done anything with sanctions, we've enriched people who wouldn't mind seeing us leave this earth as the greatest nation in history. so, we need our military to be able to function as well as it is now. and we have heard testimonials from those who said, i had a friend who couldn't stand to keep his homosexual feelings private, he had to go overt, he had to go public, he wanted everybody in the military to know and even though the vast majority of the military says that creates a real problem for us, our majority has voted

yesterday not only are we going to force you to have a different system than you've ever had before, we don't care what you think. now, we've heard today that, let's see, i believe the term political grandstanding was used when the fact is, i've been heartbroken for my friends in the military, people i know so well, who are heartbroken over what we've done. we betrayed our promise to the military. when i say we, i mean this body we betrayed our promise to the military that we would hear them out. why would we rush in and pass the elimination of don't ask, don't tell right now? we told them we'd wait for the study. people were say, ll, but we are going to wait for the study. we're just going to pass it now that we're going to eliminate

it regardless of what they say and then we'll get the study at the end of the year and use that. the headlines have hit the paper. last night this morning. the military reads the news. although they can't complain about things that their command for the chief orders because that would be pun vabble by court-martial, -- pawn shabble by court-martial, they read the news and know when they're about to be adversely affected. and they know when they've been made promises that haven't been kept by the people sending them out to potentially lay down their lives. and they know the headlines all say the house voted yesterday to repeal don't ask, don't tell. is it so much to ask in the military that you keep your sexual desires private so that

we all concentrate on our military mission? wouldn't that be a good idea? i've known of people to be kicked out of the military for having affairs. because it adversely affeed the morale and the well being of the military. can't put up with that. when iturts the well being and morale of the military, it needs to be dealt with, or you lose your military. we've had a policy since 1993 that president clinton put in place that said, look, just keep your sexual attractions private and we welcome you to serve in the military. but our number one function in the military is to provide for the common defense and anything that distracts from that is not appropriat but hearing the civil libertarians, so proud last night, clapping and cheering over the fact that we betrayed

our promise to the military, clapping and rejoicing that the huge, vast majority of the military was begging them not to do this, but they wouldn't wait for the official report. i still am heart broken. and for the charge of political grand standing on our side of the aisle, i come back to the question, again, why was it so important to betray a promise to the military that we would wait and get their input on what was going to have such a profound affect on the way they protected us, the way they lived every day? because it isn't like living in the civilian sector, i can assure you that. could itave been that the political left was getting upset that the majority had not done enough for them in their

view and that if they didn't rush and do something big to show them they really cared about the far left that they would not be there for them in the fall for november's election? and that the majority wanted to stay in the majority and they didn't want to lose such an important part of their base, albeit the far left end? could that have been the reason we had to rush in here and pass this law yesterday? and betray our promise to this nation's military? i'm at a loss. and particularly as we recess to go home for memorial day to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation and as john 15:13

says, displaying the greatest love that man could have, no greater love than that a man lay down his life for his friends. we're to pay tribute to them at the same time we betray the promise we made to them in dramatically altering their future. one other point, and i have a friend from minnesota here, i want to yield to her, but on the very day after we betrayed our promise to the military and basically said, we don't care what you think, we're going to change your way of life, we're going to change the way everything works in the military, particularly while we're in two battlefields, we took up today an amendment to bill 5116, and in that amendment, all it was asking was that our disabled vetrans

be given the same special consideration that minorities get under this bill who are trying to get an education in a college or university. most of us over here on this side did not think that was such an untenable position. a disabled vet? those who have lost part of their life, their ability to function physically, we can't even give them the same consideration that a minority gets in attending a college or university? i figured it would be virtually unanimous. and yet, the amendment failed. the majority brought down the amendment and said, you know what? disabled veterans on the day after we betrayed our promise to the military, we're not even going to give you the same

status of a minority in america to help you further your education. we don't want you to have that special consideration. so if you listen to the beautiful prose that is spoken here on the floor, you would believe that every single member of this house wants to do absolutely everything they can for our veterans but if you look what was done we betrayed our military, the promise we made to them and then the next day we said we don't consider you disabled veterans to be as important as minorities in america. why why wouldn't they be? i'm at a loss and i yield to my friend from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from texas. i thank him for his statements reviewing some of the week that was. that's really the theme of this hour that we have, we're talking about some of the events that have happened, a

week in review if you will, of the events of this week. i'm sure the gentleman will want to comment on some of these things as we go on. we need to go through a few items that are crucial and critical, not only to the future of the nation, what's happened in particular this week. we saw that this week, our country took a very historic line and broke it. it was this. we broke the $13 trillion mark in debt for this country. this is real money. all we have to do is know the comparison. a million seconds, think of dollars in terms of time. a million seconds equals 11 1/2 days. a billion seconds equals 32 years. a trillion seconds equals 32,000 years. then think of that in terms of money and what debt will mean for the new generation that's coming up.

all of us are part of the debtaying generation. all of vuss to pay for this out of control spending. but in particular, those who are ages 5 to 30, who are born today, who are between the ages of 5 and 30, who are the debt paying generation. just the stimulus bill alone, 787 -- $787 billion, which we didn't have, we had to borrow from foreign countries to spend that money work debt service that will cost us over $1 trillion. this is the cost of that bill to the debt-paying generation. those between the ages of 5 and 30 wil spend presumably 45 years in the work force. for every month the debt-paying generation is in the work force, they will effectively have to go out and buy a full-size ipod and give it over to the federal government. the next month tharblinge have to go out and buy another full-size ipod and give it over

to the federal government. that's a real cost for the debt paying generation's lives. those who are betwe the ages of 5 and 30. for 45 years, sthrale to effectively buy the price of a full-size ipod for their portion opaying off just that one debt obligation that's been accrued by this body. and this week, we broke the $13 trillion mark. no one's hands are clean on this deal. republicans spent too much money. this red line on the chart shows the excess debt that was accrued under republican leadership. this blue line shows the excess debt accrued under democrat leadership. it's by a 2-1 ratio. it's both parties that have been part of the problem but under the recent leadership of the democt party, we have seen literally debt fall off a cliff of fiscal sanity. i have another figure that came

out this week as well. that i'd like to share. it's on who is getting paid and what's happened to pay scales in e united states. no one thought it could get this out of whack but this is how stunning this statistic is. if we look at those who are government workers, federal employees, government workers today, federal employees, on average, they're making, you take comparable professions in the private sector versus government employees, government employees on average make more than private employees in 83% of all professions. so whether it's white collar or blue collar or management or professional or highly skilled or low skilled, it doesn't matter. in 83% of all professions, it's the government worker that's making more than the person in

the private sector. is that so bad? well, consider it's the private sector that creates the revenue to pay for the government workers. not only do the government workers make more, they make substantially more than their counterparts in the private sector. on average, 20% more in wages. but that isn't the whole package. when you combine the wages with the benefit package, health care and retirement benefits, the government employees are making double what their counterparts are making in the private sector. so if you take someone who is, let's say a janitor, working for the government, they're making on average double what a janitor makes in the private sector, or if the person is a cook if the person is a copy editor, on average, they're making double what the person is making in the private sector. if you're work in the private sector, exact same job, you're

making about $60,000 a year, versus $120,000 a year if you're a government employee. so today, on this body, was offered the opportunity for this body to freeze the increase in wages for government employees. this body decided to take a pass. they didn't even want to freeze the increase, the next increase in wages for the only sector in this economy that's making double what people in the private sector are making. we also offer an opportunity for people that -- in this body o freeze the wages of members of congress. in 2011 and theafter. again, this body took a pass. the american people voted recently on a website called youcut, 500,000 people voted and said, this is the number one issue they would like congress to address. freezing the salary of

government employees. but did this body listen? well, not the majority party. those who are in the republican party voted almost uniformly to freeze the wages. in fact, i think it was uniform. 100% of republicans voted to freeze the wages of government employees and to freeze the salaries of members of congress. that didn't happen on the democrat side of the aisle. perhaps that could be because, as we have seen, it is the democrats, unfortunately, who have been wild with taxpayers' money and spending at a rate of over double the excess rates the republicans have spent. that's just one of the issues that's happened this week. we also were watching the tragedy of the administration's late to the dance response to the tragedy of the deep horizon explosion in the gulf of mexico with b.p. where was the competence from

the federal government and from the obama administtion when we needed them most, when all of this oil had been gushing into the gulf and destroying the shoreline of the gulf of mexico derek stroying the way of life and fishing opportunities and rich tourism opportunities for those who live on the gulf coast? where was the comp to tense from our government when we needed it most? we haven't seen competence in the government's hands-off policy with this disaster, and we need to ask the question, on day one, where -- what did the obama administration do about the coast guard? what did they ask the coast guard to do to intervene, on day one? they weren't there. what did the administration do on day one with the booms that could have been put out in the ocean in order to quarantine off if you will this oil as it surged to the surface? nowhere to be found. the administration, they were

hands-off, they didn't do anything, where were the boats that could have been commandeered by the government to be sent into this region to deal with that oil plume as it was coming up to the water and destroying marine life? nowhere to be found. why? the administration was hands off on this policy. they were missing in action. where was the emergency plan to deal with an oil rig explosion? there wasn't one. we found out to our horror there was no plan a, much less any plan b to deal with an emergency of this magnitude and still the oil flows. also we saw this week the travesty of a thousand soldier now dead in afghanistan. this is a horrible, chilling thought to see this happen and we mourn their loss and we weep for their families and thank them for their service to our

country. and finally today more news came out from the white house, we saw that this week back in february representative joe sestak of this body said he was offered a job by someone in the adminiration in order not to run against senator specter in the primary and pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania. and today after three months, the white house said it was former president bill clinton who, as an intermediary, offered mr. sestak a job to stop running for political office in the primary in pennsylvania against senator specter. why? because, apparently, president obama backed senator specter for that political office. the only problem is that this activity is illeg to do under the united states code. whether a job was authored -- offered either directly or indirectly by the administration. when president obama was asked

yesterday in his press conference, the president refused to answer the reporter when he asked the question, major garrett. instead the president said that the white house would issue a formal response. well, the american people need answers to this very serious question that was asked by major garrett. who authorized former president clinton to make this offer to mr. sestak? we don't know. the white house won't tell us. who connected with the president's staff? who connected on the president's staff was involved in any of these disssions? we don't know. the white house won't tell us. what was offered to mr. sestak? we don't know. the white house won't tell us. who was present when the offer was made? we don't know, the white house won't tell us. mr. gohmert: will the gentlelady yield? mrs. bachmann: in just one moment. and what was the reply? we don't know. the white house won't tell us. did president obama discuss this job for leaving the political

race when he met with president clinton this week at the white house? we don't know. the white house won't tell us. this is a very serious charge and for three months the media has failed to press the president obama for an answer, much less press him for details. now that mr. sestak has won the primary over mr. specter, this issue looms large and it demands an answer from the white house. double standards are wrong when it comes to equal application of the law. the law should not apply just one way for republicans and another way for democrats. we need to get to the bottom of this very serious issue, no matter which political party is in the white house. and i yield to my colleague from texas. mr. gohmert: the white house has stone walled, as the gentlelady has pointed out, but it's been also intriguing to me that you

have a former admiral in the united states navy who brought this up and he has refused to give full details and make sure that the full truth about all of this was known himself. i'm deeply intrigued by that because i understand that our colleague was a graduate, 1974 graduate of the naval academy of the united states. and the academies have an honor code. and when i was in school at texas a&m we had an honor code as well. do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. the naval academy's honor code that is supposedo be kept by naval academy students and graduates says, quote, they stand for that which is right, they tell the truth and ensure

that the full truth is known. that's part of the honor code for mid shipmen for the naval academy. so i'm looking forward to both the white house and our colleague stepping up and giving the full truth so we can get this behind us and move on for heaven sake. it shouldn't have gone on this long without having a complete answer. there's no purpose to that. we also heard this week from our colleagues how proud they were that they successfully passed within the last couple of, three hours, what's called the doc fix. because doctors were going to be cut 20% in their reimbursement under medicare and i've seen documentation that makes clear that for some doctors, some treatment, when you cut them any

more than they are already, they lose substantial amounts of money, so why would they even undergo to help someone with a physical problem on medicare, particularly medicaid that pays even less, when they're receiving less compensation than it costs them just to conduct the activity with the patient? and what has not been talked about here on the floor by those who are so proud that they passed the, quote, doc fix, unquote, and did not cut the doctors 20% more this year was that originally there was supposed to be a fix in the reimbursement to physicians that would last at least 3 1/2 years and then at the end it would begin being cut 20% again.

well, what was inserted and actually came to the floor was a fix that not 3 1/2 years but 19 months and at the end of the 19 months, instead of going back to a 20% cut again, it moved and advanced to a 33% cut and even though we had colleagues across the aisle so proud that they helped our doctors continue to be able to see patients, it turns out that not just the a.m.a., i don't really trust their endorsements after seeing what they did on the health care fiasco, that would cut care to seniors by $500 billion and would dramatically change their professions forever, but looking further, every physician organization that weighed in

said, this is a disaster, don't pass this. and yet it was passed anyway an the majority stands up after it passes it and basically says, you are welcome. you are welcome. and they haven't really said thank you because they were begging them not to pass it. and that's kind of what we've seen with the military as well. and when we get in this area of special rights, as we've heard people clamor around the country for special rights in the military and special constitutional rights for those who are trying to kill and destroy us, if you go back, and i know everybody hasn't been fortunate enough to have a legal education, i'm very blessed with a legal education at baylor university, serving in the army for four years, you learn more than you ever probably want to. but, anyway, terrorists, people who are part of a group, who

have said they're at war with this nation, they're not entitled to the same rights under the constitution that we are. just like people in the military are not entitled to the same rights as people in the civilian sector. people at war with this country, going back to the keer an case in 1942, they were called enemy combatants. and if they abided by the geneva convention, they wore a uniform, they abided by the rules of law, then they were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war under the geneva convention and we treat the enemy combatants who are not entitled to anything under the geneva convention better than the geneva convention affords them. and throughout the history of mankind, from people who have studied war and if you're an officer in the military you have been required to study military

history, you know that if a nation was a civilized nation and they captured people who were at war with them, part of a group or a country who said they were at war, then you held them until their friends or country said, we're no longer at war. at that point, and it may be 10, 20 years down the line, but at that point when the friends finally admit, we're no longer at war, then you release those enemy combatants and let them return home on the promise not to be at war anymore. and if they were suspected or there was probable cause to believe they had committed a war crime, then youidn't even release them to go back home. even if they'd served 20 years in a p.o.w. camp, you tried them before a military commission for war crimes. and again the constitution of the united states anticipated

that in those situations, when they were tried, it would be before a military commission and the constitution specifically gives the congress the power to set up military commissions to do that. but because people don't realize our way of life is at risk and the constitution drafted by our founders who realized you have to have a different set of rights for those at war against you, have pushed and said, no, no, let's give these extra rights and treat these enemy combatants as extra special. and that's why in the military commission act of 2006, which has been upheld by the u.s. supreme court, they were referred to as enemy combatants. going back to the keran case of 1942. well, once our friends across the aisle took the majority, they could not live with this horrible language of calling

these people that want to kill us, destroy our way of life, destroy our families, our children, everything we hold dear, they didn't like them being called enemy combatants. it sounded offensive. so, an amendment to the military commission's act of 2006 was passed calling it the military commission's act of 2009 in which we struck the language enemy combatant. it is no longer appropriate under the law of this congress to call seone an enemy combatant who wants to kill us and destroy our way of life. now we call them and the term and, quote, is, unprivileged alien enemy belligerent. hoping that that will be less offensive to those who want to kill us, destroy us, wipe our our families an take all we have -- wipe out our families and take all we have. mrs. bachmann: just recently the president had made an

announcement on the nuclear strategy document that he would also change the language and no longer allow the use of the term extreme radicalism in the document as well. and so now we're applying terms of political correctness to our military documents, into our documents for our national security. we can gahead and change all the terms all we want, but that doesn't make any difference to the people who mean to destroy our country and to kill our people. they still have the same intent and it seems that the first rule of war is to know your enemy and appreciate what their purpose is. i think the thing that shocked me the most in this chamber was when we took a vote, the last vote of the week before we left town, and it was unbelievable because it expanded the civil rights of terrorists. if you recall, those who interrogate, like let's say the underwear bomber, on christmas

day when he was takingen off the plane and sbeg -- taken off the plane and interrogators sat down with that underwear bomber to find out everything he knew and of course we found out that it was less than an hour that he was subject to interrogation, well, the bill that was passed in this chamber would put a 15-year jail sentence on our interrogators, our good guy interrogators, if they were have found to treat an alleged terrorist either inhumanely, cruelly or in a he meaning fashion. now, the one thing we know is that our attorney general is now giving taxpayer subsidized attorneys to these terrorists after they try to kill us, which they don't necessarily have the right to. they're given miranda warnings, the privileges and immunities under the constitution, reserved to a u.s. citizen, are given to

terrorists. they're give a taxpayer subsidized lawyer. how often do we think it will be that these taxpayer subsidized lawyers, under this new bill, will raise the issue that the interrogatorser was maybe demeaning his client? try 100% of the time. won't that have a chilling effect on the interrogators when they're trying to pull information out of the terrorists, maybe information like, do you have a computer? how were you financed? are there other guys like you out there? are there any more coming behind? might be information that would help keep our people safe. this is the unbelievable action of the current democrat majority that is not keeping our people safe and in fact is -- as the gentleman from texas said is working to enhance the civil rights, not of freedom-loving, god-fear,

patriotic americans but of terrorists who seek only the destruction of the united states and to destroy the lives of the american people. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i'm concerned, my friend keeps using the term terrorist. i'm worry shed may not realize that that might offend somebody that wants to kill her. mrs. bachmann: if i could reclaim my time, thank god we are standing in the well of the united states house of representatives, one bastion left for free speech. at least i hope so, for the time being. i yield back. mr. gohmert: as long as you don't say somebody lied. then we're ok. but i know that there are people who are concerned that we, if we are just nice enough to those folks who want to kill us and destroy our way of life, that they'll come around and see how wonderful and nice they are, unfortunately they don't realize, to those who want to destroy our way of life and

kill us, it appears to be weakness. and a weaktons them means we are worthy to be destroyed because we have no business being on the planet and -- but i know there are still those who say, let's help those do everything we can for them, and i come back to, it's article -- there's a former c.i.a. operative, wayne simmons, terrorist analyst who indicates that he was amazed at the medical treatment that was provided to those who want to kill and destroy us. and having been to guantanamo a couple of times myself, seen the extraordinary court set up that was ready to start trying terrorists back over a year ago, when the president, the command for the chief, put the stop on it, they were about to go to trial and they ha already, the first five to go to trial, had already said they were going to plead guilty.

once they were told they were coming to new york and were going to get a civilian trial, well, obviously they made clear, well, we're going to be proud of what we did but we're not going to plead guilty. we're looking forward to that wonderful format in new york. again, for those who are worried that, you know, if we would just treat these folks nicely, they'll love us, instead of wanting to doe destroy our way of life, i would give them, humbly, the example of abdullah masud. he was -- a.k.a. sayid mohammed ali shah, was released from guantanamo. but because during his attempts to destroy american lives, he had lost his leg below his knee, well we fitted him with a

prosthesis that cost between $50,000 and $75,000. so those who were worried about if we just are nicer to these folks, we were nice to mr. masud, gave him a prosthesis to help him, even though he last his leg trying to kill us. we tried to help him and did. and gave him that wonderful prosthesis, american ingenuity at its best, creating a prosthesis like that that would help him walk, help him be a participant in society and so knowing that he would surely have to love us after we had helped restore his leg that he lost trying to be violent against us, he was released and he, according to pakistani officials, directed a homicide attack that killed 31 people in pakistan and then two months

later, when he was about to be captured by pakistani forces, he blew himself up, including the $75,000 prosthesis. apparently it didn't mean a whole lot how nice we were to him in guantanamo and when -- on my first trip to guantanamo, it was interesting. at one point, there were a couple of us in one of the detention areas, we'd been warned, now when we go through this door, do not talk because you won't be able to hear their interaction between each other if they know a voice that they're not familiar with is somewhere around here. and so we listened. there was laughing, i didn't understand what they were saying, kidding around, a lot of banter back and forth between the different units where they were being held.

as we stood at the end of the hallway, someone with us said something that was heard by those on that hallway and immediately the banter, the cheerfulness, turned into, help, i'm being tortured, help. we were treated to cries for help and they didn't realize that we'd been hearing them kidding around, laughing and joking with each other until they heard that a new voice was on the floor and we were told that's because they know that there are different groups that come to check on amnesty international, different ones that come to check on them, and so that's why, as soon they hear a voice that they don't hear every day theyant to make sure that they get lots of sympathy. it's what they're trained to do it was amazing to observe that fithand. it was really interesting and amazing. but also, we know that no one

who is a guard is allowed to assault or even speak in a negative way toward anyone being held at guantanamo. the only assaults now, for some years, have been -- that have gone on at guantanamo occur when the inmates there figure out new and exciting ways to throw urine or feces on our guards. there's been only one guard that reacted hostilely by yelling an insult, a verbal insult at the one who threw feces on him and he was punished for that, what was deemedy our military, overreaction, though hi he did not strike he spoke angrily and insultingly and therefore he was punished. those, you might wonder, mr. speaker, what happens to those that keep throwing urine and

feces. well in a normal prison and i've been through many of those, if you will not quit assaulting the guards, then ultimately you're put in an isolation cell where you can't possibly do it anymore. but because of all the complaints about what a horrible place guantanamos, though it's -- the people there are treated better than most any maximum security prison i've ever seen or heard about, we don't put them in isolation. because amnesty international, some of these groups would go nuts, so they say it's easier just to punish them by taking away some of their -- a couple of their hours they're allowed to watch movies each day and if it's bad enough they may take some of their time away that -- the hours that they're allowed to be outdoors. that's their punishment. losing some movie time and

viewing some of the movies out now, they're not missing that much, but that's how they're punished for throwing urine or feces on our guards. so i realize that some in this body, some around this couldn't -- around the country, want to help terrorists and they believe if we'll just be nice to them, everything will work out fine. that's not the case. it is absolutely not the case. it is religious zell tri-and i thank -- se lottery ry and i thank god it's only a few members who believe in this violent jihad. the vast majority of islamic believers don't believe jihad means the violent, physical event that the jihaddist extremists that we've come to

know and see kill people do. so thank goodness for that. but for those jihaddist extremists who believe, as ahmadinejad said, that he can usher in the comi of the madi, the grand madi that will rule over the caliphate, he can usher that in by qusing nuclear weapons to blow us up, blow israel up. this is serious. he believes it to his core, even though some american interviewers were scared to ask, why do you want to blow us up and destrs? and do you believe you'll bring about the return of the madi to rule the world if you use nuclear weapons? nobody had the nerve to ask those. that's what wehas said repeatedly. and as the lesson should have been learned from hitler, when you have a nut that's claiming he's going to kill people and

destroy countries and destroy societies and commit genocide and he achieves the weaponry to do that, you better take him seriously. but we haven't done that. it's been a very interesting week. again, that was -- earlier i was mentioning the bill, resolution 5116, the competes act, it's called this would have amended section 702, persons with disabilities, to include veterans with disabilities in achieving the same type of special consideration. that's all it says. special consideration. that other groups designated as minorities under this do.

how unfortunate, the same week we betray our promise to our military. as we anticipate heading home this weekend, which i do each weekend, think about memorial day and those who have laid down their lives for us, having attended the funeral of sergeant kenneth b. may jr., 26 years old of kilgore, texas, in the last 10 days, our hearts and ou tributes go out to those who serve this nation, may they forgive us for what we've done to them this week. th speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: pursuant to house concurrent resolution 282, of the 11th congress, i move that the house do now adjourn as quickly as possible. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed. to accordingly, pursuant to house resolution 282, 11111th >> his book "war."

we have a former president of shell on why we hate the oil companies. thee days of "booktv." get the schedule at booktv.org. >> it goes back to the 1970's and a series of agreements from the reagan administration, continuing in some form in every subsequent administration. >> watched the moments that make history right now on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. every program since 1987, available free, online. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online.

you can connect with us on tour, facebook, and you too. sign up for our schedule alert e-mails @ c-span -- order -- at c-span.org. >> in this panel, the pp drilling engineer who wrote plans for well casing and cement seals on the rig. this is from louisiana and it is 90 minutes. >> is a go on the record appeared before we start the hearing, i would like to make a couple of comments. we want to maintain the dignity

of these hearings. i respectfully request that all parties not engage in conversations exceptional one at the end of the hearings. clear guidance on the rights of the parties and interests are in the regulations of the manual. particularly, if you have witnesses or evidence that you would like to have us consider, please do so in writing. when a witness is subpoenaed by the board, they have -- as with all u.s. citizens, the head of the right to exercise their constitutional rights. there is no presumption of innocence or guilt. we have means to gather information and other information that will allow us to make proper conclusions and recommendations. wooden bat, our first witness -- with that, are for this -- our first witness is from bp. please rise so i can review the oath.

please rise -- please raise your right hand. a false agents -- a false statement is punishable by a fine and prison. do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you for being here. take your seat. >> for the record, can you state your full name and spell your last name. please. l-e.-a-f- i am a drilling engineer for bp.

>> can you describe your job responsibilities? >> we take the geologic data and the offset information from wells in the area and come up with a reasonable assumption going into the well and we design how many things that is likely to take to drill the well. we put together drilling plans and permits. we do cost estimates during the drilling of operations. we do answer day-to-day questions. right reports.

recapture lesson learned and transfer those to the next well. >> it you do great -- review the daily reports. >> everyday. >> have you had any special subsea operations in deepwater drilling experience? >> i have been involved in the border since 1993. -- in deep water since 1993. i have lost track of the numbers that i have been personally involved in. it is somewhere between 20 and 50. i do not recall the exact number. >> thank you. >> when the original well was being drilled, did you ever built -- visit the very honest -- the mariannas? >> i do not think i visited during the drilling process. >> what problems did they run into during that?

>> on the original well bore, not do a bypass.did >> the well bore that you usually -- that you later came back to bypass. >> i am not sure i understand the question. >> giddy p arrive in november -- did bp arrive and then come back in february with the deep water rise and to complete the bypass? >> -- the deepwater horizon to complete the bypass? >> no. >> you got stuck with the horizon. >> when the horizon came on location, that was to resume drilling operations because we had to release the mariannas from contract operations. >> how many times did you visit the horizon at the current location?

>> one time. >> when? >> during the month of march. >> was there a special reason? >> i went offshore for, i am not sure exactly what was the primary reason, but we were going to a squeeze job on one of the casing shoes. i went out to oversee that. it had been won -- quite a while since i had been on the horizon. i assumed i would be there for a weekend and ended up being there for 10 days. >> what is your specific authority to make revisions to casing programs in deepwater wells? >> it is the engineer's job that if the casing change is needed, we engineered the change, make a proposal, and get it approved through the proper channels at bp. >> is that approved by somebody above you? >> i recommend it and it is approved by somebody above me. >> can you briefly define what fractured rating is?

>> it is the strength of the rock the strength under certain constraints forces. >> can you give me a brief definition of oil -- pore pressure? >> that is in a rock that has pore spaces, the pressure contained in those spaces. >> can you explain the relationship between those in deepwater drilling? >> pore pressure is less than or equal to frat grading. there are rare instances where they are close to exactly the same, for the practical purposes. >> do you take into consideration the risk? >> every well has risks. >> do you take into consideration location of casing? >> all the time.

>> the learning as a result of drilling -- ballooning is a result of drilling, not sending that occurs naturally. >> how about station keeping? >> absolutely. >> how do you evaluate and manage that? >> it is done at all different levels from the well site and. we do risk management -- it is done at all different levels. from the well side, we do risk- management. we take previous wells and look at how they turned out. we learn from them. we have our risk register -- that is the official terminology he might find event bp. >> did you design the casing program? >> i came up with the basis of design. we have not validated by our technology group. >> who is on that group?

>> for this well, it would be steve. >> just one person? >> of the people involved would be richard miller, mike payne, phil sr. and jr. >> how many times did you revise the program for this specific well? >> multiple. them as vital to their work two changes, is that accurate? -- >> if i told you there were four changes, is that accurate? >> it is possible. we thought it would take six strings when we set out. it ended up taking eight strings. some of them were shortened and some of them were deepened, as happens in all exploration wells, there are changes because of the nature of the type of oil or while you are drilling. --

well you drill. >> you said it was initially 7 and it was changed to 9? >> there were six strings initially. >> oh. you talked about why those changes were necessary. why in this well were those changes needed? >> when you start though well, you have a pore pressure plot and assumptions based on seismic data and calculations. when you actually drilled it, you disproved or prove those predictions. the predictions were not accurate, as it is in most expiration wells. there were six strings initially. we have contingency strings available. we do not permit those contingency strings. it is not required to permit those.

sometimes they show up on well or diagrams that the mms as to identify -- well bore diagrams that the mms has. you adjust the plan and mobilize the contingency strings. >> thank you. what was your interaction with the mms drilling engineer? >> which one? the other one in the new orleans district. >> i had no one-on-one interaction with him. >> do you normally have interaction? >> it is usually through our regulatory department. >> prior to the drilling, did anyone from bp or yourself go visit with them about the exploratory well? >> i did not participate in any meeting. in the past, we have had meetings when we drill really special wells. we informed them personally. i have been involved in those in the past.

>> why did you add the 11th and 7/8 and 9 and 7/8 inch liners. >> they were required to reach the objective depth because of the ratings. >> are you familiar with that change program? >> yes. >> do you use that program? >> i am not sure what is in the hse manual. >> do you mind if i show it to you really quick? >> sure.

i would say that the drilling department talks about the same thing. i have not personally -- i do not have a copy of this document. >> no problem. i was just going to ask some general questions about the management process. it may not be that one specifically. when you change an application permit to drill, do you go through and management of change process that is initiated by someone? >> we do go through that process. >> how long does that take? >> it depends on the nature of the change and how much risk there is, how much time will be involved with the change. there are various factors. >> casing program change does initiate a management change process? >> yes. >> who verifies the process? >> there is -- there is

multiple people involved in the review and approval. >> who would review such a change to the casing program and actually sign off on it? >> it would depend on the scope of the change. the level of approval would change depending on what the exact change that you want to know about. if it is setting a case in string shallower by 300 feet because the rating does not allow you to get to the planned depth, that management change is a much different scale than trying to deepen a casing by 3,000 feet. >> the recall what you use the seven-inch casing -- do you recall why you used the 7-inch casing? >> it fit in the hole.

it fit the plan. we ran the 9 and 7/8 content is a string -- contingency string. >> you still have the option to run of five-inch casing, if you want. >> you can run any size is and that will fit -- casing that will fit. >> are you familiar with the economics of flow rates? >> i do not run economics or flow rate calculations. >> can you give me a brief definition of what formation ballooning is? >> while you drill a section, you of a certain weight. you know, when you drill out that he's in string, you get a -- that casing string, you have a mud weight. ning situation,

you lose circulation. you aren't getting full returns. you would shut the pumps down, monitor the hole, the fmrmation -- formation may be expanded. the mud goes back. >> during that well, were there nin incidents? what were your recommendations? >> yes. many different ways to combat ballooning. , cut the down the ecd --

mud weight, pump materials to help bridge off fractures or permeable zones. we did all three of those. >> did bp consider using managed-pressure drilling? >> never. >> did you encounter any other abnormalities during the drilling of this well? >> we had a major loss circulation evens and well controlled events. >> did you have any swabbing? did you pull any drill? >> not to my knowledge. >> were there any tight spots in the well? >> i cannot recall specifically. >> was there a stock bottom hole assembly? >> yes. >> what was the maximum background gas when you receive -- that he received when drilling the casing?

>> i do not recall the numbers exactly. it was not the highest background gas we had seen. >> not the highest. do you have a range? >> it's either -- zero to 3000. >> how much -- while you were drilling and production section, did you have any thing due to high drilling gas? >> i'm not sure. >> did you have a detailed procedure for your performance of any negative tests on the casing? >> i wrote the permit for that temporary abandonment. the procedures were detailed at the raig site. the procedure is created at the rig site. >> with the kill line?

there wer no other permits than this? >> there's only one. >> i'm just trying to clarify was told to me. >> yeah. >> do you know if the deep water horizon crew set the top plug before they circulated the riser? >> it was not set. >> we have different terminology in the mms. he was talking to me when you answer the question. i am sorry. >> that plug was not set. >> should they have set that plug before they started circulating about the riser? >> no.

>> would it have reduced the risk? >> i don't know. i don't believe so. >> are you involved with the procedure of how to circulate the mud when you circulate about the riser? >> no, sir. >> or you aware of who was responsible to monitor the circulating of the riser? did anybody to remove -- was somebody remove from monitoring? >> that is all done at the rate site -- rig site. there are multiple people who monitor that mudflow. >> is at common -- is it common for them to be removed from removed backto the mud -- that to the mud? >> i'm not aware of that tree died you have any specific well control training?

-- i am not aware of that. >> do you have any specific well control training? >> yes. i had some training in the last couple of years. >> have you upper witnessed -- ever witnessed a lot for vendor test -- a blowout preventer test or were you aware of problems during drilling? >> every test had been satisfactory, as far as i'm aware. the mariannas had bop problems. the b.o.p. problems were why it was on standby when hurricane ida occurred. >> you're not aware of any problems before that? >> no. >> can you espla -- explain

what a dead man function on a b.o.p. stack is? >> if you lose communication, but the stack can close certain functions automatically. >> can you explain an auto share? >> it is part of the dead man's system. >> doe bp require any testing -- does bp require any testing on that? >> i am not aware of that. it is done with trans ocean and the well site leaders. >> you're not aware of any of bp's functionalities? the components of the stacks, what roles they play in lockouts or bypasses? >> i have su a general have sb-

b.o.p. systems, but that is not one of my -- i have a general knowledge of sub-b.o.p. systems, but that is not one of my areas. >> did you take these zones into consideration? >> absolutely. >> what was taken into consideration? what was the end result of what happened with your work on that? did you continue to go forward -- >> i am not sure what specific part you're asking about. >> you designed the job. did you change your cement job? >> we designed that after we had the real well data to give us the best chance of having a successful job with the actual

data about pressure and lost circulation. >> will be that we -- who gave that to you? >> we worked with halliburton to design that. they have the software. they run the model. we review the model. just the model parameters. -- we adjust the model parameters until we're satisfied that it has been prepared as best as possible. >> was there anything in the cement that would mitigate loss returns? >> i believe they had a plan. >> how about hydrocarbon influx? >> i am not sure. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not know what that means. >> the friction reduction on the cement job. >> i am not sure.

>> what was nitrogen used on this job? >> nitrogen is used to waiting -- to light in the wake of the cement -- lighten the weight of the cement. >> who approved that -- you or halliburton? >> it was from the engineering department and from halliburton. the approval would be from the people of all the others. -- above us. >> how many previous nitrogen jobs have you reviewed or approved? >> two on htis -- this well this well. 22 adn 28. -- 22 and 28. it's the best way to combat flow. >> did you have any issues?

>> did you look at data that would indicate there was lost return? did you run any temperature of logs? >> no, sir. we're not gotten the that point in the plan before the incident -- we had not gotten to that point in the plan before the incident. >> my data indicates that it was a good job. >> what data did you receive? but i was given verbal information -- >> i was given verbal information. >> whose verbal indication? >> bryan murrell, bp drilling engineer. >> do you feel like the failure

of the possible -- that was directly related to this blowout? >> i cannot speculate on that because the investigation is not complete. >> that is all i have, sir. >> thank you. >> let's cover a couple of items real quick. specifically the core pressure fract grading -- can you elaborate a? -- elaborate? is there something so severe that needs to be looked at for shallow -- something specific that needs to be looked at for shallow casing? >> the deeper the water, that has to be taken into consideration when you plan the at casing points.

in a shelf well, you would have very high, very shallow fract gradings. >> does that mean you end up setting more casings? >> not necessarily. generally speaking, deep water wells go to an equivalent depth and they would probably require more teasing strings. >-- casing strings. >> could you case yourself out? >> running out of pipe, absolutely. >> when you get to the bottom, it is not worth it. >> i can imagine it happening. >> is that not what you have to be careful with? >> it you have to be careful with that in any well. >> deep water is a lot more expensive