time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1320, as amended. i have no further speakers -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker. i have no further speakers. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1320, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bonner: i ask for the yeas and nays on this. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will

rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:00 p

>> with representative charlesrangle -- charles rangel in the news, use d.c.'s ban video library to get the news. it is washington your way. >> c-span, at our content is available on television, radio, and on line. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. signup for our emails at c- span.org. >> white house press secretary robert gibbs said today that the leaking of afghanistan war documents raises concerns but

the content of the documents disclosed on the web site will not change u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. his briefing with the reporters is one hour. >> hold on. the stragglers are coming. i got it. we will check back on thursday. >> a few questions, if you on the leaks. what was the president's reaction when he heard about the lake?

-- the link? >> i talked to the president some time last week after mentioning that these were coming. the reaction to this type of material come a breach of a federal law is always the same. whenever you have the potential for names, operations, and programs to be in the public domain that besides being against the law has the potential to be very harmful for those cooperating with our military and those working to keep us safe. >> was personally angered by this? did he demand answers? >> there is an ongoing investigation that pre-dated the end of last week into leaks of

highly classified secret documents. >> does the white house believe these raise doubts whether pakistan is a reliable partner in terrorism? >> let's understand a few things about the documents. based on what we have seen, i do not think what has been reported has been publicly discussed either by you or by representatives of the u.s. government for quite some time. we have certainly known about safe havens in pakistan. we have been concern about civilian casualties for quite some time. we have taken steps to make improvements.

the last time general petraeus testified in front of the senate, there was a robust discussion about the historical relationships that have been had between the intelligence services and taliban. >> so no doubts about pakistan's trustworthiness? >> the president was clear in march 2009 than there was no blank check for pakistan. they had to change the way they dealt with us. they needed to make progress on the safe havens. it is in the interest of pakistan knees. we saw last year -- it is in the interest of pakistanis. they turned their eyes on an innocent pakistan mis. ec them make progress in moving against extremists.

at the same time, even if they make progress we understand the status quo is not acceptable. we need to continue moving this relationship in the right direction. >> one more. what do you think this is about the ability of the government to reject a information like this? >> there is no doubt this is a concerning development in the national security. as we said earlier, it poses a very real and potential threats to those that are working hard every day to keep us safe. >> i wanted to ask you quickly about congressman rangel. important for the white house for him to reach a deal? >> i do not have anything on that. courts will that be a

distraction if it carries on into september? >> let me get some information. >> one question this raises is whether this makes sense for the u.s. to continue to give billions of dollars of aid to pakistan if they are helping the taliban. i am wondering if that is a concern. >> as i said, as march -- as of march 27, 2009, the president said after years of mixed results we will not and cannot provide a blank check. pakistan must show they are willing to root out the violent extremists. i will not stand here on july 26 and tell you that all is well. i will tell you that we have made progress in moving this relationship for word, in having the pakistanis address the issue of safe havens, the issue of

extremists operating in the country by undertaking the operations. over the course of the 1.5 years, what the pakistanis have found is that the extremists and once enjoyed complete safe havens in parts of their country now threaten their country. they have taken steps. we want to continue to work with them to take more steps. we'll understand that we are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11. ensuring that there is not a safe haven in afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. that is why we are there and why we will continue to make progress.

>> is there enough progress to justify the aid to going out to them? >> even if you look at some of the comments the secretary of state made in pakistan, our criticism has been relayed both publicly and privately. we will continue to do so in order to move this relationship for word. >> i know you are unhappy about the leak, but could you talk about how that part of the issue is characterized early the memos and whether you think this is -- >> again, i do not know that what is being said or being reported is not something that

has not been discussed very publicly by named u.s. officials and in many news sources. "the new york times" had a story on this topic in march 2009 written by the same author. >> with the consumer regulator decision, when will they make a decision? >> i do not have an update from last week. i said i did not think that things were immediate. i know that the president will look at this job than the several other jobs that are created as part of this legislation and make an announcement. >> jenna you do not wish to direct share instead weaknesses of candidates, -- >> i know we have talked about this with many of you on the

phone. i think we have many good candidates. the president and the team wanted to create a bureau that dealt with consumers and issues because even as a look back at the debate and the issues involved in this debate, most people's interaction with the financial system is not on a wall street trading level. it is in getting a loan. and is in getting the capital to create or expand a small business to buy a home. ensuring that there are protections for those on main street in order to interact on a daily basis with the financial system are important. >> is wall street proxy opposition will be weighed in

the decisionmaking process? -- is wall street's opposition? >> i think elizabeth warren is a terrific candidate. i do not think any criticism in any way by any one would disqualify her. i think she is very confirmable. >> if you have said a couple of times now a fellow this information is not really new. the name of u.s. government officials have said some of the same information. >> i said there were not any new revelations. >> we have known this already. >> it is not the contents. it is the names, the operations, sources, all', the of that information out in a public way which has the potential to do harm.

if someone is cooperating with the federal government and of their name is listed in an action report, i do not think it is a stretch to believe that could potentially put a group or individual at a great individual rest. >> this could embarrass officials because this war is in worse shape than the administration and the previous administration had let on. >> in terms of broad regulations, there are not any we see in these documents. we talk about the way of the war is going in afghanistan, documents reportedly covered from january 2004 until december 2009. i cannot speak for the conduct from an operational expected --

operational perspective. i know when the president came into office in 2009 that he ordered an increase in the number of our troops having spent two years talking about how far our efforts in afghanistan were greatly on your resources, increased resources and troops to provide security for an election. as you know, he conducted a fairly comprehensive and painstaking review of our policy which resulted in the december 1, 2009, speech about a new direction in afghanistan. i will say this. we came in talking about afghanistan and pakistan as a region, not as two distinct countries which put emphasis on our relationship and the reactions of pakistan. >> even if there is no policy put into place, the mistakes

that may have been made years in advance of that, how can it turn that around? to these documents suggest that this war is it too far gone to turn around with one policy change? >> i do not think in any way that the documents suggest that. we agreed -- this administration's been a large part of 2007 and 2008 campaigning to be this administration saying that the warrant had been prosecuted, the resources being devoted, it threatens our national security. we had a debate whether or not the focus was iraq for afghanistan. we weighed heavily on afghanistan, because for years and years, more troops were needed. more troops had been requested

by the commanding general but none were forthcoming. that is why the president increase the number of troops going into an important election time. we took steps through a painstaking and comprehensive review. >> even after the review committee's documents suggest that the pakistani government has representatives of these spies plant -- plotting to attack american soldiers and afghan officials. how is this a sign the war is going well? >> you are putting seven issues into one question. let's get clear. let me finish. >> how can the war be going well? that is one question. >> the direction of our relationship with pakistan, based on steps to have asked them to take, has improved the relationship, right? >> eu said the u.s. and pakistan

are "partners joined in a common cause." >> yes, in fighting, as i just mentioned a few moments ago, in fighting extremists within the border. go back to last year. remember last year when they decided they would march and the capitol and the pakistan? that became a threat to pakistan. for the first time ever, use of pakistan fighting back against violence extremists. when general jones refers it to the statement, the actions they took, that is what we're take -- that is what we're talking about. on the premise of your question, understand the documents and in 2009. i do not know if you meant to conflate actions -- i think they're making progress

again. again, i would point you to the hearing that was conducted just one month ago, less than one month ago, and general petraeus has talked about this. no one is here to declare mission accomplished. he had not heard that phrase admitted by us saying that everything is going well. understand this. we got involved in this region of the world after 9/11. for years and years and years, this area was neglected, it was under resources, underfunded. that is what let the president to say that what we need to do is focus on what is going on in the afghanistan. it is why we are here. >> two questions. given the apparent ease that mr. manning was able to obtain and transfer the documents, has anyone ordered an immediate

change to make sure this will let happen? >> i would put you to the department of defense. they should be able to discuss what changes they have made in the operational security. >> any insight what mr. manning may have been motivated by? >> i do not know if the department of defense would have something. >> can you give us any kind of insight? was he angry, concern, worried? , any time in which more than 90,000 top-secret documents, which are against the law for me to give to you, i think it would be safe to say it is alarming to find 90 fount -- 90,000 of them published on a web site. >> on ms. sherrod, i was wondering if if you had any word on whether or not she would accept the job? >> that is a question for her.

>> conventional wisdom is that the white house is trying to keep the focus on policing the documents. they're concerned with this breach of federal law, but are they concerned with evidence about civilian casualties, cooperation between terrorists? >> this did the president made in march 2009 understand the complicated aspects between but the these two countries. there is a historical relationship between the taliban and pakistani intel. a decent part of a ""rolling " article discusses the rules of engagement around civilian casualties within our own military -- a decent part of the "rolling stone" article talks about our military.

but has been and what is known about our relationship and efforts in afghanistan and pakistan are not market in -- markedly changed. if you go back to march 2009, we are clearly taking steps to make progress in dealing with pakistan in the safe havens, with the civilian casualties. we on the that in efforts like this to win the hearts and minds, you certainly will not do that with innocent civilians caught tragically in the crossfire. >> if they are true, you cannot help but be shocked by what you read about some of the horrible things that has happened. has the president read any of this himself? >> i do not know, chip. the president does not need to

read a leaked document on the internet today to be shocked and horrified by unnecessary -- and every civilian casualty is unnecessary. that is an innocent life. i have been asked about this for well over one year. times in which our commander of that point, general mcchrystal, they had gone to seed different places around afghanistan that had seen horrific civilian casualties. look. each and every casualty, innocent civilian casualties, it is a tragedy and it makes the job against the extremists that much harder. >> as -- does the president believed the release of this will harm or will harm the efforts? >> any time in which a

potentially -- the names that could be in these documents, missions, operations, documents are classified and greeted secretly for a reason. -- and reach had secretly for a reason. i think it is concerning that you certainly have operational concerts -- security concerns. i think many of our challenges in both pakistan and afghanistan were the same they were last week. i do not think anyone would tell you they anticipate that progress will not be slow and difficult in these two countries. >> is a pretty fundamental questions that these -- duties

set a setback? >> i think it goes a potential security risk. >> i wonder if you could explain how that is relevant to the accuracy of documents. >> i think the founder, if i read correctly, comparing troops in afghanistan to the secret east german police is certainly something we would fundamentally disagree with and something that clearly has an agenda. >> does that affect the accuracy of these comments? did they hold back documents that would be more fatal? >> no one in this government was afforded the opportunity to see what they do or do not have.

i do not know if that question is relevant for me so much as it is for him. >> i was wondering if you are trying to attack the credibility. >> i have not reviewed 90,000 documents. it was brought to us late last week. again, the coverage i read off of the news documents does not, i think, materially change the challenges we have in each of these two countries. as i said, i do not think the challenges you would have listed this time last week are different based on what we see in the documents at this time this week. the challenges we have had and the historical relationships with pakistan intelligence and the taliban is something we were working to address.

that in and of itself is not a surprise. working on the safe havens and their impact on our efforts in the war, all of these things, i think many of you all have covered them. >> is this administration confident? >> i will not get into the aspects of that investigation. >> do you have any comment on the position taken by the u.s. government in a letter written by the deputy chief of the u.s. embassy in london? when the u.s. preferred the use of [unintelligible] >> i think that was released for the state department. there was not a preference. the preference enunciated in the letter, the preference

enunciated in the present in boxing call to prime minister brown, the preference enunciated by john brennan and others was that he should not be released. we think that was the right decision. we think the decision not to release him, we agree with that today. that is what we publicly stated prior to the release. the letter says in the event the scots make a decision we do not think they should break, what ever you do do not let him travel to leave. do not let him have a hero's welcome coming home. we also -- and i think the letter clearly states this, we asked for an independent medical examination to ensure that the

medical records that having only three months to live was indeed supported independently. the preference enunciated by every level of this government was for him to continue to serve the sentence that he was serving until he died. >> could you tell me what effort the white house has made before and after these documents to try and contain any political fallout? efforts by general jones, anyone else on the security council? >> when we learned of the story, we notified relevant committees on capitol hill that these documents were about to go on line. i do not know -- i would not put that under the rubric of

containing political damage. i would put that under the rubric of understanding that 90,000 documents dating back to january 2004 which traditionally been not -- would about to become public. cracks but efforts did you make to try and get in touch with any of the wikileak people? >> the only effort i made in discussing -- "the times" came to us and handled this in a responsible way. i passed a message along to "the new york times" to the head of wikileaks to reject the duration

that could harm personnel, relations, or security. i think that is in the story. >> he mentioned that the beginning of this briefing the investigation into the of improper the king of the classified information. are the part of the investigation? >> there is an ongoing investigation as to the sleek, yes. -- to this leak, yes. >> did you try to get "the new york times" not to publish this? >> no, i did not. the new york talk -- "the new york times" did not publish this. the website said. had only "the new york times" has this story, would we have that made a case in an effort as we have with them and other news organizations? yes.

understand that the times was one of three organizations that had access. we got questions on friday. i met with "the new york times" on thursday. >> can you talk about any white house concerns about support for the war? have you done an assessment? what is your thinking? >> they go back to the point that i made to the others. if you took out a piece of paper, the monthly review will have been on thursday down in the situation room. i am on where the list of concerns that would be different today than they were one -- of

based on what we have seen. -- that were based on what we have seen. >> i will switch the topic to bp. as the president informed of corporate changes? what can you say? >> i would have you talked to bp about personnel changes they will make. if they make them. i will say this. the ceo of bp, tony hayward, if he makes the decision or the board makes the decision for him to leave, that is one thing. what is clear is a bp cannot, should not come and will not --

should not, and will not leave the gulf without meeting its responsibility to plug the oil will come to cleanup the damage caused, and to compensate those that have been damaged. i think that is the most import less and harder fear. there are obligations and responsibilities, as the responsible party, that bp has. regardless to who leads the company, those allegations must be met. it is not ours to doubt. is ours to ensure that this happens. >> speaking of the spill, it was disclosed that the white house is sending people down. >> i can get you better numbers. >> they are to improve a better inter-governmental relations.

i have got more than a few emails from your news organizations about the inability to get information from the joint information center. with people that the joint intimation center, people in each state. i think you look at the progress of our response to the disaster, go back a few weeks, and i forget the exact time line, but oiled got into -- oil got into a bay shared by alabama and florida. baldwin is notified but florida is not. a breakedown -- breakdown in communications to the local level. we put coordinators in each other -- each of the four states

to ensure what is happening gets down to local elected officials. >> so the numbers are wrong? >> i can get updates. >> back to wikileaks, have they been described here by people who know a little better? >> i think we have acted as if they were. >> there have been some who say these things should be viewed by the public some degree of skepticism because they are fragmented. what would you, as a spokesman for the white house, tell the public to do? should they run through these, take them in with some degree of

interest? out what is a testament of how much is true? >> i will not play the broader role except to say that i think this is on the ground reporting. what is unclear, certainly if you read to the stories is whether some of the events they think might have been happened. the way i sum it up a little bit ago is that the concerns in the documents, and they are important concerns that we have certainly dealt with since we have been here and certainly as they related to afghanistan and pakistan and what precipitated the administration from during a comprehensive the the about our policy in both areas.

our goal is to get this right. our goal is to keep america safe. we want to ensure the safety of those that are conducting these operations. >> let me take this from a different point of view. this is one of the subtexts from "the washington post" last week. to many things are kept secret. is this all need to be top secret? is this really that vital? is this that sensitive to national security? >> those are made on a document by document basis. i am not an expert in the classification progress -- classification process. obviously, at the the the president will lean -- i think

that the president would lean on knowing as much as you can. go back to the 12 or so meetings in the situation room. we announced everyone. we had readouts beyond readouts. there were photos. we did not exactly have an evaluation of our policy in afghanistan and pakistan. that is not the way we have operated. again, let's be clear. i want to make sure i'm clear on this. based on the fed said there is no new revelation in this, our concern is not people might know that people -- that we are concerned about safe havens in pakistan or that we are concerned, as we are, about civilian casualties. all you need is a laptop and a mouse to figure that out.

or $1.50 or 0.5 cents depending on the newspaper you purchase. what generally cut -- governs the classification would be names, operations, personnel, people cooperating. all of which has a compromising effect on our security. >> can you explain factor of what this would have? >> i just assume, and this is some connection, but this is a fairly public process. i do not know what exactly led to this letter. i know the letter speaks quite clearly to our preference, our strong preference, as

communicated both in this letter and communications we have had directly with the government there that he should that be released. >> you say there is nothing really new in these documents. there are many examples in washington where an event changes the dynamic. we know there is some interaction there. this goes back to jonathan's question. are you doing anything? >> i answered his question. >> the second part of the question was, have you done anything since the documents were released to try and assess whether or not these documents provide any ammunition to

critics, any critical change? >> critics like to? >> critics of the afghanistan war. >> i do not know every call that has been made. when i was trying to do was the couple the fact that we notified congress that 90,000 documents were about to put on that until the moment they when live were classified documents. it is part of what is generally assumed to be our notification process. i certainly have not heard of a broad effort relating to what you're talking about. >> the president will make a statement about the cut -- the disclosure today. given that is coming up in the senate tomorrow, he campaigned a

lot about corporate influence and elections. do you feel like the administration mis- underestimated the information? >> from a republican? >> i do not know with the final vote will be tomorrow, but if you had a sliver of republicans that thought special interest giving and corporate interests in an election were part of the problem then this bill will pass. pardon me? >> there have been alterations to this in the house. >> there is the process and then there is a vote. you get to decide which side you

are. you choose. you get to decide whether or not you think there is it too much -- they are supportive of the legislation. now we get to see him in the senate thinks there is it too much corporate influence and to much special interest money which dominates our election and who does not. i do not know how it could be any clearer than that. >> in the wake of citizens united when the president made a big deal about this comedy underestimate and miscalculate just how hard this was going to be? >> in your words, we might have mis-underestimated that. we shared the president park's ago. thatn the president's view

they seek not to just influence elections but ultimately change policy. as i have said, governing is about truces, right? you are either going to extend unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs or you are not, ok? either increasing money for small business lending or you are not. we will find out who thinks there is too much corporate interest and who is just happy with the corporate influence we have. >> to follow up on the question about inflection points in the public opinions, i want to make a comparison. >> the pentagon papers are difference in the sense that you're talking about policy documents. these are on the ground

recordings of different events. i do not see how in any way they are compatible given the fact that -- go back and look at the past month where we have talked about the concern of the civilian casualties. it is not something we previously have not touched on that all the sudden burst into the public arena. certainly, as i said earlier, the relationships that have been had between the pakistan intelligence services and the taliban. the headline in the code the new york times" attributes to usaid. i'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of those concerns. they are serious. that is why we have taken steps to try and improve the

relationship so they can take certain steps, in pakistan and afghanistan, a situation that improves our security. >> those same things were said about the pentagon papers. >> i do not think the material that is in the undergone, the the pentagon papers is a fairly exhaustive review by the pentagon. as major said, this is a serious about one of documents about an operation here and there, up one instance here or there. this is not a broad review of aspects of progress we have or have not made and civilian casualties. and is just on the ground reporting. >> the navigation of these

documents, -- >> again, because there is only a certain time. cumming you just do not know what was and what was not leaked or posted. >> would you compare this to abu ghraib? >> i will say this. i always loathe to look back and compare one event to something else. i think we have a tendency to want to compare something to something else rather than simply reporting. i want to stress again the notion that, again, if you look at what our concerns are with pakistan in the relationships and troubles we face, i do not

know if you would list one thing differently today as a result of what we have read in these documents that you would not have listed one week ago. >> that is partly the answer to that. you do not have some revelation and that there is a systematic change of the course of events, that we have stepped up operations in a certain part in the war in southeast asia. that is non what these documents are. >> the head of a wikileaks said they will not save for the documents came from. some think mr. manning, who is already in custody, is a hero. i think there are ways in which

-- in ways one could do things other than putting people in potential danger. again, if i would have handed you one of these documents, i would be breaking the law. i think there are certainly better ways to discuss and register 1's opposition rather than putting people in a potential problem. i will not get into that. >> is the president hoping to sway some opinions or shine a light on this? >> we hope the senate will listen to what the president says and take that into account before the vote. >> on congressman rangle, -- rangel, you yourself said in

february -- >> i will be happy to find some stuff on that. >> on sherrod, she invited president obama to come to georgia. >> having listened to the call, she invited him broadly to south georgia. i do not remember him getting that detailed. >> is this a moment where the president might lead a national conversation on race? >> i said this a lot last week. i do not think we have to look at the events of last week to need the president to lead that conversation. i assume and i hope whether it was in the offices of this administration, televisions, newspapers, in the home of millions of americans that we learned a little bit about ourselves and how we are reacting to things.

i do not think the president, as i said last week, has to be the teacher in every teachable moment. >> thank you, robert. a different question regarding personnel. two weeks ago the capitol hill publication "the hill" reported that a top staffer in senator staff was about to be named to a key position in hhs. she is a former vice president of the wellpoint insurance company. can you confirm that appointment? what appointing -- >> i hope you talked to hhs. i did not get down to that level of detail. i have not been given that level of detail on any potential impending announcements. >> can i ask you about the

congressional briefing? >> let me follow up on wikileaks. even if there is nothing substantially new cumming you are in the communication business. are you concerned that the public will think there is something new and this will have an impact on your policy? >> inherently, the last phrase of your question that you did not necessarily a enumerate was about the politics of all this. the president made a decision to cut almost 50,000 more troops in afghanistan not based on politics but what was right. this was based on what he believed give us the best chance on -- in succeeding in afghanistan and making the decisions that give us the best

opportunity to improve our relationship with afghanistan and create a partnership to go after those in pakistan who sought to do them harm, those in pakistan and afghanistan that sought to do americans form. that is the filter by which the president went through in the meetings. that is the filter through which they have made the decision. the politics of all of this will settle out regardless. the questions the president asked himself and that the team ask themselves in making this decision is, "what is the right policy for this country? what is the right policy to keep us safe? what is the right policy to prevent safe havens from being recreated in afghanistan where planning can happen again unfettered to attack this

country as happened on 9/11"? that is what we are focused on. >> is unanimous that it is the right policy that this is -- [unintelligible] >> i would point to the department of defense on that. and there was a very, very large and very, very extensive, with multiple inputs, review of where we were and what we needed to do going forward. we are in the process of implementing the new strategy, evaluating the strategy, and moving forward. i believe america is safer.

if we were not to be in this area, if the taliban or to overthrow the government and create a safe haven that allowed al qaeda to not have to plot in a case but said in the open and plot the next 9/11, our country would be much more dangerous, a much greater target, and i think that is why the president made the decision that he has made. april? >> these documents date back to 2004. is this a direct slap in the face for this administration's intelligence? >> it speaks to concerns about operational security. i do not believe it is directed at us personally. >> also on that point on

intelligence, more so in a broader sense, after 9/11, the bush a administration kept saying it was not about if but a matter of when. is that still the case as you deal with intelligence daily? >> without getting into discussing the same type of material i said it would not discuss here, there is a group of people within this government and winehouse to work each day to make sure that will not happen. >> they also are talking about education with the urban league. last year at the naacp, president obama talked-about education and civil rights issues. will he have a cursory conversation with those who tend

to be politically astute on these matters? >> will he have a conversation? >> on race? >> i missed that word. i thought you asked if they would ask him questions. i could confirm as a senior administration official that a that would be the case. i have no idea what they will last. willume the president's answer their questions. i know we talked about this late last week that the president has long been scheduled to go to the urban league and will deliver again a speech about what has been done in this administration to change and improve the administration system in this country. ultimately the opportunity our

children are given as a result of that than they and their parents alike had. >> will civil rights be in the speech? >> i think that is a safe bet. >> one short question. hold on. why is it your turn back there and i am up here? i think you work -- >> i think you were too busy yelling last time. sam? >> i guess most of this information pre-dates obama. >> most of this was probably done less last week and more, quite honestly, over the coast -- a bridge over the course of the last 24 hours. >> most of this pre-dates the president's new strategy. are you trying to take this down and make sure --

>> then we first be clear -- lets me first be clear. it would be hard to identify anyone that has been as much as senator john kerry has. he was intimately involved in and met several times with president karzai around the election and the aftermath of that. he has traveled to both countries. .

if your strategy is going to be predicated on 25,000 troops rather than 100,000 troops, that limits your ability to impact that. i think senator kerrey has been a leading voice on this, and our responsibility is to do all the weekend to get this right. -- all that we can to get this right. we have mostly meetings that will happen this thursday. >> we go live to the u.s. house.

jection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order.

the release of 5 million diplomatic reports on the website on u.s. operations in afghanistan. they called them irresponsible and said it would put the lives of americans at risk. first, an update on what is happening on capitol hill. house democrats are hoping to

see the final week of business before the start of the break. a staff writer called the briefing room. what must think it done before lawmakers leave town? >> they are hoping to pass legislation. it is a series of bills to bring some jobs back. they have been shipped overseas.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house con current resolution 304. directing the clerk of the house of representatives to correct the enrollment of h.r. 725. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the title of the concurrent retslusion. -- resolution. the concurrent resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent that i be removed as co-sponsor from h.r. 3421. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. thank you so much, mr. speaker. i would like to congratulate a great artist from my congressional district, ricardo yosa. he's a poet, critic, curator, proprofessor and clerkt. yet his generosity and desire to give back is what stands him out. he has graciously opened his personal art collection to -- for an important exhibition that will take place soon. this august the university of notre dame's museum of art will open an exhibition of contemporary latin american artwork. he has also been invited by the museum of the americas at the o.a.s. to give a talk on the significance and themes of this exhibition. ricardo has been a renowned art critic for many years. he has been a senior editor of

art international, north american editor of southward art and a contributor and advisor to the enpsych peedic dictionary of art. he's a frequent lecturer of art museums, has published six booms -- books of poems and has been published in many literary magazines. thank you for opening up your collection to us all in the hopes of educating and spiring others. you are truly a renaissance man. congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise tonight to honor the bedgeman school and palm beach gardens, florida. they won the florida state lacrosse championship this spring in sudden death overtime. team members, matt, tyler, nick,

josh, dylan, robbie, justin, scott, ryan, phillip, nick, robbie, josh, kobe, robert, evan, jay ford and charlie nicholas played with great determination and heart throughout the tournament weekend to come from behind in the semifinals to beat defending state champion local rival to earn a spot against tampa in the finals. it was a hard-fought see-saw scoring battle with the score tied 11-11 at the end of the fourth quarter. josh stoffer scourd the game-winning goal. i'm proud to congratulate the bucks and the coach on their first of i'm sure many state championships. go bucks and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection. .

ms. jackson lee: the american with disabilities act was designed in 1990 with a bipartisan approach to implement laws that would provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. why did we wait so long? and how grand it is to be able to respond to those disabled, who are challenged, physically challenged and who are experiencing difficulties that they should not as a full american citizen. and so this law provides them with the armor to -- arm our to prevent against discrimination. i was in houston today celebrating at the west end center on gray straight. i can assure you that this

evidence of serving people was a grand celebration. so many were there celebrating at the west gray multiservice center in houston, texas and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: i rise today to honor and celebrate the life of mr. nick bacon for his lifetime of dedicated service to america and arkansas and to recognize his heroism as a veteran of the united states army. he served in the u.s. army from 1963 to 1984. president nixon awarded him the medal of honor for his heroism. he was also awarded the distinguished service cross, two bronze stars and a purple heart over the course of his military service.

he was not a hero not only in the battlefield, but by the way he lived his life serving others. as the director of the arkansas department of veterans affairs, he was influential in finding services for veterans and their families and the long-term care facility and arkansas state veterans cemetery. his lifetime of dedication to our country and american veterans is worthy of the many awards and recognitions he received. a humble man who loved his people, nick always had the veteran at heart. he will be greatly missed. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: madam speaker, this week, 20 years ago, the

americans with disabilities act was signed into law by president george h.w. bush on july 26, 1990. to many of us, the a.d.a. holds tangible things like signs and millions of americans with disabilities, the law marked a new sense of freedom, freedom to move about, to work, to contribute, to live one's life. president bush said it best as he signed, quote, today welcomes into the mainstream of life all our fellow citizens with disabilities and embrace with your abilities and disabilities and similarities and for our differences, for your past courage and future dreams. last year, we celebrated a victory of international freedom and even the strongest person couldn't scale the berlin wall. and so together, we rejoice when that barrier fell. i sign legislation which takes a sledge hammer to another wall,

which has separated americans with disabilities with the freedom they could glimpse but not grasp. congratulations on the 20th anniversary on the americans with disabilities act. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. >> i ask that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permit todd address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. cao, mr. poe, mr. jones, july 30 for five minutes, mr. flake today for five minutes, mrs. ros-lehtinen on july 237, 28, 29 and 30 for five minutes each, myself, mr. dumping and for five minutes, mr. thompson today and

july 28 for five minutes and mr. mr. lincoln diaz-balart on july 27, 28 and 29 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. young of florida for today and the balance of the week and mr. poe of texas for today until 7:30 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i thank the individuals who are waiting to speak as well. the national media have been quick to blame for the firing of agriculture department official shirley sherro dn and points to

fox news. the article says the network is in pursuit of sherro did, however they did not air any stories against her until she resigned. the "new york times" have largely ignored the truth. the rush to judgment came from the obama administration, not conservative media outlets. "the times" article is the media giving the white house a free pass. media outlets should be more honest if they want the trust of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> 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, revise and extend their remarks and include

any extraneous material, mr. lynch for five minutes, mr. defazio from oregon for five minutes, ms. woolsey of california for five minutes and ms. caupt turf ohio for five -- ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. without objection. >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1566, resolution providing for concurrent resolution 301 directing the president of the war powers resolution to remove the united states armed forces from pakistan. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are

recognized for five minutes each. mr. lynch from massachusetts. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: i rise this evening to talk about a united states supreme court decision that could have far-reaching social and economic impacts on the american indian population. a 6-3 decision by the united states supreme court decision issued held that the secretary of the interior exceeded his authority in taking land into trust for an american indian tribe that was not recognized at the time the indian organization act was enacted in 1934. i speak tonight to the injustice of that result and to the moral imperative that we as members of the united states congress have to see that that decision is corrected. for sentries now the american

indians who call these lands home long before europeans arrived have been pushed to the fringes of this great country 1 fringes of this great country and suffered disruption, violence and relocation to make way for continued expansion. the indian reorganization act irronically sought to actually rectify many of those mistreatments. from 1934 to 2009, the department of the interior has restored lands to enable tribal governments to build schools and health clinics, hospitals, housing and community septemberers to serve the american indian people. the secretary of the interior has approved trust acquisitions for approximately five million acres of former tribal homelands, far short of the more than 100 million acres of land lost through the federal policies of removal, allotment and assimilation. the supreme court decision in

cocieri versus salazar, if left in place, has the potential to undo that effort. the decision threatens tribal sovreignty economic seffsi and self-determination as the act provides not only for the authority of the secretary of the authority to take lands into trust for tribes but also for the establishment of tribal constitutions and tribal business structures. the decision also has the danger of establishing two classes of american indian tribes, those recognized as of 1934 for whom land may be taken into trust and those recognized after 1934 who would be unable to have land taken into trust or their benefit. this is unacceptable and contrary to the intent of congress. in fact, the federally recognized indian tribe list act passed in 1994 provides that all

tribes are treated equally. since 1934, the department of the interior has construed the indian reorganization act to authorize the secretary to place land into trust for all federally recognized tribes. and trying to right our nation's wrong, secretary salazar and his predecessors have taken steps to return to american indians a fraction of the land that their ancestors called home and for the supreme court, any court for that matter to render a narrow decision like this based on supposition, the writers of the act gave particular meaning to one word in their decision as a further slap in the face to this proud people. current history leads many americans to society -- associate the tribal lands with the development of casinos and gaming but it is much more. it is providing resources for our nation to survive and

restoring sacred lands on which they prayed and were buried and rebuilding communities. i would like to acknowledge the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee and the gentleman from oak mr. cole and -- oklahoma, mr. coal and senator durbin to see that this miscaurge of justice is corrected. while times have been bad for most americans, it has been worst for our american indian friends. during the economic downturn of the early 1980's, when way was traveling this country, they gave me a place to live. i was a guest on the land of navajos. over the years, i have worked along side many tribes. i know them to be hard-working honorable people.

this act deprives them of an opportunity to regain the dignity and justice they are owed. as a member of this body, i'm in a position to return to my navajo hosts. that's why i'm a co-sponsor of mr. kildee's bill, which will make the necessary amendments to the indian reorganization act. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. duncan: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: request to address the house for five minutes. mr. duncan: i spent 7.5 years as a criminal court judge in tennessee trying felony criminal cases.

i tried the attempted murder of james eerl ray and many other high profile cases and i have great interest in our legal system, our courts and apointments to the u.s. supreme court. i realize that elena kagan will be confirmed very soon as our next supreme court justice but i'm disappointed by her nomination. i have nothing against her personally but our supreme court is our highest court. i wish our president and all future presidents would appoint people who have actually tried cases. we should try to nominate people who have had experience who understand the heat of the battle, the give and take and decisions that have to be made on the spur of the moment both by lawyers and judges. ms. kagan may be a brilliant woman, but she has none of this experience. i want to read an article in the june 28 "human events" as a man

who spent 28 years, our colleague, mr. poe. congressman poe wrote, the supreme court nominee elena kagan has never been a judge and never seen a courtroom from the bench and never had a judge's responsibility. elena kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on any point of law, never tried a criminal case or even a traffic case. she has not decided even one constitutional issue. we don't know whether she believes the constitution is the foundation of american law or thinks that the constitution constantly changes based on personal opinions of supreme court justices. elena kagan has never had to make a decision. she has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence, has never made one decision regarding any rule of evidence. she has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the miranda doctrine and unlawful search and

seizure allegations, due process claim, or any other constitutional issue. never impaneled a jury, never instructed on reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to prison and never had to decide whether a witness is telling a truth or not never heard a plaintiff, defendant, victim or a child testify. she has never made that all important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime, never ruled on a life or death issue. she has never made a judgment call from the bench. yet as a supreme court justice, she would be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood and tears of actual trials and actual courts of law. how can she possibly be qualified to fulfill the post of a supreme court justice? mr. poe continued, kagan is an

academic is out of touch with the real world and with the way things really are. being a judge would be an exercise to the new supreme court nominee. she has read about being a judge in books and might have played pretend in her college class oom but never held a gavel in the courtroom. her first time to rerpped judgment should not be as a member of the united states supreme court. she has never even been a trial lawyer and never questioned a witness, argued a case to a jury or argued a case to any jury anywhere in the united states. real world experience makes a difference. this was written by our colleague, mr. poe. and i agree with everything he wrote. finally, i want to commend the gentleman from tennessee, senator alexander for his decision to vote against the nomination of ms. kagan. it is a very poor nomination. and i yield back the balance of my time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. defazio: well, big surprise, last friday the obama administration went after the greed and excess on wall street during the financial meltdown. they went after it to form of their esteemed pay czar. he got out a feather duster and he waged it vaguely in the direction of wall street saying, shame, shame on you. he identified 17 megafirms on wall street who paid out $1.7 billion in bonuses and other to their executives while they were lining up at the same time to take tens of billions of dollars of tarp bailout money to save their firms from the risky bets

they had made that were endangering their future that had gone bad. now, he described some of the bonuses and payouts as ill-advised. poor judgment, lacking clear justification. but, mr. feinberg, the all powerful pay czar who talked so tough at the beginning, won't try and recoup the money. he said, quote, it's not contrary to the public's interest. shaming. shaming. will be penalty enough. but he won't name anybody who got the money. you can imagine the guys at their really exclusive cli club or their private resort somewhere smoninging their $500 cigars, drinking their expensive con yak, feeling really shamed when he won't even name the people who should be shamed, they don't even know they should be shamed. they got $10 million, they thought it was justified. they don't think he's talking about them.

now, he said, at one what point are you piling on -- at what point are you piling on to poor old wall street, going beyond what is warranted? not in the public interest. piling on. just think about it. some of the executives who drove their firms to the edge of collapse and bankruptcy and tanked the u.s. economy, put eight million people out of work, got $10 million. now that $10 million little bonus, that's about 250 years' pay for an army captain in afghanistan. 250 years for an army captain, one day in the life of a failed wall street executive and mr. feinberg says they should be ashamed. he went on to say, well, if he asks -- has gone after them, it could have exposed them and their firms to lawsuits from shareholders. now, wait a minute, public interest, isn't that the public part of the corporation? the shareholders?

but mr. feinberg apparently doesn't care much about the shareholders. this is about the executives. because those poor, you know, executives and those firms, why their shareholders might recapture some of these misbegotten gains that these people got. this all happened because the bush-paulson bailout didn't put any restrictions on executive pay and bonuses. hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out wall street taken from the taxpayers no, restrictions on executive pay and bonuses, $1.7 billion patriot act paid out, ill-advised, poor judgment, lack clear justification, they should be ashamed but the pay czar isn't going to try and get it back. there's one thing very consistent about this administration. nothing is too good for wall street. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe from texas. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to speak for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm here today to speak about an incredible opportunity which is in the northeastern part of the united states and that is the natural gas. the marcel us shale describes a natural gas plan in pennsylvania that has created jobs and economic growth, even in the most difficult of economic times. it is one of the largest deposits of natural gas in the world and much of it is located in my district. however, the play is deep down and requires a process called fracking in which water, sand and approved chemicals are pressured into the play to fracture the shale to release the gas. now, it is this process that has come under criticism and has been the subject of a great deal of inaccurate information, both

in the media and so-called documentary called gasland. fracking has been used for 100 years. i the safety is documented with zero confirmed cases of groundwater tams in one million application over those six years. the director of the pennsylvania department of environmental protections, bureau of oil and gas management has said that he has never seen an impact of fresh groundwater directly from fracking. another piece of information is that no one know what is goes into fracking fluid. well, first of all, more than 99.5% of the fluid is sand and water. for the remainder, pennsylvania law requires companies to disclose all chemicals used in the fracking process, just not the specific formula. a complete list of those chemicals is available in the pennsylvania department of protection website. they include materials that help deliver the water down the well and position the sand and the tiny fractures created in the

formation. one of the more prominent substances is gar gum, most commonly used as in ice cream. there are contentions that fracking is not well regulated, to the contrary. eight federal and 11 pennsylvania acts or laws regulate the impacts of the drilling. the film "gasland" goes so far to assert that, quote, -- i quote from the film, the 2005 energy bill pushed through by congress by dick cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the cleanwater act, the clean air act, the safe drinking water act, the superfund law and about a dozen other environmental and democratic regulation, end quote. thanks patently false. they must comply with all these laws with the caveat that the hydraulic fraction process was never regulated under the safe drinking water act in its 60-year history. and that particular energy bill was supported by 74 yes votes in the senate, including those at time of senators obama and

salazar. most alarmingly, gasland has a stunning scene of man turning on a tap, sticking a lighter under it and watching it ignite. gasland blames natural gas development for the flaming faucet. but the colorado oil and gas conservation commission wrote, quote, dissolved methane appears to be biogenic. that means naturally occurring in origin. there are no indications of oil and gas-related impacts to well water. but perhaps the most telling repudiation of this film comes from john hanger, secretary john hanger, of the pennsylvania department of arm ral protection who for 10 years as c.e.o. of the environmental organization called citizens for pennsylvania's future. he appears briefly in the film, john hanger says the film was fundamentally dishonest and, quote, deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect and he called the produce ar prop and goist. i'm 100% behind producing natural gas in a safe and

environmentally sound way. if there are violations of the rules or laws either state or federal we rely on the good offices of the pennsylvania department of protection to do bha -- whatever is necessary to bring enforcement to the situation. they have proven to be cableble and aggressive -- capable and aggressive. it contributes to our energy security in this country. it needs to be done right with environmental protection. but it doesn't deserve a propaganda fill tham doesn't educate but serves simply to demonize an industry for personal gain and political reason. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. ms. woolsey from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, i think we've seen this movie before. last week hamid karzai of afghanistan, before an audyevens international leaders on whose support he defends, pledged to root out corruption, implement

reforms and run a better government. but we heard the same promises -- promises in an earlier conference this january. and we heard them again when president karzai came to washington for a state visit in may. there seems to be little accountability when he fails to keep his word as he never comes away from any of these gath, with more than a slap on the -- gatherings with more than a slap on the wrist if that. if mr. karzai is series on cracking down, why -- serious on cracking down, why doesn't he start by reining in his own brother? a strong man who rules kandahar. and what does were the karzai have to say about the fact that billions of dollars of cash have been flown out of their airport in the last few years? lip service and vague promises are really not enough, madam speaker. what is sustaining the taliban more than anything else is that

the afghanistan government is failing to have any competency or legitimacy. no one is more frustrated than the afghan people. who voice their displeasure with a government -- with government corruption in a recent survey conducted by an afghan watchdog group. bribery shakedowns are increasingly seen as a way of life. the cost of securing basic services from the government depend on paying off somebody. even when the government isn't dishonest it is slow and infective -- ineffective and embarrassingly in the promises where they have established a foothold, the taliban runs a tiahrt ship than dozen the afghan government, doing a competent job of making the trains run on time. this cannot go on, madam speaker. our continued support for the

regime is eroding our national correct. the american people fighting -- credibility. the american people fighting off a recession and batting -- badly in need of the money right here at home resent sending that money to afghanistan. and they can't be expected to keep on doing this. they can't be expected to keep giving their bravest young people and their hard-earned tax dollars to prop up leads that are have no ability to govern responsibly. . they could be going wobbly on the commitment to get out of afghanistan one year from now. secretary of state clinton said that the july, 2011 date

represented the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement. she added that the united states has no intention of abandonning our long-term mission of achieving a stable, secure, peaceful afghanistan. well, madam secretary if we can achieve that mission with civilian resources with a smart security strategy focused on development projects, humanitarian aid and more support for anti-corruption efforts, then count me in. but if she means that our military commitment and occupation in affings will extend well beyond next summer, the american people will have something to say. they are saying it loud and clear. we have sacrificed enough for a failed war and it is time to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california yields back the remainder of her time. ms. kaptur from ohio. mr. burton from indiana. mr. flake frr arizona. -- from arizona. ms. ros-lehtinen from florida. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five days to revise and extend their remarks on the record on this topic. the congressional black caucus is proud to anchor this hour on jobs and the economy. currently, the c.b.c. is chaired by the honorable barbara lee from the 9th congressional district of california. my name is congresswoman barbara fudge and i represent the 11th

district of ohio. c.b.c. are advocates for the human family, nationally and internationally and played a significant role. we continue to work to be the conscience of the congress. but we understand that all politics are local. therefore, we provide dedicated and focused service to the citizens and the congressional districts we serve. the vision of the congressional black caucus to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens continue to be a focal point for the legislative activities of the congressional black caucus today. i would yield to our leader, our chairwoman, the honorable babra lee from california. ms. lee: let me thank the gentlelady, congresswoman fudge from ohio, for yielding and anchoring the congressional black cause cuss.

once again, we are talking about job creation. and i want to thank her for her consistent leadership and taken so many issues that she knows so well and bringing them to the forefront so the country can realize the work that the congressional black caucus continues to do and also in representing her district, which has been hard hit by the economy and foreclosure cries sees and all of the issues that we know so well. thank you, congresswoman fudge," for anchoring this special order. we are trying to bring some attention to some of the most pressing issues confronting our country that often don't make headlines. as the chair of the 42-member strong congressional black caucus, i rise this evening to continue sounding the alarm about the urgent and vital need to create jobs in america, especially in those communities

that have been disproportionately hit and are suffering the brunt of this economic crisis. and who, as a result, are in desperate need of targeted, concrete and meaningful opportunities. the statistics are staggering. while the national unemployment rate is about 9.5%, way too high, it is close to 16%, 17% in the black and latin oove communities. for young people, the national average is 25% but for black and latino youth, it is 40%, unacceptable for anyone. for many months, the congressional black caucus continues to be focused on stimulating the economy and creating jobs, especially for the chronically unemployed. we have sought to engage the obama administration, house and senate leadership, committee chairs to develop a legislative strategy to address the needs of millions of americans who are struggling in this tough

economic environment. the house of representatives has passed a series of bills that would move our economy from recession to recovery. however, senate republicans have consistently and stymied passing similar measures. 40 out of 41 republican senators voted to block extending unemployment benefits to 1.2 million americans. there were enough votes in the united states senate to pass this measure, which was followed the next day by house of representatives approving a similar measure once again. but for several months and weeks, the republican senators presented congress -- prevented congress for providing relief to the unemployed. the nonpartisan economic policy institute released research. it concluded that unemployment

benefits have added jobs since 2007, promoted spending, resulting in longer work hours and resulted in 1.7% boost in g.d.p. economists have pointed to the value of unemployment insurance benefits. for every dollar, there is $1.60 return in economic output. but people can't survive on unemployment and the goal is to create jobs, work force training programs so people who don't have the skills have the skills and experience to get these jobs. fortunately, though, on the unemployment debate, we are were able to break the impasse and develop proposals and extend unemployment so many americans are receiving some relief. but let me just say, republican senators continue to block the

$1 billion summer jobs program. now it's youth employment program, because summer is almost over. these kids need to work for the rest of the year. we have a $2.5 billion assistance for needy families working in the public and private sectors. we want the senate republicans to look at how to fund and we found the pay-fors, $1 blillion for the national trust fund to build, preserve and rehab rental homes that are affordable for low-income families. i'm shocked and disappointed that so many senators with high rates of unemployment in their states are blocking legislation that will create jobs. the members of the congressional black caucus went to the senate several weeks ago to deliver letters laying out, we wondered if they knew how many people were unemployed.

so we broke it down by unemployment rates. we told them where the unemployment rates were in their states and we tried to convince them these bills are in the senate now will put their ep constituents back to work. so we wanted to make sure it was documented and we took it over to them. and we don't know if they read the letters or not and don't know if they believe it or not but it's cruble that the united states senate actively passes this legislation. it's appalling they are opposed to providing jobs to their constituents, for millions of americans in these tough economic times. the congressional black caucus continues to fight for summer jobs, employment programs for young people. we want to keep teachers in classrooms. the house passed the emergency supplemental bill to keep 140,000 teachers in classrooms throughout the country. that hasn't been voted on in the

senate. we want to increase lending to small businesses. we passed a bill that would make $30 billion available for community banks at a 5% rate, which allows community banks to lend to small, minority hiff owned, women-owned business. can't get movement from the senate on that. there are good pieces of legislation that are sitting there. it's shameful and a shame and disgrace and hard to explain why the senate won't move when there are so many americans hurting and need our help and we can do something and do it now. i'm urging to call their senators and tell them to pass these bills so we can get america back to work. it's clear we have a lot of work to do to get the economy revived again, the legislation and many other bills that are sitting over there need to be passed. local officials are here thank

goodness advocating for the local jobs for america act, the miller bill, comprehensive approach to creating jobs which the congressional black caucus has worked on in a big way. trappings, water, sewer, communications, infrastructure also provide excellent vehicles and ways to create jobs and how to leverage the private sector and creating opportunities for additional investment. as i close, i thank you again to the congressional black caucus and all of our colleagues and jool eyes for staying vigilant on this, because it's going to be a hard road ahead of us if we don't figure out now how to get jobs for people who are unemployed. we are talking about opportunities. we aren't talking about welfare or public assistance, but creating jobs. you don't create jobs in this

country, then what are we doing in terms of shattering the american dream for millions of americans. i thank -- i think every member wants to see every member of our society live the american dream and you have to do that by creating jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. i thank you for your leadership. ms. fudge: thank you so much, madam chair. i would like to thank the gentlelady from california who has been a tireless advocate for the jobless, the homeless, the hopeless, the helpless. this caucus is better. at this time, i would like to yield to my colleague from the state of georgia, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: thank you and it is indeed an honor to serve in congress with you ladies who are all champions of regular working

people and poor people of this country regardless of gee oggra if i and i salute you. in this age of women we are living in. and you know, i remember, madam speaker, just within the last 17 months the leader of the republican party said publicly that he hopes that president obama fails. do you all remember that? it was well publicized. it was not coming from minority leader boehner of the house. and it was not uttered by senator mitch mcconnell, the

minority leader in the senate. it was uttered by the true leader of the republican party, and that is my good friend, rush limbaugh, who for every day, five days a week, three or four hours a day, since that same message out to americans who are hooked on that show. he sends it out to them relentlessly and they remember it and they act on it. but they aren't the only ones who have acted on it. it's been the followers in the senate who have acted upon it. and it's been the followers here in the house of representatives on the other side of the aisle who have followed his leadership