stability, having programs that are performing well enough that we don't decide to terminate them is something very much in the industry, in the interest of industry. so the point is, our interest is the taxpayers and the war fighter, but if you align the interests, our interests so that industry is performing to our interest, that's the struck. . -- that's the trick. .

bought the submarine for that much money as originally forecast, the navy wasn't going to be able to buy that many ships duration that period of time. the key is doing those engineering trades right at the beginning and sticking with them. i think you buy a car that way.

you don't buy the car that you think about. you check how much money you have before you buy a car and we need to start doing that. everything we start new. i gave you four examples, the new starts that we are planning soon in the department. >> a lot of the stuff you mentioned, especially the written guidance is common sense. making something -- speed reading while you were talking. but a lot of it is common sense and why wasn't it done until now. you have had predecessors in this job. why some of the changes since they are common sense and not done sooner. some of the changes made on the savings front by eliminating unnecessary things that crept

in. what are some things that crept in that when you look at it that weren't necessary. >> ok. i think there are two things. i consulted with a lot of my predecessors in doing this. but a couple things. over the last 10 years, especially since 9/11, as i mentioned earlier, the budget has been growing so fast that all managers have -- when they encounter a manage earl problem had more money to help them get out of that problem. and so naturally, that becomes the manager's habit, so you're maximizing more fighting

capability within the context of an ever rising budget. that's not what we have now. that's not what the taxpayer is going to give us. the taxpayer says give us the security we need for the money i have. so the circumstances change. second thing is, the era has changed. an earlier question came about services. services weren't such a big deal for some of my predecessors. some of my predecessors were not at war, which forces a cadence upon us that during the cold war we prepared for, we didn't conduct war. that was a different schedule. you could look at programs that were 10 and 15 years. you didn't have to deliver to afghanistan this summer. so circumstances change. and this is -- these are the initiatives that are appropriate to the circumstances in which we

find ourselves. or on the submarine side. >> i'm a little nervous about that. i use speed and size. i know the navy acquisition executive is here. let me follow up with you. there are size and speed that i want to be careful what i say. the design of the submarine and therefore, how much it costs. >> much what we have seen is in the war zone and this applies to iraq and afghanistan. would that affect in the war zone? >> contracting for services, contingency services is an important part of this. and we are working very hard to learn the lessons of the last

eight years and apply them to afghanistan as we get in there and scale down so that we understand the effect of our spending in afghanistan on the coin fight overall and on the society as a whole, that we get better as being able to monitor how the contracts that we enter into, are executed. there is no question that contingency contracting, which is a substantial part of the services contracting piece of focus. >> one big issue in afghanistan and iraq is blackwater and they have two 20 subsidiaries. several didn't know they were walk working with blackwater. does the defense department know who they are working for and

working with? >> it's a good question, not part of this initiative. but we are working to get more visibility into subcontractors for contractors we contract with in contingency circumstances. >> do you see a problem of corruption in outsourcing the services outside the u.s.? and how are you going to control outside spending and also overcharging. many are confused. >> good question. there are cases that arise, human nature being what it is. they are pursued in law enforcement channels. i can't talk about any of the

ones specifically. it does occur. that is not, we estimate, a major contributor to the kind of inefficiency the secretary is after, however. it is always disturbing when people are dishonest. we look for it and it is investigated and prosecuted, but it's not the principal thrust of what's here today. >> sir, the changes that you're talking about seem to require a cultural change within the department of defense. how do you propose to effect that sort of change. >> i don't do cultural change. it's too hard. this is directing specific actions and the actions that we want are pretty specific and the cause and effect is pretty specific. i think you'll find as you read

this and the metrics by which we measure the effects are spelled out in the document. so culture is too hard for me. behavior, that's what we're after. >> are there any other opportunities for cost savings within the army particularly coming out of the recent portfolio review? >> i think there will be. i think the army has found that approach so successful and the army's experience is one reason i'm doing some of the similar things that the department-wide level that they are extending that to other portfolios, so i expect we will find more. >> is there any area -- >> better wait let the army. you'll see in that document i'm initiating a few myself and will have son sequences. >> is there overall cost figure

in terms of savings from these initiatives? >> the secretary's goal, which is the $100 billion over five years and certainly we need to meet that, meet or exceed that. and we think that these actions meet plausible that a substantial fraction of that can be found within the substantial part of our spend, which is on contracted goods and services. i want our people to deliver, not just promise, so i'm not going to indicate today a price tag associated with each of these. we do have specific metrics of progress in there. i gave you some examples that we now know what savings we are go being to obtain. >> it's not an overall chunk of

the $100 billion that is supposed to be there? >> he has not done it that way and my aim is give him as much as possible. give him all. >> you mentioned that a substantial number of bids, competitive bids are just one -- do you have an estimate of how many that is? >> i do. if you don't mind, i would like to get you the figures on that, because there is some variance depending upon which kind of services you're talking about. if i average in my head, i think you're in the neighborhood of -- well, a few tens of a percent, which is large. it is supposed to be awarded

competitively but doesn't end up that way because of more than one bidder. that is a big chunk of $200 billion spent annually that is not spent competitively. and we know that competition leads to savings. and we measure so you can do the math, if you like. i don't want to do it in my head. and it's one of the reasons why this is a substantial foregoing of savings for the taxpayer not to have competition and a big chunk of our services spent. >> time for one or two more. >> the secretary noted in the congressional report in terms of containing budget costs and 2010 budget and do you have any conclusions as to what happened to the report and also for the future, how do you reach out to members of congress in

preventing these reports being required in butts? >> this is a specific report on the f-22? i'm not familiar with that exact report, but i understand the question you're asking in general, which is the -- we are required by congress to write a large number of reports. that number has been increasing every year. they are quite expensive. however, and still, the congress is entitled to information. so perhaps we will provide the report. my question to our people is, does it have to be this thick, glossy-covered and this much money and be too late to be useful to the person who asked for it in the first place. can't we make it shorter, more pertinent and helpful to the person who asked for the information rather than producing these phone books, which i spent saturday afternoon reading and signing out.

that is the objective. congress is perfectly entitled to the information that they ask for, it's how we are responding is what concerns me. ok, i thank you very much for your time and attention and we'll try to follow up with any questions you may have. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house comes back in shortly. in about 45 minutes now at 6:00 p.m. eastern for votes and general speeches. earlier today, members gaveled in and considered several bills including one dealing with remembering the 9/11 attacks and recognizing the oklahoma national guard. later this week, the house considers a bill to create two new energy efficiency programs. the house is always live here on c-span. day two of the impeachment trial of louisiana federal judge thomas porteous.

the last judicial impreefment trial before the u.s. senate was in 1999. witnesses have been testifying all day and the trial is in a break right now and more live coverage when it resumes on c-span3. >> with the house and senate back in session, follow congress using the c-span video library's , click on congress and index of speakers, their remarks and videos with the mid-term elections ahead, it's a great resource for anyone who follows congress and it's free any time. watch what you want, when you want. >> this afternoon, senate republicans said there would be no compromise on the issue of the bush-era tax cuts which expire at the end of the year. they made the remarks outside the senate chamber after their weekly caucus lunch.

>> good afternoon everyone, i'm sure you missed having us around the last month. we missed all of you as well. and we are happy to be back. clearly what's on everybody's mind is the impending debate over whether or not we ought to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. that will impact 50% of small business income, 25% of the work force and i know our friends on the other side like to say, well, it's only 3% of small businesses who will be impacted by these tax increases. you should know that that is 750,000 american small businesses, among our most productive job-generating small businesses would be impacted by this tax increase in the middle of a recession. finally i would say we have a spending problem, we spend too much, we don't have a taxing

problem. we don't tax too little. and if we want to begin to get ourselves out of this economic trough that we're in, the only way to do that is to grow the private sector. we have tried these keynesian borrow and spend approaches over the last year and a half. unemployment is still close to 10%. the private sector is stagnant. the best way to get out of this is to not raise taxes on some of america's most productive job generators and i'm priested to point out, as i think some of you have written, five democrats in the senate agree with us that this is a bad idea, so there is bipartisan opposition to this tax increase and over on the house side there are a growing number of house democrats indicating that they think it's a bad idea to have a tax increase on some of our most

productive businesses in the middle of the recession. let me turn it over to senator kyl. >> republicans believe it is wrong to raise taxes on any americans especially in this time of economic downturn. one of the arguments that we should somehow divide americans up and ok to raise taxes on some, but not on others, is the idea that well some people will spend their money and that's a good way to create jobs, because if they are spending their money to buy something, somebody has to make that product and therefore some americans will get put back to work. and sometimes that happens. but their argument on the other side is, however, we don't care about raising taxes on other people because they're simply going to save their money and why would we want to help people save money. that hasn't an impact on the economy.

they could not be more wrong. and create jobs when people have savings if people spend their money. the savings are either invested in stocks or in bonds or in a bank, which then lends money to businesses. and when you provide capital to businesses ordinarily, what it is used for is to buy equipment or to hire people. and buying equipment is the same thing as spending money, which then can create jobs. so the bottom line is whether people use their own money to buy something or to save and that money then becomes capital for our business recovery. in either event letting people keep more of their own money is the best way to spur economic growth and create jobs in america. >> during the last five weeks in

tennessee what i heard most frequently was something like this. it seems like almost everything that the obama administration has tried to do for the last year and a half, from taxing job creators, in the health care law and harder to get credit on main street is throwing a big wet blanket on main street and the latest idea is raising taxes in the middle of a recession. it's a bad idea because it makes it harder to create jobs. now, republicans aren't the only ones who believe that. five senate democrats have already said so. today, a couple more senators said they thought that. house members who are democrats are circulating that. and in addition, president obama's former budget director said in the "new york times" the following, no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, because that is exactly what would happen if the tax

cuts expire as planned. so the republican position is increasing taxes in the middle of a recession is a bad idea, because it makes it harder to create jobs. >> what the american people have figured out is washington doesn't have a revenue problem but a spending problem and what most of us, i think, heard during the august break from our constituents and i heard it in south dakota is that small businesses, farmers and ranchers are concerned about this tax increase that the democrats have planned. and if you talk about income tax rates, capital gains tax rates, dividend tax rates and the other thing is the death tax, because on january 1, that's set to go to $1 million ex emshon at a -- exemption at a top rate of 55%. and i heard that all you are going to do is protect a few quarters of farm land and pay

the i.r.s. that is what is in front of the american people. small businesses are so reluctant to invest in equipment and hire people because they know that tax increase coming around january 1 is going to fly squarely at them and if we are seriously concerned here about creating jobs, the first thing we ought to do is not raise taxes on anybody, particularly the job creators in our economy and those are our small businesses. >> it -- we will take up a question. you're up. [inaudible question] >> well, senator reid cspbinaud] >> well, senator reid controls the schedule and the defense authorization bill could be brought up and will have a number of ex freezing rain youse

measures in it -- extraneous measures in it that have nothing to do with defense and will be controversial. so we'll have to see what happens. but we had a discussion at lunch about the democratic leader apparently wants to put the dream act in it, wants to have a discussion about the secret holes issue and a variety of other things that have nothing to do with the defense department. and so, it is needlessly controversial. i can't tell you how easy it will be to go forward with that bill but it has created an element of controversy that wasn't previously there. [inaudible question] >> that's in the bill and that's a controversial item because as you know, the provision in the bill involves eliminating don't ask-don't tell without the study and that has also made it pretty controversial.

>> any compromise with regard to the tax cuts for the highest tax payers. they might have a middle ground to figure out a way to pay for it. >> at the risk of being redundant, what we ought not to be doing is raising taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. that's not what we ought to be doing and there is bipartisan agreement with that, and that is the view that all of us have, that we should not be raising taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. [inaudibleasnuestion] >> you are asking a whole bunch of hypotheticak- that i'm not going to answer it. i think i made it crystal clear, the republican conference believes raising taxes on anybody in the middle of a

recession is a bad idea. you have five, six, seven democrats that agree with that and that's the sta noting point. >> are the republicans going to try to forcecusotes either on te committee or on the floor on clean carbon emissions? >> as yo a know we have had a vote on the murkowski proposal and i don't know if there will be othercusotes on this subject while we are here this year or not, but we have had onecusiew under the congressional review act on the prospect of e.p.a. going forasyrd with that kind o regulation. thanks a lot, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> after republicans finished talking with reporters, senate majority harry reid said the ctext item will be the annual dee inse programs bill which includes language repealing the don't aolv elon't tell policy o

gays in the military. >> welcome back everybody. couple of issues i want to talk to you about today. firs i the most impo notant thing we need to do for our economy is protect the middle class. that's what our economic plan has been about all year having passed the small business bill, at least the first run through it today. it's extremely important and i wascusery happy that it passed. we have a few procedural roadblocks to ovethe rome but te should be ok. we should finish that as soon as the republicans allowent s to d so.

republicans are threatening and i think proudly so to raise taxes on the vast majority of americans. they say until millionaires get what they want the middle class will get what they need. that is not just unfair to hard-working americans, it's bad economic policy for our nation. and would significantly hurt our ability to make a full recovery. this week, i'm going to move to

the defense authorization bill. i would hope we could move to it without having to file a cloture motion to proceed, but over 100 different pieces of legislation, i probably will have to file clot tur on that. certainly this is an important bill, but it's especially important because it will address two issues. first of all, in this bill, we repeal the don't ask-don't tell policy. i have indicated to senator mcconnell, they can have a vote to try and take that out. if they want to have a vote, they can have a vote on it. i think we should choose common sense over discrimination. we are going to match our policy with our principles and finally

say in our country, everyone who steps up to serve their country should be welcomed. and two, also we have large numbers of our military who are hispanic. i think it's really important that we move forward on this legislation that i have tried to work on. i know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform. i have tried to. i have tried so very, very hard. i have tried different versions of this, but the republicans we had in the last congress have left us. the dream act is really important. what does it do? boys and girls who come to our country before age 16 and been here for five years should be able to go to a state school. remember, they don't get pell

grants and all this, but if they spend a couple of years, get their g.e.d. or have a high school diploma already and many of them do and they complete a couple of years of college, they can have their status readjusted. if they go into the military and serve for two years, they can get a green card. that's what the dream act is all about. kids who grew up as americans could get their green cards. these are two amendments that i have told senator mcconnell that i think are essential to the defense authorization bill. i hope they let us move to it. it would be extremely important that we get this done. questions. >> you are the majority leader and very well known in nevada -- [inyou had i believe] >> i'm not going to get into a

battle of the polls today. let me answer the question. i'm not go to go get into a battle of the polls. i think i have one of the finest pollsters in america. i'm satisfied where i am in the polls today. >> you support president obama's tax plan personally and would you vote for increasing taxes on families making over $250,000 a year? >> we're going to have a procedure during this period of time. i have worked with senator mcconnell to come up with something reasonable that we can move forward on these tax issues and i'm happy to do that. we have -- it appears at this stage, we have two issues. one is taking care of the middle class and the other is taking care of the millionaires. pretty easy to understand where i'm at. >> what would you support? >> i support the $250,000.

i have said so many times. >> do you have the votes for the dream act? >> i sure hope so. >> [inaudible question] >> i don't think we should talk about how beneficial the dream act is for democrats. we should talk about how fair it is for people who should be able to go to school if they want to, join the military if they want to. nothing to do with democrats or republicans, but everything to do with fairness. [inaudible question] we'll sure find out. [inaudible question] >> i hope so. i think it would certainly be the right thing to do and only one way of finding out and that's take a vote on it. i think democrats all support that.

>> is there a compromise? >> i don't know. he filed the bill last night here that extends all tax cuts permanently, so i don't know what he is talking about. >> is any compromise helpful, whether it is extending the rest of the tax cuts temporarily? there is a desire among some in your caucus. >> i think it's very important we do everything we can to protect the middle class. we're united as a democratic caucus in cutting taxes to middle-class americans and small business. and i would hope the republicans won't hold hostage middle-class tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. >> have you talked to the white house about the dream act? >> no.

[inaudible question] >> what? on food safety legislation, i thought we had all that cleared, but there is a republican senator saying no. we hope within the next 24 hours, he will say yes. that's where we are. [inaudible question] >> thank you everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> members of the house are back on capitol hill after a month-long summer recess and they debated some eight bills and resolutions. a couple of votes at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, 25 minutes from now. that will be live here on c-span.

>> c-span's local content vehicles are visiting the country. as we look at some of the mostly contested house races leading up to this year's mid-term elections. >> first and foremost is the idea that right now, we have to have a whole agenda for american jobs and a lot of what i have spent the last year and a half doing is trying to get washington, in fact both parties to be a little bit more focused on building things, making things and growing things in america instead of what i saw both parties focused on before, helping the financial sector.

>> robert hurt is another challenger and jeff clark a tea party member and independent businessman from the southern area. the race is getting a lot of national attention because republicans see perriello as one of the most vulnerable democrats in congress given that he represents a somewhat conservative district and voted in favor of obama's major initiative, health care, cap and trade, stimulus and so on and two years ago he was elected by the smallest margin of any congressional race in the country. the republicans are seeing this as a pickup, but democrats are saying that tom perriello's a fighter and very tough campaigner and because he supported those same initiatives that he is giving the support of national democrats just as national republicans are trying to take him down.

in 2008, perriello, who is a young lawyer from the charlottesville area, he challenged former congressman goode and beat him by 725 votes. this is the closest margin of any votes in congress. perriello, some people say, rode in on the obama wave. the virginia 5th district is conservative leaning and mccain won it with 50.6% of the vote. it is traditionally a republican stronghold and has become somewhat less so. and it is represented by a democrat. >> virginia's 5th district is the size of new jersey and it is a triangle shape with the sharltsville region, home to the university of virginia and

thomas jefferson's home down to the south side of virginia, north carolina border that includes the city of martinsville, danville and part of lynchburg. the economy has hit the district hard. their unemployment tops 20%. it's bad, but not quite as bad as elsewhere in the district. there is unemployment continues to be a problem throughout the district. there have been a number of foreclosures, obviously like everywhere. people who have their jobs, their pay has stagnated for the last few years. so it's certainly a big problem here. tom perriello is a moderate democrat. whereas on some of the big ticket priorities on president

obama and the democrats, he voted in favor of health care reform and voted in favor of the cap and trade clean energy bill, economic stimulus bill. so some people say he is a liberal democrat because he supported the big ticket items but on the other hand he has voted with his party in some cases, for example, he doesn't believe that the assault weapons ban should be re-implemented. he is a strong believer in second amendment rights and voted against both of president obama's budgets. hurt is a conservative and been in the general assembly for a number of years and endorsed by the family foundation, the n.r.a., all of the conservative-leaning groups. big part of his message in running for congress is the federal government spending is out of control in his view, that government regulations have

gotten too onerous and if he got elected, working for lifting tax burdens on businesses and individuals. in the legislature, his record has been fairly mixed. while he has been a hard r in the legislature, he did break with his party in 2004 and voted for a $1.4 billion tax increase to balance the state's budget. and he took a lot of heat for that at the time. and during the republican primary this year as well. jeff clark running against not only the democrat perriello, which embodies the biggest concerns that he talks about, the federal government, what he views as creeping socialism taking over the country, he also has to run against robert hurt who is an establishment republican who served in the legislature for a number of years. jeff clark has struggled to have his voice heard. he -- robert hurt doesn't want

to allow him into the debates. while they are working all that out, whether or not he will be included in the candidate forums , it's difficult for him. the only poll that's come out in the general election show that perriello is down by 20 some points and robert hurt has a sizeable lead. however, that same poll two years ago showed perriello 30 some points down and he came back to win it. things can change quickly and it might be more competitive than it appears. >> the house gavels in for votes and special order speeches in about 20 minutes. first to the state department. the spokesman said the u.s. didn't pay any bail money for release of the american hiker.

we'll show you as much as we can. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. we are gratified that we received confirmation that sarah shourd has left tehran to yemen and the cases of the other two hikers remain unresolved. we are grateful for the efforts of swiss and other diplomats who have worked over many months to help us reach this point. the release demonstrates that iranian authorities have the ability to resolve these cases if they choose. iranian authorities made the decision to release sarah shourd

and hope they will make the decision with regards to the other two as soon as possible. secretary clinton is preparing to depart this morning. she joined president mubarak with president netanyahu and met with the parties separately before convening a meeting along with special envoy george mitchell. and following a lunch hosted by president mubarak, secretary clinton resumed her meeting before preparing for departure to jerusalem. met with the foreign minister. we released a few minutes ago just a fact sheet that underscores some of the details of scott's travel last week to

the region and laying out a path that only in terms of what we expect both parties north and south to do in preparation for the referendum in early 2011. but also laid out the potential benefits and consequences, benefits if the referendum is successfully administered and consequences if the actions by one or both sides falls short. i would hope to get scott here tomorrow at the start of the daily press briefing to outline in greater detail his conversations of last week. just want to highlight one speech today and call your attention to the fact that the assistant secretary spoke this morning at the annual americas conference in miami or coral gables, to be more specific on the new era of transition and

innovation and tomorrow at johns hopkins, assistant secretary will speak about the united states at the u.n. and beyond, a world of transnational challenges. her speech will set the stage for the upcoming opening of the u.n. general assembly and expect to have her here at the end of the week to give you a u.n. preview. matt. >> on iran, what's your understanding of the conditions of her release? in other words, was there any amount of bail paid? >> the united states did not pay anything for her release. as you know, the government of iran through their judicial process had specific requirements for her release and arrangements were made that

satisfied those requirements. >> in other words, someone paid something? >> you know, someone provided sufficient assurances to the government of iran that satisfied their stipulations for release. >> sufficient assurances in terms of cash? >> i can't tell you. i don't know what the specific actions were. as you know, we had our swiss protecting power working on the ground in tehran. we had diplomats working on our behalf. other countries have weighed in with iran over months and in recent days. and the combination of that diplomatic effort was that the arrangements were made that satisfied iranian requirements.

>> presumably you have been in touch with the swiss and the others, correct? i find it hard to believe that you don't know what arrangements were made. >> to be honest with you, we haven't -- since the party is now airborne, we haven't received a full debrief of what has transpired in the last 24 hours. >> in terms of her release again, can you say whether she is expected to return to iran for a trial if there were one for the other two that are still under detention? >> again, that's a matter for iranian authorities. >> what is your understanding of the terms of her release in that regard? >> that's a matter for iranian authorities. as we understand their public statements, this is an ongoing legal proceeding. >> which means what? what does that mean? >> again, our view then, a year

ago and now is that these three individuals are not guilty of any crime. we understand that iran needed some time to satisfy itself that they posed no threat to iran. we didn't believe they posed any threat to iran. we did not believe they have broken any laws other than crossing an unmarked border. we are happy that this has been -- you know, the case of sarah shourd has been resolved. we would hope the cases of the other two can be resolved. but to the extent that there may be an ongoing judicial proceeding or ongoing investigation, i would defer to iranian authorities. >> the government is saying her release was because of medical conditions and not of anything else. do you believe that and might

that affect the release of the other two that they don't have any reason to release them? >> iran has shown compassion in the case of shourd and we hope they demonstrate the same compassion with respect to the other hikers. the facts behind their case are identical. these were three hikers, three innocent young american citizens. they crossed the border. iran has had more than enough time to investigate and understand that there are no hidden facts in this case. we would hope that iran, having taken the decision to release sarah shourd now demonstrates that within the iranian legal process, you have the ability to reach the same result for the other two hikers.

>> there were reports about five hours ago that she was already getting ready to leave and doing the paperwork to leave the prison. it's hard to understand how it is that the united states doesn't know the terms of her release when it's been out there for five hours now. i understand you weren't in the negotiations, in there with her, but how is it possible that the swiss haven't relayed the terms of that release to you yet at this point? how is that possible that you don't know anything about whether any bail was paid? >> you're asking if money has changed hands and the short answer is, we don't know. >> does the united states -- state department hasn't been asking the swiss protective powers whether any money was paid? >> all i can say, as i said a moment ago, if the question is, did the united states government

pay anything for the release, the answer is no. as to what arrangements were made that satisfied requirements under the iranian judicial process, we were not a party to that. we don't know. >> was it a private plane that flew her out of ti ran? >> an armani private pane. >> a private plane? >> she is accompanied by diplomats and swiss diplomats. >> were u.s. officials greet her at the airport? >> undoubtedly yes. >> can you talk a little bit about what the role was here, they seem to have taken the lead from the swiss at some point. >> i don't think it's a matter of leadership.

first of all, the swiss have a particular role as our protecting power and they represent formally our diplomatic interests in iran since we don't have diplomatic relations with the iranian government. oman is a number of countries that we have sole ised over many months. they do have a relationship with iran. and particularly in recent days and weeks became key to help us work this case with the iranian government and we are very grateful to the role that oman has played. they aren't the only ones thrfment were a number of other countries. the secretary raised this on a regular basis and the ability to converse with iran and we are

grateful this one case has been resolved and we hope the other two can be resolved under similar circumstances. >> when you say it became key in the recent days and weeks, could you just explain what that means? were they shuttling back and forth between the swiss and iranians? >> it's hard to characterize, because we weren't there. >> they weren't doing it in a vacuum. you knew what they were doing and presumably they would report back to you. >> swiss diplomats have been engaged on these cases and omani diplomats have as well. is corps in tehran was engaged to help us solve this case. >> and the two remaining hikers as well? >> they have been conversing

with the government of iran on multiple occasions seeking as we do the release of all three hikers. >> is turkey one of those countries? >> we have had conversations with turkish officials and they have in turn carried our message to tehran, yes. >> just one more issue. you used the word resolved and we are happy that her case is resolved but if she was released on bail, is it your understanding that there is an ongoing legal -- >> i said that. there is an ongoing investigation and we would hope that a similar result can emerge for the other two hikers.

>> sarah, when is she coming back to u.s. soil? >> i do not know. i know she is enroute to oman. we look forward to having her unite with her family and when she comes back to the united states, details will be discussed through her family. >> envoy mitchell said today we are making progress. how substantial is this progress? is it more than two weeks ago? and what was discussed on the first item on the agenda? >> i had the opportunity to converse with the team this morning. i think we would characterize discussions today as serious and

direct discussions on the core issues. those discussions will continue tomorrow. as the secretary said, you know, enroute, it would be important for the leaders on both sides -- they have a special responsibility. these direct negotiations are the only mechanism through which palestine achieves a viable state and israel achieves the security that it deserves. they have -- now, they have a vested interest in seeing this process continue. they will have to find ways to overcome the immediate obstacles so that the direct negotiations can continue and ultimately solutions found that resolves all of the outstanding issues as

part of the process. >> just to follow up, netanyahu recognizing jewish homeland, as a jewish state, with the establishment of the settlement activity. this is an issue that came in the aftermath in the 2001 election of sharon. is this a -- does the united states have a position on that? >> well, this is an agreement that the leaders of israel and the leaders of the palestinian authority must achieve. it will be their agreement. we will play a role as the key facilitator, as george mitchell

reiterated again today, we are prepared to offer our ideas as needed as the process goes forward. on the one hand, this is an issue of substance. we know the core issues and solutions have to be found that resolve the core issues at the heart of the effort. by the same token, this is a political challenge. as george mitchell said after the first round of talks here in washington, both sides will have to move off of public-stated positions and reach compromises on firmly held and emotional issues. so to the extent that this poses a political challenge for both leaders, they have to continue to seek creative ways of resolving and satisfying the requirements of each one. part of this process has -- as

prime minister netanyahu and president abass builds trust through -- abbas builds trust, each leader needs to understand what the other leader needs. this cannot be a situation where one side wins and the other side loses. you have to find solutions where both sides get what they need to reach an agreement, recognizing that neither side will get everything that it wants. >> let's go back to sarah shourd for a second. might the bail that have been paid by the swiss in such a way that the united states adds it to the bill at the end of the year? is that something that might have happened? and can you speak to whether or not this payment of bail infringes the sanctions in place against iran or not in anyway? >> again, not knowing the

specifics of the particular arrangement, i can't say what the final conditions were. all i can tell you is that the united states did not pay anything for the release. we're not aware of any information that would trigger sanctions in anyway. >> your main question that you are focused now or the success of the talks should netanyahu decide not to extend the moratorium? >> well, i think as we characterized the discussions today, there were serious discussions on all core issues. as the secretary also suggested in her -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we are going live to the house of representatives.

members coming in on votes. live on c-span. resolut io the yeas and nays. proceedings on house resolution 1610 will resume later in the week. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman, mr. boren, to a suspend the rules and agree to house are resolution 1052 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1052, honoring the members of the army national guard and air national guard the state of new york for thr service and sacrifice on behalf of the united states since september 11, 2001. the speaker pro tempore: the questiois will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution? members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the unit states hoe of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commeral purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 378. the nays are zero. 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 unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the

gentlewoman from california, ms. watson to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1571, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1571, resolution acknowledging and congratulating miami-dade college to the occasion of its 50th anniversary of service to the students and residents of the state of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. s this 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 378, t are zero. 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 house will be in order.

will the members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address though the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order.

>> madam speaker, americans came together in our hometowns -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members are advised to take their conversation off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. americans came together in our hometowns and cities this past srd -- saturday to honor nearly 3,000 lives lost in the seventh, 2001, terrorist attacks. next week we have the opportunity to honor the first responders and rescue workers who rushed to ground zero to help in the rescue and recovery efforts when we vote on the 9/11 health and compensation act. the bill will provide necessary medical and monitoring treatments to the first responders and survivors of 9/11 who were exposed to the debris and dangerous toxins emitted from the fall of the twin towers. new york's courageous firefighters and the thousands

who came from other states to lend new york a hand have been waiting for congress to act. i thank the house ledership for agreeing to bring this legislation for consideration under regular order and commend representatives maloney and nadler for their commitment to first responders. we must remember our solemn promise to remember september 11 and those who died and it's important to care for those who are still affected by its aftermath i urge my colleagues to support the bill. i yield bafpblg. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? .peaker, most americans don't believe the national media's reporting by the pew research center. only two in 10 believe most or all information, end quote, from news outlets such as the "new

york times," nbc, abc. for the television networks this marks a 10-point drop from a decade ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversation off the house floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: americans have good reason to be skeptical. a total of 17 journalists have left to join either the obama administration or another liberal organization, according to the media research center. it's no wonder that by a margin of three to one, americans describe the average reporter as more liberal rat rather than more conservative. if the national media wants the public to believe they are reporting, give americans the facts and not tell them to what to think.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, on monday, the members of the penn state volleyball and men and women's national fencing teams were honored by the white house. they were two of more than 30 college yacht national championship teams invited to the white house by the president. the volleyball team won unprecedented third straight ncaa national championship. and won a record of 109 matches in a row. the lions were a perfect 38-0 for the second executive season and seventh big 10 title in a row. the fifth national title on march 28 and second executive ncaa championship. these teams carry the mantle to the white house and i could not

be prouder of my alma matter. and i commend the president to recognize the championship teams and individual student athletes for their contributions to the community and to their schools. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: address the house for one minute. i rise to congratulate greenwood elementary school in plymouth, minnesota being the national 2010 blue ribbon school. they won this distinction under the direction of jenny clark. the blue ribbon schools program acknowledges private and public, middle and high school where students have made great progress academically. they are promoting strong leadership and teaching practices.

it is the dedicated students, teachers and parents that make greenwood the great learning community it is. and i'm proud to represent such wonderful people here in congress. we should continue to recognize our great schools. congratulations greenwood elementary. you truly are a blue ribbon school. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: address the house for one minute. revise and extend. we just returned from i think the longest august recess that i have ever experienced and i come back refreshed, refreshed from listening to my constituents back home. and they wanted me to deliver a message when i got back here. they said stop the spending, raising taxes on us in the midst of this economic downturn makes no sense whatsoever. get control of the budget at least, adopt a budget and follow it as we are required to do in

our homes and our businesses. and yes, mr. speaker, they asked me to deliver this message, stop picking on the employers of america. if you want employees, you need employers and stop making it more difficult for the small businessmen and women in my district to continue to operate. get government out of the way. the people back home are willing to take the lead if we will just let them do it. let's return to old-fashioned american principles. that's the way we march to the future. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today and ms. brown-waite of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are

granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> 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 house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. poe today, september 15, 16 and 25 for five minutes. mr. jones, today, september 15, 16 and 21 for five minutes. mr. gohmert on september 15 for five minutes. mr. burton today, september 15, and 16 for five minutes. mr. bishop, september 16, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock, today for five minutes. mrs. ros-lehtinen today and september 15 for five minutes. mr. smith of new jersey, today for five minutes. mr. poe is for september 21. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does

the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and stepped their remarks and include therein extraneous materials, ms. woolsey of california, mr. defazio of oregon, mr. sablan, northern mariana islands, ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. kennedy, rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. without objection.

the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to rise tonight to recognize and encourage continued support for the miami lighthouse for the blind. founded in 1931 in little havana in my congressional district, the miami lighthouse is invaluable to our south florida community. most of us take our vision for granted, but for the millions of vision-impaired americans, even performing every day tasks can become a challenge. the miami lighthouse is a resource for the visually impaired, providing not only the tools and the tange that they need, but also a loving and supportive community. i recently had the privilege of visiting and participated in their children's summer camp program. as i toured the state of the art facility, i saw the wonderful impact that this organization has had in the lives of children, adults and seniors

that it serves. miami lighthouse is truly helping people of all ages regain their independence, their programs cover everything from employment training to computer usage to daily skills like cooking and grocery shopping. the miami lighthouse offers programs to build a supportive community where awareness and support are always available. they offer dates for blind babies, summer camps for children and social groups for seniors. every child at the miami lighthouse summer camp showed me that the work that they are doing has had a significant impact on their future and their quality of life. it goes beyond treatment and rehabilitation. they bring the visually impaired closer to our community. but as those will tell you, incidents of vision loss are on the rise.

over the past five years, mr. speaker, the number of programs participants at the miami lighthouse has risen dramatically and this is a trend that extends across the country. we as a nation must dedicate the time and the resources to prevent blindness and its related conditions. early detection is the key to fighting vision loss and effective accessible screening programs must be the cornerstone. centers like the miami lighthouse for the blind are leading the way. it has heightened children's programs and provided eye exams and prescription glasses at no cost to families. thanks to this program, hundreds of students now have an easier time reading and seeing the black board in class and have a chance for a brighter future. i thank each of the caring staff and many volunteers at the miami

lighthouse for the blind of the it is through your commitment that so many visually-impaired individuals in our community can live happy and productive lives. i look forward to visiting in the future and learning of all of its latest successes. thank you for the time, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pls woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, beginning in january, 2005, speaking from this very spot just about every single night that i could on the house floor, i've declared again and again my conviction that we must bring our troops home from iraq. i was actually the first member of congress to bring legislation to the house floor to end the war in iraq. and now, at long last, it is finally happening.

88 months after president bush declared mission accomplished, president obama has kept his promise to redeploy our fighting forces out of iraq. to be sure, however, there is still a long way to go before we can declare that this war is over. there are still americans in harm's way in iraq, 50,000 servicemen and women as well as the -- as well as countless contractors. the very naming behind to train iraqi security forces and it is expected they will lead by the end of next year. every single american, mr. speaker, has sacrificed for this policy of invading a sovereign nation without prove occasion and under false pretenses. the iraq war has strained the american people of nearly three-quarters of $1 trillion. this money, much of it borrowed

from foreign creditors, which we are essentially taking from our children and grandchildren and there are other things you can't quantify. the moral authority of having squandered, the national credibility we have lost, the trust of our global neighbors that we won't soon recover. of course no sacrifice was greater than the one borne by our men and women in uniform and their families. 4,400 americans died unnecessarily, upwards to 30,000 are wounded and many more are suffering from post-traumatic stress. the men and women deployed to iraq, mr. speaker, have served with courage and served with honor and we owe them our never-ending gratitude. and we owe them our concern and our support. now that the occupation is

drawing to a close in iraq, however, people have a chance to build the brightest future that they deserve, to help them in that endeavor even as we phase out the military campaign, we must step up our commitment to other fronts. we must embrace the smart security platform i have spoken of so often in this chamber. that means aid to workers, diplomats and others can help the iraqis rebuild their country, strengthen democratic institutions and education and economic opportunities. finally, mr. speaker, let me say this, we are still a nation at war. the conflict in afghanistan often forgotten when iraq was at its worst lingers on hopelessly and disastrously. some believe more time is needed to turn the corner.

if we have learned one lesson from iraq is that prolonging the war only emboldens the very forces we are trying to defeat. just as president obama kept his word to end combat operations by a date certain in iraq, he must do the same in afghanistan. i strongly urge the president to stick to his own deadline of next july. and i, for one, will not rest until all of our troops are out of danger and brought safely home. with that, i yield, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. for what purpose does the gentleman from california speak recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. throughout what was supposed to be a recovery summer, the president has repeated a familiar theme that republicans

ran us into a ditch and now they want the keys back. that's an important point. we need to understand exactly what it was the bush administration did to run us into a ditch. in fact, president bush made two major policy blunders. the first was to preside over unprecedented regulatory intervention into the housing market that deliberately enticed people who couldn't afford homes to buy them anyway. at the same time, these policies deliberately encouraged lenders to make irresponsible loans by promising them that fannie mae and freddie mac would cover the risk this created a massive artificial housing bubble that ultimately burst with catastrophic impact. mr. mcclintock: but my question to president obama is, if we know that this road leads to ruin, why does he continue down it at even higher speeds? failing to learn from the damage that government intervention does by creating artificial

bubbles in the economy, the president has repeated and amplified mr. bush's blunders, not only in the housing market with mortgage subsidies and home purchase credits, but now also in other markets like automobiles and home improvements. each time he's squandered billions of dollars merely to borrow from future demand, leaving behind economic craters each time these bubbles have burst. president bush's second blunder was to increase federal spending at an incredible rate, transferring economic decisions from the productive sector to the government sector by -- and crowding out the capital market by excessive government borrowing. remember, the first 168 -- the first $168 billion stimulus bill was a bush brain child. that's when we all got those $600 checks. if massive deficits and record

government spend creag ate prosperity, then the final bush years should have produced a golden age for the american economy. as the president reversed these irresponsible -- has the president reversed these policies? on the contrary, he amplified and expanded them. in his first 19 months in office, he's run up more publicly held debt than all eight years of the bush administration combine -- bush years combined. all this has accomplished is crowd out there wills of dollars of -- to crowd out trillions of dollars of capital that could have gone to consumers seeking to make consumer purchases or other. thus, instead of the sharp, v-shaped recovery after a recession, america is entering a time distress. the reason they have not worked is that they cannot work. they did not work under

president bush and will not work under president obama. the core of obamanomics is that if the government can put enough money into the economy it can stimulate consumer spending. unfortunately, government cannot inject is single dollar into the economy that's not first taken out of the same economy. if the government takes a dollar from peter and gives to it paul, paul will have an extra dollar to spend but peter has one less dollar to spend in that very same economy. on paper, the economic effects of income transfers always net to zero. in practice, transfers net to much less than zero because they shift huge amounts of capital away from decisions that would have been made in the productive sector based on economic return toward decisions made in the government sector based on political return. we see very clearly the government jobs that are created

when government puts that dollar back into the economy. what we don't see as clearly are the productive jobs that were prevented from forming as government first takes that dollar out of the economy. we see those lost jobs reflected in a chronically high unemployment rate and a stagnating economy. it's time we stop wrestling for the steering wheel and recognize bad public policy for what it is whether the drivers are republican or democrat, the problem is not the driver but the direction and the direction hasn't changed. we all know the road to prosperity. we've taken it before. when we've reduced the burdens on productivity, the economy has blossomed, it worked with when ronald reagan did it, it worked with general f. kennedy and harry truman did it and it will work again, but we need leaders with a far better sense of direction than we have today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio.

for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern marianas islands rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sablan: baseball is a national past time in the northern marianas as well as the rest of the country. no one did more for baseball than francisco salanas yet he never played the game. soldiers brought the game to the island for recreation. schoolboys picked it up and then play became formalized. teams were organized around naineds and the first league was formed in 1953.

as a young man, he would walk the three miles to watch the sunday afternoon games he wanted to play, but didn't have the skill to make the starting lineup of his district. so sitting on the bench in the dugout, he contributed by becoming the scorekeeper. he learned the art of score keeping from a navy man stationed on saipan. a look at the score sheets reveal a military preciseness and accuracy. soon after become his team's scorekeeper, he began keeping score for the entire league. he remained the official core skeeper for every baseball league on saipan until his retirement in 2006, a span of six decades. he raised over a dozen children and numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren but he always made time for his duties

as scorekeeper. without a scorekeeper there is no game. without a record keeper, there are no records. baseball, more than any other game, depends on its records. the box score preserves the game for all time no matter when or where it is played. season records give us a way of comparing players, even those who never played against each other. the records connect the past to the present. thanks to him, saipan was the only island that maintained yearly statistics season after season. thank it is his dedication as a volunteer, baseball grew. he was there to help when little league was first organized in 1973. since then, teams from the northern marianas islands have been -- northern mariana islands have been at the junior league world series, and at the big league world sere yes, sir in -- series in south carolina.

players from our island have played college ball on the mainland. in 2007, he co-authored saipan baseball from the beginning. he has been voted into the sports hall of fame. when his name came up for selection, there was no target. he was selected unanimously. he provided a solid, steady foundation for baseball to become saipan's favorite past time. he accomplished it with his calm, dependable presence, sure knowledge and selfless devotion. that is why he came to be a legend in his own time, in his own way, on his own island. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana plrning barton. -- from-in, mr. barson. without objection, from-in, mr. barton. >> last week, one of china's most -- mr. barton: last week, one of china's dissidents was take onto his house hsm he revealed to the world the massive violence of the one child per family enforcement campaign he remains you should house arrest in his own home, surrounded by surveillance cameras and police. foreign reporters attempting to enter his village has been beaten and driven away and he's in urgent need of medical attention, having been regularly beaten in prison where he lost a great deal of weight. just today radio free asia

reporter spoke with chun and his wife over a cell phone. his wife said, he has a sort of haunted look and for the first few days after his release, he couldn't speak at all. think about it. this is a very, very tough and articulate man. yet for the first few days after his release, he couldn't speak at all. such was the brutality of his imprisonment. it is all the more inspiring to read his words, the chinese government may have broken his body but they have absolutely not spoken -- broken his spirit. 4e called on international organizations and people of conscience to react to his continued arrest in a united manner. that's the house arrest. and if they could help me today, he said, their actions will help another person tomorrow. a few words about chun, mr. speaker. he's a self-taught lawyer, having been denied the benefits of higher education due to his blindness. he was known in the area for

advising his neighbors on how to resist the government's injustices. in 2005 and 2006, he took the brave step that changed his life. he began interviewing people and gathering evidence about the massive violence and brutality of the one child per couple policy and its enforcement campaign that shook lin-yi in 2005. what he uncovered was shocking. 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations in that county in that year alone, in addition to mass detentions and beatings. in order to stop his investigation, officials placed him under house arrest but he managed to slip away and travel to beijing where he met with journalists from "time" magazine and confered with legal scholars about filing a large class action suit against official responseable for the campaign. officials soon abducted him back , returned him to house arrest

and convicted him on trumped up charges of property destruction he served the full term of his four year, three-month sentence despite health problems indicating the appropriateness of medical parole. the chinese government's relentless pursuant of him corresponds to the continued violence of the one child per couple policy which chun bravely exposed. sadly what he documented in 2005 and 2006 is still going on today all over china. this year alone, we have reliable reports of large scale forced abortion and sterilization campaigns in several provinces. the campaign in one province was widely reported, the story having been broken by the "times" of london later this -- earlier this year. in one county, officials rounded up women and men and their relatives of any resistors, detained them in cramped

conditions and working 20 hour shifts for 20 days forcibly sterilized their quota of almost 10,000 people. mr. speaker, chun documented the fact that chinese women are immensely traumatized by these campaigns and by the entire one child per couple policy. it's been estimated by the world health organization that some 500 women per day commit suicide, not per week, not per month, but per day, commit suicide in china, largely attributable to this horrific and barbaric policy called one child per couple. it is invasive, if there's a crude surveillance of women's reproductive cycles, including monitoring their cycle per month, it drives sex selection abortion and what we call gender-cide, the missing girls in china, 100 million girls who

other the course since 1979 when this bar bare hick policy was pushed on china by the wested on the united nations has led to the missing girl syndrome. it's been estimated at upwards of 40 million men, 40 million, will not be able -- be able to find wives by 2020 because they have been forcibly aborted. finally, i appeal to our government and to our president, please speak out on behalf of of this man for his release so this terrible nightmare he'd had to endure will end. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. kennedy: permission to address the house for five minutes. those of you who may be watching on your c-span at home may

wonder how it is that everything has to be broken down republican versus democrat, right versus left. i think there's one special interest group in our country that there shouldn't be any disagreement about and that's our nation's veteran. we are consumed right now with a lot of problems our country has right now. but perhaps the family that's facing the greatest challenges right now are the family that have already borne the biggest sacrifice so we could have elections today in my state and other states across the country and have an election this november. we are very good in this country on getting down on ourselves, berating our political system and say it's no good. people have to realize we have it pretty good. for all intenths and purposes

all is not good, but churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. people don't have rights of any kind, the lobby just doesn't have rights. what makes our country so great and what we stand for as a people so great is that we can speak our mind. we can come to the floor and talk just as my colleague did about one child per family policy in china, we could talk about the economy, as my other colleagues said before that. but let's just stop for a second and understand one thing. we would not have an economy if terrorists were blowing up backpacks. because of our veterans, our soldiers who borne the battle,

those terrorists in large part due to their work have been kept over there as opposed to coming here. yes, that's cost us a lot of money as a country to fight those wars, but the costs, the indelible cost is on those veterans who have suffered what many people would like to think because there are no cures, no interventions, no treatments, permanent, chronic damage as a result of the physical torment their bodies, their brains took serving their country. i'm here to say good news. good news is if this country comes to its veteran's side and decides not to talk a good game, but actually we are going to do

whatever it takes to save those veterans because we constantly say the war is over, the combat operations are over and we are bringing them home safely, try telling that to a veteran with traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic strs -- stress. the combat separation operations as we know them may have concluded, but their war is just beginning. their war against the disabling similar symptoms of their service and experience, fighting for us, saving our country, saving this world from more 9/11's. so what's our attitude going to be? are we going to come to their rescue or talk a good game? within the next couple of years, we can come in with new cell

recuperation through stem cell research, restore and repair damaged brains with the knowledge that we have of genetics. we can help avert all kinds of other challenges. they are going to face higher risks for because of the exposure to conflicts. we can turn all those trip wires off with the research we can do now. not in two years from now, not in four years from now, not in any period of time, because if you are one of those veterans and you've come home and you are suffering, you are saying how long is it going to take before i get relief, before someone comes in and saves me as a prisoner of my war injury? we shouldn't make them wait any longer than is necessary to get to the cures and the answers that are going to set them free.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, mr. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm happy to be here tonight. i guess everybody is really pleased to be back in washington, d.c. and come up here to this place. but, you know, i'm blessed, i live texas and glad to be here tonight so we can talk about something, again about a subject i have been talking about in

various degrees for 19 months now, and that is we do have a rule of law that is the underpinning of our society. and we started when we decided to create this great republic. we started -- we decided to codify that rule of law. and one of the best written documents on the face of the earth. i have a little copy of it right here in pocket form, constitution of the united states. and in the constitution of the united states, we not only set out how the newly formed union of the states would operate with a newly formed national government, but it sets out how this body will operate, how the executive branch will operate, how the judiciary will operate. in my lifetime, i have been blessed by my neighbors, because we elect our judges as well as

our representatives in texas. i have been blessed by my neighbors to serve in two branches of our government, because with the basic constitution of the united states establishing a legislative branch and executive branch and judicial branch, all the states basically follow that same general guideline and now around the world, democracies that have sprung up from this longest life and democratic process called the united states government, republic that we created for the united states, others have used it using various forms of democracy, have followed the general pattern. when we talk to a young kid, let's say an elementary school, kindergarten up to sixth grade

student about three branches of government, talk about the legislative branch that writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and legislative -- and the judicial branch which enforces the law and interprets the law. now, that's basically what we talk about. and it's very simple. and it's very real. and that's what we are supposed to have here. to have here. and one of our jobs as guardians of this document called the constitution and this system we call the united states of america and its federal government, one of the things we have a responsibility to do is we have a responsibility to stay in check and balance on the other three branches of government. the judiciary has checks and

balances on both the executive and the legislative. the legislative has checks and balances on the jishier and the -- judiciary and the executive. and the executive has checks and balances on the judiciary and the legislative. so our founding fathers have said not only are we going to have these three branches of government, but it's the responsibility to make sure other branches going -- other branches aren't going haywire. and they were fed up with kings and the royalty of the various nations that they had come from to come across the ocean to the united states and wanted to make sure that no one dominated or stepped on each other's toes. and wife been talking about the fact that all of this falls

under that great category that we sort of envisioned that the world needs and adopts and that is the rule of law. a civil society cannot operate without rules, not only that police the society, but that the society can count on as they move through commerce or interactions with other human beings to be the rules that you play by. and just like americans love our games, baseball, basketball, football, not necessarily in that order and other games, said, we want to make sure and stand up and scream and say, they are breaking the rules, because you can't play the game without rules. and this body here has a real responsibility to create those rules.

we write laws which are big brothers, the rules. and we give rulemaking authority to people, but authority comes from this congress. so having that glue of the society, you ask me, yeah, that may sound good for america, but not everybody needs that. well, let me ask you something. if you are going to make a deal with your neighbor over the boundary line of your property and some country in central america and you are trying to determine where the boundary line is and you find out you don't have any rules about title to property so no one knows where the boundariesr how do you solve that problem? well, you could solve it by whoever has the biggest stick and whoever won would decide

where the property line is. but that's not the rule of law. that is a rule of terrorism, a rule of violence. one simple way to register property and gives people a place to go to discuss where something to discuss is that tree many my yard or your yard and don't have to bash each other's brains out over the issue. that's as easy as i can make it. and believe me, people bash each other's brains out if they don't resolve something as simple that. all you have to be is a municipal court judge in texas to nind out about that. we have rules in a civil society to function in a civilized manner. the reason we have responsibility to police up the

other branches of government is to settle these debates. and we have had these fights for a long time. they are part of our constitutional law of the united states. we have a poster here just on the issue and whether or not it is right, this came down as a dispute between the supreme court and the executive, the president. and in this particular situation , chief justice marshall, john marshall, one of the most famous, if not the most famous chief justice of the supreme court had ruled away that president andrew jackson didn't like. and the big issue was marshall had made his decision now let him enforce it.

now, why is it that something we ought to start talking about? because this is the reversus situation -- reverse situation. because the president has said i'm not going to enforce the law. the courts have determined what the law is and what the law means, but i'm not go to go enforce it. i'm going to do it my way. and basically,, supreme court has said the president has the obligation to enforce the law. andrew jackson was very stubborn and that was a big problem in his time. one thing i want to talk about that i think war areries me a lot about the rule of law is the various congresses over various years have written a whole body of law concerning the immigration and naturalization

laws of the united states of america. these days, our media, in an attempt to give their own definition to people's intent, the minute you want to start talking about issues like this, there's going to be somebody that's going to try to call you a racist or a bigot or whatever. i'm talking about the facts, we have a set of laws about immigration. and i'm not talking about immigration of any -- from any particular country, i'm talking about immigration from all countries. we have a way to become a naturalized american citizen and have the rights of the american citizen oppose -- imposed upon you and those laws are set out in statutes. and they tell you those things are against the law. one thing they tell you, it's

against the law to enter the united states without permission. now, in an attempt to get away from my heritage where i come from, i'm from texas. we have the largest amount of border of any state in the union with the country of mexico. we have a long and sometimes rocky history as a state and prior to being a state, as a republic of texas, and prior to that, as a colony of mexico, we have a long and sometimes rocky history with the country of mexico. but today, in today's present 21st century, most texans, weert born or those who moved there, consider the northern parts of mexico as like -- like home. i mean, we have a very, very

solid, strong relationship with the people of mexico. this is not about mexicans or it's not about hispanics or it's not about the irish, there were people up here wanting to free the irish. it's about the law. and we have written laws that say, you come into our country illegally or if you overstay a visa that got you here legally, but when it expired you then have to leave and you didn't leave if you did those things, you have broken our laws. now some people think that's too strict. other people think it's not strict enough. but the bottom line is, it's broken the law. the president of the united states, barack obama, in the very recent past, by executive order, basically decided to tell the courts and the judicial system established to enforce

the immigration laws, the immigration judiciary system, that they were to ignore our dismiss and they are dismissing approximately 17,000 cases that the administration has determined they shouldn't go forward on. now, what does this do? a good friend of mine has joined me here today, mr. bilirakis of florida, and he's one of the people who stood up when all this happened and said what i've been saying on a lot of issues in this house, wait a minute, what's going on? what about the written rules? what about the immigration and naturalization laws? i believe mr. bilirakis is on the committee who is responsible for looking into those things, so i'm going to recognize my friend from florida to make at least a small comment on how he

view this is issue, starting off with the issue of the president announcing certain people that would no longer enforce the law against those people. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. carter, i appreciate it, thank you, mr. speaker. with growing violence in mexico and homegrown terrorism threat, we have to crack down on illegal immigration for our nation's security. i welcome those who enter this country through the legal means. as a matter of fact my grandparents came here in the early 1900's, but illegal immigration is illegal. as you said. no matter how well behaved the person is, they're still breaking the law, as far as i'm concerned, those are the laws and we must obey them. as the former hofede the 9/11 commission found in a recent report, immigrants and domestic terrorists now pose a threat to the united states. today's terrorists -- today's terrorist is hard to identify.

it is vital that d.h.s. is proactive along our borders. there continues to be evidence that terrorist groups are collaborating with drug cartels along the u.s. border. as my colleague sue meier reported in a recent article -- sue myrick reported in a recent article in the "new york times." this is especially troubling with the highlights of the 9/11 commission. in the recent past several memos have been leaked outlining plans for rewarding illegal immigrants. the first by the citizens service under immigration security has a way to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants without any action. at the core,s that separation of powers issue, as you stated. it must go through the legislative process. this is an arrogant in my opinion, an arrogant and dangerous alternative to having callers act on the issue. to grant amnesty to illegal

immigrants undermines our immigration laws and is a slap in the face to those who go through the process of entering our country legally. to do this by skipping the legislative process as the department of homeland security memo indicates is wrong. it's clearly wrong. following the memo's release, candice miller and i wrote a sec re-- a letter to secretary napolitano demanding clarification and to see if the memo reflects the department's or the white house's policy plans. the response was basically a nonresponse, mr. carter. another memo highlighted by an article in the houston chronicle, you may have mentioned this, it outlined the possibility of dismissing and i think you did mention this, 17,000 deportation cases and releasing the offenders inside the united states. what kind of a precedent are we

setting? a third idea from d.h.s. involves focusing on illegal immigrants who focus on more -- who commit nor serious crimes, so in other words not getting them off and ignoring those who commit minor infractions. there's focus on the ones who have committed the serious fines but the minor infractions would be let off. what kind of precedent are we setting. i've asked for hearing, mr. carter, on this. i know you know this and i serve on the homeland security committee and i'm the ranking member of the oversight investigation committee and we ask for hearings to find out more about the intents of these memos and i am waiting for a response. i have not respond -- received one so far. these plans are not the only steps the administration is taking to seemingly undermine immigration security. the administration has take ton suing state governments,

specifically the state of arizona, for trying to enforce immigration laws. the administration needs to take real action in my opinion and it needs to send more enforcement to the border, sending a few hundred extra troops to the border is not enough to protect 2,000 miles. d.h.s. needs to improve technology along the boarder to help the border agents police the terrain. and i've been to the border and it needs to improve its visa security process. the screening process. over the past several years, there have been multiple instances that demonstrate shortcomings in our visa screening process. i've sponsored a bill, legislation to strengthen the student visa program and ensure better screening and monitoring of foreign students once they are in the country. d.h.s. also identified several high risk areas around the world and we did -- we identified them in the early 2000's.

we need visa security units to properly screen applicants. we have been very slow. they have not been implemented. there are only approximately 15 or 20 in place out of several high risk areas identified around the world. currently, that's less than a quarter of the high risk visa issuing locations around the world have these visa security units. i think that's unacceptable as well. i also have introduced legislation to expand a coast guard program that collects biometric information on interdicted aliens and makes sure they have not repeatedly tried to enter the country. i believe that's currently in the senate. it was passed on one of the bills, mr. carter, in the house and it's waiting for action in the senate. congress can prevent states from

issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, stop birth right citizenship. we need to fennelize -- penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants. there are many members that congress or d.h.s. can take to help secure our borders and help protect the country. the amnesty plans we've outlined here tonight, mr. carter has outlined, are not the right way to go. frankly stand on constitutional ground. thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. carter. i pledge to continue to work with you on this issue. mr. carter spnk i thank my friend. reclaiming my time. the perfect point, and the recitation of legislation is the proper way for us to deal with this problem. this congress is the place where we make decisions on how to change immigration laws. they are written by this congress and should be changed if they immediate to be changed by this congress. i don't understand why the president of the united states thinks he must arbitraryly grant

what turns out to be a de facto amnesty so that -- this is a -- his party controls this house. and will until the end of this year, control this house. we've still got weeks left on this session of congress. and there's a possibility we could come back after the elections and have another session of congress before the end of this year. if this immigration issue needs to be taken up, it should have been taken up by the congress. but there seems to be this idea that the president of the united states has the type of powers that he can, with the stroke of a pen, set aside contracts, with the stroke of a pen set aside the laws of this country, with the stroke of a pen, ignore orders of the court system. and i just don't think the world or our laws allow the executive branch to be able to do that.

and it's not like this thing wasn't telegraphed before. initially, we had one of the worst -- are recently, we had one of the worst oil spill disasters in the history of our country. and the president of the united states declared at one time a gulf-wide moratorium on drilling in the gulf. at that time, there were hundreds of trilling rigs in the gulf of -- of drilling rigs in the gulf of mexico operating. at that time, both shallow water and deep water, they shut it down, by the president declaring a moratorium. now how do we learn how we do things in this country? we either read them in our laws, we are instructed by the precedents set by the courts, we

ought to do something about looking at the history of how we operated in the past. i would make common sense. before we look at whether the president overstepped his individual authority by declaring a moratorium, the question would come, has anybody that was president of the united states ever declared a moratorium on drilling before? and the answer is, yes. his name was richard nixon a republican. now, let's look at how richard nixon went about getting a moratorium to stop drilling off the coast of california. did he make an individual dictate from his own pen and say, i hereby declare you can no longer drill? no. what did he do? he went to the congress of the

united states. he said to the congress, we need to have a ban on -- a ban or -- a moratorium on drilling off the cost of -- coast of california. this deliberative body held hearings, i assume, i haven't delved into that, but i do know the congress and the president issued a moratorium on drilling off the coast of california and to my knowledge, that moratorium is still in place. . if there was anybody drilling at the time, they probably felt like their contract rights were stepped on and the court ruled on it and must have ruled in favor of the congress and the president because the moratorium is still in place. what does that tell us about the right way to declare a moratorium? the right way is to go to congress.

and with the congress, put forth the congress declaring a moratorium and the president enforcing that moratorium. that's the way it's supposed to operate if you read this little book, the constitution of the united states. that's what it says. that's not what we get. the president of the united states has said we are declaring a moratorium. he was joined by secretary of energy, i believe. but it was taken to court. and a federal judge -- the federal judge who overturned the obama administration's six-month moratorium had the challenge thrown out. the lawsuit filed several offshore oil service companies. the moratorium was moot because the interior department imposed a new drilling moratorium. what is the interior department?

is it a creation -- is it a department of the congress? nope. it's the department of the executive branch of the federal government. who appoints the interior secretary? with the advice and concept of the president of the united states. the president appoints with the advice and consent of the senate. that's how we get the head of the interior department. now i can't speak for the interior czar because the interior czar doesn't have to go through that vetting process. he only answers to the president of the united states. we have now aapproaching 40 czars and i don't know what they do but get a pay check. but they answer to the president. u.s. district judge rejected that argument saying the second moratorium arguably isn't

different from the first. when a judge grants an injunchings -- injunction and says you are allowed to seek inuntive relief and you are stopped from doing the behavior you were doing and that's what this court said to the president of the united states. said, you can't do this. but did it anyway. where that is in the court system, i don't know. but, it is blatetantly standing forward. not only is it bypassing the legislative process, which is the normal way by precedent to get a moratorium on drilling in america, because that's the way it has been done in the past, but when the court says, you can't do that, they did it anyway. and now by playing regulatory games and giving favors to some

and maybe not favors to others -- and i don't know anything about that part of the game playing. i know some people seem to be getting permits and some people not getting permits. and whether or not there is a moratorium in shallow water depends on who you talk to. but i can tell you the deepwater folks are still shut down. now all of this -- is there a reason we ought to go to the congress? one of the reasons is that every seat you see in this house of representatives is filled with a person who represents at this time 652,000 americans. and so that person speaks for and votes 652,000 americans. and if a choice is going to be made to shut down the production of approximately 20% of the oil and gas production a year in the united states, which is what the gulf produces, approximately

20%, then the american people probably would say, this could have an effect on the cost of -- could have an effect on jobs, could have an effect on the cost of fuel, have an effect on the standard of living. it may be they would like their members of congress to be able to have something to say about shutting down production, 20% of the production of petroleum and natural gas in the united states. and especially in light of a recession, i would think they would want their each individual members of congress to be very vocal about where their representative represented them and said, what's this going to do to my job? you know, i mean, what is it going to do to this economy, how much is it going to hurt us?

how much dependence on foreign oil. that's why nixon went to the congress for a moratorium, because the people in the congress spoke for the people of the united states. that's the way it's set up. house of representatives represents the people. so we didn't go through that process for the moratorium. we had the white house and president barack obama basically declare a moratorium. you will do what i say and you will not drill in the gulf. courts have said, you can't do that partner and had the interior department say, you can't drill in the gulf. and i assume the concept behind the interior department is the leases that they were drilling on were interior leases is the way i understand it. but, wait a minute, if you paid for that lease and part of the

contracts you made with the government was, if you paid them money for their lease, sometimes millions of dollars and then you go out there and drill on that lease and don't find any oil, the interior department says, well, better luck next time. thanks for your million dollars. if you find oil, the interior department is supposed to say congratulations, although there are those in this body who would say, wait a minute, if you found oil, you have to give us more money. but the laws of contracts has something to do with that. when we are talking about this problem with drilling offshore, we had sort of a one-man show of a moratorium. and the courts have made a decision. we now have the president of the

united states has taken off and the justice department is going after one of our states by taking them to the u.n. human rilets council on arguing that a law in the state of arizona is to be taken before some body that should have no authority over this country and asked them to call us human rights violators and called the state of arizona human rights violators. they have taken the state of arizona to court for a law that they wrote which tracks almost identically a federal law that the department of homeland security is supposed to be enforcing and are not, and therefore, arizona got tired of the invasion of their state and said, if the feds aren't going

to enforce the law, we'll write it like the federal law and ask our folks to enforce it because somebody has to stand up for the people of arizona. i'm not here to debate that, but to point out that all this type of thinking comes down to the concept that the executive branch of the government can do what it wants to and doesn't has to consult with congress. congress has written laws that you shouldn't come into this country without permission. there are first-time cases but starting with 17,000 people, we are going to dismiss the cases against them. now, let's think about that. it's a judicial process where people -- where the folks that come in this country illegally, get caught, they have a jud get caught, they have a judicial process that can determine

whether or not they should be deported from this country. it's very similar to the judicial process you are all familiar with in this house and all over the country about how it goes on in the courtroom. you have a trier of facts and determine the facts and you have law that is written and precedents are that are established that tells you what the remedies are to resolve the issue and the triers of facts and the law come up with the issue. there an issue that is resolved. and true, true, the prosecution can dismiss a case. but to have the executive branch of the government direct the justice department, which is supposedly our lawyer to

randomly dismiss cases and then make the statement, we are only going after criminal aliens, well, let me tell you something about criminal aliens. so you get a really clear picture of this. i have tried to talk to the homeland security department about this because i serve on the committee for homeland security. if your definition of a criminal alien is someone who is a felon, then you can't under the constitution of the united states declare someone to be a felon until they have been convicted of a crime. that's by a court. otherwise, there's something called the presumption of innocence. and until a court declares you

guilty, you're innocent. so even though somebody walks in here and shoots everybody in this room on national television, they're still innocent until a court says they're guilty. so you're saying, we are going to go after criminal aliens and call them criminal aliens, they have to be convicted by a court. now, if they're convicted by a court, chances are, pretty good chancesr they're in prison. now let me ask you, just using -- you don't have to be a legal scholar or a former judge or ever have to have served on a jury, just using good old american common sense, let's say 95% of those convicted of a crime as a criminal alien are in jail or prison, how hard are

they to find? i mean is it really a task to find out where they are? like if you want to know, i come from williamson county in texas. we have a great big jail in williamson county. you can pick up the phone and call our great sheriff and say, sheriff, how many convicted aliens do you have in your jail? and he'll say, i can give you a list of people i think are illegal, but i haven't asked them. let's just assume that the sheriff's wise ideas are inaccurate a little bit, you are still going to pick up a number of them. how hard is it to catch them? go to jail, go to their cell,