by mr. holden of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1620, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. holden, and a member opposed, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. holden: thank you, mr. chairman. the manager's amendment contains the following provision, it prohibits entities with ongoing tarp obligations from participating in the program. it mandates that funds provided by the legislation shall be used to supplement and not to supplant other energy efficiency funding. it says that no report has to be filed with the comptroller general regardling the extent to which funds provided by the legislation that are used to support commercial or industrial energy measures. it prohibits any additions to direct spending with respect to the legislation. it forbids funds from being used to purchase personal property, including manufactured homes but allows funds to be used for modifications to manufactured homes. . it prohibits regulations regarding a home labeling program, it also prohibits the

wrongful use or diversion of program funds, as well as prohibits providing funds to any contract who are employs any person who has been convicted of or pled guilty to any form of sexual assault. finally it prohibits federal employees from receiving loan fund fs they have seriously delinquent tax debt, have received a payment in violation of the liheap or have been officially disciplined for viewing, downloading or exchanging pornography on federal government computer or while performing official government duties. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i'd like to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. while i claim that time, i would state for the record that i support my good friend from pennsylvania's amendment. i support his efforts to import more integrity into this, what i'm afraid is duplicative, program. more importantly i support his attempt to make sure the program does not effect direct spending. as my good friend has mentioned,

his amendment prohibits any direct or mandatory spending. what it does not do, however, is prevent appropriators from adding to our national debt by spending discretionary dollars on the program. while i support my friend's efforts to be truly fiscally responsible this fact should sun set if it's not deficit-neutral. i support the amendment and urge others to do the same. i would prefer language that more directly prevents direct spending but this is what we have. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. holden: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i too rise in support of the holden amendment. it's not as good as our motion to recommit from back in may. mr. neugebauer: it's not as good as the barton amendment but it

is -- mr. barton: it's not as good as the barton amendment but it's strangely similar. if flattery is the most sincere form of compliments then i am complimented that you have taken a pages out of our playbook. it is going to make our coming motion to recommit much more difficult to develop. but i can assure you that ajile minds are working as we speak on that motion to recommit. but for purposes of this debate, both mr. lucas and myself do support your amendment and urge its adoption. with that i thank the gentleman from oklahoma and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. holden: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. i'm ready to yield back if the gentleman from oklahoma is. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. holden: mr. chairman, i'd like to thank the gentleman from north carolina, oklahoma and texas for the support of the manager's amendment, encourage pass and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. if the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. holden: mr. chairman, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote? mr. holden: yes, mr. chairman, i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 111-594. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. kuhl: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 111-594 offered by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1620, the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. cuellar: mr. chairman, i rise today to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to the rule energy savings program -- rural energy savings program. this would direct secretary of agriculture to provide assistance and advice to the entities providing loans under this act to increase participation in the areas of high unemployment. this important amendment will go a long way toward making sure that those areas have been hit the hardest are about to take advantage of this legislation. as you know, unemployment is still a real problem for americans throughout the country. in my congressional district, as an example, i have two accounts that are significantly above the -- counties that are significantly above the national average. one county is at 17.3%. this amendment will make sure that these communities are not left out of this good piece of legislation and under my amendment usda will provide their expertise to entities providing loans for the purposes of outreach. this amendment will increase economic activities in the areas that need it the most, while

providing valuable energy costs savings. mr. chairman, i certainly want to thank the gentleman, mr. butter field, mr. cly bun, -- clyburn, the other folks, mr. holden, also, who have been working very hard and also to the ranking members. so i thank you and i stand in strong support of this piece of legislation, along with my amendment, asking to vote yes on my amendment. at this time, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? mr. lucas: claiming time in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield myself such time as i might consume. this amendment would simply direct the secretary of agriculture to provide assistance and technical advice to electric cooperatives who have been approved as qualified entities in an effort to improve the outreach to rural communities it serves. one employment rates above the national average, as the author noted. as i understand it the amendment it does not require special treatment. rather it focuses on the promotion of the program to those communities that are hit

-- hard-hit by the failing economy. i think the gentleman's intentions are laudable and given the legislative framework that the majority leadership has us working in, i do not oppose this amendment. i do, however, think there are better ways to bring cheap and efficient energy to these communities. the prohibition on lending in the last farm bill, to increase base load generation from clean coal, natural gas and nuclear technology is the biggest hidden tax on rural americans that i can possibly think of. administered by the present majority leadership. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: i want to thank the ranking member for his support and again, mr. holden, mr. clyburn, and all the folks who have worked so hard, i ask you to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. choipt question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. from the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 111-594. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. mccarthy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 111-594 offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1620, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank chairman peterson and waxman and ranking

member lucas and barton for bringing forward this important message. i also thank my colleague from pennsylvania, tim holden, energy course in this country -- costs in this country continue to rise. for many of these families the costs have become an unbearable burden. i support this bill and believe that it will be a great help to many american families. h.r. 4785 creates the tools necessary to give homeowners control over their energy costs. the loans provided for in this bill will allow homeowners to invest in energy efficiency measures that will provide long-term save togs many, many families. it will help bring down energy costs for homeowners, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help us transition towards a clean energy economy. although rural americans are facing the reality of raising energy costs, for our active duty troops and our veterans, the challenges of skyrocketing energy costs can be even more problematic. the members of our active duty

military must often balance their household service requirements. does this still get your point across? i believe it does. our veterans, both our new veterans just starting out, and our older veterans living on a fixed income, also have unique challenges when it comes to their energy costs. i believe it is important that we give priority in this bill to those men and women who have sacrificed and continue to sacrifice for our country. this is what my amendment does. let us make sure that with all the challenges in life, our active duty members and veterans can worry a little less about their electricity bills. with this i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. does anyone seek time in opposition? mr. lucas: seeking time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: i yield myself as much time as i might consume. in agriculture we've learned the hard way, mr. chairman, that carveouts and programs general are reduce the effectiveness of the program.

it's a simple economic principle. by focusing on the beneficiary instead of results, marginal utilities lower. having said that, i can think of no more deserving group than the brave men and women of our armed services to be prioritized in any federal program. and, yes, i support and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. mccarthy: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 111-594. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek

recognition? mr. inslee: the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. >> what is the protocol when the author of the amendment is not on the floor and the amendment is called? the chair: the chair is trying to aser dane whether the proponent will offer the amendment. mr. barton: is there -- further parliamentary inquiry. is there a prescribed waiting period? are we like in a holding pattern around an airport or, within a

minute, no show no, go? the chair: the chair will respect member's requests to offer amendments and i will wait momentarily until we find out where the member is. mr. barton: mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to continue with the bill. if the author is not here he's lost his opportunity to offer it. i would ask unanimous consent to move forward in consideration of pending business of the house and skip over the amendment. the chair: this is the last amendment, mr. barton, and so if you would please -- one moment. does the gentleman from south carolina -- north carolina seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i will stand to offer this amendment as the designee. the chair: the gentleman will be

recognized for that purpose. mr. barton: requesting the right to object. the chair: does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i seek recognition to object if it's under the rules. we don't know. i have great faith in mr. butterfield but i'm not sure he's been authorized by mr. inslee and if mr. inslee's not here, i would objectworks all due respect to mr. butterfield, substituting for him, without knowing whether mr. inslee wants him to. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i'm told that the gentleman from wisconsin is en route to the floor. i stood to offer the amendment to make it in order. the gentleman who authored the amendment should be here momentarily. the chair: the chair then will wait until the gentleman arrives. mr. barton: will the chair give that consideration to members of the minority if we happen to be tardy and dawdling and -- i

don't -- we certainly are cognizant of the graciousness, but the house of representatives is a busy place and i always thought if you weren't here, you lost your spot in the lineup. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker -- the chair: consent, mr. barton, is not required for a designee to offer the amendment. the chair is recognizing the gentleman from south carolina. the chair has actually been very nonbiased to either side and i intend to be fair. mr. barton: i'm not disparaging of the chair's nonbiasness. that similar consideration -- the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized to offer the amendment. will the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i would like to proceed as the designee.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 111-594 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1620, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington -- from north carolina. mr. butterfield: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me apologize to the speaker and to the ranking member and colleagues for all of the confusion, but we are ready to proceed on this matter. mr. speaker, i have reviewed this amendment. it appears to be in keeping with the spirit of the underlying legislation. i would urge my colleagues to support it. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, is the gentleman opposed to the

amendment? mr. barton: i am, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: thank you, sir. i'd ask the author designee if he'd like to engage in a colloquy on this amendment? mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield: to the extent that i can, mr. barton. mr. barton: can you define whether the -- house is? mr. butterfield: i do not have that material in front of me. mr. barton: ok. we're getting a pig in the poke here, is that right? i'm -- mr. butterfield: you certainly appreciate the disadvantage i find myself. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i'm -- i'm not totally opposed to this amendment. i don't know too much more about it than mr. butterfield, but i do know that the pass the house concept, while it saves energy once it's in place, it

is more expensive to construct. it is my understanding that the concept that the amendment supports is substantially more expensive than standard construction. that may be appropriate when people have high incomes and the cost of construction is really of little interest. but for most of my constituents, mr. speaker, the initial cost is of significance. and while this is not mandatory, the amendment does not require to simply say, add something like this, while, again, i don't think there is a tremendous downside to this amendment, i think it should be pointed out that if the department of energy, which is not in the amendment, required to do this, if it was directed

to meet this test, you would raise construction costs substantially and i think that is something that should be of concern. i'm going to oppose the amendment but not vigorously. i do think that the author of the amendment usually should be on the floor when their amendment is offered. and i would hope that we would take notice that the author was not and we should give kudos to mr. butterfield for substituting in his place. i would urge a no vote on this amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentleman for his kind comments. we have no additional speakers. i have no additional remarks. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on amendments printed in house report 111-594 on which further proceedings were postponed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 111-594 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. holden, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 111-594 offered by mr. holden of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 402. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rised.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3782 and pursuant to house resolution 1620 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill 4786 and pursuant to house resolution 1620 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the miscellaneous rural development provisions of the farm security and rural investment act of 2002 to authorize the secretary of agriculture to make loans to certain entities that will use the funds to make loans to consumers to implement energy efficiency measures involving structural improvements and investments in cost-effective, commercial off-the-shelf technologies to reduce home energy use. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. mr. shadegg: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. members, take your seats. mr. shadegg: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. shadegg: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. shadegg: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. shadegg of arizona moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4785 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to the report same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- page 1, line five, -- insert the home -- mr. shadegg: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent the clerk: six months delinquent in child support payments. mr. shadegg: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to suspense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> mr. speaker, i object. the speaker pro tempore: the objection is heard. the clerk: under section 2, page 1, line 13 and 14, strike or community based. page 3, line 10, insert primary after installed in a. page 3, line 12, insert but which shall not include the installation or replacement of pool heaters or the installation of energy star televisions after their adoption. page 3, line 21, insert primary after installed in a. page 5, line 16, insert consistent with paragraph 3 after particular efforts. page 8, line 22 through page 9, line 3, strike subsection h and redesignate the subsequent subsections -- >> mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the read is dispensed. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. shadegg: thank you. the underlying legislation creates a $5 billion government loan program to assist people getting energy efficiency devices. anytime we spend that amount of money we ought to be very careful about the spending of that money, especially since we face a $1.3 trillion deficit. earlier this year, the g.a.o. conducted an investigation which found rampant fraud and abuse in the highly touted energy star program. the speaker pro tempore: will members take their conversation outside the chamber? the gentleman has the right to be heard. folks standing in the aisles and in the back, please take your conversations outside the

house. the gentleman from arizona. mr. shadegg: sadly, many companies have become very creative in ripping off the department of energy in the energy star program. the motion to recommit makes restrictions to protect the taxpayers in the implementation of this legislation. first, it urges that the g.a.o. and the secretary of energy report any waste, fraud or abuse found in the program. this is simply good governance. second, this program, which provides government subsidized loans makes sure that these home improvement loans are eligible only for people who deserve the assistance of the government. first, it says, for example, loans can be only used for primary residences. they cannot be used, energy

star loans subsidized under the government, under this legislation couldn't be used for vacation homes or beach houses. the taxpayer should not be providing energy efficient appliances at luxury homes. second, the motion to recommit strikes community-based organizations from potential lenders. this goes back to the problem of acorn and the strong belief that they should not be in the position of using or having access to these funds. third, the m.t.r. ensures that these loans are only available to households where the gross income is less than $250,000. it should go without saying that if the other side is proposing to increase taxes on earners in this category, we should not be opening up subsidized government loans to people who make money at that level. third, the motion to recommit provides that homeowners who are delinquent in their child support payments, so-called deadbeat dads, are not eligible for these subsidized loans.

it's pretty simple and straightforward that when the government decides to help people in these circumstances purchase energy-efficient equipment that they can't otherwise afford we shouldn't be doing it for deadbeat dads or for the wealthiest americans. with provides that loans and loan companies under this legislation cannot be used for such luxuries such as swimming pool heaters or to purchase l.c.d. tv's orphansy tv's. while these technologies may -- or fancy tv's. while these technologies are good, $5 billion should not be used to fund luxury items. people should not be using a subsidy from the government or a subsidized loan to buy a flat-screen tv or a swimming pool heater. last, the m.t.r. provides to fill in the standards in the legislation, ensure that sketchy contractors cannot give loans -- the construction cannot be done by contractors

convicted of fraud. finally, and most importantly, the legislation provides that the programs must be deficit neutral. if either program, if either program is found to have a negative effect on the national debt, then that program is suspended. my colleagues on the other side will find this one of the things they call a gutting amendment, but it really isn't. it is simply put in place to say that if you don't want to pay for the bill, which we would have argued for and which we offered amendments in rules for, then we should not allow it to increase the nation's deficit. as i mention, we face a $1.3 trillion deficit. this simply says before we provide subsidized government loans to people to buy energy-efficient equipment, that should not be done in a deficit situation where we are expanding the deficit and passing the cost of the program on to our children and our grandchildren. these are simple, straightforward, good government provisions. they make the legislation better. they enable it it to do what the authors of the legislation intended it to do without

adding to the financial burden on the american taxpayer. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. clyburn: yes, mr. speaker. i rise but not opposed to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i wish to thank my colleague and occasional sparring partner for making what i consider the reasonable improvements to this bill. and, mr. speaker, in keeping with the bipartisan, in fact, unanimous vote in favor of this legislation, i will accept the gentleman's amendment. mr. shadegg: i thank the gentleman.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. clyburn: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. .6 c16 c16 c16 c13 for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina

rise? >> pursuant to the instructions of the house and the motion to recommit i report h.r. 4785 [to the house -- back to the house with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina, page 1, line 5, insert with a gross annual household income of less than $250,000 after homeowner. page 1, line 9 insert -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. the reading is dispensed with. the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. cloim a bill to amend the

miscellaneous rural development provisions of the farm security and rural investment act of 2002 to authorize the secretary of agriculture to make loans to certain entities that will use the funds to make loans to consumers to implement energy efficiency measures involving structural improvements and investments and cost-effective commercial off-the-shelf technologies to reduce home energy use. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by

five-minute votes on the motion to suspend on house resolution 1613. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 172. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the speaker: the chair would ask all present to rise for a purpose of a moment of silence.

the chair asks that the house now rise for a moment of silence for the brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in iraq and afghanistan and their families and who all who have served in our armed forces and their families.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1613, as amended. on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1613, resolution expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of pakistan in the aftermath of the devastating floods that began on july 22, 2010. 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. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are, the yeas are 396. the nays are two. 2/3 having responded 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 question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1612 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1612, resolution expressing the support for and honoring september 17, 2010, as constitution day. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands rise? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, may be recognized on the legislative day of wednesday, september 22, 2010, to offer the resolution that he noticed on thursday,

september 16, 2010, without further notice under clause 2-a-1 of rule 9. the speaker pro tempore: is in objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. mr. sablan: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: madam speaker, thank you. i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:30 p.m. on monday next and, further, when the house adjourns on that day it adjourns to meet at 12:30 p.m. on tuesday, september 21, 2010, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sablan: thank you. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, 20 million people are out of work or have given up looking for work. contrary to history and common sense, they think that raising taxes will create jobs and the national debt has set a new record but the democrats want to spend more, yet, they won't offer a budget this year to tell the american people how they want to spend your money.

that's disrespectful to hardworking americans. america's values, america's economy and america's greatness is threatened. it's time to end the one-party monopoly in washington. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 5297, cited as the small business jobs act of 2010 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. without objection. mr. sablan: madam speaker, i

rise to honor a woman of the northern mariana islands for her enduring entrepreneur spirit, ms. cabrera, properly known as tanesco. she grew up during the japanese administration and witnessed the atrocities of world war ii in the battle for the northern mariana islands. after the war, she was just a girl and opened saipan's first beauty shop. she expanded it to retail clothes and shoes. her and her husband started a gasoline station, began manufacturing charcoal and opened saipan's first ice cream shop. people from all over the islands and from across the pacific know and love them. the people of the northern mariana islands honor the many

contribution the enterprise made to her community. perhaps her greatest contribution is the work ethic, a shining example to us all. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. september 17 is constitution day. on that day the constitutional convention met for the first time in philadelphia to sign the document. it was then sent to 13 states to ratify. in a speech to the senate in 1850, henry clay said the constitution of the united states was made not only for the generation then but existed but for prosperity, on endless perpetual prosperity. he has been proven correct. more than two centuries have passed and the constitution perseveres with few changes

despite the many challenges. the document bequeath to us is the most precious gift to the united states, our status of free citizens. many countries would stop the senator in florida to stop the burning of the koran. he has the right to the constitution no matter how we disagree with what he wanted to do. i support september 17 as constitution day and i would challenge all citizens to read the constitution on that day each year. it will help your understanding and strengthen your values. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: madam speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. goip madam speaker, i rise today -- mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i rise today to commend rate the united states constitution which has guided our nation for 223 years. constitution day serves as a reminder that our country's blessed with the fundamental freedoms and liberties that our founding fathers laid out for us.

the constitution not only serves as a basis of our laws and help shape our values as a nation, but it also outlines the limited role that government should play in our citizens' daily lives. this is something we must remember in light of the many struggles that currently face this country. madam speaker, there are those in congress who try to circumvent the constitution. so let today be a reminder that the original leaders of our country did not intend for america to be governed by partisan, political agendas but by the wishes of the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: madam 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 -- myself, mr. poe, for september 23. mr. jones for september 23. mr. pence for today. mr. coffman for today. mr. fortenberry for today. mr. culberson for today and mr. thompson for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: madam 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 for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. ms. woolsey, california, mr. defazio, oregon, ms. kaptur, ohio, mr. sablan, northern

marianas, mr. kennedy, rhode island, ms. jackson lee, texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency prior to the anniversary date of the declaration. the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance to this provision, i have sent the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism is to continue in effect beyond september 23, 2010. the crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on

september 11, 2001, and new york and in pennsylvania and against the pentagon and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the united states nationals or the united states that led to the declaration of a national emergency. on september 23, 2001, has not been resolved. these actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security foreign policy and economy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism and maintain and enforce the comprehensive sanctions to respond to this threat. signed, barack obama, the white house, september 16, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, history is the great predictor. to understand today, all you have to do is to look at last saturday. we all remember where we were when hijacked planes hit the world trade center. we remember the billowing clouds of smoke blacking out the new york skyline. those towers, once pillars of strength and freedom, became mass graves in the space of a few moments. firefighters, police officers, innocent men, women and children all died in a fire storm of hate. our country men and women were killed at the hands of radical muslim extremists. people who believed their religion tells them to be violent in the name of that

religion. now, nine years later, it's clear that some americans have forgotten the horror caused by these terrorists. and they except us to forget as well. however, forgetting is not an option. even though we don't show the pictures anymore, except on the anniversary of september 11, we don't talk about those responsible for plotting and carrying out these deadly terrorist attacks against america, we're told we can't be angry, we are expected to blindly accept the hatred for america in the name of tolerance. under the guise of religious tolerance, we're told we must allow a mosque to be built near ground zero. no one disagrees with the legal right to build a mosque, but the builder's decision is ill-advised and it's incensetive. this is a building where the landing gear from one of the hijacked planeser to through the roof. the media scolds those of us who disagree with this building. they say to be tolerant, be respectful in accepting other

people's religion. but why is not the same expected of those individuals? is this really about tolerance? the day that two planes hit the world trade center, that piece of land in new york city took on a whole new meaning. ground zero is no longer just a location in new york. it is a symbol of america as powerful as the stars and stripes. it is hallowed ground of the victims who were victimized because of hate. the man behind the ground zero mosque should instead build a memorial to the victims of a radical muslim extremists instead of a mosque. that would be sensitive. that would be compassionate. the history books show victory mosques have been built in or near locations of muslim conquests throughout history. in 1453, the second sultan of the automan empire conquered constantinople -- constant

nopele. one of his first -- constantinople. he converted a church into a mosque. the first great mosque of car kobea was built by medieval islamic invader. they built it on the site of a roman catholic cathedral in spain. the name cordoba, is that just a coincidence? the mosque issued at ground zero, too many in america think this is mirrors history too closely. one of the right is our worship to please. our nation was founded on liberty and freedom for everyone. do not muslims, like most religions and cultures, believe in tolerance and respect for other religions? thousands of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers at this very moment are stationed in iraq and afghanistan. they're fighting the terrorists in the deserts in the rough mountain terrain. 35 american warriors from my

congressional district area gave their lives in these two wars. they died protecting us from these same radical extremists that murder in the same of religion. it seems to me the tolerance leton is being preached the wrong part of the world. many christians, jews and other non-muslims are offended by the building of this mosque and believe it is disrespectful and dishonors those that were murdered on 9/11. if building this mosque is meant to truly promote education and understanding of the muslim religion, i suspect the supporters take a look at history and rather than repeat history they should remember history. ground zero is off-limits and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: thank you for clapping for me. madam speaker, yesterday speaker pelosi and the congress

recognized the anniversary of 9/11 with a moving remembrance ceremony on the steps outside the capitol. it's critical that we never forget the cruelty of those attacks and the tragedy of so many innocent lives. but just as importantly, we must use this occasion to examine the wars that we launched in response to 9/11. nine years later, have we achieved our original objective? is the continued military occupation advancing or undermining our national security interests? you'll recall that the original purpose was to clear al qaeda out of afghanistan. that's been accomplished. there are barely any al qaeda operatives left in the country, and there is little hope that they could gain a foot hold there in the future, but our continued military footprint is not helping us realize any worthy goal.

in addition to putting our troops' lives in danger, it is fueling the rise and aiding the recruitment of taliban insurgents in afghanistan. and on the global level, madam speaker, it is stroking the extremism of al qaeda and other anti---- anti-american jihadists. but it's just not me saying that. the afghanistan study group, comprised of centrist experts and academics had a report saying that. i will quote them. "it's time to abandon the current strategy that is not working." the continuation of an ambitious u.s. military campaign in afghanistan, the group adds, will likely work against u.s. interests. madam speaker, the report notes that the war costs more annually than does the new

health care reform bill. and yet curiously very few of my friends on the other side of the aisle are railing about the excessive spending on afghanistan. it appears that in their eyes a failed war is worth the investment, but health security for millions of americans is wasteful. the afghanistan study group offered some prescriptions and alternatives including political reconciliation and emphasis on regional diplomacy and investments in afghanistan's economic development, all of which are elements of the smart security plan i have been saying for years. instead of heeding this device, we're pressing forward stubbornly with failed policy. and the more failed the more

resources we devote it. as robert dreyfuss writes in "the nation," the prevailing wisdom, if you can call it that, seems to me spending and sending 30,000 troops to the wrong place isn't getting results, sending 30,000 more to the same wrong place might help, and then when that doesn't work, why, send another 30,000 troops? madam speaker, conditions in afghanistan have gotten so bad that humanitarian groups can't move freely to deliver the aid that is so badly needed. the gruesome murders of medical aid workers last month underscores the deteriorating security situation. "the new york times" cites, the afghanistan -- the afghan n.g.o. safety office as saying there were more than twice the number of insurgent attacks

this august than august of 2009. i don't agree with everything the afghanistan study group has to say. in fact, by calling for a gradual military drawdown, i believe they're just not being bold enough. but, madam speaker, this is -- this has gone on long enough. it's done enough damage. it's time now to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones from north carolina. the gentleman is recognized. mr. jones: madam speaker, thank you very much. and, madam speaker, for 10 years the house of representatives under the leadership of duncan hunter, ike skelton have brought to the floor of the house in our armed services bill language that to honor and respect the marine corps by changing the name of the department of navy to be known as the department of navy and marine corps. for 10 years we sent this

language over to the senate. for 10 years the senate rejected the house position. this year under the leadership of ike skelton and buck mckeon, the armed services committee decided to bring this language to the floor is what is called a standalone bill. we had 425 house members, there are only 435, 425 signed this bill to recognize the navy and marine corps as one fighting team and the bill passed the house, as you know, madam speaker, what's called unanimous consent. well, in that period of time, senator pat roberts from kansas, a former marine officer, put the same bill in what's called a companion bill. and by the time we passed our bill he had 80 senators in the united states senate to sign his companion bill to rename the department of navy to be navy and marine corps. madam speaker, i've said many times in the last few weeks that i don't think you could

get 80 senators to agree to the -- to santa claus but they recognize the ma -- marine corps. it's my hope if this senate brings this bill up next week or the week after or maybe during a lame-duck session that senator roberts will offer an amendment to that debate on the senate side and i would hope that those 80 senators that have signed his bill will vote to honor and give their respect to the marine corps. madam speaker, a year ago this september we did a news conference, the marine corps league. we had former generals here, commanants, to speak on behalf of the bill, but -- commandants, to speak on behalf of the bill. eddie wright is from texas. he's a young marine that lost both hands in in iraq. he has picks for his hands. he said at the news conference

if it had not been for a navy corpsman i would be dead. he saved my life. we should be one fighting team and it should be in the name. madam speaker, this is the real thrust of what we're trying to do. there would be no cost to the department of navy if we changed this name to be department of navy and marine corps, but this is an an dual condolence letter that a marine captain who was killed for this country, that his family received this condolence letter and, madam speaker, it says at the top, the secretary of the navy, washington, d.c., with the navy flag extends its condolence to this marine who died. it's almost like it's a step child. it's not really part of the family. all we're trying to do, madam speaker, is to make this one family. madam speaker, i'm now showing that this same family whose loved one was killed, if this bill becomes law the secretary

of the navy and marine corps with the navy flag and the marine flag, will send the condolence to the marine family. madam speaker, it's time we do this for the marine corps. i want to thank my house colleagues who helped with this for 10 years and i hope the senator will certainly -- senate will certainly support senator roberts. madam speaker, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god who have -- to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god. i will ask god to please bless the president, mr. obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of god. and i will ask three times, please god, please god, please god, continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr.

defazio of oregon. >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. and this is a special time that we have an opportunity to listen closely to our colleagues and to share some of the perils of those who live in the united states with our colleagues. and it gives me great pleasure to be able to come today and to express my deepest love and affection for a wonderful woman, a woman of strength who has gone home to rest and to receive joy. biofuela shepherd is a very -- buela shepherd is a very special person in houston, texas. i stand on the floor to call her an american hero. she passed away this week. and so we have only our memories.

but i will say to those of you who have known someone that has touched your life, let me just simply tell you the story of my friend, bealuh shepard. she was a mother, wife. she has children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and, of course, she understood the constitution and believed in one vote for every human being. i had a chance to talk to her wonderful daughter, bobby and diane, and the wonderful family that she has that she lived in her last years. and i will tell you our community will remember her as a political icon, someone you went to if you knew what was right if you wanted to be part of a houston political community. but my husband and i know her as friends. as she greeted us as a young couple and taught us how to stay on the straight and narrow. i know her wonderful grandson who was challenged and how she

was endeared with her. and everywhere that beuhah went the grandson went. the grandmother she loved, as a mother she loved. but she believed in public service. not in just the idea of politicians. she believed if you accepted the oath of office you must serve the public. she did so. as a member of the united way board, one of the first african-americans to ever serve on our harris county united way board, she made sure that the vulnerable was taken care of. a member of the harris county baptist church where she loved her pastor, pastor davis, and the first lady. more importantly, let me tell you she was a woman of courage and strength and inspiration. i loved her when she stood and fought. she understood the debate. those against and those for it.

she would tell it straight. the way she would say is health care will help those who never had health care before. she would say to those soldiers, thank you for fighting on the front lines for our freedom. and she would say to them, i'm using that freedom because, you know, beuhah shepard bought a tax card to vote. she was named for her grandmother. she came from the salt of the earth. but she is an inspiration to all of us. and i am excited today to be able to say that she lived to be 87 years old and had, as one of the starring moments of her life, to be able to vote for president barack obama. and why do i say that? because she walked and fought so that there might be those who would vote who had never voted before to have the opportunity to choose someone of their choosing. let me tell you what she did in commissioner lions' office. yes, she worked historically for this commissioner as the first african-american among

some that came after in those offices. i'm gratified for that because she took care of the vulnerable, those who were afraid to come downtown, those who didn't think government would work them, she took care of them. she will be laid to rest in these next hours, and i will simply say that we have the flag waving over this great woman's life and legacy. why do i say that? having not had her serve in the united states military, because i know that our military represent the people of the united states and all of us had the opportunity to represent the value of the flag of this country, that value is to be able to cherish democracy, freedom, justice and to have the courage to fight for it. a loving mother who nurtured her children, a loving friend who cared for everyone, someone who brought joy and it was a great joy to me to spend time with her in these last few years as she was so joyful with her family members all around

her. she smiled. what a beautiful smile. when we took our pictures together in the front yard and inside the house, i know that she had great joy. so, madam speaker, it is with great sympathy to the family that i offer on behalf of the united states congress this tribute to beulah shepard. god bless you, may you rest in peace and we love you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order and used the unclaimed time of mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman voiced for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. the last action that we took in this body today was a resolution honoring the constitution. which we celebrate tomorrow. since we are not in session tomorrow, i wish to talk for a moment about that inspired document this evening. it's difficult to do that because, as we talk about the constitution, i'm looking

straight at the relief of george mason who is one of those characters in american history, one of three men who spent the entire time at the constitutional convention and then refused to sign the document. when i was teaching school i always insisted my students had to tell me why he refused to sign it. it's because it did not have the bill of rights but i was hoping in vein that some bright student would ask, why did he not sign, but why did all the other people who were there at the founding, the founding fathers of the convention, not go along with him? it was not because they were owe potioned to civil liberties but the rest of the founding fathers realized that they could accomplish the same goalby the structure of government, by dividing power by the three branches of government so no branch had too much power. but equally important, by dividing power vertically between the federal and the state level, so no level of government had too much power. you could accomplish the same goal of protection of individual freedoms.

the issue at the constitutional convention was of that power. as the states met to then ratify this document, the issue of power was still there. we of course know that two states, north carolina and rhode island, did not ratify the document until after the country was established. but five states, virginia, massachusetts, new york, maryland and south carolina sent specific amendments that should be added to the document. foremost in each of those states' amendments was the concept of sovereignty or the ability of states to make the decisions. their goal and their concepts were incorporated in the 10th amendment to the constitution which put in written form the unnamed structure that the founding fathers had established in the constitution. as one of our justices on the supreme court said, the constitution protects us from our own best intentions. it divides power among branches of government precisely so we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one

location as the expedient solution to the crisis of the day. for a century and a half, this nation basically honored that concept. in the last half century, though, we have stretched the idea significantly. starting with the progressive era in the early 1900's'. it was president wilson who called this political witch craft. he said separating powers into hidden corners provided preventatives from consolidating powers to be used. in the early 1900's', the politicians and philosophers who believed this did not do so because they misunderstood the constitution but because they understood it and did not like the fact that it prevented them from doing what they said was marvelous things. we today still have this issue of power before us. for the last couple of years we have debated on this floor the idea whether it is better to consolidate power in washington with the ultimate goal of union formity or -- uniformity or the idea that states should be allowed to have alternative ideas and our ultimate goal

should be creativity. the 10th amendment isn't just about smaller government, it's about more effective government. what works best for people. and the idea that not all programs have to be evolved from washington. and they also have the idea because the 10th amendment talks about powers of states and individuals. is that in a concept that many of us can never get, there are some problems that conet need a solution by government at all. the issue is creativity, efficiency and justice. the issue is can those best be resolved? we still have this question of power that we are dealing with today and i would hope that we would reject the revisionist idea and instead go along and support the founding fathers. for both the constitutional structure and the 10th amendment meant that our founding fathers were inspired to get it right. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur. mr. pence. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there are more than a dozen countries in this world that restrict freedom of religion, including iran and china. mr. thompson: imagine being told your religion was unacceptable and being carted off to jail for offering a bottle to someone. this is not an unusual occurrence in some countries. with state-sponsored religions. in this country, we have a few sack row sanction words known as the first amendment to the constitution that guarantee no one will be punished for the religion they choose to follow. quote, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of religion distribute freedom of speech or of the press of the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grieveances, end quote.

when a person decides to burnt koran, the bible or any other sacred document in this country, he has a freedom to do so even if the overwhelming majority of us are vemently disagree with his decision. it is difficult for the citizens of some other countries to understand or to tolerate this kind of freedom. yet it is the bedrock of our democracy. we have the right to disagree, to ignore, to protest against or to take the matter to court for a ruling, but we do not have the right to determine what another person is to believe. unfortunately that kind of freedom challenges other governments and cultures. the freedoms we hold dear seem uncontrollable to those who would dictate what people wear, worship and support. for example, some governments think that if their citizens are educated the next thing that will happen is that they will begin to think and ask questions. and that can't be tolerated by those in power.

or they believe that only one religion is true and therefore no others can be taught or people might stray from the religion and the religion might falter. in the united states we have no such fear because our constitution gives us the confidence and the courage to tolerate diversity. september 17 is constitution day. at a time when we should all take a moment to be grateful for the strength and breadth of our system of government. we should reflect on our freedoms and know that they are protected. that date was chosen because on september 17, 1787, the constitutional convention met for the last time in philadelphia to sign the document before it was sent to the 13 states to be ratified. the founding fathers drew upon the wisdom of the ages to give us a gift that has endured for more than two centuries. the united states constitution. the blueprint for our government is not a long document. you can keep a copy in your shirt pocket. i happen to have one here, mr.

speaker. the basic document is under 5,000 words but it covers the building blocks for our three equal branches of government, the first 10 amendments lay out the rights of every citizen. how many times have you heard the phrase, i know my rights? well, we know them because they have been delineated for us in the bill of rights. winston churchill said in a speech to the house of common sense in 1947, quote, many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. no one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms have been tried from time to time. today i issue a challenge to the citizens to read the constitution on september 17 each year. it will help your understanding of what and who you are in this country and it will strengthen your values. in a speech to the senate in 1850, henry said, quote, the

constitution of the united states was made not merely for the generation that then existed. but for posterity. an endless, per pet wall prosperity. he has been proven correct, mr. speaker. and let us all work to protect it and keep it that way. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. fortenberry. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, tomorrow we celebrate the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the united states constitution. as we do so, i think it's important to consider the humbling legacy bestowed by those who founded our country and the lawmakers who actually did come before us. because each day those of us who are currently holding office, we're so mired in the challenges and complexities of modern public policy, we securey through these stately or nate

halls, often without so much of a glimpse at or a thought of the profound history that is depicted around us. for instance, just steps away within the interior of the majestic capitol dome is the rotunda. i spent some time there recently, mr. speaker, reflecting on the moments in our nation's history that gave rise to the gift of liberty. we strive to safeguard each day in this body. inside the rotunda is a series of paintings that offer rich glimpses into some of these moments, starting with the landing of columbus in 1492, the discovery of the mississippi by desoto in 1541, as well as the baptism of pocahontas in 1613. they all depict the opening of a new mysterious world full of promise and things yet to come. the painting, the embarcation of the pilgrims, also speaks of

opportunity, the anticipation of realizing a dream of freedom. the declaration of independence in 1776 follows, the surrender of a general in 1777, and the surrender of lord cornwallace in 1781, as well as george washington resigning his commission in 1783 are all celebrated pieces, depicting the first moments of that new republic. possibly the most famous of these paintings is john trumble's 12 by 18-foot large declaration of independence. this historical piece of art depicts the presentation of the declaration to the second continental congress. standing at the forefront of this painting are thomas jefferson, john adams, roger sherman, robert livingston and benjamin franklin, the authors of the profound document that gave birth to our nation.

painstaking care was given to each word in the declaration. none of which may be more memorable than these. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. you see, the declaration built upon a theory of natural and universal rights, the consent of the governed and a right of redress when government was in violation of those essential principles. after setting forth those standards, the declaration continued with a litany of grievances against king george, which, mr. speaker, is a very interesting prospect to reread that part of the declaration. and in the declaration, finally concludes by saying, quote, we,

therefore, the representatives of the united states of america, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies some he will -- solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states. and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. 56 individuals -- individuals signed the declaration, although it is possible that few knew the historical significance the document would ultimately bear. historians suggest that the list of grievances against king george was of the highest importance to the signers. but today, like the revival of

nationalism that did follow after the war of 1812, we perhaps find the greatest profundity and timeliness in the preamble of the declaration and i think it bears repeating. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. these words inspire reflection on our personal independence as american citizens, secured through times of tumult and uncertainty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. mr. sablan. mr. kennedy. mr. coffman. mr. culberson. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

minority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you. and today i'm here to urge our democratic leaders to listen to the republican party, to listen to the republican party's bipartisan plan for taking immediate action on our already ailing economy. if we let the bush tax cuts expire, those tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, americans nationwide will face the largest tax hike in united states history. indeed, that tax hike will amount to $3.8 trillion. and this at a time when unemployment hovers around 10% and our national debt hits an all-time high of $13 trillion. yes, $13 trillion with a t. an unbelievable amount of debt.

we need to freeze federal spending and we need to cut taxes across the board for everyone at every marginal tax rate level across the board. when the economy is in the state that it's in today with 16 million people unemployed, and that equating to a 10% unemployment rate. indeed, probably closer to 17%, mr. speaker, if you count people who have just given up, been looking over six months for a job, none to be found, and also the number of people who are employed, yes, but underemployed. it would be close to the 17%. so indeed, the republican party and our leader says we need to freeze federal spending,

indeed, roll it back to the level of 2008 and cut taxes across the board. and if we don't do that, mr. speaker, many companies that might have been in position to expand and therefore put people back to work, they will choose not to because of the uncertainty associated with these tax hikes as well as other disastrous democratic policies like obamacare. we need to come together and we need to pass legislation immediately that cut spending and kills all of the pending tax increases. mr. speaker, we just returned to washington, did we not, after six weeks in our districts? all 435 of us. i had many opportunities during that six-week period of time to meet with my constituents

face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball at town hall meetings. we call it america speaking out meetings, wanting the american people to know that at least one party wanted to hear from them, wanted to hear from main street, did not want to force feed on the american people, on our constituents some grandiose plan that members of congress come up with. god knows plans that members of congress have come up with over the last four years have certainly not helped one iota. so i used this opportunity, my colleagues, i used this opportunity to speak to my constituents, but mainly to listen to them and to find out and write it down and bring it back to washington to share it with my colleagues so we can

make a pledge, make a commitment. indeed, one person, mr. speaker, suggested that, why don't you call it this time rather than a contract with america that we remember from 1994, why don't you call it a covenant with america? just like the covenant that god had with moses and the american people. something that -- and the jewish people. something that is an absolute pledge. you heard my friend from nebraska, representative fortenberry just moments ago on the floor talk about the constitution and sacred honor and our sacred documents. i think that's what the american people want. i don't think they'll accept anything less. they're tired of the same old, same old. excessive government spending and higher taxes that are making our country look a lot like greece, mr. speaker.

so i'm happy to have this opportunity under the direction of my leadership to take this time to talk to my colleagues about what we really need to do. and what we really need to do in a bipartisan way. no wonder, no wonder, mr. speaker, that the approval rating of members of congress on both sides of the aisle is 11%. people wanted a change two years ago. they made a change, but indeed it was not quite the change that they expected. i want to refer my colleagues to this first poster, this first slide that i have here in the way of a cartoon and hopefully all of you members in the back of the chamber can see this. it's a shop and it shows this

depiction of our president going into the china shoptalking to the clerk. and the caption is, as the president is speaking, "now give me one good reason why you're not hiring." and, of course, behind the president is all these bulls, these bulls in a china shop, this bull of cap and trade, this bull of health care reform breaking all the china. mr. speaker, to ask the question, now give me one good reason why you're not hiring, well, the american people can give a lot of good reasons why they're not hiring if indeed they have any capital left with which to hire or to expand their business, to increase the square footage, to put in a new

product line and to bring in additional workers for their small business. it's not happening because of bad policy. bad policy coming from inside the beltway. not bad policy on main street. mr. speaker, again, as i did these town hall meetings and i guess we did six or eight of them across the 11th congressional district of georgia, northwest georgia, nine counties that i represent, a great district, i guess i would not be unique among us to say that i think i have the best district of all 435, but i know we all feel that way about our district. but the people told me when i asked about the economy, what was concerning them the most and we discussed the economy.

and i said, why are we -- why are we faced with a 10% unemployment rate? why are 16 million people out of work and why is it getting worse? and this is what they said in this second poster. excessive taxation, insufficient liquidity which, of course, mr. speaker, means they can't borrow any money. the banks are not lending. the small banks are having to set aside money to cover loan loss reserves and to abide by this mark-to-market accounting principles. people that have loans that are making payments on those loans all of a sudden are -- these loans are called and they have to come in and put up more collateral. of course, the regulators are really cracking down on the lending institutions. and poor mom and pop businesses can't borrow any money. and if they have some money

that they have saved back or maybe it's someone who is unemployed that has a little nest egg that would like nothing better than to finally start that small business that they have wanted to start for years. finally, almost forces the situation. there are no jobs out there. maybe they have $25,000 or $30,000 saved up and they want to start that little restaurant on the corner. they're not going to do it because of economic uncertainty. not knowing, mr. speaker, what's coming next that's going to hurt them rather than help them. and the last bullet point on this particular slide, mr. speaker, red tape, government mandates. osha, e.p.a., the new health care law, obamacare, the requirements for providing

health insurance and not just any health insurance but one policy dictated by the federal government that these people understand they can't afford to abide by so they don't start that business. so the unemployment rate, it continues and it gets worse. mr. speaker, my colleagues, this next poster that i want to share with you has a lot of verbage on it and i know it's difficult to read so i'll go through the bullet points with you. and this is what it says. the latest congressional budget office, c.b.o., that's the bipartisan accountant hired by the house of representatives. the director, of course, is chosen by the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. but the bipartisan

congressional budget office and their economic outlook. the first bullet. "this year's deficit is estimated to reach $1.3 trillion. as a share of the overall total economy of this country, the deficit is 9.1%, roughly three times the average of the past 40 years." let me say that again. the deficit for this year, $1.3 trillion, is 9.1% of the total economy of the whole country and that is three times what it's been over the last -- average over the last 40 years. amazing. the second bullet. "the debt held by the public is projected to rise to $9 trillion or 62% of the economy

this year, nearly twice the 40-year historical average. total debt, including borrowing from social security trust fund and other federal funds, will rise to $13.5 trillion." and finally, mr. speaker, the c.b.o. also estimates that economic growth will remain sluggish over the next few years and unemployment will remain unbearablely high for years to come -- unbearably high for years to come. the health care overhaul will lead to slower growth and fewer jobs. my colleagues, this next poster that you see basically depicts the slide that i just red to you in regards to the budget,

it doubling and the tripling of the debt held by the public in billions of dollars. and this does not even include the social security trust fund that's been raided of about $1.5 trillion that has to be paid back. so, colleagues, as we spend the next couple of weeks here in washington before we break and go home before these mid term elections, what do we have to do? the president is talking about and the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi, and the leader of the senate, senator harry reid, of letting the bush tax cuts of

2001 and 2003 remain in place for all taxpayers except those who are -- have an adjusted gross income of $00,000 or $250,000 -- $200,000 or $250,000 for a family. these are the very people that create the jobs in this country because many in that category are small business men and women who are not c corporations. they're subchapter s. or they pay their taxes as individuals. and if you let those tax rates go from 33% to 36% or in some cases go from 36% to 39.6% and you leave the corporate income tax rate at 35%, and i have a slide that i'll show you,

colleagues, in just a few minutes, comparing the corporate tax rate in this country with other industrialized countries across the globe, it's astronomically high. so how do we expect to get out of this deep recession, economic morass, high unemployment rates, 16 million-plus unemployed by raising taxes on anybody, on anybody? it absolutely makes no economic sense. and i would urge my colleagues to come stand by us in a bipartisan way and let's do what leader boehner has suggested and that is, leave the tax cuts in place for everybody, at every marginal rate, at least for the next two years. and let's cut spending this year to 2008 levels.

mr. boehner: would the gentleman yield? mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased that i'm joined by my classmate, colleague from the great state of minnesota, ranking member of the house education and labor committee, representative john kline. and i gladly yield. mr. kline: i thank my colleague and i thank my colleague for his words here this evening. and for his leadership on this and so many issues. and i just found it striking, mr. gingrey, that what you're talking about here is not only staggering debt, as the current chart indicates, but you were talking about taxes. i just want to take just a minute to put this in context. we've been suffering with a struggling economy, we've watched grows domestic product decline each quarter for the last three quarters and as you know very well, we've been looking at unemployment above 9% for 16 consecutive months. and this is after the passage of

the trillion-dollar stimulus bill that the president said would keep unemployment below 8%. we've been at 9% or more and 9.6% most recently. and now there is a proposal to impose the largest tax increase in american history on january 1, which is, of course, what will happen unless congress takes action, unless the majority party in this body brings forward legislation that will keep that from happening. and i just want to join with my colleague and with leader boehner and everybody on this side of the aisle and a growing number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, let's don't do that. let's not raise taxes on any american and particularly the point you were making earlier, let's don't raise taxes on the job creators. we're trying to create jobs, we're trying to let the private sector create jobs.

at the same time the majority party here is talking about imposing a crushing tax increase on the very people that we're relying on to create those jobs. i just want to stop by and applaud your efforts here and thank you for doing this today and add my voice to those and to a growing number in this body that say, let's don't do this. madam speaker, let's don't do this. mr. president, let's don't do. this let's not add to the tax burden of those who are creating the jobs in the private sector. let's don't increase taxes on anybody in america. and i think we need to say that loudly and clearly and i hope, i have increasing hope that our colleagues from the other side of the aisle would recognize that that is a terrible thing to do in this economy and that we move quickly, we move quickly, as my colleague knows very well, there's an election coming. congress will go into recess again here in three weeks, maybe, or four weeks or some

time. and i don't think we should leave and go into recess until we've taken care of this issue and i just again thank my colleague and i yield back my time. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank so much my colleague from minnesota, representative kline, for dropping by and pointing out the things we've been talking about and quite honestly, and he alluded to the fact that i think that we're beginning to get a little bit of bipartisanship on this issue. in fact, i was hoping, mr. speaker, that there would be a colloquy today between the majority leader, majority leader hoyer, and the minority whip, representative eric cantor from virginia, i wanted to hear what mr. hoyer might have to say about this. because i've been reading in the newspapers and maybe some of my colleagues have seen these articles, too, that maybe the democratic leadership, represented so much so, of

course, by majority leader steny hoyer, and hopefully by the leader, the speaker of the house of representatives, ms. pelosi, would begin to sort of come our way on this. i know a lot of democratic rank and file members, particularly those, mr. speaker, of the conservative wing of the democratic caucus, the so-called blue dogs, are very concerned, are very concerned about increase in taxes on -- increasing taxes on anybody at a time such as this. and as representative kline pointed out, the tax increase of letting every one of those marginal rates go back up to the pre-2001 level, base include you eliminate the 10% tax bracket -- basically you eliminate the 10% tax brabblingt, you expand the

15% tax bracket. i pointed out earlier you raise the 36% bracket to 39.6%, 28% to 33%, 20% to 28. in addition to that, also what's expiring is the child tax credit of $1,000 which will go back to $500, mr. speaker. and the tax on dividends, which under the current law enacted in 2003 is 15%. but if we let that expire, that tax rate on dividends will go to whatever one's marginal rate is. and if you happen to be at the 39% tax rate, that will be the tax on dividends. and many, many of our seniors are relying on dividends. that with their social security

as their only source of income. and to tax that at nearly 40% in some cases is just cruel. it's unconscionable. so, again, i do thank my colleague for weighing in on this. and for pointing out and this current slide, my colleagues, kind of shows that. the blue line on the graph, and it says, democrat protection with the stimulus spending -- projection with the stimulus spending that was enacted and passed in february, 2009. we're talking a year and a half ago. $862 billion, i believe, in that stimulus program that was supposed to get our economy back on track. and that money, by the way, is money borrowed, yes, borrowed in large part from china and japan.

we hear that concern voiced so often and yet that's what we did. we borrowed $862 billion, a lot of it, from china and japan to stimulate our economy. and the pledge was, from the administration, from president obama, congress, this is what we need. if you pass that our pledge to the american people is this unemployment rate, which was at 7.6% back a year and a half ago, will not get above 8%. we will stop this hemorrhaging of jobs by creating all of this spending for shovel-ready projects. i don't know how much of it went to that, but probably less than 5% of the $862 billion. and here the graph depicts, so, in the first quarter, through the third quarter of 2009, than

you employment rate which was 7.5% to 7.6%, it wasn't going to go any higher. and this is what the projection was going out to 2013. that our unemployment rate, because of the stimulus package, would gradually come back down to traditional levels, 4.5% to 5%, which is essentially full employment. but this is what happened, my colleagues. the red line is what happened. unfortunately. and here we are in the third quarter of 2010 and what's our unemployment rate? darn close to 10%. in fact, a couple of quarters ago it was over 10%. and as i said earlier about the unemployment rate, it's really worse than 10%. because many people, many people have been out there beating the

payment, wearing out that shoe, trying to find a job for six or more months and they are still unemployed and a lot of them, unfortunately, have just given up. many of the jobs that we saw were census workers. that work has been complete and unfortunately they're back in the ranks of the unemployed. my colleagues, what i've been talking about, of course, in this next slide depicts it, the bush tax cuts and what to do with them. the first bullet, democrats are poised to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. at the end of this year. the effect of that would be a $3.8 trillion tax increase that

will effect every american who pays income taxes. unfortunately only about 53% of americans do pay income taxes and that's part of our problem. but how in the world could we do this to the hardworking tax paying people, go back to that first line of the bull in the china shop. colleagues, that's what we're talking about. you break a lot of dishes when you raise taxes 3.$3.8 trillion over a 10-year period of time. and answer this question for me, rhetorically, of course, but what tax increase ever created a job? i don't think one ever did. and i don't think one ever will. i spoke a little earlier about the corporate tax rate.

why is our corporate tax rate higher than -- i don't know the total number of countries that we have here listed, along the x axis, but it's about 20, 25. iceland, ireland, poland, czechoslovakia, hungary, switzerland, korea, and on and on and on. and our tax rate, corporate tax rate, effective, is almost 39%. that's the green column. only japan at 40% has a higher corporate tax rate than the united states. that makes no sense. we can't compete in the global economy with taxes like that. i had talked a little earlier about the different tax rates.

and what will happen if we let the tax cuts, the lower rates, expire and we go back to those rates prior to 2001. talked about dividends, going from a 15% rate to, in some case, a 39.6% rate. i didn't mention capital gains, but capital gains are now at 15%. that will go back up to 0%. and we -- 20%. and we of course talked about ordinary income and how those tax rates will go up for every marginal level. we mentioned the child tax credit of $1,000 per child, which will go back to $500 a child. i did not mention, but it's on this slide, didn't talk about the marriage tax penalty, which under current law have been eliminated, but starting january

1 of 2011, that marriage tax penalty kicks back in, costing a couple an additional $595 a year. that might not sound like a lot of money to members sitting in this chamber, mr. speaker, but it's a lot of money for a man and a woman in their retirement twilight years on a fixed income. and of course i did mention that the lowest tax bracket of 10% would completely be eliminated.3 well, let's get back for a few minutes to what i think we can do in a bipartisan way. this particular slide, mr. speaker, says it's the republican plan, but you know what, i wish i had changed this slide before i got here on the floor this afternoon and

scratch that out and put the bipartisan plan. because other than the point that my people made to me at town hall meetings during the august recess about wanting us to do something about the economy, stop taxing them and regulating them to death, leave them alone, give them the opportunity to show their entrepreneurial skills, they said this, too. why is it that you men and women in the congress can never seem to work in a bipartisan way and do something for us, all of you? we love you, congressman gingrey, but you're part of the problem too. you're all worried, it seems to us, about the next election, and you don't seem to be thinking about the next

generation. and i had to look him in the eye. eyeball to eyeball and say, you know what, you're right. and my pledge if i become part of the majority in 2011 is that we will work in a bipartisan way. and i hope my leadership is listening and i hope that will be part of their pledge. so this poster should scratch out the republican plan and put bipartisan plan. and i don't know why in the world we couldn't all agree on this. and we ought to do it now, not wait until -- see who's in control. the american people, i don't think in many i stances, they don't care who's in control as long as we're doing the right thing. as long as we're doing the right thing. but this poster says freeze all

of the tax rate for two years. we're in a desperate situation. are we asking too much to not increase the tax burden on the american people and small businesses and corporate america for two years? and secondly, cut spending back to 2008 levels. there's a little asterisk, colleagues, on this poster, if you can't see it i'm going to read it for you. "if the president is serious about job creation, there's one clear way forward and that's for us to come together and pass legislation immediately that cuts spending and stops all of the approaching tax hikes." the bipartisan plan. that's what we need, mr. speaker. that's exactly what we need. that's what the american people are expecting of us.

mr. speaker, i'm going to shift gears just a little bit because it does pertain to the economy. i want to talk a little bit about illegal immigration. there's a situation in this country that has got to stop, and that is this idea that children born in this country of illegal immigrants are automatically united states citizens. now, that's based on a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. i keep the constitution with me all the time. representative fortenberry, mr. speaker, was talking about the constitution and our sacred documents a little bit earlier.

but the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment was ratified to our constitution in 1868. there were no immigration laws in 1868. it had nothing to do with illegal immigrants and bestowing citizenship on a child born of illegal immigrants. no. no. it was -- it was all about giving rights, constitutional rights to former slaves. just as was the 13th amendment and the 15th amendment. the 15th amendment, the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on the account of race, color or previous conditions of

servitude. the 13th amendment, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for a punishment of a crime, shall exist within the united states or anyplace subject to their jurisdiction. slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment. the 14th amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. and the reason i bring this up, mr. speaker, is because it cost about $10,000 for every childbirth in this country. and when 10% of those births are illegal immigrant births, you're talking about close to 400,000 times $10,000.

pretty soon you get to about $40 billion worth of cost. something that this country cannot afford. and that's why people are insisting that we abide by our immigration law. not enact new law but just simply abide by what has already passed. it's something that i'm going to continue to talk about. i'm going to look forward to having a dialogue with my other colleagues that have been so active and involved in this issue. folks like representative gutierrez from the great state of illinois, and i think we can talk and do this in a bipartisan way and come together. because people want a secure border and they want to abide by a rule of law. they realize when they are

among the 10%, mr. speaker, who are unemployed, that have been out of work for more than six months and there are 16 million of them that you can't afford to not have a secure border. you can't afford to have a -- get another magnet to attract more people to risk their lives trying to come to this country illegally. all of these things are interrelated. and we need to be sensible about this and we need to recognize so many of these problems. well, mr. speaker, again, as i said at the beginning of the hour, i appreciate the opportunity that my leadership has given to me to talk to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about what we can do to restore this economy. and have a recovery that's not a jobless recovery, to put

people back to work. and it starts with lowering the amount of federal spending. can you believe that we are this year going to spend $1.3 trillion more than what we take in in revenue and we're on the track over the next 10 years to triple our national debt? in fact, by the year 2020 if we continue at this rate over $20 trillion of debt. that's more, that is more than our gross domestic product. so let's draw a line in the sand. let's go back to 2008 spending. that's the least we can do. and let's not raise taxes on anybody. and with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend for just one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i move that the house stand in adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:30 p.m. on

>> we are considering specific ideas that can implement that. >> outgoing minnesota governor, tim pawlenty. >> c-span local content vehicles are traveling the country. >> but there are only a certain number of congressional seats that are highly competitive as we go around the country. they constitute very good opportunities for republicans to pick up a seat in congress. this is one of those seats. >> it has always been one of those races that is a barometer all what will happen nationally with either party. it has always been that way, that is why there is a lot of interest in it. that is not what is important to

me. what is important to me is how i represent the people of indiana. >> baron hill was first elected in 1998, and has served most of that time until now. he was defeated once i'm in 2004 and then won his seat back. he is challenged by todd young. -- she was defeated once in 2004 and then won his seat back. very interesting district. the district runs along southern indiana. it would seem to be homogenous. actually there is quite a lot of diversity in terms of political thought. you have an area near bloomington, which is probably the most liberal area of the state. you have a big swath of rural area where people consider themselves democrats.

they elect democrats to the state house, but they tend to vote for republicans for state press president. you get a real mix. those are areas that are always changing. the result is that even though the district can be considered a democrat district, there is a lot of southern indiana conservative in this, which really you are never quite sure how that will play out. and one of the things that make this district interesting and very expensive for candidates is that it is actually covered by four different media markets. the problem is and none of them are a majority in the district. it is very expensive to buy advertising. in your advertising dollars did not go far. the cincinnati market is mostly covering ohio. louis bill is mostly covering ky. it is a very complicated place

to cover a campaign. -- louisville mostly covers ky. . . it is a very difficult district in which to advertise. it costs big bucks to advertise

in a major market. i have to send money has played a huge role here. he had over a million dollars at last check. there were raising money at the same taste. d.c. national groups come in, and the republican campaign committee and the democrat campaign committee. that is where the difference really comes in is those national groups coming to spend money in the district. >> social security is not a huge problem to correct. we corrected it under ronald reagan, back in those days. we are at a time when we have to readjust again. the commission is meeting to look at recommendations. those recommendations probably will not be forthcoming until december. we will have to vote the whole package up or down. we need to keep it as it is and not privatize it. that is what my opponent wants

to do and that is why i am criticizing him. >> i lament the fact that congress has been so irresponsible with our finances. they spend our retirement money on everything but our retirement, passing a stimulus package and pork barrel legislation. we have the essential programs like social security that need to be preserved. baron is the only one in this race who endorses privatizing social security, something i think he alludes to to scare people in his commercials. >> i can see social security is going to be a big issue in this race. there seems to be a difference between where republican tom young stands and democrat barron hilton does. we are not able to distinguish get rid those differences lie. it is clear on baron hill is going to try to distinguish his opinion from todd young. there is going to be a debate

on whether a private account is an issue. todd young is going to bring up a lot of baron hill's past votes, including for the federal health-care lot and the cap and trade environmental bill, which the governor here highly opposed. there is really going to be some debate about that. there is also a big concern in the district about federal spending. although hill is a blue dog democrat and is considered somewhat conservative in spending, i would expect young that to spend a lot of time talking about the federal budget and the federal deficit. there are few races in the country where the district are actually competitive. there are only a few dozen. those are the places where we always watch to see what is going to happen. this happens to be one of them. this is a big race. you had a democrat who did vote for some of the major things president obama was seeking, but

he is also somewhat conservative. i think you can see how voters are feeling about incumbents and the democratic party in this race. >> c-span kept local content vehicles are visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm election. for more information, go to c- span.org/lcv. >> lauren brown writes the weekly core column for the washington post. >> it is justifiable to have an argument to say we would not have a black middle class had we not had general motors and chrysler. >> in 2008, he supported the government bailout of the auto industry. sunday night, he will talk about what is ahead for carmakers on

q&a. >> house minority leader john bohener discusses tax cuts for the middle class and the primary election. this is about 10 minutes. >> good morning. good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> the white house released a pre-election shopping list of $25 billion worth of spending the president and his team hoped to tack on to this year's continuing resolution. a continuing resolution because there was no budget passed by the congress. there are no appropriation bills to fund the government starting october 1. i do not think the president and his economic team get it. our economy is struggling to create jobs. all the spending is one reason why. excessive government spending and uncertainty facing small

businesses are crippling job creation in our country, yet the white house keeps piling it on in both departments. the economic policies of this administration have failed. yet they continue to offer the same kind of stimulus spending, and more of the same job-killing tax hikes that have not worked. the president wants to talk about new ideas creating jobs. let us start with this one. let us try cutting spending rather than continuing to cling to the worn out notion that we can spend our way back to prosperity. republicans have warned that excessive government spending, along with the continuing uncertainty that faces small- business is, is hampering job creation in america. we have called for bipartisan action to cut spending and to stop all of the tax hikes that are coming. last week, i asked republicans to call for president obama and

congressional democrats to work with us to address this problem. first, instead of allowing a lame-duck congress to pass an omnibus spending bill after the elections, let us pass a bill this month that cuts spending back to 2008 levels for all non--- non-security discretionary spending, a number like we saw before the bailouts, the stimulus, and the takeovers. secondly, let us freeze all current tax rates for two years so that small businesses have some certainty about what their tax load is coming down the road. it is very disappointing that instead of signaling a willingness to cut spending, at the white house is proposing new spending that our economy and our taxpayers cannot afford. lastly, it is clear there is a

growing chorus of democrats in washington, including the majority leader, mr. hoyer, and others, who agreed with republicans that raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy. this week, i sent a letter to speaker pelosi, asking her to allow nothing short of the jake m up or down vote on a bill to stop all the current tax hikes. in my letter, i reminded her of the public backlash that occurred when they tried to short circuit the rules to ram through the health-care bill. it became known as the slaughter solution. the american people forced them to call it off. on the issue of tax hikes, the american people are not going to accept anything less than the vote they deserve. the speaker should pledge to the american people, and when she stands before these cameras

later on today, she ought to pledge there will be an honest up or down vote on stopping all of the coming tax hikes. anything less than that is unacceptable. the speaker allows an up or down vote. i am confident the american people will not seek an increase in their taxes. >> in addition to the bush tax cuts, which have gotten a lot of play, there are the stimulus tax cuts of $800 per family. the obama stimulus tax cuts also allow those to be extended. >> i am not familiar with the specifics that you mention, but i certainly think they are worth looking at. >> you said anything less than and up or down vote on the tax rates -- if the speaker tries to split the tax cut votes for

$250,000 and under and one for above, will republicans oppose that? >> i do not want to get into hypothetical. republicans in the house and senate are united that this is not the time to increase taxes on anyone in america. >> you probably saw the headlines this morning about a gop rivalry because of these new candidates comity party candidates. do you think there is a rivalry going on? with this new diversity that could come to the republican party, how would you govern the different factions? >> every member or candidate has to stand for elections, both a primary election and a general election. i talked to my members a year and a half ago about making sure they were in close contact with their constituents, that they were talking with activists in their district. most of them have done a very good job of reaching out to all

of their constituents. listen. i grew up in a family of 12. my dad owned a bar. as i like to say, all of the training i need for my job i learned growing up. you have to learn to get along with each other. you have to learn to get things done with each other to work as a family. i cleaned dishes. i waited tables. i tended bar. you have to learn to deal with every character that walks in the door. these are the skills i need to do my job. >> given the fact that president obama will likely veto any effort to repeal the health care legislation, are you committed to -- >> that is pessimistic. >> given that, are you committed to de-funding the health-care bill? >> i am committed to doing everything i can do and our team can do to prevent obama care of

from being implemented. i believe this bill will ruin the best health-care system in the world and i believe it will bankrupt our country. when i say everything, i mean everything. >> you have been in the cross hairs of the administration. >> i did not know this. >> how does it feel? >> you all know me. i am such a scary guy. [laughter] i am the most open, transparent person in this town. i have good attributes. i have some that people probably do not like. but i see it the way it is. >> the attacks the republicans have taken with speaker policy seems turned on its head with you. >> it comes to the territory. i can handle it. when are you going to get a hair

cut, by the way? you have that curly mop on top of you. >> some of your colleagues have indicated they will bring a bill to the floor to help the economy. mr. mccarthy said that yesterday. what are your plans for the next few weeks in congress? >> want to extend the current tax rates for at least two years and we want a continuing resolution to fund the government after october 1 at 2008 levels for non-security discretionary spending. those are the big boats. >> some members have alluded to [unintelligible] >> our goal is to have a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government in washington, d.c. our ideal is not to shut down the government. >> how likely is it you think

the bush-era tax cuts will be resolved before you go home? would it not be preferable in some ways to wait and see what the people have to say? >> you will have to ask speaker pelosi and majority leader reid that question. the sooner we get our arms around spending and extend the tax cuts for all americans, the sooner the uncertainty clouding the picture for small businesses begins to clear up. if we want the economy to get going again, if we want to create jobs in america, we have to remove this uncertainty that is driving employers crazy. i used to be a small business employer. i know what it is like to meet a payroll. i would do just what they are doing. they are locking profits up in a bank. they are sitting tight, trying to figure out what is going to happen tomorrow. you cannot have this much uncertainty and expect that people are going to reinvest in

our economy and begin to create jobs. >> did you speak with congressman castle yesterday? >> i did speak to him yesterday on the floor and offered him my best wishes. it is a tough race. he is a good guy. i have known him for a long time. we have worked well together. he served on a committee with me for at least 15 years. i came to respect him enormously. thanks, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> a former republican vice- presidential nominee sarah palin will be in iowa tomorrow night for the annual ronald reagan at dinner. we will have live coverage beginning at 8:00 eastern. the former alaska governor will be joined by an iowa senator and

former iowa governor. >> for me or anyone else who is considering continuing public service, the real question is do you have a positive vision for the direction the country should have. do you have specific ideas to implement that vision? the you have experience to show you can handle it? >> the outgoing minnesota governor on a potential presidential run, going up in minnesota, and his eight years as governor. sunday on c-span. >> house speaker nancy pelosi talked about the proposed tax cuts for middle income earners. other topics include the midterm elections and the gas pipeline explosion. we are unable to show you a brief portion of this event. it is about 20 minutes. >> i do not know. maybe for some other kind of a

meeting, perhaps. i think perhaps there were international meetings in this room. thank you all for finding your way here. we have a trail of bread crumbs to take us back. before i talk about our legislative agenda and what happened during the break, i want to mention one significant disaster that happened in our area. as you may know, last thursday the city of san bruno, california had a devastating tragedy. lives were lost. homes were destroyed. it was shocking. what was wonderful about it was the sense of community that came together. the police, the fire chief, and

members of the community came together to assist those who have lost loved ones and lost their homes. i had the privilege of visiting there on friday. i hope you never in your life have to experience something these people had to experience, the vaporization of their homes. the response has been one of community. i commend our first responders. the firefighters came from 11 jurisdictions surrounding the area to address the situation that was obviously explosive, but also destruction of the water -- the hydrants. that would have been obviously necessary to put out the fire, but they managed to do that. by the time i was there, the fire was completely out.

our prayers are with those who lost their loved ones. our prayers are with our first responders, our fire fighters, and the law enforcement officers who came to the rescue -- the leadership of the city of san bruno. we thank them for the care that are taking of their people there. hopefully no more than four lives were lost. we will see. in any event, it was very, very sad. imagine you are getting ready for dinner in your home. you are getting ready to go to parent teacher conferences. when you come home, your home is not there. our thoughts and prayers are with everyone. i commend my colleagues for their leadership working to make sure that the federal response is what it needs to be to meet the needs of the people there.

back in washington, d.c., our members to back this week. i am proud of them. they handled their thousand at town meetings and other public events around preserving social security, celebrating the 75th anniversary of social security, promoting low-income tax cuts. they could make a clear distinction from the republicans who have said privatize it. they are holding up tax cuts for the middle class into the get tax cuts for the rich. instead of making it in america, they send jobs overseas and give people a tax credit for doing so. we are not going back to those failed policies. we are going forward. our members are very enthusiastic, as you can see.

we will support tax cuts for the middle class and making it in america. we had two bills on the floor yesterday that refer to this point about congress purchasing veteran made in america and homeland security uniforms. every week, we have legislation that reinforces how important it is for us to manufacture in america, make things here. we always have supported that. we want people to make it in america. maybe by now you may know the senate is passing the small business credit bill. my understanding is that was imminent when we came down here. when they do, this legislation is very important. it will help create half a million jobs. it will leverage billions of dollars in lending to small

businesses. it will reduce taxes for small businesses. as soon as we get the bill, we think we have some better ideas in our house bill, which we passed in june, but which republicans in the senate have held up until now. some of these issues we will have to deal with in future legislation because small businesses cannot wait another day for this legislation to be passed. it is important to know this week, now that all of this is over, we can officially say that in the first eight months of this year the economy has produced more private-sector jobs then in the eight years of the bush administration. and more private-sector jobs created in the first eight months of 2010 than in the eight years of the bush administration. here we are again. we will preserve social security, tax cuts for the

middle class, make it in america. we are not going back. we are here to fight for the middle class, for the people's interest, not the special interest. i am very proud of the president picked speech last week that had the clarity the american people wanted to hear on the subject of tax cuts. i would be pleased to take any questions. >> on tax cuts for the middle class, which are all hearing from members about how they will vote. with this clarity in mind, do you believe the american people should wait for tax cuts before the election? >> i believe american people deserve tax cuts for the middle class. without getting into the timing process, we are going to do is to say at the end of the day this extension of the obama middle-income tax cuts will take

place. that is what i have to say on the subject. >> should the american people know where their representatives stand on this issue? >> i think the american people know the republicans stand for tax cuts for the rich. the bush administration called for the end of these cuts because they knew how irresponsible they were. we have to establish our priorities -- the middle class. tax cuts for the middle class. republicans have made it clear their priority is no tax cuts for the middle class unless there is a tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country. >> what do you say to the 31 democrats who have asked for a vote on a one-year extension of all the tax cuts? these are some of your most vulnerable members facing reelection? >> i will say what i said all along.

the tax cuts at the height and have not produced any jobs. they have only increase the deficit. we are still paying the price they have contributed to the deficit. i respect that they have a different view. many of these are members to our budget hawks. i think it will be able to find some common ground on the subject. i support extending the middle- income tax cut. people say these high-and tax cuts -- 80% of the tax cuts go to people making over $1 million a year. i just do not think that our nation should go into debt, perhaps to china, in order to underwrite a tax cut for people, 80% of whom make over $1 million a year. >> mr. alabama -- mr. vanhollen said extending the tax cuts was

something the democrats would have to do. mr. hoyer said he would listen to it. is that a non-starter for you? you said you would in no way support that? or would you be open to extending that? >> mr. hoyer did not open up by saying he would listen. we always listen. i identify with what he said. we always listen to members and ideas they may have. there is a wide range of them, you might be interested to know, whether it is shortening the time or suspending -- we have a great intellectual resources and diversity in our caucus. we always listen. but i see no justification for giving a tax cut, going into debt to foreign countries, to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. in this instance, 80% of the tax

cut goes to people making over $1 million a year. i do not know if anybody here wants their children or grandchildren to go deeper in debt with that deficit so we can give a tax cut to the highest income. i do not even know why this is such a big discussion. the middle class could have a tax cut. 97% -- let me and large that. 100% of the people get a tax cut. 97% of them make $250,000 and below. but everybody come up whenever they make, the tax cut up to the first $250,000. it is a tax cut for all americans. it just does not keep on going and going wherever you are. >> it is fair to say you are not

open to that extension. >> not for the wealthy, no. that is my position. we listen to our members, but i think the president gave us exactly what we needed -- clarity. the public is with the president. the middle fifties, depending on what paul you support, up 56% of americans support low-income tax cuts. something like the middle thirties do not want the tax cuts for the wealthy. the strength of it is that it has that clarity. it has that delineation. the money will be used to reduce the deficit. some people are not in that count. they want no tax cuts for anyone, or they want no tax cuts for the wealthy and spend the money on something else. we are saying let us be clear.

this is fairness. everybody gets a tax cut up to $250,000. people making a million dollars a year get a tax cut up to 250,000. everybody is getting a tax cut. 97% of the people are in that category up to $250,000. why would we go deeper into debt for money that is not creating jobs, has not created jobs, to get a tax cut at the high end? >> you have made your position on the tax cuts perfectly clear. is there any chance that the top-bracket tax cuts will be extended this congress? >> the only thing i can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended in this congress. >> regardless of what happens in november, how confident are you that democrats will rally around you to keep you in the leadership? >> we are going to win in

november, so i do not accept your premise and all the rest of that. >> you said these midterm elections are not about you, but obviously republicans are going to try to make it about you. so many ads have been running in your district. >> spend that money in my district. [laughter] go ahead. spend it all. [laughter] >> how does it feel? >> i do not even pay any attention to it. i pay attention to the importance of these elections to working families in america. they saw their jobs threatened, their homes threatened, their pensions undermined, their savings exhausted, the question of how they are going to send their children to school.

there is a statement now that the republicans would take over congress and go back to the exact agenda of the bush administration. that is what i pay attention to. that is what we are going to make sure does not happen. we are going to go on to fight them on privatizing social security and sending jobs overseas, which has been the stated policy. we will preserve social security, tax cuts for the middle class, and make it in america. we are very excited about the response of our members have seen to the make it in america agenda. we will pass more legislation to support that as we go forward. it is important for us to stand up for the american worker, to be respectful of international trade agreements, but in a way that is fair to our own economy. that is what i am concerned with. to tell you the truth, i do not have the time to pay attention to what they are saying about

me. they are saying it about me because they do not want to talk about the fact that the same people in the leadership they support our against raising minimum wage. the one to overturn the greatest wall street reform in decades. those are the biggest protections ever in the history of our country. they want to overturn legislation -- the prohibition on receiving health insurance if you have a pre-existing medical condition. they want to reduce initiatives in many areas in terms of health. by the way, next week they will be talking about issues that come due on september 23 that we are very proud of in the health- care bill. they do not want to talk about that. the have to talk about something else. i think the american people want to know -- what do you stand for? how different would your

policies be? as i say, this is what campaigns are about. i sort of thrive on them. it is part of who i am. i love the policy. i see the politics as a means to an end, to give us the privilege of debating the policy. all along, it is about the american people and how they see what we do as relevant to our lives. we welcome the debate. some members came back quite satisfied with what they saw in their districts. the picture is quite different that they see painted in washington, d.c.. we are going to be victorious on election day. thank you all very much. thank you. >> president obama will be in stamford, connecticut today, giving a speech at a fund- raising event for state attorney general richard blumenthal, who

is running to replace democratic senator christopher dodd, who will retire at the end of the year. an interview on the connecticut senate race between richard blumenthal and gop candidate linda mcmahon. this is just over five minutes. >> the connecticut senate race is considered a tossup by the cook political report. we are focusing on that race with the political reporter with the greenwich times. the president is going up to connecticut this afternoon. he will be campaigning and fund- raising for richard blumenthal, the democratic candidate. what is his schedule? the race. what is his schedule? >> the president is scheduled to arrive at around 5:00 this afternoon where he will do a fundraiser in stamford, nnecticut at the marriot hotel for richard blumenthal. about 350 supporters are expected to attend, according to

organizers, each of them paying $1,000. there is the standard photocopies with the president. that will set you back $12,000. from there, the president will be going to greenwich, connecticut, where he will be doing an intimate dinner with 30 of the most loyal supporters in the area, each of whom is paying $30,000 up to date to have dinner with the president, in a gated community on a 20- acre estate. the home is probably worth about $16 million. the money from that will be going to the democratic national committee. >> any idea how much the president is expected to raise? >> those figures are still coming together. >> polls show this week linda mcmann -- many may remember her

heading the wwf -- is a trailing blumenthal in this race. >> this has been a roller- coaster race. many people thought that christopher dodd would be seeking reelection. there wasome trepidation on the part of democrats there. dodd decided that he would retire at the end of the year. blumenthal, a 20-year attorney- general, job approval ratings up above 70%. you have seen this evolution, though, in may, this story came out that said he exaggerat his military record. he said he served in vietnam multiple occasions when he was a reservist here at home.

that was a severe blow to blumenthal. also bringing this race closer, undoubtably, mcmahon has spent $3 million in the primary. she beat eight previous career politician. she has built up momentum right through the primary. blumenthal did not have the primary. this is a very expensive television market, fairfield market, and she has saturated the airwaves. >> let's show the latest from each candidate. >> my father started this company in 1923. >> general motors made an announcement. >> we were able to save our jobs

and keep our business going. >> we are back, thanks to you. >> he is a fighter. he is not afraid to stand up to business. >> i am dick blumenthal, i approve this message. >> people ask me why i am running for senate. this lunch box represents a lot of people who have lost jobs. washington has created the perfect job killing storm with high taxes, deficit spending, and expensive mandates. we experienced careers in washington. i'm linda mcmahon. i approve this message because we need this lunch box and a lot more like it back at work. >> you noted linda mcmahon spent $20 million in the primary. how much so far in the general

election, and how about her opponent? >> linda mcmahon says she is willing to spend up to $50 million on this race, a staggering figure that would put her only second to jon corzine, who spent $60 million i 2000 in new jersey. blumenthal so far has spent $1.7 million on television ads. he is certainly no slouch, comes from a wealthy background himself. his father-in-law is the owner of the empire state building. mcmahon is largely self funding her campaign and it is hard for him to compete in the money cagory. >> will these two square off in a debate? >> yes, october 4.

a fox affiliate in hartford, both of wch are tribune properties, are holding a debate with the two. there are aeady some complaints that mcmahon supporters have bought up many of the tickets for that. baier will bet moderating the debate, so you have democrats crying that it is not a level playing field. >> thank you for your time. >> sarah palin will be in iowa tomorrow night for the annual ronald reagan dinner. we will have live coverage beginning at 8:00 eastern. the former alaska governor will be joined by iowa senator chuck grassley and the former iowa governor. >> for me or anyone else who is

considering continuing in public service, i think the real question is do you have a positive vision for the direction the country should head, a specific idea that can implement that vision, and a demonstrated set of experiences that show you can get it done. >> the outgoing minnesota governor on a potential presidential run and his years as governor. sunday on c-span. >> every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv, 48 hours of people, events, and american stories. here historic speeches and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit historical sites and college campuses. history professors in leading historians of the of -- historians delve into america's past. every weekend on c-span 3.

>> defense secretary robert gates met with the french defense minister today at the afghanistan, where france has been a strong partner in the military campaign, both in the fight and as a major contributor to the important mission to train the afghan security forces. our nations also share a

commitment to biting weapons of mass destruction, in particular efforts to convince the regime to live up to its obligations around its nuclear program. we appreciate the crucial efforts to welcome our partners in africa and their fight against terrorism. success can only be achieved through the kind of integrated international actions exemplified by this effort. finally, we discussed the revitalization of a form of nato. today's meeting has been a welcome opportunity in preparation for the lisbon meeting in november to discuss our shared commitment to increasing the alliance's efficiency and effectiveness. both our nations recognize the need for nato to develop capabilities geared toward 21st century threats, including cyber defense and more deployable

forces. we also discussed the form of natives -- of nato's headquarters in and command structures. i look forward to seeing the minister again next month at the nato joint defense and foreign ministers meeting. i would like to invite him to make a few remarks before we take questions. >> first of all, i would like to thank my associate for his work and for the quality of our conversation. probably the most senior ministers in the alliance in terms of duration, tenure. i still remember our first efforts, meeting in the french ministry of defence in may, 2007.

and remember our first ceremony together on june 6, 2007, which was for me a moment i will always cherish and remember. i am french and also norman. i was born surrounded by the american forces in the norman campaign. this relationship of trust made it possible to broach all the various subjects that are feeding our agenda on a daily basis. first and foremost, there is between us a huge confidence and a bilateral relationship which is extremely powerful, like between france and the united states. this confidence lies both on the political and the military level.

on the iranian situation and the situation in afghanistan, the counterterrorism measures, the relationship between the united states and the european union -- all these topics, we have the same approach. more particularly, we dedicated a lot of our working lunch to the evolution of the atlantic alliance. as you know, in 2007 france and great britain had been pushing toward the evolution of the structure of the alliance and the reduction process of bureaucracy within nato. when the united states joined us with the power of robert gates's voice in concert with his will to reorganize, things

kept speeding up. we hope that during the lisbon summit and our next regular meeting in brussels in october, next october, it will be possible to establish things that will make it possible to save lots of money on the operational -- the operation of nato, at the compression of several thousand positions in the headquarters but also within the agencies. these will enable us to find further resources to fund the capability of the alliance. the last topic i would like to broached before i answer questions -- of course we have couched or corporations in terms

of defense. i remind secretary gates that i have been doing since 2007 -- reminding him that the united states are in the world as the advocates of free competition, transparent competition, and opening borders for a world trade organization that is as free as possible. that can be done in both ways. the european military budget has to welcome american military programs and equipment, since we take into account it could be vice versa, so european equipment could equip the american forces.

with robert gates, we have also talked about equipping the french forces. i thank him for his support and help so we can possibly be one of the country's that can be equipped with the excellent quality of the american products in this industry. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the question for you and the minister on afghanistan. when we hear from commanders on the ground, they give a fairly upbeat assessment. it is cautiously optimistic, but clearly upbeat that they are seeing signs of progress. you are on the record as saying those concrete signs of progress -- you will have to show the american public between now and december to get their support for the strategy. what is your assessment? what concrete signs of progress are you seeing? are you confident it will be

sustainable and will even expand? will you continue the strategy after the december review? is there any gap between your assessment of progress, and will your public continue to support the afghan mission? >> first of all, i would say as i said in afghanistan when i was in kandahar that i was encouraged by what i had seen. i think that most of us try to bear on the side of caution -- try to err on the side of caution because previous experiences, particularly in iraq, of people being too optimistic, and certainly optimistic prematurely. that said, the one i picked up when i was in afghanistan was that it seems like the closer to the front

lines you are the more confident and encouraged people are. there is no question that this is a tough fight and we are just at the beginning in many respects. the last american forces of the surge literally arrived just within the last three weeks or so. some of the forces that i visited had been on the ground only two weeks. and so we are at the beginning of a process. it is incremental. the question is -- is our campaign plan to look at in december and beyond -- is the complaint plan working? is the principal proven -- the principle proven that this is the right approach? the evidence and general petraeus is seeing so far suggests to him it is, both on the civilian and the military side, not just the military

side. but he is cautious and i will be cautious. as i say, it is early. and we need to have confidence and be able to demonstrate, i would say, in four to six months that we are moving in the right direction. we are moving toward the accomplishment of our goals. i think there is a general feeling that there has been some progress in that area. but it will have to be sustained. one of the things i think our military points to as encouraging is that one of the key parameters that we talked about a year ago was the growth in both the numbers and the quality of the afghan national security forces. we are seeing a significant improvement in the afghan national army in both numbers and quality. police is a tougher problem. it has been a tougher problem all along. it was a tougher problem in

iraq. with respect to that particular piece of concrete information, that is one thing where i think people really have something we can point to as being in parisian. i do not want to mislead anybody. this is a hard fight. there are many challenges ahead. we will lose more kids. but i think general petraeus has the feeling we are on the right track. >> there is, had you been part of the lunch, you would see our views are converging on this issue. it is a very difficult combat, a difficult struggle. it is more difficult to explain the struggle in europe than in the united states. it is difficult to understand

that 6,000 kilometers away from home, in a traditional area of influence for europe, the fate of the world is at stake in afghanistan. it is the truth. i have been in this position for 3.5 years. i went to afghanistan for part of that time. i went a dozen times, actually. it is very, very visible, the improvement. robert gates is totally right when he talks about the national army. at the beginning, i saw an army that was not an army. it was just a lot of troops, in a military sense. now that are a military. they have continued operations, sometimes with support. for police, it is more difficult. to train a policeman is more complicated.

i am sorry to say this to the pentagon, but it is probably more difficult to train a policeman then the military, because it is judicial. there are the hearings, the written procedures. all of these things are more alert and more difficult. but i think that everybody is convinced today that the development of military actions is coming together. it is stabilizing a number of things. it has to be complemented by development policies and rebuilding policies. i remind you that there are today 6 million young gentleman who go to school. young girls go to school as well. roads are being built. when you go on the field and you see the troops on the field, month after month the building,

participating in rebuilding afghanistan, we will see many signs of optimism. i am longing for the year 2011. the year 2011, that has to be the year when we will begin transferring those things to the afghans. there will be a direct hand over. there will be a gradual transition system. we will be in a position to give the afghans responsibility. they have in trouble. the already maintain the security there, not us. and they do it very well. we have to do the same thing in further areas. we talk about the french contingent over there.

i hope that will enable us to continue the pacifying process, in which we have lost numerous troops, at 10 troops in the summer of 2010 in one operation. there is one thing i would like to draw attention to. i was telling bob gates earlier today there cannot be a european speech or position for the whole international community, announcing or pulling out. that would be the best way to encourage the taliban. they could find his idea of the program pullout if further strength to hold on. we have to do it with a spirit of responsibility.

indeed, we cannot let them think, progress being what it is now, except a certain area, we will be able to hand over in 2011. it will not be a single pullout. as i said during the lunch, we will patrol the conflict in afghanistan. >> your turn to choose. do you want to call on somebody? >> mr. minister, as you know, there was tremendous attention and controversy with the threat of the burning of the corona recently here. there were demonstrations and re