expanding military force. all of this has been steadily assisted by our own government and by the elite captains of america's finance and industry. these american tycoons who still plot, scheme and invest to make a quick buck by exploiting a massive cheap labor pool and a megamarket in china. it's the same dream of a century and a half ago when ambitious western businessmen dreamed of, quote, the lighting the lamps of china, end of quote and making a fortune doing it. only now the fortune is being made by america's elite but it is not benefiting our country, it is being done at the expense of the american people. the chinese people, as of late, has been masterful of

manipulating businessmen, even as china itself continues international financial markets and hammers or continues to undermine international financial markets and hammers many of those western corporations which have already set up their in china. beijing maintains a massive pool of labor to attract more foreign capital and manufacturing know-how. this is at the same time as they undervalue their own currency to secure the dominance of their exports even as they enforce the restrictions they have placed on entry into their market. this is not just symptom attic of a nation with -- symptomatic of a nation with gusto to get ahead. the chinese of today look and speak western. they mean to eclipse our country and, yes, extinguish

our ideals of democracy and individual freedom even as the west stumbles in its retreat before this aggressive and autocratic global force. wake up, america. we are not only losinjobs to an ever-more powerful china, but we are in the process of losing our security, our prosperity and, yes, our freedom. we are losing more than jobs. we are losing our future. wake up, america. if eventually the united states and our great democratic experiment is defeated through the short sidedness of grasping corporations and their bought and paid for political hax, who will be able to light the lamps of freedom? not only in china but around the world? there is no shortage of power mongers who would cast the world into darkness and deprivation and fear. as evil expands, america is, as

it has always been, the only hope for a better world, the only hope for the world's oppressed, the only hope for stability and peace. six decades ago, japanese milattist knew that. that's why they attacked us at pearl harbor so they could dominate the asian-pacific region with co-prosperity and, of course, a brutally enforce stability. the chinese strategists now see us in the same light as the japanese planners did before worlwar ii. the japanese, however, only intended to dominate a large chunk of the pacific region. today, china's rulers seek domination, not just of the asian-pacific region, but of the world. they are positioning themselves to do just that, and what has been america's counterstrategy? apparently to establish economic ties that will build

china's economy thinking that wi prosperity will come a new hospitable and benevolent attitude among the chinese hierarchy. so our country club class of american businessmen have built china into an economic giant and, yes, a global power and, of course, these captains of american industry have made big bucks for themselves personally as part of this effort in building china. america's corporate elite has not seem to notice the obvious downside for their fellow americans in sending jobs, capital and technology to china. maybe the brutal consequences on the rest of the american family of free people was obscured by the worst kind of wishful thinking, elite think tanks, coffers filled by corporate giants, i might add,

these think tanks, have claimed that if you hug a dragon it won't eat you. well, the subsidized academics assured us if we treat it nicely it will become a warm and peaceful dragon. well, look again. it's been decades of coddling and it is still a dragon. it's bigger and stronger and still hungry. the frightened result, the frightening result of our folly and betrayal of american working people is becoming evident. in the month of february, 2010, alone, the trade deficit with china was a staggering $16.5 billion. in 1984, just 25 years ago, the u.s. had a trade surplus with china. our annual trade imbalance with china is now $227 billion and rising. our lamp is going out.

china holds the largest amount of american bonds of any nation and holds the highest percentage of oudebt and has repeatedly threatened to quietly dump those bonds and devastate our national economy if we don't comply with its wishes. what is their goal? first, of course, it is to maintain their unfair trade advantage built on near slave labor, environmental desolation, devalued currency and a heavier restricted access to their market while enjoying access to our market and a continually flow of u.s. investment and technology and know-how into their country. yep, now if we move to correct the imbalance by seeking equality and fairness in our trade policies, there will be a heavy price for us to pay. so we just let a bad situation continue to slide. even as our economy, our power

and our influence slide into an abyss. the dragon may not be a marxist red dragon but it is still a dragon, dangerous as hell and will not be deterred by appeasement or cowardess. economic vulnerability is only half of the story. on a parallel track financed by their profits from this one-way free trade imbalance that they've enjoyed, china is engaged in an unprecedented military buildup. communist china's military forces, which include nuclear, cyber, conventional and terrorist components are on the rise as our defenses are wearing thin and exhausted. in the past we have always been able to rely on our technological superiority. in the past being the operative words of the sentence i just used. yes, in the past we could rely on our technological superiority.

today, new china laws demand that western companies who are now operating in china and wish to give up technological secrets that can be used for economic and military advantage . our greatest asset for the future is being given away in exchange for a piece of china's market today. when we had the leverage, our financial and business elites were only looking to short-term profits and benefits for themselves, not for their country. this short-term approach ended up much shorter than expected. the other side now has the leverage, and they are making the best of it. surprise, surprise. the chinese elite is a murderous dragon and, yes, they are still a dragon and they still intend to eat our lunch. tomorrow they'll eat us. for decades american capitalists have rushed to china with stars in their eyes and quick and easy profits on

their mind, but it's been a deal with the devil figuratively and literally. american corporations are not acting as americans. they have been acting like greedy cowards reflecting the worst of human aspirations, not the best. we americans pride ourselves at being committed to noble higher ideals. we are not just a grasping horde seeking self-enrichment. we do believe in treating people decently and we do believe in people's individual rights given to them by god. well, we think of ourselves that way, and then we hear that google and other american companies have enabled economist chinese dictatorship to track down dissidents who are then jailed for daring to oppose tyranny or corruption or to worship god as they see fit. once they found themselves curtailing the free flow of information to millions of

chinese citizens, turning the internet into a tool for repression rather than a facilitator for free expression and thus the vehicle of the advancement of human freedom. to google's credit, the role it was forced to being played, google decided not to go ahead with the heavy-handed plan that the chinese regime expect them to play and to implement. at great risk their company -- to their company, google's executives refused to go along and took a stand against the repression. yes, kudos to google for that. conversely, shame on the rest of the high-tech entourage who collaborated and were even used to advance tyrannical corruption. google was not backed up, for example, by microsoft or yahoo! internet providers. now, china is preparing to intensify draconian laws requiring telecommunications and internet companies to

inform on customers who discuss state secrets. that term, state secrets, can be defined as anything from negative economic statistics to information on environmental calamities or references to tibet, taiwan, uighurs or anything else that would anger the dragon. the chinese regime obviously understands it controls -- its control of technology is a way to control the future. yes, the future. beijing's focus on space as well as electronics communications says it all. remember, space-based assets, satellite systems, are an essential component of global and national communication with enormous implications to our own national security as well as our own prosperity. the power of the commerce and the -- the power of commerce

and political change will be determined by the control of these systems and the freedom to use these systems will have an impact on the future of the country and the world. what happens in space will determine what happens on the ground. with that in mind, the obama administration's decision to go along with our domestic high-tech corporate giants and again permit american satellites to be launched from chinese rockets is a cataclysmic betrayal of america's security and it undermines both the future of our aerospace industry and undermines freedom on this planet. 15 years ago during the clinton years a similar decision was made to permit u.s. satellites to be launched on chinese rockets. we were assured by the clinton administration that no technology would be transferred. i bought on to that for a short time. then, it became abundantly evident that this was a technological windfall for the

chinese regime. that president clinton had not promised that technology would not be transferred. and when it became clear after the clinton administration had made that commitment to us that there would be no transfer of technology and when it became clear that this effort and cooperation was a colossal mistake and that technology was being transferred, no moves were made to limit the damage or shut it down. perhaps it had something to do with the fact that bernard schwartz's contributions had some impact on president clinton's re-election bid. meaning, bernie schwartz was the c.e.o. of lorel corporation, a company heavily complicit in the illegal transfer of missile technology to china. he was also the biggest single contributor to president bill clinton's re-election campaign.

of course, he was not the only contributor to have a stake in this policy of sending missile technology to china. other contributors to the clinton campaign were traced and found to be leaders of the p.l.a., that's the people's liberation army missile program which, of course, had a different name and a different veneer. it was a company by the people's liberation army. i was involved in uncovering the initial evidence that exposed this crime -- crime that made our country vulnerable to missiles that were built with technology that had been developed right here but the missiles were now aimed at us by a hostile power. a full-scale investigation ensued. christopher cox led a bipartisan task force which unanimously declared our security had been compromised. before congress could finally put a cork in the bottle,

clearly invaluable rocket secrets were in the possession of this monster ousley anti-democratic dragon regime, the world's worst human rights abuser now had america's utmost missile technology secrets. unlike the last time around, thanks to the help of their american corporate benefactors, the chinese now -- their rockets now are further along than they were back in those days 15 years ago. and now the chinese have rockets, thanks to our help, that are more competitive with our systems. before we stepped in to help, their rocket launches turned into fiery failures and even if successful, chinese rockets of 15 years ago only carried one payload per launch. now, with our gift of technology, that -- i might add this gift cost the american

people, the american taxpayers, billions of dollars to develop -- chinese rockets are no reliable and capable of launching multiple payloads, be they satellites or war heads. it's called merving. our gift to the chinese. no wonder they have no respect for us. no wonder they're becoming aggressive. they think we're stupid. they think we're cowards, trying to buy peace with gifts to our enemies. what else would we expect such tough guys who are in pow for the beijing to think? should they think, oh, how nice it is the americans are is willing to give us this power. we should be grateful and be their friends because they're being so nice to us in giving us this technology that can be used for rockets and other high tech weapons systems. the town in the high desert of china's occupied region of east turk stan. located there -- sturkistan.

located there is their long-launch rockets and nuclear capable ballistic rockets take off from. at the entrance to this complex on the chinese launch area is a billboard, written half in english, intended for the world to see, the state thosme chinese war lords of this uighur province, i might add, said, without haste, without fear, we will conquer the world, end of quote. yes, america's policies and the collaborations of our corporations are helping them do just that. instead of facing the reality of even more powerful and the increasingly hungry dragon that is right in front of our face, interest groups and power players in our country keep raising the question about what's happening with china, are we making china into our

enemy? yes, so many americans just love to blame ourselves every time such a confrontation with tir occurs. -- with tyranny occurs. i half expected our president in his recent trip to asia, i half expected to hear the president had actually bowed down to chinese despots and apologized for the opium wars of 150 years ago. of course he didn't do that but that's the attitude that you can see reflected in people -- and people are blaming furs any belidge rensi on the part of the chinese or any other enemy of the united states, i might add. this self-fladgelation is, of course, much safer than blaming an increasingly -- than blaming for an increasingly strained relationship on the obvious badness and evil that is going on among the other guys. the obvious tyrants who

murdered their own people, the people who happen to be the world -- use the -- the worst human rights abuser, maybe it's their fault but if we blame them for it rather than ourselves for the current escalation of hostility that's now edent with the chinese, we will have to deal with the threat. we'd have to deal with them. and that would be scare arery system of instead, so many americans end up blaming ourselves. or apologizing for past errors that america may have committed or may not have committed. so the answer to our question is, answer to our question, is the chinese regime get manager belligerent? the answer is emphatically yes, it is get manager belligerent. sit our fault? no. the attitude of those who rule beijing is the manifestation of an increasing lust for power and the human beingries of the clique that controls the

world's most populous country with an iron fist. that's what you would expect from such tyrants. that's why our policy should in the be aimed at building their strength, mill clirly, -- militarily, economic or any other way. of course the essence of what's going on has not gone unnoticed by our friends and foes overseas. the perception of american weakness even declined eats away at the resolve of our friends and allies even as it contributes to beijing's cockiness. let's admit we are considerably weaker than we ever thought we would be. we have been bled an drained by needlessly expensive small scale wars around the world as well as a benevolence that has us bankrolling the united nations and shoving foreign aid out our door even as we borrow money from china. one example of this is seen in

america's good hearted participation in a global fund designed to provide the world's poorest countries support in the fight against aids, tuberculosis, malaria and other insidious decides which kill millions of people a year. over the eight years of the fund's history, the united states has willingly contributed $4.3 billion, more than 28% of all the contributions to this benevolent fund. and we should be proud we are a generous people even if we can't afford it. whether we can continue to be so generous as our level of deficit spending threatens to collapse our economy, that's another question. but most significant, because of an anomaly in the funding formula, china has been one of the largest recipients of this fund. over the last eight year, china has been the recipient of almost $1 billion in grants. conversely over that same period, china has only

contributed $16 million to the fund. the fund we've given $4 million to. i can't come up with one reason why the american taxpayer should be underwriting the cost of china's public health system. the whole thing is a from travisy. malaria is a minor problem in china, killing 38 chinese people a year. on the other hand, it's a massive problem in the democratic republic of the congo, killing over 20,000 people last year. yet in this international fund, china was awarded $149 million to combat malaria and only $122 million went to the congo. that's $4 million for each case of malaria death in china while the condo are receiv $5,000 per person that they had die. this issue needs to be addressed but nobody is -- has the guts to address it because china is getting about $1 billion worth of benefits,

paying a pittance, while the united states pays $4 billion into this fund. what we've been doing in this case is borrowing from china to donate to a fund that gives back to china. over the years, we then end up paying interest on the debt that's been incurredy this very transaction. new this is the kind of -- now this is the kind of ongoing, indefensible transfer of wealth from our couldn't arery to china we have faced -- we have acquiesced with this, we have put up with it for years. it's got to stop. the burden of being -- the burdens of a drawn out commitments we've had all over the world and the irrational benevolence, you can read that giveaways, makes our nation poorer. we're talking about its diminishing our ability here at home to meet our needs, the needs of our own people and to watch out for our own security because wealth is being

transferred out of our country because of policies we've gone along with. we are new vulnerable after all of this to a political, economic and military threat by a political power like china. china is encouraging those who would tie us down and drain our energy. this is part of their effort. they have been helping the people trying to tie us down and drain our energies and revenues and our resources. this is part of their effort to disable us by sapping our will power, our resolve, and our resources. as we become weaker, china's unquenchable thirst for natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and scarce minerals that are necessary for modern manufacturing. this has spurred china to become the ally, supplier, protector and pickup truck master of rogue regimes on a global scale, and the chinese

planetary offensive is evident in countries like north korea, burma, cambodia, iran and across africa like sudan and zimbabwe, not only are there people being repressed by regimes that are tyrannical but these are yes jet stream -- are regimes that have allied themselves with beijing, which is becoming the leading -- it is already the world's worst human rights abuser and it is the creator of alliances with dictators throughout the world. it's hard to miss that when china establishes an alliance with these countries, what its intention is. we need to look no further than to show that china has an alliance and is providing arms with the anti-american blowhard in our hemisphere the would-be cordillo of latin america, hugo

chavez. it's evident elsewhere, wrever trouble threatens u.s. interests, we can find that china has a hand in this. nuclear weapons and missiles technology were slipped to iran by china via north korea and pakistan and they have added dangerous instability to the middle east. in light of this, there should be no mystery as to why nigh china in the united nations and other international forums has imposed stronger and enforceable substantiations -- sanctions against iran and north korea. north korea's sinking of a south korean naval patrol ship not that long ago, there was a loss of 46 south korean sailors and it was publicly treated as a nonevent by beijing, though it's right there in its back yard. north korea's eccentric dictator who probably could not be in power without chinese support was given an official

hero's welcome in china days after it sunk a south korean ship that cost the lives of 46 south korean sailors. more recently, china has bullied japan over the control and sovereignty of islands not even close to its shores and while it was doing the bullying of japan, our great ally, the united states was warned by china to butt out and stay away from those islands. quote, aggressive, end of quote, and quote, belligerent, end of quote, are words that come to mind when you're trying toage -- analyze what's the nature of the chinese regime in these situations. then there is, of course, pakistan with its, quote, islamic bong," never forget that they are in allegiance with china while we give them money to bolster pakistan's

economy. the chinese gave pakistan nuclear weapons technology. we are borrowing more from china to give to pakistan which is an ally of china even as they build their islamic bond with china. wake up, america, we can't continue with this kind of insanity. the opening by iran of a new missile production plant in march of 2010 enable ide ran to quickly expand its supply of nasr anti-ship missiles. yep, another china deal. not long after that, hezbollah, iranen -- iranian cruise missile knocked out an iranian ship. another gift from china. what's the response of the obama administration to all these transfers of weapons of mass destruction by chee in a

to rogue nations? -- by china to rogue nations? there have been no penalties imposed. washington is again considering letting chinese rockets launch u.s. satellites. i guess they need to upgrade their system so they can pass even more updated weapons to their criminal buddies. china's increasingly aggressive and threatening foreign policy are matched at home by severe repression. millions of religious believers in china are facing increased, not decreased oppression. the resulis indiscriminate, wther they are christians, buddhists, muslims, the worst is meted out to falangong, who just practice yoga and meditation. they have been tortured, their

organs have been cut out and sold to the highest bidders, many of whom are americans. this is the most ghoulish of all preeducation -- repressions and it continues with devastating intensity. then again, maybe all this evil is due to the fact that we americans are so belligerent to the chinese. what? yeah, some people want to blame us. let's reach out to the dragon. not with a clenched fist but an open hand a positive attitude and most of all with kindness, not hostility and lots of investment money as well, of course, and lots of technology and secrets, give me a break. wake up america. this has got to stop. this nonsense has led to some of america's military top commanders to misguidedly welcome chinese military leaders to visit are our own defense centers and our own international defense forums with our asian-pacific allies and to permit chinese military

personnel to observe our military exercises. one can only guess that the strategy behind this outreach and inclusion is the idea that it will somehow tcharm the chinese into thinking us as their friends not their rivals. hug a dragon. it won't be a dragon. well, is it not evident that the very existence of our democracy is what intimidates and enrages the chinese' anti-democratic dictatorship as with all these dictatorships from the past? it is certainly is not a comparison of how many ships we have and airplanes we have as compared to them that has brought on this animosity. beijing knows that the united states has no intention of attacking them. however, like the japanese before world war ii, they know that the america is the only power with the courage and the ability to stand between them

and their goal which is total domination of a large segment of the world and a heavy-handed influence on the rest. perhaps the worst aspect of this looming security crisis is that china's aggressive military modernization has been made possible by its rising trade surplus with the united states. we have unintentionally financed their economy and built their economy at the expense of jobs and manufacturing at home and they are using the residual profits from their economic transactions with us to build weapons, very good weapons, better weapons than we may available to us in the future. their intent is to back us off and destroy us as a dynamic force in the world. in 1988, the people's leb ration army publication company ultimately published a book that is called "unrestricted

warfare." the strategists guidelines in that book called for economic destabilization, computer viruses, terrorism and devastating modern military weapons including bio, chemical and nuclear weapons. and among those things highlighted in the book, in this chinese strategy book, were two individuals, osama bin laden and george soros. bin laden was cited because terror and guerrilla groups were thought to have bled empires because they could be defeated by a rifle power. soros manipulated occurrencies around the world from england, malaysia, thailand, thus dramatically weakening their countries. the people's liberation army in that book stated that if individuals could accomplish such things then china as an emerging power with focused

strategic weapons in cyber and deep space could bring down a power like the united states. greatest threat to america's future generations may be the high-tech, strategic and exotic weapons china will possess as a result of advances made in recent years. china's strategic economic position should be noted with alarm. global competition over scarce resources is intensifying. armed with advanced weapons and flushed with money earned from its american trade imbalance, beijing has been buying off and bribing the gangster regimes of the underdeveloped nations of the world and the same regimes, of course, control the rich energy and finite mineral resources in their countries. these are not the actions and maneuvers of the government that wants to be part of the

world's trading systems. these are the actions of a tyrannical dictatorship that is striving to dominate the world in alliance withther dictatorships. you think that people might sink so low as to bribe decisionmakers of the world trade organization or the united nations? so when you also hear -- when you hear people say we should solve these issues, we must always go multilaterally and go and come at the world peace -- as part of an international effort, remember, it takes american courage to stand up. if we try to go through the world trade organization and the united nations we are going to find out someday that the chinese have bribed those people in the world trade organization and the u.n. if they haven't done it already they will do it in the future to protect their international acquisitions in asia, africa, south america, the chinese pitbills liberation army is certainly a threat. but its navy that it's building

is also a threat because china is building a lethal surface ship and submarine flotilla. they are making outlandish planes now at the same time while building up their fleet for the right to control large oceaareas like the entire south china sea. their naval forces are beginning to routine patrol around the world's most vital sea lanes and communication lanes. between 1987 and 2009 while the u.s. submarine force was cut in half, china's navy commissioned 31 new attack submarines. their new model diesel substance are nearly undetectable by u.s. and allied forces and they are deploying a new missile that can take out a u.s. aircraft carrier at 900 miles away. nevertheless, in february of 2009, "the new york times" reported that admiral keating offered the u.s. navy to assist

china to learn how to operate its own aircraft carriers. boy, that's going to make the world safer. we are going to teach them how to run their aircraft carriers. noting a senior chinese military officer proclaimed that once the chinese get their aircraft carriers that the united states can claim hawaii east and china will take hawaii west and the indian ocean. then, you will not have to need to patrol the western pacific any more, end of quote, he said. how nice. this while we're reducing our own fleet, they are telling us to stay out of a certain area of the world and to stay out of it while they're bullying japan over some islands in the middle of nowhere. tomorrow they're going to declare they have a right -- the rightful domination of over half of the pacific. wake up, america. don't just look at the ocean --

look to the ocean as a threat. look up. space. the high ground of any future conflict will soon no longer be our domain, america's domain. that is -- it's already now no longer our domain, obviously. china is aggressively moving forward. yes, in the exploration of space, but also in space-based related weapon systems. in 2006, for example, the u.s. department of defense reported that china used a ground-based laser to blind certain u.s. satellites. in january, 2007, the people's liberation army successfully used an anti-satellite missile to intercept a weather satellite. they blew their satellites out of orbit without a care that it left a heavy debris that threatened other space activity in that area of space. no need to complain, of course, because these guys aren't listening.

cheas supposed civilian space program -- china's supposed civilian space program can be traced back to the czech transfer that happened during the clinton administration. which now has become then incorporated into china's rockets and its missiles. again, if our aerospace is at risk, blame us, don't blame them. we gave them the technology. but we can blame them for commissioning hundreds of spies, hundreds of spies that have ben treated u.s. defense companies and agencies to seal the blueprints and charts needed to enhance their weapon systems. they have a monstrous organized effort to attack and to steal america's technological secrets by breaking into our computer systems. yeah, we can blame them for that. but we just keep inviting them to observe our military exercises and, oh, yes, to teach them how to use aircraft carriers. today, almost every part of the

western and central united states is under the potential threat of an increased -- of the creased capability of china's weapon systems. we have given them our secrets by agreeing to a trade policy that has been unfair, uneven and a drain on america's wealth and technology, we have provided them the resources to use this technology and to expand and modernize their own military. such stupidity is nothing new. before world war ii, there was an effort by the brits to invest in hitler's germany to build economic ties that would prevent conflict. boy, did that work. and it wasn't just britain's deal that -- were they betrayed czech security that convinced hitler that the west was gutless, it was also money invested in his country in the 1930's. and we gave the japanese scrap metal and oil even as they raped china. eventually the japanese's mayhem in china was too much even for american capitalists. not enough to discourage

corporate interests to the sell of b-7 blueprints to japan as late as 1940. now, they never consummated that deal because the attack on pearl harbor sort of short-ended those negotiations. today we're giving the chinese our genius and r&d worth billions of dollars and it's deja vu all over again. foreign and domestic satellite operators will have the export controls on the launching of advanced communication satellite systems on p.l.a., that's people's liberation army, controlled rockets. and then the companies that make those rockets. oh, yes. china is offering 30% to 50% below market price in order to attract those launches. i wonder why. they just want to do us a favor. or remember they -- the last time they made agreements and ended up with billions of

dollars of american technology they now have to use against us. what a great deal. our big companies make a couple billion dollars in profit by cooperating with the chinese rather than launching with u.s. companies. certain c.e.o.'s had a couple llion dollar bonuses to themselves for providing short-term savings, and that savings comes from using chinese rockets. the chinese end up with access to defense-related research and development that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. the chinese have new technologies to defeat us in the future. -- in the future we have short-term profit and big bonuses for our c.e.o.'s in the present. what a deal. it's a raw deal for the american aerospace industry and for our children's safety and it will be -- it will put us in jeopardy by using our own technology by putting us in jeopardy. let us be clear. such launches will put money in the pockets of the people's liberation army to help their

space program. and it will perfect their missile technology and it will strangle in the cradle the private launch companies that are now emerging in the united states which will then leave us totally dependent on china for space transportation. to accomplish this nefarious goal, launching u.s. satellites on chinese rockets, the u.s. law will have to be changed in order to accomplish that. one way for this to be accomplished is for the obama administration, like the clinton administration before, to sign a presidential waiver of the tenmen square human rights sanctions -- tenamen square human rights sanctions. the apparatus is owned and controlled -- it's not a private group like the united states likes boeing. it is controlled by the people's liberation army. their profits go to the people's liberation army. the three main chinese space entities are all under people's liberation army control. all three of these heavy have

been repeatedly sanctioned by u.s. government for proliferation of missile technologies to countries including iran and pakistan. wake up, america. they're planning to play us for suckers like they already have in the past. well, they're going to play us that way because we're acting that way. this shouldn't even be an issue except, of course, the chinese have the best lobbyists in washington, the best lobbyists money can buy and they've also got the lobbyists from u.s. corporations who are working with them doing their bidding. and even better, they can buy off the so-called think tanks. what we've got is money from these corporations doing business in china who are putting that money into think tanks which then come and testify before congress about different policies that would of course affect whether or not we make decisions like the one i'm talking about. and who's left out, of course? what we're talking about is the american worker who's been put

permanently out of work and the american people who are now in jeopard so now the chinese are using their excessive profit to buy influence here at the expense of the american people. wake up, america. a critical event of the cold war, which china is repositioning, which put them in friendly relations with the united states and against the soviet union. later, when i worked for president reagan it was hope that direct communication and economic ties would result in a permanent positive change that would better the lives and freedom of the chinese people. unlike his predecessors are those who came later, reagan understood that peace would only be furthered if freedom was simultaneously expanded as we increased economic activity. reagan made it clear as he visited china in 1985. i worked with him on those speeches. i actually know very well what the message was of the speeches that reagan gave in china. if china continued to open up

politically and to liberalize, america would keep its markets open and be investing and trying to uplift the chinese people. in 1989, the massacre of the chinese democracy movement was the tipping point. president reagan, who was committed to human rights and democracy, was no longer president. his sessors had not been so committed to human rights and democracy. the chinese government paid no price for the massacre at tiananmen square. the chinese entrenched themselves in pow we are blood and steel and murder. since tiananmen square it's gotten worse, not better and we've continued acting like buddies. that's our offensive. our policies have not been reformed, our policies have not

reformed the tyrannical system in china, in fact we've expanded it because they've come to believe they can do anything to their own people, build any kind of military threat, and we will still grant them economic policies that will enable wealth to flow in their direction even as it is unfair to their own people. china is a frankenstein monster of our own making a monster that threatens the world's peace and prosperity. one would think as this becomes clear there would be some change in our policy, but no, the insanity continues. not long ago, there was a highly publicized visit to china, secretary clinton brought a legion of reporters to the shanghai world fair. she showed them an american exhibition hall built with $60 million of contributions from american corporations. how nice. the companies paid to build an

exhibition hall. unfortunately, it was so vapid and uninspiring without a hint of love of democracy and freedom that it reflects -- without that love that reflects the core values of the american people, that the people who built that pavilion that hall in beijing, frank lavin explained why there wasn't any reference to freedom or democracy, he said we're not trying to be insulting to chinese viewers. what does that say about us? what does it say about them? secretary clinton, being as uninspiring as she is, pointed out the world's fair was introducing american to the -- america to the world as a rising power, according to our secretary of state this world pair is a coming out party also for china. it's really of historical significance she said. well, it is, it's basically saying that america doesn't

care about freedom and democracy. china's coming out, a new style of 21st century tyranny is being created with chinese characteristics. that fuses the control of mechanisms of communism with corporate funding and high tech savvy. the leader shoip this potential juggernaut has global ambitions and is ruthless and persistent. we need to undue any optimistcally generous policies that have been givening -- giving away our industrial base and transfer regular sources and power to china. most importantly, however, through our actions we must reaffirm our -- to ourselves and to the world, our commitment to the ideals that made this country strong and democratic. a role model for humanity, regardless of culture or language. advocates of our current china policy promise peace and prosperity and the expansion of freedom as china grew stronger.

yet the stronger china has become more repressive, notless. we thought we created a peaceful new member of the international community, instead we shifted power to a government that remains the world's worst human rights abuser, repressing its own people while building its military, making aggressive plays on boundaries and territorial waters that threatens its neighbors as well as the flow of international waters through long established shipping lanes, exchanges like the world's fair exhibit were supposed to promote u.s. values. investment in china was supposed to have led to liberalization of their society. where are the reforms? where are the benevolent liberals who are going to democratize china? they're in jail or prison or they've been murdered by the regime. they sit right next to uncompromised religious believers. their crackdown on dissidents

and religious freedom and freedom of speech and the escalation of violence inity bet and the missiles facing taiwan, the cyberdestabilization on a global scale that's often traced back to the chinese military, these things should be alarm bells for all people who want peace and believe in freedom. this is an enemy who has no shame and perhaps as we show weakness has no fear. it is an enemy who hates religion and sees freedom and human rights as anarchistic evil that needs to be obliterated. this is the threat over the horizon a dragon that's been made stronger, more aggressive vument of misguided american policies. those policies must be changed. we must have the resolve to meet this ever present challenge. china is not the only society that honors its an sesscors and forefathers. we must respect the sacrifices and legacy os off -- of all

those brave american who worked, struggled, fought for freedom and liberty and the rights of every person and these principles are not only what binds us together with the people but bonds us with other people, including people china who are repressed by dictator, who long for freedom. it is their success in throwing off their chains of oppression and in doing so they will free us from the threat of this powerful a dragon country as they create a peaceful, democratic and prosperous country for which we can trade and va have equal and positive relations. if we have the courage to stand tall, the next century will not be the severage arery of china. it will be the severage arery of free people. technologically united throughout the globe, united in respect for the rights of people everywhere and committed to respecting each other and

the building of a more peaceful, prosperous and free world. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. rohrabacher: pursuant to the order of the house of today i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the house of today, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday, november 22, 2010, unless it sooner receives a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house resolution

>> house members to start their week-long thanksgiving day return the following week to finish federal spending -- they return the following week to finish a federal spending. live coverage of the house here on c-span. while the 11th congress is finishing work and a lame duck session, members of the 112th congress are getting offices and working all congress works. a look at a couple of the newly elected congress members. pat meehan was a u.s. attorney

and a pro hockey referre. ee. mike fitzpatrick returned after it defeating patrick murray in a rematch of the 2008 campaing. >> congressman charlie rangel was fond guilty of 11 -- was found guilty of 11 counts of fraud this week. this is 25 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the committee will come back

to order. when we left for votes, we were in a questioning mode under the five minute rule. and i think mr. harper had just said is his questions. i would now ask, would any other members seek to ask questions? mr. chandler is recognized for five minutes. >> most surveys would put a question whether there is much integrity left to protect. that probably refers to one party as much as it does the other. that being said, i think the people of this country have an abiding sense of fairness and justice and while they want to see their institutions

protected, they also want to see justice done. and i think that is a very important matter to most americans that i know. and, while it is easy to sit in judgment and criticized, it is a bit more difficult to actually find justice. in this case, since this is a hearing on sanctions, it is very important that we find justice. and it's justice to the institution. it is justice to the people of this country, but it is also a justice to someone who has been accused and found guilty. that being said, i would like to ask counsel -- it is my understanding, based on testimony i have heard, that

there has been no finding that the respondent was guilty of any intent or factual instance of having personal gain. is that correct, councisel? asking you about the findings. >> with respect to the findings, that is correct. >> ok. now in our jurisprudence system, in order to find justice, one of the best ways that we have, maybe the best way that we have to determine what constitutes a justice is the system of precedents and what precedents what previousnt,

congresses have done in similar circumstances. do i understand it that there had been four instances of censure in the past? is that correct? >> the numbers that i gave earlier are matters that came out of the committee itself. there are a number of more censures in the history of false dating back to the 19th century. >> this committee has found four instances of center? >> but that is correct. >> and which of those it did not contain some elements of personal gain, of locathose fou? >> just give me one second. i'm sorry. the recommendations for censure failing to report a

$1,000 cash contribution. >> we are going live to the committee that has been meeting in closed session to decide the appropriate punishment for congressman charlie rangel. the committee's prosecutor earlier today recommended censure which is the most serious punishment short of expulsion. there is congressman charlie rangel. the committee voted 9-1 recommend that mr. rangel be censored by the house and be required to pay restitution and to transmit to the full house these recommendations. that concludes the committee's deliberations and obligations in this matter.

i would just like to say this, that we have worked hard together in this matter, in a way that has been actually quite wrenching. and we are satisfied to be concluded, and we do thank all the staff and the members. and mr. rangel for being here as well. and i will recognize mr. rangel. >> i know how much discussion went into this decision, but as i started earlier, i hope that you -- that he you can seek a way clear to make it abundantly ear that the record indicate that any actions taken by me

were not the intention to bring any disgrace to the house, in which my stuff personally -- in which myself personally or council would consider to be corrupt. that would be a great help to my family and my community. >> thank you, and i would note that our report would be on the committee website later this evening, and with that, there are further comments, the committee is adjourned with thanks to all who participated. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you just heard the full ethics committee is sending its full recommendation to -- that congressman charles rangel be censured. the house would need to approve that center. if the house did that, congressman rangel would be required to stand on the house floor as the resolution is read aloud. the chairman of the trial today said the congressman would also

pay public restitution. we will go back to earlier today, congressman rangel talking to the committee, asking for mercy. >> with respect to the failure to disclose, it was clear mr. randle was sloppy. in his record wa keeping. it does not establish that his failure to disclose was intentional and down for an improper purpose. i look forward to our deliberations and trust that justice and fairness will be our guiding star. thank you, madam chair. >> does any other member wish to ask a question? mr. welch? >> thank you. this is an important case for the institution and for mr. ra

ngel. the facts are simple. there was improper solicitation. he should not have used his frank and office to solicit funds even though the funds were for a nonprofit educational institution. he should not have been soliciting from entities that had business before congress. i want to come back to that in a moment. the rent stabilization was something that he was not entitled to, and he benefited by. the taxes were due the federal government. he did not pay them. he has acknowledged in each case that his record keeping was sloppy, that he breached his responsibility, and his defense is not a defense, because his failure to keep records is not a defense to meet obligations.

what he is saying is that he did not seek and solicit any money for his personal benefit. also, members of this body to solicit for educational institutions that are named after themselves, a practice that should never have been allowed in this congress. it was the manner in mitch -- in which mr. rangel did that got him in trouble. the process here was long and complicated, i thought it caused a lot of concern on the part of the american public. that is essentially what happened. the question that we face is now sanctions. as mr. chandler said we have an obligation to the institution and we have an obligation to be judges and fair to mr. rangel.

this committee will make its recommendations and a whole body will make its decision. that is rare that a member of congress is hall before the committee and then stands in front of the entire body, whether reprimand or censure, and has read before the congress of the united states and the people of united states a recommendation of a public penalty. i would caution we aren't going to make our decision on that, but i would caution those of us on that committee, and all of us in congress that this is not the end of it for the american people, because when we have a system where in fact corporations, individuals, contribute money, eachnd everyone of us, because of the position we are to pay, -- we ought to apply -- we occupy, and

with the enormous amount of money and politics that the fix is in one way or the other, we can act as a body to do everything we can up all the roles and ethical standards of this institution. that requires us to be strict and enhance those obligations and come down and call it as we seek it as far as congressman rangel is concerned. that may do something to restore credibility, but it will not be end of it because when people are trying to pare their bills and look at those of us who have high positions of responsibility, who received the nation's and where money is so -- a big part of the process, republican, democrat, independent, the question with the body is doing, it is meeting its highest goal, and that his work on their behalf. mr. rangel, you lead an

extraordinary life, you were wrong side of the tracks. you're only way was to enlist in the military. you were in a brutal war. he nearly died in korea. he could not get a job because of the color of your skin. did not get discouraged. you got married. you have a wonderful marriage and a great family. you have earned the respect of the people of harlem. you have been an inspiration to generations of people. you find yourself now, having lost the price that you sought for so long, the chairmanship of the ways and means committee of this united states congress. you know you will soon be standing before the entire congress. i want to give you an opportunity to express whatever

it is you want to say to the people of your district that i know you care so much about and who looked up to you for so long. >> let me apologize to the committee. i was standing in korea, and god

has given me a deep appreciation and the opportunity to serve, and i do not know how much longer i have to live, but it will always be to try to help people at to thank god for what he has given to me. hopefully, i will share it with others, and i believe this action to you as relates, and i apologize to all for the disgrace i have caused you. i hope no matter what you decide, and the sanctions that you put will for, that charles rangel never sought any personal gain. i have been overpaid in terms of the satisfaction i have

gotten for everything i have ever done. please make certain that my name, notwithstanding the imagination -- the machinations that some people may have, there is no way to stretch this that i was a corrupted individual that i would bring shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the country. i will leave that up to you as to what is fair in terms of sanctions. and i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that are not before this committee. what the press has done to me and my community and my family is totally unfair. counsel, all of you know it, and

it is not your responsibility to correct them. but they will continue to call me a crow and charge me with being correct. i do hope that no matter what used the site in the sanctions that you might see your way clear to see that this member has served with all of you was not corrupt and there is no excuse for my behavior and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. i never attempted to enrich myself, and that i walk away no matter what your decision, grateful that i had this opportunity to serve, and recognize that had it not been lifeot's gift in saving my

that i would not even be here today to talk about my life. thank you for this moment an opportunity to express myself, and i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused you individually or collectively as a as a member of the greatest institution in the country and a world. >> the gentleman's time has expired. there are no further requests for question spir. >> it appears we have moved into the deliberation phase of what we're trying to do. if we go back behind that door, then nothing said back there will be known. am i confused -- we have had statements about positions of

sanctions and do not know what to do it. >> we have had a number of statements made throughout the day, and at this point we will recess to executive session to deliberate as indicated at the beginning of this meeting thank you.

>> 20 minutes ago the house ethics committee recommended congressman charles rangel be censured. the house will likely consider the center after thanksgiving. if it passes, congressman rangel will have to stand on the house floor before his colleagues while a resolution condemning his actions is read. you can see all this starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-

span. estivate the house republicans chose their leadership for the 112th congress, which begins next year, which republicans assuming the majority. they chose john boehner as speaker. he wrote a briefing, unveiling the leadership team. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. we have a new majority, and the new leadership team. this is not about us.

it is about the american people because the american people who are in charge. they want a congress that focuses on the people's par piece. cutting spending, creating jobs, and making sure congress does its work. republicans have made a pledge to america to listen to the people and to focus on their priorities, and that is exactly what we are going to do. we will focus on creating jobs, cutting spending, and reforming the way congress does tickets businesses. we will fight for a more accountable government in washington, d.c. today republicans adopted and ban, which shows that we are serious about ending business as usual here in washington, d.c. we hope the president will work with us on these priorities. i am proud of the leadership

team that our members have elected. we have a team that represents a broad consensus of our party, the broad diversity of our party, and i am looking forward to working with them on dealing with priorities that the american people sent us here to do. a not good afternoon. we republicans are a very energized to assume the responsibility that the majority will for us in the congress. we realize the public has given us a second chance, a golden opportunity to live up to the exhortations that the voters have for this congress and our party. we are going to be a results- driven congress. job one is for us to cut the federal spending and to remove the uncertainty that has been hampering job creation over the

last several years in this country. this congress in the 112th congress will be about the incredibly large class that will defect that reform and change the culture of the way this place works. today the conference took the position that demonstrates our commitment to that reform, and that is with the adoption of the extension of the moratorium on your marks -- earmarks. as the leader said he team that is fresh, ready to get to work. with us today you will see tim scott from south carolina, and also the newly elected chairman, jeff hensarling, along with kevin mccarthy, along with

others who have served before. >> as the speaker laid out, we are listening to america speaking out. never once did we ask anyone which party they were affiliated with, just as long as they were an american. people voted on the ideas, the beaded the ideas in an open format. as that was the process, that was going to be on the floor of congress. we laid out a pledge that we thought would turn this country around. unfortunately, the majority party would not allow it to come to the floor. the strongest part of the flash -- pledge where that america is an idea. the voters laid out a concise message that they want to see change in washington. no one sitting up here believes

the republicans won a majority, and only in america are we don't -- are we given a second chance. we will have to earn it. our focus will be about creation, reducing spending, and changing and reforming congress itself. we understand the power is with the people. they put it on loan every two years, and they watch it closely. that is why you see a lot of new faces. it does not matter what part of the freshman class comes from, this is more a national message than ever before. we're putting the team together to make sure that we are able to carry out what they told us. >> the american people spoke loudly on election day. they want a federal government that is less intrusive and more

accountable. more importantly, they said we want to save the american dream, and that dream where people -- where children can have great opportunities and a brighter future than we have had. we the republicans in the house of representatives heard this message loud and clear. we understand this is not an affirmation of us, but in many respects a rejection of the policies of the president, the speaker, and the senate majority leader. where humbled at the responsibility of the american people have given us can indeed it is a second chance. we look forward to getting to work on behalf of the american people. among the freshman class is not just historic in size. we hope to be his work in the results. we ran on campaigns saying we were ordinary people.

we're running businesses, raising families, faced with the tough situations and decisions that this administration was ving in the us -- was leading us with. we ran campaigns and past the people to not listen to what was said, watch what we do when we are elected. we are a diverse class. we are united as a class. we will follow through to make sure that we get government under control, that we give it to the american people, that we quit spending money that we do not have and make sure that we will do what is right for our children, grandchildren, and our future. >> people said they could not pay higher taxes.

families told me this, as they sat across the kitchen table of they are struggling to keep their budget together. they asked will you please govern a transparent campaign. our commitment as the republican party is to listen to the american people and today we start that conversation. >> yes, we will ask them some questions. -- we will answer some questions. >> are you in alignment with him and will put us on cruise control -- [unintelligible] >> it is a shame that the democratic congress did not pass in the appropriation bills. now we are left with nothing but bad choices about how to fund

the government. we are under a continuing resolution, which i would describe as at excess of levels. we have made clear what we are interested in is less spending. i said in september that moving spending bills at 2008 spending levels was about the right size. i am more focused on cutting spending than in terms of what type of vehicle might move in it. >> the committee recommended censure for congressman rangel. you think that is appropriate for the violations, and the you think the house should vote on this or wait until next year? >> i believen the ethics committee process. it is the only bipartisan committee in the congress, and the fact that the committee has, to an agreement on a proper

sanction for congressman rangel i have wholeheartedly support it. i believe that congressman rangel would want a faster process than what was afforded him by the committee, and i believe that dealing with this responsibly is in the best interest of the institution. >> some republicans saying that you guys were ambushed by the president back in january. >> we have a meeting scheduled in january on november 30, and we are looking forward to it. >> we will see a vote on repealing health-care bills, and that the plant in terms of taking votes on that issue next year? >> we think that obama care

needs to be repealed and replaced with reforms to bring down the cost of health insurance, and you will see us move quickly enough. >> due to the fact that general motors has a new stock offering, in is there anyone on thistate that believes that the government house actions regarding general motors saved any jobs? >> the government house reaction to general motors and a bailout from the government, i think could have been handled in a more orderly way by a bankruptcy judge without the heavy hand some of the federal government in the mix of it. when you look at the people who lost, because of the government house actions, we are talking about the tens of thousands of americans who were punished as a result of the government house actions.

>> is the legitimate for a lame duck session to vote on legislation such as the ask the tell, and with the republican congress repealed that next year who, every legislative body goes to the possibility of a lame- duck session from time to time. i believe that the u.s. congress has gotten into a very bad habit of having these lame duck congress as, and i have to believe this might be the fifth consecutive congress where we have had a lame-duck session. while there is a business that needs to be done, i would hope the leaders still in charge would heed the advice of the american people that occurred on election day. in terms of being prudent in their actions here before the end of the year. >> can you tell us the latest on the efforts to extend the bush-era tax cut? >> i believe we should extend

all the current tax rates for all americans. >> do you think this congress will do it in a lame duck or do it next year? >> it should do it before it adjourns. >> what do you think about joe barton's request for a waiver? >> i think it is up root for a new majority to look at how we can best do our work on behalf of the american people. i think the conversation under way that involves half of our committees is a dialogue we should have. mr. barton is free to come to the steering committee and ask for a waiver, just like any

other member in that circumstance. >> it was reported that when the incoming freshmen had objected to have a meeting with the new members, having to wait a full month before their health care benefits kick in. is there a contradiction there? >> i am not familiar with the conversation. >> can you help us understand the discussion you are having with her freshman about a vote that might not be easy for them, to raise the debt limit? >> i have made it clear to them that congress will have to deal with this. we will have to deal with it as adults, whether we like it or not. the government has obligations, and we have obligations on our part. we will have time over the coming months to discuss that issue and how we might move such

an issue. this conversation have not started yet. >> [unintelligible] >> president obama announced the government is on track to recoup all its investment in general motors after the company returned to the new york stock exchange with an initial public are faring. his remarks are about five minutes. >> hello, everybody. good afternoon. today one of the toughest tales of the recession took another big step toward becoming a success story.

general motors relaunched itself as a public company. american taxpayers are in a position to recover more than my administration invested in gm, and that is a good thing. last year we told management and workers if they've made the tough decisions necessary to make themselves more competitive in the 21st century, decisions were acquiring the issuer, fresh thinking, and shared sacrifice, then we would stand by them. because they did, the american auto industry, an industry that has been the symbol of america's manufacturing might for a century, an industry that helped build our middle class, is once again on the rise. automakers are in the midst of their strongest. of job growth in more than a decade. since they emerged from bankruptcy the industry has created more than 75,000 new

jobs. for the first time in six years, ford, gm, and chrysler are all operating at a profit. last week gm announced its best quarter in over 11 years. most importantly, american workers are back at the assembly line manufacturing the high- quality fuel-efficient american- made qualities -- american-made cars of tomorrow. two years ago this seemed impossible. there were plenty of naysayers who said it cannot be done. independent estimates suggested that had we taken that step, had been given up, we would have lost more than 1 million jobs across all 50 states. it would have resulted in economic chaos, devastating communities across the country, cost the government tens of

billions of dollars in additional social safety net benefits and lost revenue. that was not an acceptable option. it is not what we do. this is a country of optimistic and determine people who do not give up when times are tough. we do what is necessary to move forward. these last two years have not been easy on anybody. they have not been without pain or sacrifice, as the tough restructuring of gm reminds us. we still have a long road ahead and a lot of work to do to rebuild this economy, put people back to work, make america more competitive for the future, and to secure the american dream for our children and grandchildren. but we are beginning to see some of these tough decisions that we've made in the midst of crisis pay off, and i am absolutely confident we will keep on making progress. i believe we will get through this tougher and stronger than

we were before, because as i have faith in the ability of our workers to persevered and succeed, i have faith in the american people to persevere and succeed, and i have faith that america's best days and american manufacturing best days are in front of us. i want to embarrass a couple of people, ron and brian are key members of the team that helped to engineer this rescue of gm and chrysler. had it not been for these two gentlemen, a whole lot of people might have been out of work right now. we're proud of them and i think you can see they are sheepish that i can point them out to you. thank you very much, everybody. [unintelligible]

>> this afternoon the house ethics committee recommended censure of congressman charles rangel of the house. at 8:00 we will hear all the proceedings here on c-span. a vote to extend unemployment benefits fell in the house today because it did not get the two- thirds majority needed to pass. an extension of benefits and that the this summer started december 1. the 80 reports benefits will run out for people during the holiday season unless they are renewed. 21 republicans joined democrats. 11 democrats opposed the bill. here is some debate from today on that.

suspend the rules and pass emergency unemployment compensation continuation act, h.r. 6419, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6419, a bill to amend the supplemental appropriations act, 2008, to provide for the further extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from la, mr. boustany, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, this is called an emergency bill because it's an emergency. for millions of people, this is an emergenc

unemployment benefits will run out in a few days. therefore it's an emergency for the united states of america. and let me just indicate what's at stake here. through january 1 of next year, close to two mlion people wil not any longer beligible for benefits. and then a month later the amount almost doubles. this is an emergency. i received a call last night i was in my office at :30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia -- at 9:30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia, to thank me and to thank mr. mcdermott and to thank our party

for bringing up this extension. i don know what more any of us want. i don't see how we can go home for thanksgiving when as a result of failure ofenefits hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it. and the next week may n have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. this should be a bipartisan effort. this is a totally human effort. this is totally an urgent effort. these are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. for every job at least five people are looking for

employment for that job. i don't know what other evidence needs to be brought here. it can be stated very briefly and directly. if the two million people who are going to lose their benefs looking for work were brought here so we could see them, would anyone vote no? would anyone vote no? do we need the two million here? can we put ourselves in their homes, in their shoes, in their places with their families, with their children? this is an emergency. this house must act. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: as yogi berra said , this bill is like deja vu all over again and not in a good way. the bill before us today is a ninth extension of unemployment benefits sin mid 2008. benefits recently stretched up to 9 weeks or almost two years in most states. and with the exception of just one billion, last november every one of those extensions was not paid for. that's a total of $135 billion added to our $14 trillion debt. meanwhile, our democrat colleagues swore their policies would create jobs but they haven't. instead of paychecks, millions of americans were left with only an unemployme check.

in february of 2009,he president signed the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus plan. democrats at that time promised that the plan would create 3.7 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate to 7% by now. none of that happened. instead, over two million private sector jobs were lost and unemployment has spiked to 10% while the debt has grown by almost $3 trillion. a total of 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since this democrat stimulus billassed. here we are again extending unployment benefits because the demrats' trillion dollar stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs that they promised it would. but even more sadly, instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $12 billion to our current mountain of debt and we can do better than this. we certainly can do better than this. both republicans and democrats

support helping long-term unemployed. the chairman of the committee expresd a great deal of empathy in his opening statement. we share that empathy. every one of our congressional offices has dealt with families dealing with this tragedy of unemployment. but republicans and even some democrats want to sonsably p for these benefits. in fact, there are sufficient unspent stimulus funds to do just that and cover the $12 billion cost of the bill before us. this is not a new republican idea or a new idea, this is something we have discussed before. but the other side insists on bringing this forward unpaid for. the chairman of the senate finance committee has proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain measures. last june the democrat leader himself, mr. hoyer, admitted there was spending fatigue across the couny and that if, i quote, if we have dollars not

yet expended in the recovery act they should be applied to new spending like this, end quote. that would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in spending an debt that has already cost us an estimated one million jobs. the fact is we can both provide this help and pay for it. by cutting less effective stimulus spending. that's what we should be debating today and not a bill called up under special rules that permit no amendmen and no chance to offer ways to pay for this. even if this were to pass, the sad thing is there are no plans in the senate for a vote on this bill any time soon. so the fact of the matter is this bill is going nowhere. the american people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overgrown -- overdrawn national credit card. they want -- we all want to help those in need.

but the american people also know someone has to payhen government spends money. and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren. madam speaker, the american people sent us re to do a job. we should pay for this spending today. we can pay for this spending today. there is no reason why we couldn't bring a bill forward with a way to do this. a way to pay for it. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today and instead let's work together to quickly pass the bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from louisiana, the people of this country looking for work don't want empathy. they want unemployment insurance that they worked for. and you're standing in the way.

don't send them empathy. send them what they worked for. i now yield four minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from washington, and i ask permission that the balance of my time be taken by the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington will control the time and is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i ask what the division ofinutes is at the moment? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: on the republican side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 15 1/2 minutesemning. mr. mcdermott: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 6419 which will extend current unemployment insurance benefits

through february of next year and provide much needed help to unemployed americans during the holiday season. from the beginning of the unemployment insurance program 75 years ago, we have never cut off benefits for out-of-work americans where the unemployment rates have been this high. without this extension, temporary federal extended benefits will shut down shortly after thanksgiving, the 27th, and denying benefits to two million of our fellow citizens over the holiday season. it's unthinkable to me that we could allow these benefits to last during the holiday ason and before the economic recovery is on solid ground. despite the severity of the republican economic collapse, which started under mr. bush, there have been 10 straight months of private sector growth under this democratically controlled congress and administration.

despite the huge accomplishment of digging the american economy out of the republican economic ditch, two of the americans remain unemployed. there is still only one available job for every five unemployed americans. to make matters worse, the president's now carrying reports that employers around the country are refusing to hire the unemployed. they are saying to the unemployed, we want to hire somebody who has a job to come over and fill our job. because we know you were laid off because you weren't a good employee and that's why they let you go. we don't want to hire people who aren't worth anything. thas the message that's going out in this country to the unemployed. and many of those people are middle class people who worked very hard and through no fault of their own their industries collapsed. banking, housing direct results

of what the bush administration did or didn't do, really, that is regulate wall street. unfortunately the republicans who already made it clear that instead of helping the middle class one of their top rightors is to give millionaires and billionaires a huge $700 billion break. now, the same people who are saying this should be paid for will be out on this floor sometime in the next couple of weeks sing, we don't have to pay for a tax break, why that will just -- that will pump jobs into the world. all we have to do is cut taxes everywhere and we give $700 billion to people who make more than a half a million dollars a year, that's ok. but an unemployment check for somebody to keep bread on the table and keep their mortgage paid is not ok.

we can't not fund that. thiis an emergency. people who talk like that on the floor of this house have never been unemployed or never have known anybody who was unemployed. you would not talk that way about unemployed people if you knew them. now, is should give every middle-class american a lot to think about the results of this last election. this is your first chance to observe what you can expect in he next two years. the majority leader -- the minority leader in the other body said, my number one priority is to prevent barack obama from having a second term. not public policy, not jobs for people, not health care for people, but political games. and that's what this is all about. the experts agree, two out of every threpeople who get unemployment benefits are in the middle class we are not talking about people

who weren't trying or weren't working or doing their part as americans. while the republicans were bankrupting the country to help the rich with one hand, giving tax breaks all over the place, the republicans were using the other hand to push the unemployed middle class of america out of their homes and never dealt with the foreclosure issue to prevent them from having food on the table and keep their children from being properly clothed. . on the campaign trail republicans called the unemployed lazy. you have never met an unemployed person or you would never say that a second time to them. they say unemployment benefits spoil out of work americans. they get lazy and sit around the house and wait for their unemployment checks. those checks aren't that big in the first place an secondly, people don't like to be unemployed in this country.

people look for work and they're looking for work and they're now being told, you've been out of work for two years, we don't want you, we want somebody who already has a job over here. some republicans question the constitutionality of the unemployment insunce program. the health and welfare of the american people is unconstitutional, according to some people. fortunately, the american people don't feel the same way. a recent poll showed that 86% of americans believe e unblowed really want to work. that's what the people think. that's not the political rhetoric of people running for election. but that's what the people really think. the election is over now and americans are havsaid, we want both parties to work together to get things done and do it by listening to the american people. americans don't want to push american families whose breadwinners lost their jobs

through no fault of their own into poverty during the holidays. i think we should end these debates and extend benefits longer and allow benefits to be scaled back on the economy as the economy impves. the reason we've had all these votes out here is cause the senate is unable to do anything. we've tried to extend this for extended periods of time and over in the senate they can think, let's extend it for a month. see if we can starve them for a month. they let this program lapse for three months over there. and you're telling me that we're going to work together. i think we ought to work together. the short-term extension is an effort to see if our republican colleagues will support any kind of helpor the unemployed. i'm told by the other side that there's no plans in the senate to take up this bill. well, they're waiting to see if we can get it out of here.

if you don't help, maybe it won't get out of here. but the message to four million americans will be, the republican party doesn't care whether you have a chrisas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the first three months of the next year. i hope my republican colleagues will join the american people in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. >> madam speaker, we're hearing oversimplifications from the other side. mr. boustany: this is not one of those either you pass it or you don't types of issues here. we could pay for this. and the sad thing is, all i'm hearing on the other side is a great deal of cynicism. furthermore, look the american people have spoken about this. they are sayingwe've got oget a handle on national debt if

we're going to get the economy going again and create jobs because the american people want paychecks. they want good-paying jobs they want an end to this uncertainty. we have information from the mcarthur foundation, a very respected organization, they released a poll showing that 70% of voters in month's leches say it's important to reduce the national debt. overwhelmingly, voters want us to reduce the debt by cutting spending. instead of dng this, fiscally responsible thing and paying for this new spending which we could very easily do, the bill before us today does exactly the opposite. it adds $12 billion to our nation's debt in a program that's already added $135 billion to the national debt. the sad thing is, madam speaker, we could extend these unemployment benefits and we could pay for them. look, the bill reflects, i think, a very cynical political maneuver by the democratic leadership because they know

that the senate has no plans to pass this unpaid for bill. we've been down this path before. in fact, the liberal "huffington post" has broke then code on what's going on here. there was a recent headlines, jobless benefits about to lapse as senate democrats mull strategy. that was the headline on tuesday. and, quote, no plans in senate for a vote on unemployment benefits, read the headline yesterday. the quote senator -- to quote senator reid fr rhode isld, a democratic leader on the legislatn, i quote, at this point it's not been scheduled. i can't point a specific time it will come up for a vote this week. end quote. the american people are tired of the cynicism and they want answers. the sad thing is, there's a simple answer on this one. unlike many of the other problems our country is facing, which are much more complex. we could extend unemployment benefits and we could pay for

it. but our friends on the other side of the aisle currently control the house, control the senate, kohl the white house and they can't even get their act together do this. -- contl the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. especially since there are republicans who one willing to do this extension if it were paid for. there is a way to pa for it, yet our friends across the aisle refuse to see this. i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i use 30 additionaseconds. my friend on the other side clearly understands, i'm sure, the legislative proce. we put a bill over to the senate, they can make a change. if theyant to pay for it, they can pay for it. they are safe. they're comfortable. because they know you're going to stop the bill. or try to stop the bill. they know that the house republicans are determined that they're not going to let this bill through here. so they say, all right, we can

say we have -- we won't do anything with it. my opinion is if we put a bill over there, they'll pa a bill. i yield two minutes to mr. davis. mr. davis: spaung, mr. chairman. i believe the american people want to work. those who are unemployed want jobs. those who are out of work want employment benefits. i don't think that there is any excuse that could be given. there's no reason that one can conjure up. i would say to a person who is unemployed, out of work, have no -- has no food, can't pay their mortgage, can't enjoy the holidays, that there is a reason, especially since they have worked, that they can't have benefits to get them

through this season on an emergency basis. i'm amazed. i'm dumbfounded, i can't believe that i'm hearing what i'm hearing. that somehow or another, the democrats,n a technical sense, are keeping individuals from getting unemployment benefits. would hope that we could change our minds, change our positions, and know that when we do this for the least of these, then we're doing the work that we ought to be doing. let's pass this measure to provide benits to the unemployed and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will take this opportunity to remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker.

i want to remind our friends on the other side that in the past when they did bring the bill up on suspension, it failed and yet when u did on one occasion bring it up on regular order, it did pass. we all have to work hard to listen to the will of the american people. yesterday, speaker pelosi herself id, i quote, our consensus is we go out there listening to the american people, it's about jobs -- it's about jobs, it's about reducing the defics, end quote. yet here we are again today being asked to increase the deficit by another $12 billion, another $160 million in debt for every family of four in the united states, just for three months of benefits under one program. all of the -- all on top of the $.8 million of debt we wracked up since president obama took office. the question, madam speaker, is , is the speaker really

listening to the american ople? what we heard eaier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but noadd a mountain of debt that we are currently leaving to our children and grandchildren. the sad thing again, i are repeat, the sad thing is, we can achieve both goals today. we could have. the congressional budget office has informed us there's enough unspent stimulus spending that we can cut to cover the additional spending in this bill. it's unconscionable that the other side has not hea the american people about the concerns about unfettered debt passed on to o children and grandchildren. again, mr. hoyer this past summer suggested we do just that, in june, he said, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, they should be applied to new spending like this. in july, 59 democrats signed a

letter saying, and i quote, extending critical economic investments is no more important than paying for them. america is facing a debt crisis that is threatening to underme our economic and national security. we can no longer afford to exacerbate the problem because the decisions about how to pay for what we spend are getting harder, unquote. this one is so easy, we have a way to pay for it. yet the majority chose to bring this to the floor unpaid for and without an opportunity to even offer an amendment. so i ask our colleagues on the other side are you listening to the american people? madam speaker, are they even listening to each other? and do they agree with the speaker that it's about debt? all we're hearing are mixed signals. if so, join us in voting down this unpaid for bill and working together on a new bill which we could do very quickly

that does right by the unemployed as well as our children and grandchildren. that's what the american people expect of us today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: can you tell us how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has seven minutes main, the gentleman from louisiana has nine and a half minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the joint economic committee, ich i chair, released a report today that finds that if congress fails to extend the federal unemployment insurance benefits program, the unintended consequences could be extremely serious. serious, not just for the two million americans who would see their benefits expire in december, but extremely serious for the larger economy as well.

prematurely ending the program would drain our economy of some $80 billion in purchasing power. just as our fragile economy is beginning to recover. this would result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year. even now, there are five americans looking for work for every job opening in the land. and more than 40% of those unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. including over 159,000 in new yk state with some 95,000 in my home of new york city. choosing to vote against an extensionndhus add a million americans to the ranks of the unemployed cannot possibly be considered as a wise economic policy choice.

the nonpartisan congressional budget office ranks the stimlative effects of unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies to reduce growth that they have studied. and the president's council soft economic advisors estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic producby $1.60. economists predict that without extended benefits, the economy will suffer, consumer spending will fall by .5%, and economic growth will be reduced by almost a half of a percent. the facts and the numbers in the -- i request five seconds. mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: the facts and numbers in the new report make it clear that extending this

program benefits those who need our help most,enefits the larger economy, and thus benefits us all. so i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thk you, madam speaker. i, again, say there was a way to pay for this. we have to be frank with the american people on this. jobless benefits have cost so far $319 billion, and yet unemployment is still at 9.6% and we've seen really nothing coming from the other side who controlled the majority of the house, controlled the senate, controlled the white house. we've seen nothing to help small businesses get going again. we've seen nothing to promote competitivive -- competitivess in the economy. it is unpaid for.

nothing -- there was an agreement. we're saying let's do it in a resnsible way and pay for it. you know, it wasn't always this way. this is the ninth attempt to extend this progra, and when democrats passed their only paid for unemployment insurance extender bill in november of 2009, the only one that was paid for, the administration, the obama administration hailed that fiscally -- i quote, fiscally responsible approach to extending unemployment insurance, end quote, add, again, quote, fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs, end quote. that was from the administration's statement of policy about the democrats' one paid for u.i. extension bill, which was h.r. 3548. 156 republicans supported that

november, 2009, bill. but the administration's only logic, democrats had an irresponsible bill which increases the deficit by an estimated $12 billion undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the sad thing, madam speaker, is this -- we could extend unemploymentenefits and pay for it. this is not a hard one. there are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty. republicans are ready to move forward and get th country going in and to restore american competitiveness, but i see our friends on the other side of the aisle are up to their old ways. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i have no further speakers, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam spear, i believe we concluded debate on our side of the aisle, and i'm

prepared to yield back if the gentleman prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. boustany: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington to close. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i found that the other side is very adroit at finding some reason not to help the middle class. now, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the people in this country are not interested in cutting off food and housing and medical coverage for people o are unemployed in this country. and do use these arguments, well, we're going to get the money from the stimulus money, i defy anybody on this floor at

this moment to stand up and tell me where that stimulus money is and what the impact would be if you cut it. because that money was allocated to various agencies, some to purchase -- pay salaries for school teachers, some to pay salaries for policemen and firemen and local government, some to pay the states for medicaid. all this money is out there. maybe some of it hasn't yet been spent, but it's allocated. some of it is for construction projects. i suppose you, like that governor in new jersey, who really think it's politically smart to stop a public works project on the hson river because then he can use that money to pave potholes in new jersey and he puts the construction workers out all over the place, out of work. those infrastructure projects, you n't spend l the money on the first day.

it does take a little while to build it and you pay it out as you build it. now, u know that. you're -- republicans aren't -- they're not -- they're just being deceptive. they think because it still is there in the treasury it can be used for something else. it might have been committed for something else, but not my republican friends. this emergency that these 4.5 million people have over here who have no benefits coming by the end of march, you folks understand that you shouldn't worry about this. i mean, the speaker -- the speaker will explain it to you that they -- you just have to wait until we find where that money is in the budget. this is an emergency for people who have no check coming. now, we would l like this thing to be all over. there isn't anybody on this floor, republican or democrat,

who wouldn't like the mess that was created by the bush administration to be over with. it isn't. and the problem is a guy in my district is, jim, i can tell you what the problem with america is, and your republican side has a bad dose of this. he says it's the belief in the microwave. if they have a problem they come down to the refrigerator, they open the refrigerator, pull something out, open the microwe, throw it in, push two buttons and then they have lunch. they think everything can be solved like that. it took eight years for mr. bush to create the mess that we e dealing with, and it's not going to be over in 30 sonds like the microwave nner is. and the fact is that you got people who contradict you directly, the real budget. no one's ever going to accuse me of being a big budget

warrior or deficit warrior. but the president of the concord coalition, the organization dedicated to eliminating federal budget deficits said, and i close, as a deficit hawk, i wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. it's not going to add to the long-term structural debt, deficit and it does address a serious need. i just feel like unemployment benefits wandered into the wrong street corner at the wrong time and now they're getting mugged. and he's absolutely right. for us to pick on the unemployment benefits as the problem for this deficit, wait until we have thdebate on taxes on this floor, and i hear people whining around here about people making more than half a million dollars and we havto give them a tax cut. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 6419.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6419 azzammed. -- as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. boustany: we would like a recorded vote, the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. boustany: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisenthe yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.hosta

murphy, as the washington legislative director for the aclu. thank you for being here. this headle basically says it all, "the denver post" -- the head of the tsa testified on capitol hill yesterday. here is a portion of what he had to say. >> if your question is do i understand the sensitivities of people? the answer is yes. will i change the policies? my answer is no.

latest efforts have forced us to do this. i will not change policies. host: how do we dealith safety, security of passengers, and your civil-rights? guest: they are not mutually exclusive. we are never going to have a system that is 100% foolproof. we have to make decisions as a nation to select programs that are effective. the aclu has concerns abouthe effectiveness and about civil liberties, when it comes to these pat downs, and when it comes to these body scanners that are a virtual strip search. since the end of october, the tsa has been involved in very aggressive pat downs. a lot of people have found them to be offensive. even some senators on the panel

had been subjected to these pat downs and felt uncomfortable by them. we think the tsa should select the least intrusive measures but also understand people have a concern about their privacy as well as safety. host: what would those measures be? guest: first of all, we have to understand that at we have in place is not foolproof. the body scanners do not detect liquid, plastics that are held close to the body. the christmas day bomber who had something in his underpants. these scanners may not detect that sort of thing. we need to have equipment tha we think is really going to protect people and search them

carefully and observe their privacy. host: if you look at the patterns of safety getting on the plane, there was the shoe bomber, we have to take our shoes off, the underwear bomber, and now this. it seems they a figuring out how to avert the problem and keep passengers safe. guest: yes, but they are in a reactive mode. in 2004, there were some russian women who put some explosive devices under their coats. then the tsa adopted an intrusive p down. american fliers became outraged. they backed away fromhat. we cannot get into a situation where we have the scrutiny of the moment that is reactive. we need scrutiny that is thorough, fair, but effective. i do see on the part of tsa this

reactionary thing. as you said, first it was shoes, then body grouping, we are back on that again. we have to make up our mind. a lot of the security that takes place at airport happened well in advance of arriving at the airport. we have to improve cargo screening, baggage screening. we cannot have a bunch of machines that cost $200,000, an additional $150,000 to train people on, that effectively will not find the underwear bomber. host: the headlines today showing some of the backlash about these new regulations. the question is how you thread the needle between safety and security and also avoid being treated like a criminal. >> right, they are very

invasive. i have gone through them, members of congress have, they are upsetting. women have to understand, if you wear a dress, they have permission to put their hand up your dress. their breasts will be touched. men have to understand that their fans will be turned down at the waistband to look at things being held underneath the clothes. this is upsting for people who have been victims of sexual assault, people who do not believe in this type of thing because of religious beliefs. we have a complicated system and we have to ask yourself, is this the most effective way to ensure our security? host: these are some pictures from denver airport. again, how do you thread the needle, how do you make sure that someone does not have a bomb hidden in a private part,

which has happened? what is the solution? guest: people need to understand what the rules are before they get to the airport. i do not think tsa has done an adequate job of telling people about these screening devices. there have been questions raised about the safety of these scanners. airline pilots are concerned about repeatedly going through these screening devices and being exposed to radiation. i tnk it is a difficult challenge. i am not saying we have the perfect solution but i can tell you machines who do not find what the underwear bomber had are not solutions either. host: we will get to your phone calls. you can join the conversation by twitter or by sending us an e- mail. anita from mississippi. good morning.

caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. i thought you all were discriminating against mississippi. this is what i have to say. i have no problem with the path down, no problem going through the machine. i have a problem with people who abuse that authority. i flew from washington, d.c. into mississippi. the young lady told me, you have to go through a pat down. she said i had to go to the machine. i was fine with all of that. i went through the machine, i turned around. i turned the way they told me to turn. then when i came through, she said she had to pat me down. i missed my flight because of that. i even had to take my bra off.

i exposed almost all of my body thinking that this would rush me through and i still missed my flight. she was not nice about it at all to the point where i sat down and i called my congressman. i got her name and that number. i have no problem going through the machine. this particular person was mean. she was not nice at all. guest: the aclu has received over 400 complaints in the last two weeks. if you go to aclu.org, we are looking at what we can do. tsa employees are not being properly trained on these scanners.

the inspector general said these individuals are not being properly trained, so incidences like this one can happen. they are under a lot of pressure. it is a tedious job. they are concerned about their exposure to radiation. they are concerned about whether or not management will back them up when they do intrusive searches. there needs to be much more public education, more training, and we need rules and guidance that are publicly published that tell us what the tsa is and is not allowed to do, and also gives the public records. we do not believe the tsa has adequate complaint mechanisms, and that is why the aclu is being overrun with complaints. host: a follow up on that.

when e-mail asks why there are not changing glovesetween pat downs. they could be spreading disease. guest: when you are talking about millions of travelers the day, you have 400 of these scanning machines, virtual strip searches. they are not in every airport. you have crushes of people try to get through security. i do not understand the situation with the gloves. i would urge viewers to complain to their members of congress, but also to fill out the aclu.org tsa complaint form. host: next phone call from a landfill lakes. -- lando lakes. caller: what about people with

disabilities? i have a disability where i have a pouch on the outside of my body. i would never go near any of these searches. it would be modifying. i know i am not the only one in this situation. -- it woulde mortifying. how is it going to work if these people do not even have proper training, the mail before about not changing gloves? what will be the protocol for people like me with disabilities? asked that glad you question. mastectomy scars, pinel implants, all of that can be seen by these scanners. we need to make sure that these images are not retained.

in the u.s. marshals service, for example, images were retained, thsands of images of people going through courthouses. we need to make sure tsa is not keeping these images. people with disabilities have also been complaining to the aclu, especially if they are in wheel chairs, they are going through extraordinary delays being patted down, being separated from their wheelchair. we are taking your complaints and we are analyzing them, but the aclu alone does not have the power to amend the government practices. we want to work with congress to look into tsa practices to see that they are respective of people's civil liberties. as i said before, that not mutually excluve. host: we have some new followers

on our twitter page. we urge all of you to log on. guest: is interesting -it is interesting. you are not getting the same level of screening atailways than you do at airports. i think railws, metro systems, buses, cruise ships, are just as vulnerable as airports. we need a method that is just as consistent that allows people to understand what it is they have to do as a condition of traveling. that allows passengers to have more of a bill of rights in that context. host: mary poses thi question

and point of view. guest: i do not know that answer. i know there is sometimes a revolving door in these agencies where high-level officials will be hired to, really, sell equipment and contractors d services -- contractor services. i think there needs to be more insight. the house says they need more inght. this ione area where we need more insight so there are no abuses. host: joe calling us from upstate new yor, rome, new

york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i happen to be a psychotherapist. i have not hrd any discussion of individuals who have been molested, people who have been mistreated. people speak about disabilities but they often forget about mental health issues. i can imagine my of my own patients who would feel they have no choice, whether it is being exposed through the machin have anyone touch them at all. when you come to a airport, nobody knows what your background is, what you are going through. i have not heard this addressed by anyone. i have been an advocate for 40 years in my own practice what i consider impartial parity for mental health individua. i think this needs to be

seriously addressed. we have a ball girl ople who are amending their lives. vulnerable people who are amending their lives. people are trying to cope with their lives and they have to go through this type of thing. i certainly hope the aclu and other organizations, many of which we belong to ourselves, will continue to advocate. this has gotten out of hand. i have people who are frightened. guest: it makes complete sense. one of the things you should know is the tsa director says there is a policy not to search which isunder 12,

reassuring in one sense but a concern to another. how do you stop aerrorist from putting materials on a child? i think we need these random checks. we need machines we believe are going to be secure. i am not sure the machines we have are safe and secure and affective. it seems like this whole practice needs a better explanation and complete process so people can understand what they are getting into and what their recourse is when they feel their rights have been abused. host: the genie on the republican line. pennsylvania.

welcome to the conversation. -- jeannie on the republican line. caller: i was just wondering if computer scientists and these are people, they could just spray something on someone and if they had a bom it would show it. then everybody could just walk through. host: so they just blow up and we watch them? i am not quite sure -- the bomb would go off in the screening area? caller: no, on the person. guest: i think she is making that suggestion in humor. that would be a civil liberties

crisis of even more magnitude, to be sprayed without any due process. i cannot get behind that idea, but i think they were making a humorous attempt. host: next phone call from detroit. caller: good morning. i am a permanent fan of c-span. host: we are cut to hear that. -- glad to hear that. caller: as long as you keep on doing when you are doing, i will. i could be giving away a billion dollar business idea here. how about hazmat uniforms? everybody is talking about increasing airport sizes.

you can increased them by making dressing rooms. guest: there is another idea that would be challenging. who would bear the cost of these hazmat uniforms? people are struggling. the aclu is concerned about passenger safety, preventing terrorism. we are all struggling with this, but i think we can still do a better job than we are doing right n by having a process for complaints, having an explanation about why we are using machinery that, for exple, does not scream for what is in body cavities. there was -- screen for what is in concavities. saudi official whoist officia

was found with things in his body cavity. host: are these scans, full body pat downs unconstitutional? guest: the courts have ruled there is room for something known as administrative searches. if you are in an apartment building and your landlord needs to get in to make sure your kitchen is not on fire, these kinds of searches have been allowed, and courts have given latitude to airports for preventing explosives from occurring at the airport, in danger in the aviation safety and security. -- endangering aviation safety

and security. there are a couple of lawsuits out there challenging tsa on the ability to do this. host: we are talking about tsa pat downs and scanners across the country. a demonstration next wednesday. 42 million travelers on thanksgiving day. guest: the aclu sports people's first amendment rights to protest what we are not endorsing that particular protest. the protest is just an example of the outrage. tsa needs to be more sensiti

to tell lovell of other rich people are feeling. host: congressman duncan hunter expressing that anger yesterday. >> frustration is developing at theirports, and it should. frequent-flier is are upset about getting these frequent doses of radiation. parents are upset about being forced to have their children be repeated or have their children touched by an unrelated adult. there is already plenty of security at the airport but now we are going to spend $30 million to install 1000 scanners. this is much more about money than it is about security. the former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff represents rapiscan is selling these pieces of equipment to the government' to his former employer. the american people should not have to choose between having

full body radiation for a very embarrassing and intrusive pat as ifvery time they applfly, they were common criminals. we need more common sse on this. host: yesterday on the house floor, john duncan of tennessee. guest: this is really a bipartisan issue. ron paul issued legislation yesterday. the commerce committee yesterday was greatly bipartisan in nature. the aclu is a 90-year-old nonpartisan organization committed to defending the bill of rights, civil rights, and we want to work with any member of congress who is concerned about this issue to make sure that we are safe and free. we can be both. we do not think the routine use of these scanners -- first of

all, the scice has not been independently verified for their safety. second, they do not show what is in body cavities. third, as congressman duncan said, are we getting to the point where we are willing to spend every dime the goal of preventing a terrorist attk when we know we cannot prevent every attack? host: laura murphy started working for the aclu in 1993. mike is on the republican line. florida. caller: i know she will probably not like to hear my point of view, but she has talked a lot about the right issues, people arebeing forced through a radiation tunnel. then if we do not accept that,

we have to go through a groping process. we have 2 million people flying every day in america. 2 million people every day are being subjected to a process that is no longer effective because the terrorists change their tactics. the body cavity issue is clearly an issue. we have to get down to the basic thing that will fix this. that is called profiling. i know it is politically incorrect to do, especially for the aclu, but that is what we need. we do not need to subject to million americans, who are not the problem. let's let 2 million people off the hook and get a few people that we can profile and target,

focus on those guys, ieep them off of airplanes, and out of america. guest: i agree with 90% of what you said. the problem i have is with the profiling. i do not think it is effective. most of the profiling people are doing is based on surname and appearance. most of the muslims ithe united states is african- american. i am african-american, seventh geraon american, and i was stopped at the airport in geneva on the way back to the u.s. and a woman asked me, you have the last name murphy, are you sure you are not from ontario or morocco? i said, i am the seventh generation u.s. citizen. she said, you just do not look that way. my family is irish. you do not look irish at all.

the profiling that is going on is very have handed. if you are developing a profile based on people's behavior, that is different. but if you are basing your profile merely on appearance, religion, a country of origin, you are going to gather so many people who are not affiliated with terrorism that you will be wasting law enforcement resources. host: one example from israel -- we can be diligent without being paralyzed from fear. they do a certain type of profiling in that country. guest: i cannot go into the criteria that they used. i know american friends and colleagues who have been detained in israel, who felt the

profile and there was over the top. i do not know what the routine standards and protocols are, so i cannot say we should adopt that system. host: we are talking about body scanners and pat downs now in place at the nation's airports. we are speaking to laura murphy of the au. caller: good morning. i would like to submit two things that will prove this entire tsa draconian searches are a necessary, if you would allow me. every time i hear mention of the christmas day bomber, it infuriates me that they do not go further, the "the detroit press" was helped aboard by a

state department agent. we are looking at a state-run terrorist organization, so that would sort of be a false threat. also, the entire terrorist threat is not as big as we are led on to be. not to say that it is not a problem. but the international >> in which five terabytes of film was released from 9/11, which completely blasted the government's story out of the water, if talking about bombs in the basement. if we need a new investigation. this is where it all stems from. host: i will stop you on that point. did you want to respond?

guest: not really. people have a lot of observations. some stories are rooted in factual discrepancies, and some are conspiracy theories. it is the job of the government to st these things out. it is the job of the informed public. i would urge people to go to the website and type in tsa complaint, and look at some of the documents. host: going back to israel, one of our viewers is saying so what, millions of peoe should be effected because the left does not want torofile? it goes back to the issue of what the alternatives are. what is left to try to make sure people on the plane are safe? guest: i think a lot of the investigation of suspected

terrorists goes on well before they get to the airport. the government has enormous tools to engage in wiretapping and surveillance, and sometimes they have gone too far to put under surveillance peaceful groups that are ncerned about animal rights, or anti-war protesters. so, there is a kind of profiling that is legitimate, that is rooted in probable cause, that is effective. . there is the ham-handed, mass, deal-by-association, religion, or skin color, that is proving to be ineffective. even your top national security officials will tell you that as an effective use of government resources. host: the head of the transportation administration testified yesterday, and was asked a lot of questions about

the airport procedures. here is more from his testimony. >> the use remains optional for travelers, but the quality is not. we to make sure for everyone, all of the traveling public, not when they get on that plane, they have the high confidence that everyone else on that flight has been adequately screened. if everyone else wants to make sure i have been adequately screened. that is what we comdown to invest the balance between privacy and security. host: laura murphy, an issue you talked about earlier. guest: i think tsa has a lot of good people here. it is not about being a bad guy or a good guy, it is about having the rightalance, and we think they are out of balance, that they do not protect

security and privacy to the best of their ability. host: a couple more minutes with our conversation. up next is joe on the phone from san diego. caller: i am a first-time caller. i wanted to comment on something i do not hear many people speaking about in regard to the christmas day bomber. in my opinion, the original airport security we had in place before the body scanners came into play was effective because the thing that prevented him from being able to explode his device was that he was not able to get a detonation device on the plane, along with the explosive compound he had in his underwear. people do not talk about that. our security was working. i do not think these full-body scans will prevent compounds like that from making that on the plane anyway. thank you for taking my call.

guest: i think you raise a good point. i also think, as with the attempted bombing in times square, citizen alertness, and citizen engagement on that airplane, was also crucial to making sure that bomber was not successful. host: our next call is bob on the republican line from arkansas. six of long time lisner -- caller: i am a long time listener. it is the first time i have gotten through. i have a comment. i believe that terrorists have already won by making does go through all these hoops, and my prediction is the next bomber will have all bombing in a bobby -- body cavity. we will be hiring pathologists

at a screening place. host: ok, bob. laura murphy? guest: he has a point. host: bill, from arizona. caller: i am a retired federal police officer. i think the lady from the aclu should check the policies. i know police officers have to follow procedures for searches. what i am seeing at the airports is an exact reversal of that. now, i do not know why the government should be able to do it one way for criminal activities, and then be able to

turn around because you are standing at an airport. host: than you, bill. guest: that is the way it feels, that people are being treated like criminal suspects. there is not the program protocol -- appropriate protocol to go through preliminary steps before people are subjected to th invasive groping. the problem has been that airports have been given greater latitude. basically, you are forced to sign away a certain level of your privacy once you purchase a ticket. host: if you say no, and refuse to go through the scanners and have a pat down, what happens? guest: there is a case where a man refused to go through the body scanner and the pat downs,

and he attempted to leave. he is being threatened with and $11,000 fine. that was passed at the senate committee hearing yesterday -- asked that the senate committee hearing yesterday. that report is getting a lot of attention. that is precisely what we want to know -- what happens if people leave the airport? the psa officials are alleging he agreed to the search wednesday entered the airport area. we do not agree with that. we think that is going to an extreme. if you do not want to fly, and you make a decision that you do not want to go through what you see your fellow passengers go through, you should have the right to leave without being interests of research. host: tony is joining us from san juan, pr, on our line for independents.

caller: good morning. one of the comments that some people continue to rept, and i travel a lot of luck -- arnd the globe. they keep comparing profiling and all of that nonsen. there are 200 to 300 people traveling in israel. you cannot compare the 5 million to 10 millioneople traveling in and out of the u.s.. 47,000 flights a day, compared to maybe one dozen flights. people keep comparing the u.s. with a smaller country. anyway, other than