>> thank you. i have a follow-up. what do you know about the contractors, the others that your colleagues are using? >> within the -- >> have you -- do you know what your rate of input is on that? how much performance your actual captioning -- capturing? >> in terms of every contract that has been performed, it has been documented.

i do not have that right now. >> and you do not know about the civilian agencies? you said you are in the d of the world. >> at this level, i cannot tell you right now. in theater, everybody exchanges information. there is a concern for corruption. the task force that is going on. i think that all agencies deal with that. >> have your people been using that? >> absolutely. >> how about taking information? >> absolutely. 's the state department's acquisition bureau is the center of all our information in contracting for other agencies. they would have a complete picture of a coordination with the department of defense and a id. -- and aid we do a lot together

and are often -- for example, we are reverting back to the department of defense. we had conversations on how not work. indirectly, we are not involved in the decision of who gets it or who would be able to do the work based on the conditions. >> you talk about a prison in particular and you say the embassy has identified the company. do they get that information from your colleagues or with a share it once they get it? >> kernel cassidy? >> man, we use the federal rating system for contractors.

contractors worked in theater all the time. they get to know the people that are with them and to build a relationship with them. >> how does that information it to you? >> then how does it get to your colleagues? are you aware of the companies that use of contract with? >> we are aware of them and we watched them -- we are building resources as we go through so that we get more information than we had in the past. as far as sharing that information back and forth, that is left up to the primes. we do not recommend subcontractors in theater. >> you do not have to recommend, but being aware of the performance of the sub country

-- contractors would not interfere with the performance. >> i agree. >> mr. -- that is reviewed when an award is going forward. >> i am going to ask you a question that you do not have the answer to. how is that going? what percentage of your contracts do you have someone actually putting the information on the primes and the subs. i understand that it is not whether or not a system exists, is whether it is being used and i understand that it is not. for a variety of reasons. the information that we need to get around a lot of the problems

we have talked about today is making sure that the knowledge of these companies' performance could be a good decision on our part. >> thank you, commissioner. i am really glad that you ran that thread out on the line of questioning. i would ask for general dorko to -- the reason i ask that is because when you give the information, i asked a question about the design engineer. are you aware of any work anywhere else that is done by company? i asked the question if you picked up the phone and called them -- call them?

they just pull something off the shelf and grow it in three others, the mick significant mistakes. i would ask you, for the record, to follow up. you cannot act on what to do not know. you have worked in afghanistan and i need to know if you had an opportunity to coordinate. >> commissioner hinky had a ball. >> one of the key questions i have is that you can be a hero to everyone in the room, but are we nation-building in afghanistan? i do not mean it as a trick question. just a yes or no if you can. >> i believe the answer to that is no. >> are we transforming failed

states into quasi democratic countries? >> i think that is more accurate. it is closer to our goal to stabilize a failed state in afghanistan. >> it is interesting because you entered a book in 2009 and it was the future of afghanistan and you wrote the introduction. we thought you were it a construction expert. -- you were a construction expert. it seems we have a difficulty saying nation-building. >> i think that afghanistan is a nation. it is not our intention to build the nation unless the in san -- build the nation of afghanistan.

>> what is the difference? >> i do not know what you mean by nation-building. i think that afghanistan is a nation and have been a nation for hundreds of years. we are trying to get them on their feet again. they did relatively well in the 1950's and 1960's and than 30 years of horrible tomorrow. our intention is to help them rebuild some of their institutions so that they can be stable and prevent al qaeda from coming back into their country. i think that is our goal. >> thank you. >> before i thank you, this is an opportunity for us to learn in for you to share. it is never -- there was a different tenor in our fact- finding than there was with general fields coming up because

of the nature of what he was trying to do verses what you were trying to do and what we are trying to do. i have to just thank you for that. you're doing something -- i have a guy that i council with. i will not give his name. he always tells me i am bringing problems. you guys are looking in a mirror. i urge you to continue to do that in the text of process improvement and the like because it is critical. the last thing, with absolute respect meant, because i have admired it the whole hearing, on your epitaph, you certainly deserve, "and they didn't pin me down." i watched to see if you would

buckle. i say that with a little bit of admiration. gentlemen, thank you very much. what we are going to do because we have a drop dead date on time is disappoint probably our third panel, with my apologies. there was so much that you were sharing that i was reluctant to cut off or push through and then have to push through that. so we are going to schedule another hearing with as many commissioners as we can obtain. we are going to push your testimony in the record now, but we are going to offer our apologies because we have to be out of the room by two o'clock p.m. due to a promise that we made. i want to thank you and please except our apologies and we will work something to accommodate you. with that, this hearing is

concluded. thank you, gentlemen. >> you learn something. >> yes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[indistinct chatter] the commission on wartime contract and in iraq and afghanistan will report to congress in july. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's coverage begins at 8:00

p.m. eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00 p.m. and then the republican response by republican paul ryan of wisconsin, plus your phone calls in reaction. use our web site for enhanced coverage to see tweets members of congress and to add your own. you can also add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live streaming video and see reactions from members of congress following the address live on c-span2. >> in a few moments, house debate on rules for a bill that would kill federal spending back to 2008 levels. in a little more than an hour, the march for life on the anniversary of the supreme court decision legalizing abortion. after that, we will rhee air iraq andommission on

afghanistan contract in. >> we have one live events to tell you about tomorrow morning on c-span3. the house oversight and government reform committee holds its organizational meeting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. on its web site, the committee describes its responsibility as oversight of everything government does. committee caboshed the committee chairman represents california's 29th district which includes northern san diego county and part of riverside county. >> madam speaker, the president of the united states. >> by congressional invitation, the president outlines his legislative agenda for the next year and reflects on the previous in the annual state of the union. it is searchable on your computer anytime. >> the house, tomorrow, will consider a resolution that will

cut non security spending back to 2008 levels. the rule for that bill was debated in the house monday. the speaker o tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 30 minutes to my good friend from worcester. all time yielded will be for debate purposes only and peppeding that, i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, runaway federal spending is one of the most significant issues that this congress is facing. our national debt has implications for nearly every major challenge that we must confront. it's tied to our economic recovery. it's tied to our national security. it's tied to our ability to deliver on our constitutional mandate for transparent, limited and responsive government. the time to exercise our power

of the purse with discipline and restraint is long overdue. the time for us to exercise our power of the purse restraint is long, long overdue. we must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending levels for funding the federal government. we know that a great deal of hard work and tough decisions lie ahead for every single member of this institution. we know that a great deal of hard wk is there and we're going to face some very difficult, tough, tough decisions. there are going to be difficult decisions, but, mr. speaker, they are decisions we are going to have to make. first and foremost, we must get our economy growing and our work force expanding again. strong growth and job creation will increase tax revenues and provide greater resources that

are needed. but, mr. speaker, that' only half of the equation. economic growth is critically important. we need to do it so we can enhance the flow of revenues to deal with owes essential items that are there, but it is half the equation. we can't get back on to a firm ground with sound fiscal standing unless we have a leaner federal budget. some of this can be accomplished by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. everybody is always in favor of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. and what's the best way to do that? robust oversight. robust oversight will allow us to streamline federal spending d make better use of taxpayer dollars. but we have toacknowledge up front that hard work and painful cuts lie ahead. we know this isn't going to be an easy task but it is

absolutely essential. justs families and small businesses across this country have been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in this institution are going to have to do the same, and that's the message we got last november that brought people like my rules committee colleague, mr. scott, who is sitting here next to me on the floor, that's the message. some federal programs, some federal programs, mr. speaker, are wasteful, and deserve to be cut. there will be others that have merit that which we simply cannot afford at the current levels. we have to be honest about that. we have to engage in a responsible debate about what our priorities must be. what we cannot is allow this debate to degenerate into false accusations about the other side's intentions d let me repeat that, mr. speaker.

we cannot let the kindf free-flowing rigorous debate we need to have to generate into these accusations that we so often seem to hear around here. there is no one in this body who wants to gut -- there is no one in this body that wants to gut funding for key essential programs, like veterans' programs or like education, child nutrition. no one wants to gut these programs. so i think it's important for us to state that. and there is no evidence that any proposal out there would undermine things like support for our nation's veterans. we are all eering into this debate with good faith, good intentions and a commitment to response by address the need to implement fiscal discipline. we will have to make ha choices, but that process will not be served by unfair or

disingenuous accusations. we also recognize that this will be a lengthy process. we are just beginning what is going to be a two-year process focused on this. today's underlying resolution, the measure we will be considering through this rule and then the floor tomorrow, is merely t first step in this ongoing effort to bring our federal budget back into the black. our committees will have to conduct extensive oversight, as i mentioned earlier, of federal programs. we will have to dispense with fiscal year 2011 spending, which e last congress failed to do before we can even begin to deal with the coming fiscal year. the underlying resolution that we have before us today lays down a marker for reducing spending and puts the house on record for its commitment to tackle this issue in a serious way, the hard work will follow.

as this process proceeds, rank and file members of both political parties, democrats and republicans alike, will have the opportunity to participate in our effort to address these very tough decisions. through constructive debate, we can finally begin to impose real accountability and discipline in our federal budget. in concert with pro-growth policies, and i said, to me, the most essential thing is implementing pro-growth economic policies, but going hand and hand with thinks pro-growth policies, this effort will put us back on the path of economic recovery and job creation. today's rule sets the stage for the start of that effort. i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and demonstrate their resolve to tackle runaway federal spending in a serious way.

and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the chairman for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recogzed. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, so much for an open process and so much r a free flow of ideas. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. once again, the republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the american peop, jobs. my republican friends have brought forth a resolution that they tout a a spending reduction measure. in fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar, not one dime from the federal budget. if this were a good-faith fort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. instead the resolution, and i

quote, assume nonsecurity spenng at fiscal year 2008 levels, unquote without specifying exactly what those levels might be. in other words, mr. speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless. we are told that the numbers are on their w, that the congressional budget office will tell us on wednesday of ts week, what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. so why are we are here today debating this issue? why can't we wait until wednesday we have the numbers? the answer is is as plain on the calendar on the wall, politics, pure and simple. the republican leadership has scheduled a vote before president obama addresses the nation in his state of the union address, that way they will have a fresh set of talking points. and say look how serious we are about cutting government funding, when they haven't cut

anything. another problem with the resolution, it reinforces a terrible precedent that they established in their rules package. under those rules, a single member of congress, the chairman of the budget committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year. now, like all of my colleagues, i have a great deal of respect for mr. ryan, but i strongly disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something is fundamental as the budget of the united states. mr. speaker, we have to vote in this house to change the name of a post office, but we can't have a vote on how much we spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup or medical research? that's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my republican friends promised. last weein the rules committee, i offered an amendment to this resolution

that would have allowed the other 435 members of the house the opportunity to vote on this critical issue, but my republican colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote. finally, mr. speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget act. we hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. why, then, would they take hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings off the table right out of the gate? even speaker boehner said, and i quote, i believe there is room to find savingin the department of defense, end quote. if that's true and it most certainly is, why did this resolution treat this as untouchable. when it comes to the federal budget, the republican majority is not off to a good start. the rules package paved the way for em to add $5 trillion to the deficit and they voted to repeal the health care law and

ood to the deficit and now they are rushing a one-page bill without a single number or any specifics about how and where they want to cut. what we are doing today, mr. speaker, is not real. there are no tough choices being made today. this is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. the american people deserve much, much better, and i urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and i urge them to reject the underlying bill. d i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield two minutes to one of our new members who i mentioned in my opening remarks, the gentleman from from north charleston,r. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consenthat all membersave five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this

rule we are considering. the speaker pro tempore: witho objection, so ordered. . the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. as a business owner who has only been in congress for 19 days, if we want more jobs in our economy, we must be serious about spending cuts. spending in washington is burdening future generations. unborn americans, unborn americans will have to pay for the benefits that we ascribe to ourselves. in the previous two years, congress has added nearly $3.3 trillion to e national debt. is it any wonder, then, that during the same time period, our unemployment rate has skyrocket frd 7.8% to 9.4%? it's not. as a small business owner, i don't have to pay higher taxes, i'm able to hire more people.

when i don't pay higher taxes, i can invest in more equipment and more services. every dollar taken by me from the govement means i have to go out and earn two more dollars st to break even. that's why i offered the amendment in the rules committee for spending even less, even less than the 2008 levels. 2008 levels is just a start. and we need to go much deeper than that. i support this rule. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague on the rules commite, if this was a serious effort, there would be numbers. there are none. this is about issuing a press release -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i will not. this is about issuing a press release after the state of the

union so they can have a talking point to go home with. this isn't a serious effort. if it was, there would be numbers in there. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: three minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague, here we go again. if this were a serious proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this document. there is no number in this document. . on opening day our republican colleagues wrote a measure that gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the

pay-as-you-go law. a fedays later we figured out why they did that. because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. those aren't my numbers, those are th numbers of the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing which is focusing on jobs. that measuren opening day also did another thing. it gave the chairman of the budget committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilingses, for this entire congress. no input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. so all of us thought when this new measure was coming up, maybe now we're going to have some accountability. maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the united states congress and for the government.

but lo and behold when you look at the resolution there's no number. where's the beef? and i have to say to my colleagues that, if you want transparency why are you hiding the ball? is the number going to be $100 billion? is it going to be $80 billion? $60 billion? we hear all different numbers in the press out there and they haven't put it in the measure. instead they've said once again, we're going to allow the chairman of the budget committee to decide. i have great respect for the chairman of the budget committee but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another member of congress. we shouldn't ever do that. certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the united states government. that's irresponsible and yet that's what this rule will ask every member to do. contract out his or her vote to one person.

so why aree doing this? why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? as my colleagues said, timing is everything here. this is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow, the day the president's going to deliver the state of the union address, to create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number. without a number. now, we heard from our colleagues on the republican side, well, you know what? we have to wait for the congressional budget office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions. i ask for an additional minute. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. van hollen: we asked them, why don't we have the number? they said, well, we got to wait for c.b.o. we're pleased to hear the new found respect for the c.b.o. numbers, but here's my point. that's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. 24 hours. we could have a budget

resolution with the beef, with the numbers so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. no. we got to do it tomorrow. why? state of the union address, great press release. now, i've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because there was nothing in place in the house from a budget perspective. well in fact the house last year passed a budget enforcement act. i got it right here. it's got a numr in it. it's got a number. like these budget documents have . mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. van hollen: i'd be happy to yield -- mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield the gentleman time. mr. van hollen: certainly. mr. dreier: what was the vote in the house on that budget that my friend was just talking about? mr. van hollen: i don't remember the exact vote but it passed, mr. chairman. it was deemed, there was never a vote in this institution -- . dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. van hollen: there was a vote on the resolution in the house. if you want to talk about deeming, wa, whoa, whoa, this is -- that 30 seconds came from

the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i ask reckons because he yielded to me. i took three seconds and he yielded me 30. i thank you, mr. chairman. deeming. what we're doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. we are passing a resolution that deems in advance the passage of a number that we don't even know and it's going to be decided by one person. we are deeming that individual all the authority and the shame of it is that that's a process that i think we all recognize as flawed and yet this is deeming on steroids. so i would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on this, have a real argument and let every member vote and take responsibility. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me say that i thk that one of the thicks that we have to -- things that we have to recognize here, and i'm happy to engage in

rigorous debate and i'm happy that we have not at this point had any of our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about e prospect of starving children, throwing people out of schools, dedrivinging -- depriving veterans of access to the things that they need. and so i express my appreciation to my colleagues because up in the rules committee that was the tenor of the discussion that took place upstairs. one thing that i want to say, mr. speaker, is that in 1974 the congress put into place, known as the -- legislation known as the 1974 budget and empowerment act. i happen to believe that that needs to be overhauled because democrats and republicans alike recognize that the 1974 budget and emboundment act has been a failure -- empoundment fact has been a failure, an abject failure. i've been working with my friend from maryland and mr. ryan, the chairman of the budget

committee, as well as the chair and ranking member, messrs. conrad and sessions in the senate, on the notion of our working together in a bipartisan , bicameral way to bring about an overhaul of the 1974 budge and empoundment act. now, one of the reasons, one of the reasons that i believe it is essential is that last year was the first time ever that we have not seen a budget passed. it's the first time since implementation of the 1974 budget and empoundment act. mr. speaker, with all due respect to the crocodile tears that are being shed so often on this house floor, i think it's important to note that that is why we are in the position where we areoday. we wouldn't be here had we had a budget passed. now, many people talk about this calendar year. but we are five months, we are five months into the fiscal year and that is the reason that we

are in a position where we're having to make the kinds of tough decisions that we are. my friend from north charleston, my very, very thoughtful colleague, is a w member of the rules committee, has been raising with me some very simple and commonsense questions about the process that we have been going through. one of the things that he just said in a meeting that we just participated in was that we need to recognize that we at this moment are beginning the process. we're beginning the process of cutting spending. this is going to be a two-year struggle. and so this is not going to be the end of our effort to try and rein in wasteful federal spending and i know my friend had some thoughts on that and i'd be happy to yield to minimum if he'd like to either pose a question or offer any comments thatelate to either the health care bill and the vote that we just had or any other issue. i i yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

chairman. is it the first time since 1974 that the house has operated without a budget? mr. dreier: i thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat what i just said to that we can underscore it. never before have we failed to have a budget and yet for the first time in 36 years that happened. and that's why i believe that we have a chance to work, democrats and republicans together, with our colleagues on in the other body to bring about real reform of the budget act it sefment i'd be happy to further yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairm. when you think of the about the repeal of health care, is that not a savings of trillions of dollars, a trillion-dollar hold or an abyss on an entitlement program? does it not reduce the debt by $700 billion? are these not real numbers? if we really wanted a number, if we were looking for the number, uld they not have passed a budget last year? mr. dreier: let me say that my friend is absolutely right. throughout the debate that took place last week, we heard that

in fact repealing the $2.7 trillion health care bill would end up costing $230 billion based on the numbers provided to us by the congressional budget office's estimates. we kept hearing that and one of the things in one of the exchanges we had with mr. pence, only in washington, d.c., can bringing about the elimination of a $7 trillion expenditure actually cost money. now, mr. speaker, i think that the thing that we need to point to is not only the smoke and mirrors that went into the recommendations that were provided, whether it's dealing with the class act which the chairman of the senate budget committee has scribed as a ponzi scheme -- described as a ponsj scheme, whether it's that, or -- ponzi scheme, whether it's that, or to me the most important thing to point to is the fact that in that measure there is a

3/4 of $1 trillion, mr. speaker, that's 3/4 of a $1 trillion tax increase that is being posed along with the mandates. so my friend from north charleston is absolutely right, mr. speaker, when he points to the fact that we were in fact saving dollars with the action that we took last week and we're very committed to ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable health insurance by allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines, pooling to deal with pre-existing conditions, associated health plans so that small businesses can get lower rates, the idea of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform which the president of the united states talked about last year in his state of the union message. i mean, these are the kinds of things that we believe can immediately drive the cost of health insurance and health care down itself and at the same time we can disengage the federal government's dramatic involvement in it -- -- in this.

i appreciate my friend from north charleston for bringing this commonsense that he's sharing with us. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: yeah, mr. speaker, i'm glad my friend on the other side of the aisle are happy they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill but i'll tell you that there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real protections in the bill, who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. there are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. there are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill that aren't too happy that e republicans want to repeal all that and on top that have c.b.o. said it adds considerably to our deficit. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from

new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm amazed that high colleague from california brings up the health care reform. we were bringing up the c.b.o. numbers to say that we had a $230 billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion beyond that. we're giving them actual numbers from the c.b.o. to talk about deficit reduction. but i don't see any numbers in this budget resolution that's on the floor today and tomoow. i call it the budget-less resolution because it contains no numbers, no spisks and no ideas for job creation or economic recovery and it doesn't even include a serious plan to reduce the deficit. this is not the way to manage the budget. it's worse than arbitrary. it's like budgeting with blind folds on. it gives no thought, no reason, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be. and worst of all, the republican resolution continues to igre job creation and economic

recovery. it doesn't even contain a real plan to reduce the deficit. we gave you numbers with the health care reform that would actually reduce the deficit. this is a numberless budget, nothing at all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i was unclear in my own mind which was worse, the terrible procedural abuse of this resolution or the serious substantive flaw. but i then realized they come together. because it is procedurally outrageous so as to protect a substantive grave error. first of all, it ia major piece of legislation and it's not amendable. just like the health care bill. you may remember, mr. speaker, what people on the republican

side said about open rules. it will be a fond memory but apparently not a reality. we have a very important piece of legislation subject to no amendment and chaired a committee for four years and never would i have brought a bill to the floor with such an impact and had no amendments in order whatsoever. but i undersnd why they don't want an amendment, because it would reveal the grave flaw. this says, reduce nonsecurity spending until 2008. in other words, exempt about half of discretionary spending. all security i assume to mean military spending. now we have a war and weave to defend the people who we put out there. i have to say, those who talk about shutting the government down, i don't know what they're going to tell the people in afghanistan who are out there being shot at. but we have got tens of billions that we are spending, subsidizing our war for the allies in europe and asia. the argument that you exempt military spending from budgetary discipline is one of the reasons

we are in the terrible hole we're in. now, it is clearly indefensible to argue that you would exempt military spending from budget discipline. so how do you defend it? you dedefe it by not allowing an amendment that would bring it forward. . why shouldn't security go down to the level of 2008 but go down somewhat. this is part of the philosophy that puts pressure on all of the domestic spending. and affects the quality of life in america. by security, i mean police officers in the streets and cities i represent and firefighters and bridges that won't collapse, but that's not security as it's defined by the republicans. that's the kind spending that will be severely cut. instead, we have a total exemption for the pentago we have mr. gates, a bush appointee, kept on by mr. obama,

said it's time to reduce the military and republicans have attacked him. let be very clear, there can't be a balanced approach when you follow this philosophy. not only totally exempt the military but don't even allow an amendment that would make it something that you could talk about. the notion that you give all this power to one person is interesting. what we are learning is the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, has been somewhat more courageous than others. apparently what we are learning today is the republican committee has the courage in paul ryan's conviction and i wish they had the courage to allow us to debate whether military spending is included. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: then, this is just the first step in a long process, which will allow the kind of free-flowing debate we are talking about. my friend will recall that never

before had we gone through the apprriations process the way we did the last two years. that being, my friend and i arrived here in 1981 and when it came to the issue of spending, members had the opportunity to stand up on the house floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill. and i will tell you that it's our intention to once again have that kind of debate that we had all the way up until the last two years. so i can assure my friend that our goal of having a free-flowing debate is important. the second point i would like to make is that while my friend has continually said we didn't make amendments in order to this measure, there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee that would have given us the opportunity to do that. we did make an amendment in order that modifies thisthat came from mr.scott in the rules committee that actually said that we should get to 2008 levels or less and it is true.

my friend sfr worcester asked to make an amendment in order by mr. van molen, but there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee and that vote was taken by the rules committee. mr. frank: you said no amendments were smithed and mr. mcgovern asked for one on behalf of mr. van hollen. mrdreier: amendments submitted to the rules committee, we don't actually have. when it comes to the rules committee, when we are getting ready to point out a rule, there are amendments suitted. there were amendments proposed and the rules committee chose not to make that amendment in order. mr. frank: would the gentleman would yield to me. mr. dreier: i think i control the time here. it's important to note we did have an amendment considered in the rules ommittee by mr. scott, which actually brought us to lower levels.

it said 2008 levels or less. and i yield to my friend. mr. frank: the record will show thgentleman just amended his statement about amendments because he said no amendments were offered and i would ask people to look at the record, and he said, an amendment was offered. first statementas no amendments were offered. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time to say the following and i'll yield to my friend again. i want to clarify wha it was that i said. amendments are submitted up to the rules committee. there were no amendments that re actuay submitted to the rules committee and there is another issue that we need to point to also, and that is, there is going to be something that was often denied, and that is a motion to recommit with instructions is going to be included in this measure so that the minority will have a bite of the apple that was mooften than not denied in the past. that is the direction toward a more open process. and, as i said, this is the

beginning, the beginning of a process that will conder a budget resolution and an appropriations process, which will give members, democrats and republicans a like an opportunity to participate. with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from san diego -- mr. frank: would the gentleman yield to me snr mr. mcgovern: the gentleman from san diego has asked to be recognized and i yield two minutes to my friend from san diego and if mr. mcgovern chooses to yield time to my friend, i'm happy to engage in a discussion with him again. the speakepro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lbray: let me say someone who has been in local government, those of us in the deral government have to understand that there are jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set. some peoe believe that it it is as much a responsibility of the federal governmt to hire

police officers as it is to intain a military. i'm sorry, the constitutional line for those ofs who were mayors and county chairmen, the federal government needs to concentrate on our responsibility, defending our borders and national security. those of us who served at local government, would be able to address those issues much more appropriately and have a lot less burden. but i want to talk about the opportunities we have to work in a bipartisan effort. when we talk about budget reduction, rather than denying americans the right to live in the united states unless they buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost reductions like california has done, not exactly a right-wing legislature. it has had an impact on the cost of insurance on physicians, that an ob-gyn in los angeles paid 30% to 40% less for insurance than the same doctor in new york. you can't tell me the cost of living is that much different,

except for the fact that sacramento is recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. if the legislature of california can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to address those issues? if we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health bill allow americans rather than taking away their rights to live in the country, the freedom to buy across state lines? that is well within our jurisdiction as a federal body. why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs rather than taking the rights of americans to live here? that is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort redorm. and let's face it, the liability issue is an interesting one. the federal government and states can actually address issues that says -- mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. bilbray: i know this out, becausi was running a health

care system for over three million people. the federal government has special protection for physicians if they are in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians. the federal government accepts the situation where somebody on medicaid has more rights to sue their physician than the men and women in uniform in this country. and i challenge you to tell me how it's justifiable that if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in the military, they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody on welfare and public assistance, they can sue. can we talk about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so essential. and i want to close with this, we have not been talking about health care in the last year, we have been talking about health insurance and the crisis that's coming down this pike, i10 years, you may be able to call

the health insurance people, but won't be able to find a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: our concern about this budget bill before us has no number in it and is a press release to be able to talk about tomorrow after the state of the union. i want to clarify what happened in the rules committee. i did offer an amendment that was rejected on party lines that would say -- that said that members of congress ought to have the ability to vote onhis magic number that the chairman of the budget committee will come up with. that is rejected. there was an amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida which would allowed mr. van hollen, a substitute. that was rejected. there was an amendment for an open rule, so we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. there were amendments and

rejected. before i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, i yield one minute to the the gentleman from massachusetts for a point of clarification. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: i want to address this motion that police officers on our local streets pales insignificant to the military. we have troops in western europe where our weern european allies are cutting their military budgets and i do think funding police officers and firefighters in our cities is more important than allowing germany and englandto reduce their military budgets because we subsidize them. secondly, i will say to the the gentleman from california, i'm somewhat disappointed. he did say there were no amendmentsffered. we have now heard three were offered. if he meant there were none on paper previously submitted, maybe he should have said that, because it would have been of no great relevance. amendments were offered and they were rejected. the gentleman wouldn't yield to

me -- mr. speaker, regular order. regular order. the gentleman from california wasn't happy with what he said and didn't want to continue the debate. i urge people to read the record tomorrow and read his statement that no amendments were offered and read what the gentleman from massachusetts said and see where the truth lies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million americans without a job. and this debate represents yet another wasted opportunity for us to come together and address

the real number one issue of the country, which is putting people back to work. the debate also represents a curious lack of clarity as to what exactly the majority is proposing. and there are words in this resolution, but there aren't numbers, so i did research on my own about numbers. let's take f.b.i. agents, for example. now, the resolution says that security spending is exempted, but doesn't define security spending. when we pass the budget for f.b.i. agents here, that budget is under the justice, commerce, science, budget, so i don't know if this is within security spending or not. but here's what i do know. in the present fiscal year, if we maintain the budget that we have been living under since october 1, we are on track to spend $7.6 billion on f.b.i.

agents, if we do what the resolution say which is to go back to spend in 2008, we would spend 22% less than that, or 6. -- $6.5 billion. if you look at the average salary of an f.b.i. agent, that would mean we make due with 1,720 fewer f.b.i. agents than we due today. i would be happy to yield to the sponsor of the resolution for him to tell me if that is true. if this passes, are we going to have that level in f.b.i. agents? mr. dreier: it has been indicated early on, we aren't going to see across-the-board spding cuts. and i believe we can preserve the number. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, the chairman has said we won't have across-the-board cuts. that means that we'll have to

find larger cuts than 22% in other areas of the justice department budget. the court system, enforcementf the immigration laws, the other things the justice department does. the resolution says nothing about what those would be. so i think we can be critical in another area. . we're spending about $5.8 billion in cancer research. if we do what the resolution says, we'll cut by 22% and spend $4.6 billion. the average conser research grant is $350,000. that means we would have 3,628 fewer cancer research grants if we're not-- if we're -- if

we're not going to have an across the board cut, i would say, where else in the national instute of health are we going to cut? research for alzheimer's? research for dbetes? research for other areas? the resolution says nothing. here what a prominent american has to say about resolutions like this, and i'm quoting. you can't kill the national debt or deficit by killing npr or the national endowment for the humanities or the arts. nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. i'm very put off when people say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. that's usually a very inefficient way of doing it. tell me what you're going to cut and nobody up there, meaning capitol hill, yet is being very, very candid about what they're going to cut to fix this problem. tell me what you're going to cut. i ask for 30 more seconds.

>> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. andrews: ethe author of that quote is not a democrat inmember of the house. it's not a white house okesman. the author of that quote ve tired general -- retired secretary of state cloin powell. who said yesterday, tell me what you're going to cut. the minority doesn't want to grapple with that problem, which is why there are no amendments made in order, no numbers in the bill and no reason to vote for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my ti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i yield myself a minute and a half to respond to my friend with a couple of comments. first, this is about job creation and economic growth. today we live with an economy where there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty and we know right now that there are job creators, investors, who have resources on the sidelines.

i don't believe there's anything that we could do, well there are a number of thingse could do they may be as prnt, redeucing the job -- the tax burden on job creators, but one of the things i think is critical for us to do is begin getting our fiscal house in order to provide an incentive for job creation and econic growth. the next point i'd like to make is while i con gradge lated my friends p mr. mcgovern and mr. van hollen for not engaging in the sky-is-falling threats about what might happen down the road or determining what would happen, i have to say that i was a little concerned and i've come to the conclusion that if one can't prioritize, mr. speaker, they resort to demonizing. and the notion -- i'll yield in just a moment. i will in just a moment. the fact is, we are beginning a process that will see us for the

first time in two years have a free-flowing debate on appropriations. when my friend mentioned both the national institutes of health and t f.b.i., i believe that those are important priorities that democrats and republicans alike want to fund. my friend has concluded -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds, mr. speaker. my friend has concluded that somehow he knows exactly what will be cut based on the resolution. mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: i will in a moment. he concluded he knows what will be cut in the national institutes of health and the f.b.i. there are as we move ahead with the appropriations level, debate that will be coming in the next several months. we'll be in a position where we'll be able to, democrats and republicans alike, establish our priorities. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. andrews: how much time is left. mr. dreier: i yield.

mr.en andrews: i am not demonizing the gentleman, i think the gentleman speaks with great sincerity. the gentleman says i know what is going to be cut, no one knows what's going to be cut. can you tell us where in the n.i.h. budget you'll make up the difference by not cutting the cancer research budget. mr. dreier: let me say that obviously it does not have to be done within the national institutes of health. the notion of saying that it has to be cut there, we have seen a doubling, we've seen a doubling in the level of funding under president bush for the national institutes of health, mr. speaker and i think that there are areas where we can bring about cuts without -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. ewe can do that without in any way jeopardizing the important priorities we have. with that,ry i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized of. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the

gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: it could come from labor or health and human services. so where will you make up for not cutting the cancer research budget by 22%. i yield. mr. dreier: this is the beginning of a process that will allow us to do just that, the country survived. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. this is what general powell was talking about. te us where to cut and we get verbiage but no real answer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minute the gentleman from massachusetts has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. dreier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, i just want to point out one of the reasons why these

questions are coming up is beuse when this resolution was brought before the rules committee the chairman of the budget committee didn't show, nor did the chairman of the appropations committee. so there are no numbers in this bill. so we are very, very concerned about what numbers might exist out there. i think people in this house, democrats and republicans, ought to know what the real numbers are. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield for 10 seconds. mr. dreier: this resolution did not emerge from the budget committee, it's a resolution of the house rules committee, we are the committee of jurisdiction for the -- for h.r. 38. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for making that collar 23i case. however, what we're talking about is -- for making that clarification. however what we're talking about is setting the spending levels so if there are questions about how deep t cuts will be or where they'll come from, it's because we have no clarity.

i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: those of us on this side have said, we need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. i know the chairman said that's what this bill is all about. but let's look at what the bipartisan commission on deficit and debt reduction said. they said two things. one, absolutely, we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction and work together to get that done. they also said another thing. they said draconian cuts right now would in fact reverse the economic progress we're making, that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and hurt job creation this country chsm is one reason we would like to know what the number in this, i would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it's going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60 billion, whatever it will be, because there's no number. if you've got it, it should ha been in here. let me get, mr. speaker to the

other issue the gentleman raised. we have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut which is what you all talked about the fall, right now in the immediate moment, that it will result in approximately 20% across the board cuts. now all of you say when we raise specifics like cutting research for freement and cures at n.i.h., no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. then we say, ok, you're going to cut the f.b.i. budget because that's not part of the protected budget. no, no, no you say, we're not going to cut that. you keep moving stuff off the table. do you know what that does to the rest of the budget? it gos fm 20% cut, to 30%, to 40% who knows what it is. but the point we're making is, you haven't given us the starting point number. so you don't have a clue and of course we don't either, but you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number. we know there's been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisle no secret about what that number will be, you amended this

rules provision, but if you got the number, put it in here now and if you're going to get it, the day after tomorrow, on wednesday, wait 24 hours and let this body vote on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. mr. dreier: i yield myself one minute to say to my friends, it's interesting to have this debate, and i'm happy to be standing on this side say, we got the message last november 2, i know the 87 new mobes on our side who came to the this institution have made it clear, the goal of moving in a direction of bringing about spending cuts is critically important. now my good friend has just become the ranking member of the committee on the budget. i know it's a new assignment, it's a new assignment for my friend, but i'd like to take just a moment to explain what the budget process consists of. we are going to see your committee proceed with establishing the broad 302a allocations and that big number will be determined.

this institution, democrats and republicans aliking and again we haven't seen -- republicans alike, and again we haven't seen it in the last two years because we shut down the appropriations process, but weir ing to allow -- we're going to low members the portunity to actually participate in establishing those priories. that is going to be a joint effort. our priority is -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. our priority is to get the onomy back back on track and create jobs. we know very quell that getting our fiscal house in order is going to be essential if we are going to have the kind of job creation that both democrats and republicans want. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 sonds to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the skwlelt is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank the gentleman for his useful guidance. the fact othe matter is in the spring, we'll begin the budget

process in the budget committee. we're now feeling with fy-2011. as the chairman know, there's a budget resolution in effect that had a number in it. you chose not to extend put it. now for the first time ever, you have asked this house, every member to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. that is budget malpractice and it also cedes all responsibility. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i really appreciate the gentleman's dramaticcally raising the level of a simple two paragraph house resolution that is the first step in a process that will allow the budget committee to do its work, to allow the appropriators and through the appropriators the full house, democrats and republicans alike to establish those priorities and so i would say to my friend that while we

do very much want -- i'll yld in just a second. why we do very much want, mr. speaker, to have a chance for is institution to go on record and i hope democrats will join in support of h.res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow to go on record demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message from the american people and out of respect to my friend, i yield myself 15 seconds and yield to my friend. mr. andrews: my question is simple. do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being leer is $120 million, which may mean 30% across the board or -- do you think it matters it's $149 billion. mr. dreier: across the board cuts are not something being considered here. we are pursuing 2008 levels and i believe that that's what this resolution says and we hope very much that we can get to lower levels of spending and i suspect that some members on the other side of the aisle would want to

join us in working together in that effort to get our fiscal house in order. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind my colleagues when they read the resolution it's 2008 or less. that muddles the numbers even more. at this point, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. berman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. berman: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. oy pose this resolution, i oppose it because i think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage. but i want to focus my time on the limited question, but the very important question, of what's in and what's not in security funding. because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back

to fiscal year 2008 functions or less. . at the rules committee. was that part of the exemption? said no. my definition, me, david dreier, chairman of the rules committee. out of which this committee or resolution comes. as we have outlined here, this is discretionary spending that is nonsecurity spending. it's discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, v.a., and homeland security. i assumthe gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to a less than a week later. i am happy to yield. mr. drier: i will say that is the definition of security spending, defense, homeland

security, v.a. and military construction. mr. berman: thank you. reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman reaffirming that position. now let's take a look at what that means. that means not exempt from these drastic cuts are weapons and training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in yemen, in pakistan, the philippines, that's all part of our security assistance package, part of our international affairs budget, financing for the purchase of u.s. military equipment to ensure israel's qualitative military edge, defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism, and afghanistan, cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge, would force the military to perform civilian jobs, the reductions would harm four provencial reconstruction teams and ford operating bases -- and forwd operating bases,

security training, ordnance disposal, popular mechanics and eradication programs. in iraq, the state programs that woulde harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition of nonsecurity funds that have to be dramatically cut back are training for iraqi police and security forces to take over when the u.s. troops depart, funding for our special inspectors general in iraq and afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and properly managedmplemental. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemas time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i give the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. berman: everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in congress will be undermined by virtue of what he's proposing. the speaker pro tempore: all members will suspend. members should bear in mind the official reporters of debate cannot be expected to transscribe two members

simultaneously. members should not participate in debate by interjection and should not expect to have t reporters transcribe remarks that are uttered when not operly recognized. the chair must ask members to bear in mind the proper courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate especially in asking another to yield. it helps to foster the spirit of mutual commodity that elevates our deliberations above mere argument. the gentleman from california is recognize mr. drier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend i very much appreciate his recognizing the opportunity i've had to recognize the assistance programs. and i must make it clear we are just beginning a process today, we are beginng a process today that will allow this house to work its will. and it's obvious, going to 2008 levels, 2008 levels is not

going to gut all of the very important national security aspects that we have of foreign assistance programs. my friend knows very well, mr. speaker, that it's essential we get our fiscal house in order and this is the first step on a road towards doing just that. with that i reserve thealance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. govern: i am the final speaker on our side. i would inquire if he has additional speaker mr. drier: if the gentleman would like to close debate, i'll close on my side. mr. mcgovern: ouch time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. mcgovern: this is not how we should deal with the budget. transparency means knowing what the budget number is. i don't know why that's such a radical idea. accountability means everybody in this house should vote yes or no on whatever that number is and it ouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally determine that number.

and this budget process that the republicans have put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process and sets a lousy precedent. mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. if the previous question is defeated, i will modify this rule to pride that immediately after the house passes this rule it will take up an amendment to exem cuts in funding for the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. my repubcan colleagues said they won't cut programs to protect our nation's security but the resolution itself doesn't even bother to define nonsecurity spending. and the definition i've heard from the other side of the aisle would not include the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. so isk unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials in the record immediately prr to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: a no vote wouldo lou the house to consider an amendment exempting cuts and funding to the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program.

an amendment that would ensure we do not sacfice our nation's security in the post-9/11 world. i urge all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote no on the previous question so we can assure that we continue to protect this nation from terrorism. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the -- the gentleman from california. the gentleman is recognized. mr. drier:r. speaker, every member of this institution, democrat and republicaalike knows full well the american people are hurting. we have an unempyment rate that is at 9.4%. we have, in my state of california, 12.5% unemployment rate. i see my friend mr. lewis here on the floor. in the m&m empire of california it's 15.5% the unemployment rate. people out there are making very tough decisions and the economic uncertainty that

exists today is playing a big role in diminishing the kind of investment we need to create jobs. is resolution is a very simple one. it says that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. we shouldn't spend money we don't have. that's what we're saying as we begin this process. those are the decisions that families are making all across this country. they're not spending money they don't have. and in fact we've seen, because of this economic wnturn, lots of families today saving more an they have in the past because they don't want to get themselves in this position that the federal government is. we're going to have to make some tough choices around here. it's not going to be easy. no one is saying it's going to be easy. but this resolution we're going toebate tomorrow, h. recent 38 -- h. res.38 says we're

going to 2008 levels or less because frankly, 2008 levels, as far as i'm concerned is too high and believe we need to cut back even more. now, we continue to hear this argument that we are going to decimate research in the very important diases out there. we began the debate, as i said in the opening, not going there but we did go there. as i said, if you can't prioritize, you end up demonizing and creating this great deal of fear that is out there, or the f.b.i. is going to close down if we go to 2008 spending levels. well, mr. speaker, obviously that's not the case. this institution is not about to undermine the federal bureau of investigation. but we do know that with adequate oversight, which is our constitutional responsibility, and focusing, yes, on those thr things that the democrats and republicans alike say, waste, fraud and abus we will be able to rein

this bethemeon. -- behemoth. again, it's going to beough but this resolution is the first step in a two-yea process to get our economy growing, create jobs, and to rein in the size and scope and reach of the federal government so that we can encourage individual initiative and responsibility. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. and tomorrow when we bring the resolution h. res.38 to the floor we support this motion and i hope very much we'll have democrats joining with republicans for this very commonsense approach to do exactly what the 87 new members on our side of the aisle and i suspect even the nine new members on the democratic side of the aisle have come here to do and that is to rein in this wasteful government spending we have seen.

[iudible conversations] >> as i said at the beginning, we cam here to bringthe life principles to washington. i've already made a statement to the president of the united states as our executive branch. we all started communicating

with the congress, and we have much to be appreciative of today because there are things helping us a bit. the most impornt thing is what can we do, and we can enact legislation to try to stop the evil, all of it, and some of it, and here to introduce the members of the house of representatives is the honorable chris of new jersey. [cers and applause] >> nelly, thank you for your extraordinary leadership over these years and the march for life. my wife and i are pleased to be here to join tens of thousands of people in the walk for life. ladies and gentlemen, america got another wakeup call last

week with the arrest of an abortionist in philadelphia who was charged in the killing of a woman and seven babies who were aborted who briefly survived, and killed them by severing their spinalords with a pair of scissors. to the tens of thousands of young people here today defending the youngest people in america know the killing in philadelphia and all abortion is violence against women and children. they know the only thing, the only multibillion abortion industry produces is victims, and that women deserve better than abortions. love, honor, respect, and welcomes post aabortion women who are silent no more. our children no abuse when they see it, and we and all of us

demand an abortion end in order to sanitize the abortion, the multibillion abortion iustry dehumanizes and weakens the most vulnerable among us. this acceptable bigotry, this prejudice against a child in the womb has beenespited for decades even with advances in technology underscoring the fact that an unborn child is often a patient in need of care just like anyone else. despite the amazing windows to the womb with ultrasound iming, as you know when public funding is unavailable, the number of abortions drop by 25%, so last week with the full and unequivocal support of speaker john boehner and the rest of our

leadership team all of whom are here, more than 135 members in all including a democrat, dan lepenski, we introduced the tax funding for abortion, a governmentwide pribitn on taxpayer sub sigh dation for abortion and conscious attention from health care professionals. [cheers and applause] my friends, we need your help. we need your help in purr sueding -- persuading president who put abortion in obamacare not understanding a flawed executive order to get this legislation passed, and let us commit, finally today, in persevering prayer, with fasting, and hard work to ensure the human rights of all regardless of age, race, religion,isability, immaturity, or condition of dependency.

god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm roger wicker from mississippi. [cheers and applause] it's an honor for me to be here on behalf of the pro-life member, of the united states senate. [cheers and applause] in a few moments, you will meet a bipartisan group of pro-life house member we're re today to say we are honored to be here at this march for life. we are honored to stand with you. you know, the crowd keeping pouring in and people continue to get off busses. this is a great outpouring from all over the united states of amica. thank you for enduring the cold for the unborn today. [cheers and applause] to many of the pundits, to many

observers in the press, we are a curiosity to them. they wonder why we are here, wonder why we come out here year after year and endure the cold and stand for life. i'll tell you why we are here because rowe vs. wade was wrongly decided and rowe vs. wade led to a three decades long holocaust in the united states of america, and it amounts to a stain on our national conscious, and it's time for it to end. [cheers and applause] the fight is sometimes hard and sometimes lonely, but we are here today to say we're not going to a abandon the fight. [cheers and applause]

sometimes it's defensiv in nation and heaven knows we've had a lot to defend in the last two oar three years including abortion in the health care agent, the assistance bill is always a fight, taxpayer funding for abortions, we always have to defend against that. last year, we successfully defended against an effort to expand abortion to our miliry inic, and we were able to do that on a bipartisa basis and to stop that provision from being including in the authorization bill. [cheers and applause] tomorrow, we take a defensive, and i like that a lot better. tomorrow, i will be introducing the life at conception act a lot with a number of pro-life members of the united states senate. [cheers and applause] we're going t say life begins at conception, and it's time for

the 14th amendment protection to be afforded to the unborn. thank you for standing with us. help us on this act. god bless youll. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon. i'm erik cantor, majority leader of the house. which have i stand -- i stand here with both members on both sides of the aisle. i stand here with the majority whip from california, the republican congress from texas -- the policy committee chairman, tom price from georgia, and many, many others. we stand with you for life.

[cheers and applause] i want to thank all of you who have made the trip here today, and i want to salute you for coming out in this bitter cold demonstrating how strongly you feel about this cause. i especially want to thank and recognize the eight busses that made their way up 95 from my hometown of richmond. thank you from virginia. [cheers and applause] for the past two years, the life community has suffered the consequences of being completely out of power in this town. bit by bit, we have seen unfortunately too many who tried to weaken the moral fabric of our country against the will of a majority of the americans, an agendaas jammed through

congress that forces taxpayers to fund abortion and embryonic stem cell research and repeal protection from health care providers. now the tide has turned. [cheers and applause] thanks to your support last november, there's a new majority in town. [cheers and applause] our majority has been reenergized by a strong crop of pro-life advocates with the leaders -- with the cleerdz like chris smith. we also have the biggest and the most pro-life freshmen class in memory. [cheers and applause]

our majority has pledged to institute a permanent government wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion. [cheers and applause] this is a big at the top of our agenda in the house. we know we've got an uphill battle in the senate and in the white house, but i can promise you one thing, the people's house will stand unapologetically for life. [cheers and applause] we will do everything in our power to make sure that our values, that your values are reflected in the law of the land. thank you all again very much and god bless. [cheers and applause] good afternoon, i'm kevin mccarthy fro california; the

majority whip in the house p representatives. [cheers and applause] it may be cold out here, but i want to tell everybody's heart is warm because we celebrate the sanctity of life. i may be a member of congress, but one of my proudest moments for my wife and i is to be parents. like many of you who cannot think of a more special moment when you first see that ultrasound of your child or see your child coo or take their first steps. we want everybody to have that opportunity. when you look at the eyes of a newborn, you know the power and grace of our maker. "everyone shall stand and confess the greatness of the miracles of god." [cheers and applause] they will realize what an amazing thing he does. as you heard from our leader,

erik cantor, is this congress deciding there are no adorations. as we pursue this, the republican team in the house of presentatives will stand hand in hand with you to work to ensure that not one penny of tax dollars are spent funding abortions or abortion coverage. [cheers and applause] as we leave this place today, i would encourage each of you to never forget the words of the great congressman. he said, let the innocence of the unborn have the last word. let their innocence appeal to what president lincoln called the better angels of our nature. make it clear once again that there is justice for all even for the tiniest, most

defenseless in our land. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> republican conference chairman from dallas, texas. [cheers and applause] there's a place in dallas called the dallas preeing pregnancy resource center. great ladies counseling unwed mothers. they put little footprints on the bulletin board every time they save a life. last time i was there, there were 40 or 50 footprints on the bulletin board, and they said, congressman, we're going to buy some more bulletin boards. [cheers and applause] in small ways, making a big difference in saving small human lives. let us all resolve here in a big way to change the heart and mind of our countrymen.

let them know that life is a gift of the creator, that as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of science, as a matter of faith, there is no more fundamental right than the right to life. [cheers and applause] god bless you for what you do today and every day. [cheers and applause] >> tom price from georgia, privileged to chair the republican policyommittee. today we honor the most precious gift of life. we give voice to those who have no voice. we challenge our society to protect and defend those most innocent among us. nearly four decades sense row v wade, our fight endures because

our fight is for the cause of liberty and life is timeless. there is nothing more fundamental than to defend our humanity than to defend life, so today we rededicate ourselves to protect the sanctity of life and all of the activity that dedication peals. god bless you, and god bless america. [cheers and applse] >> good afternoon. i'm dan, a democrat from illinois. [cheers and applause] i am a democrat for life sign out there? if we are going to change this country's laws, we need to have pro-life members in both parties. [cheers and applause] it's not easy being a pro-life democrat. there are people who dent want me there, but i tell you, i have

said i will never back down. [cheers and applause] i ask all of you to do the same, and i thank you for being here today. thank you for bringing your voices here to washington to help all of us. we need your help, and only by all of us staying together, can we change the heart and minds and laws of this land to prote the most vulnerable, the unborn. as ronald reagan said, # if you diminish one category of life, thenborn, you diminish all human life. thank you for being here today, it's great to see the new pro-life generation here. [cheers and applause] we're going to keep on working on this and fighting for the unborn until our mission is accomplished. thank you, and god bless.

[cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm jim brenner from wisconsin. when i was chairman the house judiciary committee, we wrote and passed a partial birth abortion that was held unconstitutional by the supreme court. that's the only time since rowe vs. wade that the supreme court actually restricted abortions. the rest of the stuff has all been on the per riff yal. we tried last year to prevent abortion coverage and lost it the last minute because of switches of members, some of whom are not with us anymore because they sold out life.

[cheers and applause] this year, we ask all of you to back hr3. this will shut the door permanently once and for all to having your tax dollars being used to fund elected abortions. [cheers and applause] abortion is wrong, but it is just as wrong to force people who morally objected to abortions to pay taxes for this insidious procedure. [cheers and applause] that's our job in the next two years. the house will pass hr3. les all get to work on the senate. thank you again. [cheers and applause] >> hey, welcome, warriors for life. [cheers and applause] one of the freshman class.

[cheers and applause] i'm married to a beautiful pro-life woman, rachel. we have six children, and we are here with all of you. [cheers and applause] i'm pro-life not because i read it in a book, but because i lived through an unplanned preeing pregnancy and experienced the unplanned joys that come from the joysof a baby girl. children are our nation's greatest resource. they are the circumstances in which they are conceived. you know what? youguys are out here bearing the cold weather, you and may be ignored by the media, but you know what? you are peeking truth to power. keep up the fight. game on. [cheers and applause] >> good morning everyone. my wife and i and two daughters are a pro-life family. [cheers and applause] this is a day that the lord has

made, let us rejoice and be glad in it. which have we know from hebrews if we are per s tent and perseverance and join the race before us, i say to all of you out there who are cold and weary, i encourage you that we have right and we have history on our side. [cheers and applause] now, in this new year, now as we begin this new congress, be encouraged as well that we have a new freshman class in congress to gin us in the march, the race, and get us over the finish line of life. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> i'm louis gomert from the state of common sense or some call it texas. let me borrow from abraham lincoln, only do we hope, ferchtly to we pray this scorch

of boring may pass away, yet if god wills an america suffers until all the wealth piles by the abortionists, 38 years of killing innocent babies shall be lost as was said 3,000 years ago, so it still must be said, the judgments of the lord are true and right all together. with mall las towards none, chart for all, firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds from abortions, to care for those who shall have undergone an abortion, and for all those suffering from those an cherish a just and lasting in to the abortion test among ourselves and our communities. may god heal our land and bless

america. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> i'm from the 5th district of ohio. i want to thank you all for being here today. your voices are going to be heard just like they were last year: the american people spoke, and look what happened uptown here. [cheers and applause] we have a great freshmen class. i tell you what, their voices have to be heard at home, even if you know we're pro-life, just call us. we want to hear from you. you have to call everyone. get your friends and neighbors. look around you. if everybody here called ten people, think what you could do. we're counting on you. the unborn are counting on you. can i count on you? [cheers and applause] well, thanks very much, we look forward to seeing you up on the hill. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm congressman thompson from the

5th district of pennsylvania. how many of you are from pennsylvania? [cheers and applause] all right. well, it is colder today, but you warm my heart for the unborn. this is my second term and i represent the middle part of pennsylvania, and yes, i'm pro-life. [cheers and applause] yes, i believe pennsylvania is pro-life -- [cheers and applause] and i vote pro-life. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the four bills we have already protecting the unborn, and i want to thank and timely yes, congress hears you. they heard you in nomber, and we have to seize the opportunity. thank you for being here. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> jim jordan from ohio. you all know the old story and scripture. when the israel lites were against the philistine and the giant walked out and issued a challenge. who will fight goliath. the israel identities said he's

too big, we can want fight him. david said, he's so big, i can't miss. [cheers and applause] keep truth on our side. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm jim from louisiana, great to see you here today. as a physician, a father, and a grandfather, it's a privilege to bring life into this world. you know, you hear it said that a woman should have the right to choose. what about t right of a newborn to life, love, and the pursuit of happiness? god bless you all, and thank you for being here today. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman tim from michigan's beautul 7th district. [cheers and applause] i'm glad to be back. they sent me home in 2008, but sent me back in 2010. talk about having new life. i want to stand with you because

i know you stand with the unborn, you stand with people who desireife, you stand with the old people, you stand with my grand kids and my kids, but most importantly, we need to remeer that we stand with the one who said the thief comes but to rob and steal and kill, but i come to give you life, and life abundantly. stand for that for all. we're on god's side. we can't miss. [cheers and applause] >> patty. i'm pro-life congressman from texas. [cheers and applause] there was a sign that said life is god's greest gift. america's number one goal should protect it. god bless you, and god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> maryland, where are you? [cheers and applause]

yeah, maryland is a really blue state. withll those maryland people here, america is on the march for life, aren't we? thank you for coming. for 18 years now, i've been the only representative from maryland. i'm glado tell you in the 19th year, the delegation doubled. dr. andy harris joined us. andy? [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. i want to say hio my son, my daughter, and i want to thank all the students for life, the future of a movement. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> well, thank you i'm steve from ohio. thank you all for being here. there's a buss load from senate tie, cleveland, and all over ohio. thank you for being here. let me recognize my mother who has 27 grand kids. if that's not pro-life, i don't

know what is. thank you for coming here to protect and defend the sanctity of life. we need your help and it will happen. thank you all for being here. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> i'm another one from the great state of ohio. how are you doing? [cheers and applause] hey, i am so proud to stand with you today looking out across the sea of humanity here and all the faces of the young people. it tells me that you get it. i don't know whether you've heard this ornot, but what you're hearing today is not a political statement. it's a passionate statement, a statement that says we stan in favor of life. we're going to stand and proclaim the sanctity of life. you're going to be able to count on me and all the rest of these talking, but you keep doing what you're doing because what you do is asmportant as what we do. god bless you. let's protect the unborn.

[cheers and applause] >> from the state of missouri -- [cheers and applause] six children, and this is the 11th march i've seen and probably theest one yet because we got about four times more congressmen here. [cheers and applause] tonight, if you were to fly over korea, you would see a sharp contrast. in the south, there are lights. in the north, darkness. our early founders dreamed of shining cityn a hill, a light to people around the entire world. it is our -- is our nation going to be according to that dream a nation of light or be a nation of darkness? our founders asserted that there is a creator whorants all of

his children inalienable rights first of which is the right to life, and it's the purpose of government to protect life, and if government fails to protect life, government is a failure. [cheers and applause] today, the abortionists among us still snuff out life. the little lights that are extinguished leave us darker. will not ceasein our enterprise until every tiny little light can shine in safety, and until we restore the dream that we should be a shining city on a hill. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> i'm greg harper from the great state of mississippi. welcome, you look great. let me tell you that under the

leadership of our governor, many pro-life laws have been passed. they designated mississippi as the safest place in the united states for an unborn child. [cheers and applause] we've gone from seven abortion clinics to one that is now part time. let's stay in the fight. which have >> hello, everyone. i'm chuck, a freshmen from the great state of tennessee. [cheers and applause] thank you for coming out in the cold. look around at your friend and neighbors from all 50 states. the united states of america is the greatest nation, the world has ever seen. we are one nation under god, and we will stay that way, but i will say this, i will say this, something mars our great conscious, and that's roe .

wade. it was a bad law then, it is a bad low now, and we will get rid of it in our lifetime. go back to your towns, cities, villages and look hard rt do not give up the fite. look at your friends and neighbors, we're on the right side of the issue. the righ come from god, and that's what the great united states is here torotect. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm steve, one the freshmen, and i'm from florida. how's everyone doing today? [cheers and applause] it's great to see you. you warm my heart. three years ago, our family, we found out that my sister-in-law carroll and brother shane were going to expect a baby. we were thrilled to add to our numbers, and i'll tell you, when

we found out that michael was going to be born with down syndrome, that did not stop our excitement. [cheers and applause] we began to pray that god would prepare our hearts, that we would be everything at he needed us to be, to be the family, so blessed, so lucky, so fortunate to be the one that michael would come to live with, and i will tell you when he was born, we prayed god for his blessings for we know and believe in god's word for i knew you when i formed you in your mother's womb according to jeremiah. according to psalms you are wonderfulfully and fearfully made. i i believe that. as a country we hurt and experience pain because of our disregard for life.

with life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. we can obtain thatnly when life is secured. god bless you and this great nation. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm martha representing alabama's second congressional district. [cheers and applause] i am unapologecally pro-life. i, too, believe that weare fearfully and wonderfulfully made, that each of us were knit tother in our mother's womb by our awesome god. i want to say thank you to my sweet family member who is here today, rebecca. i want to tell each of you thank you so much for making the journey here today to defend those who can't defend themselves. keep up the good fight for the unborn. god bless each of you.

[cheers and applause] >> good afteoon, i'm mike from the great state of kansas. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] kansas -- [cheers and applause] kansas has been for so many years a battleground on the issue of life. kansas has been a place where there's a central focus. we always know this in kansas, that the right of life can't be given to by the member of congress or taken away from you by nine folks on the supreme court. [cheers and applause] we know life comes because he gave us life and made us in him image. thank you so much for coming out here today. god bless you all, and let's keep up the figh thank you all. [cheers and applause]

>> good afternoon, i'm marlin from the great state of indiana, and i brought my pro-life team, my wife, christie, our son, payton, and our youngest son presston, and i want to give a shoutout to the county in indiana who traveled out tonight to be here today. i'm a freshmen congressman, and this is an amazing sight to see, and i want yr picture from up here, okay? payton. i believe that this generation -- [cheers and applause] i believe that this is a generation to see the overturning of roe vs. wade because we are winning in the hearts and minds of america. we may not win all the dime in washington, d.c., but across this country, we are winning. keep up the fight. god bless you.

[cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm bobby schilling from illinois' fighting 17th. this is my wife christie of 24 years, and togethere have 10 children. [cheers and applause] the day after the presidential election, two of my daughters came to the room and asked who won, and when we told tm, they started to cry. when they left the room, i said to my wife, we got to do something. here i am. [cheers and applause] when our friends from the other side tell us they want the right to choose, please, challenge the sentence for them. the right to choose, kill their

unborn chill child, we have to stay focus, keep the faith. there's a planned parenthood in our area. there's also a -- what is it? a woman's choice center. i always have to have my better half with me, but i got to tell you, the lady when i visited there what they do is bring women in who are looking to have an abortion, and they had one and they were doing the sonogram, and the baby was just laying there, and all the sudden before they are done, the baby put on a show for mom, and that baby is born today and is 18 years old. keep the faith. we have to get this done. stay focused. god bless you. god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, ken from kansas -- [cheers and applause]

>> it's a real honor to be here with my wife and four adopted children. how about a shoutout for adoption? [cheers and applause] yeah as you can see, our children don't look like us, but these are the children that planned parenthood doesn't want. can we stop planned parent hoot? yes, we can. yes, we can. the state of kansas in 1850 was called bloody kansas. toda we are at the heart of the struggle for life. in 1850, the supreme court decided black people were not hun. they decided young people aren't human. we are here to change this nation, and we will change our country. yes, we can. thank you.

[cheers and applause] >> hi, everyone, i'm jeff from nebraska, and i'm pro-life. [cheers and applause] i'm so sorry, my own five children are not here with me, but as i look out at you, i know one thing. you are the new generation of pro-life leadership. you are the new generation of civil right leaders. you know that women deserve better than abortion. you know that abortion is not health care, and you know that abortion takes lives # and distorts the genius of wormhood. -- womanhood. not too long ago being pro-life was just kind of accommated. now, it's a mission. city with us. help us. thank you for coming and thank you all for being pro-life. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> hi, billorest from texas. [cheers and applause] today reminds me of a story

about johnson from my hometown of bryan, texas. he was the directer of two yores of planned parenthood. shwas watching an ultrasound and decided she had to leave, and later on she submitted our res flags, walked across the street, and worked for a coalition for life in bryan, texas. [cheers and applause] like ab by johnson, each of us are faced with a decision, and it should be our decision to protect, defend, innocent lis all more thans including those of the unborn. thank you, and god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm frank and i represent the great state of new hampshire. i'm a member of the freshmen class and proudly calls himsf pro-life we do have the biggest freshn

class that is pro-life, a the other thing we get to do from new hampshire is make sure that every candidate who runs for president assures us that they will protect life and defend life. help me in new hampshire elect a president who will overturn roe vs. wade. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] >> i'm jeff landrey from louisiana. thank you. thank you for taking to the streets and marching for the sanctity of life, praying for the unborn, thank you for your inspiration. always remember that all human beings are created equal and a endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among which is the basic right to life. thank you, thank you.

[cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm from the great state of tennessee and the mountains and until two years ago, i was practicing medicine. i'm an obstetrician and gynecologist and delivered almost 5,000 pro-life babies. [cheers anapplause] i found out it worked well when you deliver your own voters. it works out very well. [laughter] the great tragedy, the great tragedy of two weeks ago in tucson, the first scheduled event i had following that was a pro-life march in tennessee on a cold day like today. we prayed for the injured, those who died, and for the unborn. i will make you this solemn promise. with every breath left in my body, i will fight for life. wi you join me? [cheers and applause] god bless you and thank you so

much for being here. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. i'm sve pierce from knack, one the freshmen coming here to defend life. [cheers and applause] the most coageous agent of a single individual is not to participate in the lie. thank you for not participating in the lie, and it is not a lie. thank you very much for that. [cheers and applause] >> you know when the israelites came out of e gent, they spent 40 years in the december ser. my friends who worked 40 years and counting, it's time to get out of the wilderness. i will guarantee g will lead us across the jordan river and turn away from not just funding abortions, but the practice itself. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> gd afternoon, everybody. i'm randy from illinois.

it is great to be with you today. i am one of almost 100 new freshmen sent here on mission. we have been cement with a mission toight for life, t fight for truth almost # 0% of us -- 90% of us are pro-life. that is exciting. [cheers and applause] i'm here to follow in the great footsteps of a mentor of mine from illinois. i'm going to fight for him, fight for life, and togeth, standing together with god's help, we will come back here one day andcelebrate victory. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] >> i'm steve king from iowa, and [cheers and applause] we are pro-life america. [cheers and applause] for 38 years, americans have come here to pray and march for life. thomas jefferson said a generation is 19 years, that's

two generations that have been year. millions of americans come here k # make friends, march, and go across america and do the same. we will see the end of roe vs. wade in our time. which have you have elected a pro-life congress, and now we need to elect a pro-life president and a pro-life supreme court, and we're coming back here to celebrate the end of roe vs. wade and getting back the sanctity of life. god bless you. >> good afternoon, everybody, i'm from the great state of illinois. [cheers and applause] proudly one of four pro-life freshmen elected from president obama's home state. [cheers and applause] i'm here to deliver one simple message. this loud, ram bunk, exited

class is here to fight the fight with you. which have -- [cheers and applause] we will not be quiet. you are the inspiration. you are the movement. keep rolling, keep marching, and things will come our way. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> hello, i'm victory haarslar for the great state of missouri, and i'm proud to represent the 4th district and also the vast majority of american women who are pro-lif [cheers and applause] we are the mothers of this country, and we respect the value of life, and we have one message for a certain woman who was speaker of the house last year. she does not represent us. [cheers and applause]

we will prevail in thi tide, and with as long as weo not ge weary and if we keep up, we shall reap the harvest, so thank you for coming. let's keep on keeping on. we can do this. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm anne marie from the great state of new york. [cheers and applause] after spending 30-plus years in the pro-life movement, i am so proud to stand here among you. you are the hearts and the souls of the pro-life movement. don't give up. keep on fighting. understand the difference you make in your country. we a blessed to have you here today. thank you for makg the trip down. thank you for your commitments to the right to life, t most

fundamental right we have. d bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman bill, a freshman member from the second district in michigan, and yes, michigan loves life. [cheers and applause] well, not only am i a proud freshman member othe congress, but proud husband to natalie and proud dad to five great kids in michigan. we have been involve involved in this. my church is a right to life, my wife is on the pregnancy center board, but i have to tell you this is an awesome sight. to see this many people, i took a picture, i'm putting it up on the facebook. how many people were there? we have proof right here, folks. [cheers and applause] i know it's cold. you have been out here a long time, but there's a lot of us. isn't that good problem to

have? [cheers and applause] that's right. but, you know, it's not about young and old. it's not about rich and poor. it's not about catholic and protestant. it not about christian versus jew. this is about doing right veer sus wrong. we are here to speak for those who have no voices. keep up your fight. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon i'm lee terry from nebraska. [cheers and applause] ank you for being here. when u see you hear, i see the values of america are represented. we all know that the greatest civilizations have a moral code that recognizes humanity and humanity is recognizing life from conception to natural end. that's what we need, and i want to thank you for being here to fight the fight. we know you got our backs when

we are up here, and we got yours when you are home. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm james langford from oklahoma, and i'm honor to be pro-life. as a feshman, i am one of them. we stand here to represent and will be standing up to say this country is inherently pro-life, and we need to speak like it is and move forward and show that it really is. [cheers and applause] next nay senior thing is to be ableto communicate to a generation who is so careful to not throw away a plastic water bottle, but will throw away an infant, we should say to them we have common sense and look at the womb. that's not just a fetus, but a baby. we need to stand with them and say that's life. stand with us on this.

it's an honor to stand with you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm steve om ohio. what i want to know from everybody else out here is how do we get all the noticey people from kansas up front up here? that's what i want to know. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] okay, okay. i'm a fshmen sort of. i was here for 14 years and went home for two years, and i'm back. one of the things i'm particularly proud of in the 14 ars i was here is being the author and principle sponsor of the ban on partial birth abortion. [cheers and applause] it is now the law of the land, and you know, chris smith, on the first speakers up here, i know there's a lot of us, and we're almost done, but chris smith talked about that horrendous case about that

doctor in philadelphia who destroyed these innocent human lives, and he's being brought up on charges, and the newspaper article i saw it on back home called it a house of horrors. well, i got ne for you. what happened in these abortion mills around the country, they are all houses of house of horror, every one of them. i'llonclude with this. last saturday, tw days ago, january 22nd, of course was roe vs. wade day. it's an important day to me too because it's the day i was born. every year, i can't help but think on that day how many innocent unborn lives have been snuffed out because of that horrendous decision, and we are going to reverse roe vs. wade in the country, and it's going to start right here. [cheers and applause] so god bless each and every one

of you for being a part of this. it's so important, and please stick with it. never give up. we will prevail. god bless each and every one of you. god bless your families, and yes, god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, i'm dan null webster from the great state and sunny state of florida. [cheers and applause] i served in the state legislature and i was interviewed one time by a reporter who was doing a in-depth study of the pro-life movement. she askeduesons about my mom, dad, faith, and my business. at the end she said i have a last question, and that's this. given all these things i talked to you and asked you about, when is it that you became pro-life? i told her at conception. [cheers and applause] thank you for coming today, an

for honoring life that does begin at conception. keep up the work. god bless all of you. [cheers and applause] >> i'm congressman trent franks from arizona. you know, recently the president gave a speech. he said all of us should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to the expectations of our children, and i believe that to be true, but, mr. president, we cannot do that while we stand by and watch 4,000 of them be killed every day. mr. president, there is nothing liberating about killing our children. mr. president, america has not yet fore saken her unborn, and in two more years there's another election, mr. president, and by the grace of god, we will see roe vs. wade fall in the ashes of history. [cheers and applause] god bless you all. heers and applause] >> i'm congresswoman jean smith from southern ohio.

where is ohio? you know, ladies and gentlemen, this fight did not just start 38 years ago. when people like barbara and jack from cincinnati, ohio said everybody has the right to life including the unborn. this cite started well over 150 years ago when folks like elizabeth stanton, susan b. anthony, sarah norton, and alice pall who fought for women' right, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to run for public office, and the right of the unborn to have life. elections have consequences. you have given me girl power. we have eight new republican pro-life women. thank you.

[cheers and applause] keep up the fight. two years from now there's another election. let's continue the pro-life trend and make this whole town pro-life. god bless you and the usa. [cheers and applause] >> i'm mike, i'm from i understand, and i'm pro-life -- from indiana and i'm pro-life. we gaer with hope in the shadow of a new pro-life majority on capitol hill. [cheers anapplause] ..

will not stand for lng. you know there could be no lasting prosperity without a moral foundation of the law, and as the focusing on spending what we agree. let's start by hot denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad. [cheering] one more item on spending, the

largest abortion provider in america should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under title ten. the time has come to deny any and all funding to planned parentho of america. [cheering] thank you for bravingthe cold one more time and saying to the heart of our national government we will fight on for life. we will fight on for the unborn and the broken hearted. we will fight because we know as thomas jefferson said, god who gave us life gave us liberty. and god is just and his justice cannot sleep forever. and we know this: we will win this fight becse the deepest desire of every mother and child to the coffers to protect their child even at the cost of their life, and the american people will need this right. we will restore this in the flight to the center of american

law because every american knows in their heart this is the greatest nation on earth because we acknowledgethe god-given right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a fee on a legal right to life. thank you. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> i am thadeus michaud her from the great state of michigan and alumnus of the try catholic central high school. [cheers and applause] first, coming from michigan, on a truly have to say that i am enjoying the warm weather here in wahington. [lauter] and on a more serious note, we understand that the right to life is not a republican or

democratic issue. it is a hman issue. so today before you, and to my constituents in michigan's 11th congressional district who have entrusted me in this office to serve them ali reaffirm my commitment to defending innocent human life and creating a culture of life here in the united states. thank you all for what you do. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon. i am a congressman from alabama's fourth congressional district. [cheers and applause] it is great to see so many pro-life congressmen here. [cheers and applause] let me just say this, we are for a new day in congress with of these newly he elected members of congress who tell you life and want to protect life. thank you for standing up for life and being out here today. there are rallies held all across this country. i had the privilege to be in alabama over the weeknd and

speak at a pro-life rally. there are marches being held across the country, but most fall, thank you for the prayers that you pray for the unborn. it makes a difference. thank you for bringing for this congress and legislators across the country that make the decision and the protection of the unborn. may god bless each and every one of you and may god bless america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, pro-life america! i'm mark kelly from pennsylvania, part of the stealer nation. [cheers and applause] i'm with my grandson george, my granddaughter, vivian, and my wife, vicki. in 1776, thomas jefferson said we hold these truths, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. if we knew in 1776 hauer important life was, we certainly know in 2011 that the same thing holds true. while th temperature may be cold, our hearts are warm and our passion is hot. god bless you and god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> perhaps the greatest moral issue we face in this nation is the killing of 4,000 babies every day. god cannot and will not bless this land while this is going on. we have to stop it. we have to stop it now. [cheers and applause] i am appalled now from georgia, represent the 12th congressional district. [cheers andpplause] when i was elected to congress i

promised the first bill i would introduce was the sanctity of human life act. it was and will be until we stop this tragedy and this horror that is going on in america. but the greatest political force in america today is in the body in the first three words of the u.s. constitution: we've people. you will stop abortion. talk to your senators, talk to your congressman, did your friends, everybody to demand that we passed a personhood bill so that those pressures on born children, human beings, will have the right to life and be protected as you and i are. that's going to be the key. it's up to you. will you join me in fighting to get the right of personod to those on born children? will you! [cheers and applause] >> thank you to the panel.

it could in the you all to stand up with me. i will put you under oath. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. let the record so it does show that the witness's answer in the affirmative. it is good for me that we follow the order that we have. general, could you provide your army corps of engineers. i appreciate the opportunity to

come before you to discuss the construction program of the challenges. our meetings here in washington help us mission better. mission accomplished and sits at the top of our list of priorities. the corps of engineers -- the workload in afghanistan has went up substantially in the last few years. a surge in u.s. forces and efforts to build the afghan security forces. the corps has increased staffing in afghanistan from around to every 50 military and civilian -- 250 civilian and military

personnel. we established a transatlantic division headquarters in winchester virginia in 2009 to provide focus and control for the whole unit. we have expanded use for reach back to all eight divisions. challenges remain and i know we are here to talk about that today. security, corruption, providing oversight in a difficult environment, managing the workload, sustainability and site preparation. i think we have learned from the evolving environment that we have learned from our mistakes. i think that we did better in mitigating the challenges. on the heels of our 2009 review,

i see one specific mission being particularly critical and seminal for our move forward. this was issued by the commander on october 9, 2010. the tin key principles -- of the 10 key principles are real drivers of action that come from the troops. these principles and guidelines moveless from an era of construction that was trying to the conflict itself -- to de conflict itself. i think that these guidelines put us in a position to undertake projects that we can accomplish. this can be the root cause of other things that impact our ability to execute.

the guidelines of hiring representatives and use of remote sensing elements to inspect and receive feedback are helping to reduce the security impact. corruption is another challenge and we are getting at that through administration and minimizing brokering contracts. we coordinate with task force 2010. we educate our contractors in adopting best practices and we implemented a tracking system. timely and quality oversight is critical. it is tied to having the necessary personnel on the ground. it is a big task. it is tough. we have a large pool of

expertise to draw from. we maximize the use of reach back. most significantly, this is a joint effort is all three services bringing together their unique capabilities and business models seamlessly. site selection preparation has been an issue. we have gone a long way in solving that. i think we have given more attention to drainage planning and geological oversight. suitability and sustainability, i know we will talk about that. we are using designs that are more easily constructed and are easier to maintain. we have contracts in place for these facilities both in the

north and south. we face a lot of other challenges, but i think we have come a long way in the past year or so. i welcome this opportunity to talk to you so that we get better at what we are doing in theater. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. mr. mcglynn, please. >> this is the fifth engagement before this committee since 2008. we appreciate the strong working relationship and productive exchanges we have had. we have improved programs and will insure better practices. the bureau of narcotics affairs support rule of law and criminal justice programs to run the

world. in afghanistan, our programs are important to defeating the insurgency. the key area for today's hearing is renovation contracts. both program areas are crucial for the effective operation of the civilian justice program. we have significance endeavors in both areas based on close coordination with the host government and they are aimed at building a stronger afghanistan capacity. i understand from commission staff the focus of your interest and the central training center for police training both in and durable -- to bull -- kabul. tradition in the past was overcrowded and inhumane.

prisoners controlled key portions of the prison until 2008. the government of afghanistan, supported by united states, retook control. to make it a more effective facility, we developed a renovation project with the government of afghanistan in 2009. as part of using this, -- the project included renovation of the kitchen, staff barracks and sells and these are now nearing completion. problems were identified as a result. staff reported serious problems

considering the quality and pace of the work. there were indications of fraud. my dear terminated the services of the contracting office rep in may of 2010. we stopped work orders in november 2010. an afghan firm is currently assessing the progress and when he designs are reviewed, any solicitation for completion will be issued. -- a new solicitation for completion will be issued. this has been an important part of our overall police training program in afghanistan. this has been a priority since 2002. we have implemented a program with the department of defense

and in close cooperation with the ministry of interior. the central training center is one of several sites where we train afghan police in basic civilian police skills. this product has encountered some challenges. in december, a building that was to be razed was declared a historic building. in december 2010, one of the subcontractors defaulted. project completion has been delayed. let me say two words before concluding. we have several contract options. we have an integrated management contract oversight

process. for the ctc project, it is supported by experts in washington. they work closely with eight in- country contractors in afghanistan. our model for the project is based on an individual contract with an individual firm. with that, let me just say that we -- you know that afghanistan is a dangerous place to work and we are committed to getting our objectives. thank you. >> thank you. colonel cassidy? >> good morning members of the commission. thank you for the opportunity to be here before you.

we have evolved over the past 20 years to provide engineering and vital services, enabling sustainable airforce and join the solutions. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff asked us to create a bridge for construction services. in january of 2004, we were asked to support the coalition in iraq. in april, 2006, we started working afghanistan. we have awarded over $6 million in construction for which price in the 1 billion is in afghanistan. we plan, execute and deliver construction services to the following customers. united states central command, therefore central, army central

-- airforce central, army central. we compete within the idiqs. we subcontract orders. there is a decision matrix tailored to the type of contract. the project management minimizing our civilian and military footprint, leveraging contractor expertise, we eliza

-- utilize local nationals. the combination provides diversity. are in country military's civilian and contract employees provide the daily construction oversight, the santonio provides technical, financial, administrative support along with continuity of the construction program. due to changing requirements or site conditions. none of our afghanistan -- as we drive begich strive to provide timely construction support, we welcome recommendations. we understand there is interest

in several areas, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> please proceed. >> i am the assistant to the enmesh trader and director of the office of afghanistan and pakistan affairs at usaid. first of want to compliment you on the critical work of this commission. i began working in afghanistan in 1993 during the time when our country was ignoring the plight of afghanistan to our mutual peril. i spent many of the last 18 years working on that country, and i have written and testified extensively about the effort that the u.s. has undertaken in afghanistan spent -- since 2001. our mission has been and remain a central to u.s. national security and our civilian assistance efforts are essential

to their success. i have repeatedly raised concerns about the corrosive effects of corruption, ways, and failed expectations in our efforts there. one of the reasons i took this job was to improve our performance and accountability. this has been a dramatic year for progress that u.s. aid. the ford initiative is applying the agenda for accountability and leadership of a global level. in the short time i have been at the agency thus far, we have initiated aggressive reforms in afghanistan and at the very heart of what this commission was mandated to address. accountability in the provision

of development assistance is among our highest priorities in afghanistan. we have bricky initiatives into place this year. we have developed the accountable assistance for afghanistan initiative to ensure that proper procedures are in place to help protect assistance dollars from waste, fraud, or otherwise being diverted from their development purpose. we are utilizing mechanisms that provide the most visibility, limiting layers of subcontracting and dramatically increasing competition in bidding and award process. we are inventing all afghan companies and personnel working on usaid projects, enhancing projects controls on funds, performing additional project oversight in high-risk areas using multiple monitoring techniques, and utilizing the full arsenal of oddity

mechanisms. one of the biggest problems has been the capacity to fulfill its oversight obligations to the full list. we are increasing our own capacity to undertake proper oversight and accountability. we have increased at an overall in afghanistan, with 60% of our staff outside of kabul. we are serving three of the country in the district support teams and regional platforms and getting out more frequently to evaluate the performance of the programs they oversee. we have ordered a doubling in size of our contract and staff this year which has already tripled since 2007. to advance national security of said project objectives, we are

stricken capacity to design and build and maintain roads, increase electricity and design and construct clinics, hospitals, and schools. i cannot over emphasize the challenges involved in these efforts as international partners combat of vicious insurgency and terrorist threat. security concerns on construction projects are paramount. in 2010, attacks on civilian efforts rose sevenfold. managing the safety of u.s. international and afghan personnel as well as their associated costs is a central undertaking for us. geography, remote and mountainous terrain present huge challenges as that the relative lack of specialized expertise in afghanistan to undertake complex construction efforts. i want to take a moment to acknowledge the immense pressures, political, security, family, that our staff and partner server under every day.

i personally lost friends and colleagues every year of this long campaign. there is no question that we as a nation and the agencies represented here before you can and must do better. it is important not to lose sight of the positive impact these programs are already making. our investment in schools, clinics, roads, and electricity have dramatically expanded access for millions of ordinary afghans to education, health care, and the economy. nothing we do in afghanistan is easy, and the challenges we face in construction have reflected that. but we and i have committed to asking better of our cells. we have already begun making the critical changes needed to improve our efforts and enhance our prospects for success. thank you. >> will have a round of questions now and proceed

accordingly. this is the onset of an educational situation, without trying to criticize it, i am trying to understand or let you explain -- you have a very large, organic organization in afghanistan where you do subcontracting back here, but you do a lot of it over there. the air force does most of it out of texas. you have a very robust quality assurance organization in country in afghanistan and news organizations to do your quality assurance to be sure that contractors are doing adequate quality assurance.

i will star with colonel cassidy because you are the proverbial new kid on the block in the sense that the corps has been doing this a long time. you have filled the breach that was critically needed in the air force has stepped in and taken a different approach. can you talk about what led to that and why you are taking that approach of using companies to provide adequate oversight? >> we are using the same methods used a side and anywhere around the world. we have a limited number of military engineers and civil servants that allows us to hire help title to -- to hire out title ii. we have about 100 titles ii contract employees in afghanistan at this point.

they do quality assurance, making sure that are compliant with the quality control plan, and we have contrasting officer represented who make periodic site visits and resolve any differences that arise. we have done it to minimize our footprint in country and by using our worldwide contracts, we go to revoke prime contractors, over 40 on the list. we have nine working in afghanistan at this point. we feel we have been fairly successful with that. we have had challenges on some projects but we are moving forward and is just a different model than the core uses. >> general, use a model where you do a good portion of it organically.

is that because it is the tried and true corps model, or is there some other aspect? >> the corps of engineers is unique. we have two different business models. our business model meet our business requirements to do all the work that we do in the u.s.. the civil works infrastructure and inland waterways, hydropower and all the other business lines on the water infrastructure side in the u.s.. that makes up of the corps of engineers. we are able to draw on all of that to reach back and destroyed nearly 1000 of those people forward b.j. deploy a nearly 1000 of those people forward. they complement each other. we are not in competition with one another.

>> you are not in competition with each other, but many of your projects and many companies to work with are similar looking in the same companies. i know you know that this pictorial up here is camp phoenix. the statements are very clear about expectations, and then sometimes the outcomes do not end up with the same situation. we had the opportunity to be briefed by your senior officer from airforce center of excellence. if you look on my right, you are left, that is a big picture of barracks that have been boarded up. they were not completed, and if you look over here you see quarters where the military has

put its people in and out of trying to scramble because those barracks are not done. -- your of reflects rejec officers said it does not represent the worked we do, but it was our work on our watch. one company was not paying their suggs. i am just reading from a briefing charge that you have presented. the owner and his company fled the country with roughly $2 million in fees because the construction was not working. they did not know what they were doing. they took the $2 million and left town. in order to get the payment, it says a third tier subcontractor

removed two of their 750 generators. so that they would get paid. you need generators to it the work done. you think of security, and they are high bolling of the generators out of one of the camps. when we ask the question, in the model, we said why did you not know about all these problems? i thought maybe we would find out that the contractor was not doing a good job. in your model, he was doing a good job, but his contract was not sufficiently funded. he had been told by his customer to work in to other higher risks projects. he had done no quality assurance because his contract was a zero sum and he could only

do it in other locations. so there was no quality oversight. the net effect of this is, it's incredible. it is worse than a comedy of errors because it is a case where they are not paying lower tier subcontractors. there is discussions about the guy came in and was bragging about his offside billows that he had in other countries. i know the model works, but the real question is, and you said you have some problems, that is a big problem. >> camp phoenix is probably our worst case. it was one of our first projects in afghanistan and our focus was purely in iraq that point. we did not move enough resources

to afghanistan to watch the project. one thing we did take, we did lessons learned from iraq to the afghanistan. it is different lessons in afghanistan, different skills for the people, different abilities. we had a lot more trouble in afghanistan with inadequate materials coming in. that would be stamped that they meet standards but they would not meet standards. it was the perfect storm, everything coming together that caused a lot of problems there. a lot of the issues we had our customer changes and changes to the program as we went forward. we know we have problems at phoenix and we are working to fix those. >> i don't know if you have been

here but there's a building next to it that has been inhabited, and yet project save had come in there and written up pages and pages. i was talking to some of the people living there and they sometimes -- they say sometimes if you don't have the right extensions it is like a sparkler. i was told have no other place to stay. there is is a michigan risk. you are breathing are exceptional. you did not try to pull any punches about the problem. we picked this randomly. any kind of commission that starts making the rounds on randomly picked, you start running into issues like this.

sometimes it pales against the actual experience. that is our concern, that you take your lessons learned. i commend you for frankly acknowledging the issues, but it goes without saying there are challenges that need addressed right now so the sobers don't have to live in facilities like that. -- so the soldiers don't have to live in facilities like that. >> thank you, my time is up. >> i want to start with you. in your testimony and your written statement, you talked about accountability. i am glad you stressed that because that is the key word. accountability drives performance. the lack of accountability results in poor performance or

no performance, and maximum accountability results in good performance. i am trying to square your quite commendable emphasis on accountability in your statement with what i think is the most important piece of paper mauresmo but that our staff put together for us. there is a january 10, 2011 article titled usaid awards firm with checkered record a $266 million note it afghan electricity deal. i will just read the first paragraph. the u.s. government is counting on a contractor with the record of cost overruns to handle a critical component of general david petraeus's plan to stabilize a volatile southern afghanistan and deliver more power to this region. a $266 million contract for the

birthplace of the taliban, the heat of the fight right now, the southern provinces, against a backdrop of a id having complained about their performance on a contract to supply power in kabul, a contract that ballooned in price to $300 million and was not just the cost overrun issue but also a timing issue. the other interesting piece of paper in our hearing book is the november 29 justification document that requested up the channels at a id approval for this no bid contract. it uses to interesting phrases. says that for various reasons, it is uniquely provisions to undertake this project, and then

uses the phrase is uniquely qualified. it seems that what they really intended to say which uniquely positioned, because they later explained what uniquely qualified means to simply be that they were already on the ground. it already had existing staff. there was not an alternative to them. my understanding is that the bulk of the work there was subcontracted out. against this backdrop, how can the american people take your claim that a id is taking accountability seriously if and no bid contract is awarded to a contractor with this record of poor performance? >> let me take you back into the decisionmaking process over the last year as far as the

contract for kandahar power is concerned and then we can go to issues of bell performance. the decision that was made to provide electricity this summer to con a heart was a decision that was discussed at the highest levels of our government as something that the new commander of our forces in afghanistan felt was absolutely paramount importance. it was a top agenda item for our military in their engagement. we have an operation to try to turn tendulkar -- kandahar. the idea of generating power to the citizens in a visible fashion was made a top priority.

it then that overall priority, the specific priority was placed on delivering more electricity to kandahar. the decision was made that the competitively awarded joint venture agreement would be used for that work. it was an agreement that was already in place. they were already in place in kandahar. their behalf of the joint venture that would have been performing in the electricity upgrades to provide additional power. we move forward to a contract that work under the existing agreements. that decision was made because that agreement was in place. at the same time, u.s. aid is working on replacing that single iqc that had been awarded four years ago with held by multiple

awardees. it would be broken down into multiple agreements for different things. there were be one for energy, one four road, and one for vertical structures. the agency takes very seriously and that it does not believe for accountability purposes and for competitiveness that it makes sense to rely on a single award. >> let me stop you there. when did the process start of providing these alternate contrasting vehicles going forward? when did this process dark? >> i would have to get back to you on the exact date. i am not certain when it began. there was a commitment at the beginning of 2010 to initiate those procurements, it to replace the existing iqc.

>> it was not until 2010 that we began putting in place alternate mechanisms? >> as far as i know, yes. the know what percentage of the contract was subcontracted out? let me explain the decision. >> please be as brief as you can. >> i think it is very important to understand what happened next. we are going to go with the existing competitive fully awarded agreement. in august, when this was lined up, it came to our attention for the first time that there was discussion with the justice department. i am sure this is something we will return to.

it became the decision of u.s. aid that while these negotiations for ongoing with the justice department in a settlement agreement, it was neither appropriate to use that joint venture agreement to move forward on this work nor was it safe to do so because we did not know what was going to happen at the outcome of that negotiating process. we were worried that the entire effort would be in peril. the decision we made to award a sole source contracts was merely taking the work out of the joint-venture and giving it to the same company that was going to conduct the work under the joint venture. it was awarded as a sole source instead of going back in august and read competing the entire venture. we felt that would simply take too long in order to achieve the effects that we felt from a national security perspective for impaired to. >> let me just probe further.

i understand the urgency here. that is clear. what puzzles me is black and veitch had been the subject of cost overruns. if the record shows clearly that they did not perform in a timely fashion with regard to the lan. >> there was a report on their performance and the second part of that, which is very important, is that when it was found that the project was being delayed, the power plant project was being delayed, there is a very serious effort at remediation including replacement of leadership, a lot

of additional oversight, and according to the audit, they dramatic turnaround performance on that project in the second year. we fell confident that clearly that had severe problems in the initial part, and that is well documented. we felt that do to change in leadership over the management both of the subcontractor and the entire joint venture, their performance had improved dramatically. it was our assessment that the performance improvement and their subsequent works in canada are -- in kandahar make it so that not only did they complete the work on time, but that they would do so effectively. >> final question.

just give me a sense of when that turnaround in performance happened? >> i would have to refer back to the record. it was before my time. it is my understanding -- i think it was essentially in the beginning of 2009 that substantial remediation efforts were undertaken to get the plant project back on track to improve the monitoring, oversight, and delivery of the program. >> this article says that in january of 2009, michael e. yates, the top official in afghanistan wrote a letter and expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the companies progress on the plant. in this letter, he scolded the company for failing to keep a id

delays.d of construction delet talked about many important deadlines missed, and usaid has lost confidence in the ability of their ability to complete the work. i think the timing is important. i would like to know exactly what time frame you are talking about when used to say the performance increase so substantially that it justified the sole source award. >> i will add to that, we would like you to provide clarification to those questions for the record. i doubt seriously if we will have the time to totally pursue it here but i think everything the commissioner raises is absolutely on spot.

>> you said in your statements that a decision was made to use the joint venture. who made the decision on that point, and you said it became the decision to not use the joint venture. who made that decision? >> on the first question, when you say the decision was made -- >> no, you said the decision was made. >> you are referring to the decision to use the joint venture. >> the decision to use the joint venture initially took place over months. in dialogue with the department of defense, the department state and the afghan government, the decision was move forward.

essentially i would say it was the u.s. government decision that this important program to deliver power to conduct our should move forward more expeditiously than had been understood earlier in the year. i believe it was in july that the decisions were made that often included funding. >> i am not clear on who made the decision to fund the venture. >> i took over responsibility for the office in august. the initial decision to use the joint venture -- >> it was the administrator's

decision. >> but i don't know that the decision -- >> can you find out during a hearing and let us know? >> let me be clear. the decision to not use the joint venture and to use the sole source was the decision of our office. >> specifically it was your decision? >> i ultimately signed the agreement. >> in the context of the interagency discussion to go forward with an important initiative to bring power to to kandahar, it did you raise the discussion that the urgency of it would drive you to use an unacceptable contractor? did you mentioned that in the decision to use a sole source contractor to do something important, did you or the administrator or did anyone raise to the national security

system, we are going to have to do this using a contractor that we have big problems with? >> no, we didn't, because it was our clear understanding that they had dealt with the class problems that had been identified, and we were confident in their ability to perform. >> i cannot let you off the hook today completely. we have heard and read in numerous sources, we heard most recently from the general this morning about the lack of master plans, whether for energy or construction or many of the other things that are going on in country. would you talk to us about the impact of lack of master plans on any of the work that the corps is responsible for of or participated in?

>> master planning obviously is very important, especially on installations that are growing by leaps and bounds and where more and more construction is being put in where there is already a lot of infrastructure. master planning is really important so you are not doing things over, not moving roads when you want to put a water line in or tearing something up that was just saved. it is very important. it makes the build out of that installation much more efficient over time. in cases where installations -- there are master planning efforts going on right now. there are 71 master plans for different installations in the works right now, with more to come. it will give us a stronger framework to integrate our construction. when you build in an area where master planning was not done, it

just causes a lot more o- day interface to find out what is going on. if you don't have a master plan , it makes the construction all that more involved. it takes day-to-day coordination with the owners of the installation to make sure that you are not and doing something that was already put in place. master planning is absolutely critical. >> did you feel comfortable with the state of the master plan is that you deal with in country? >> you would have to go installation by installation. they are all at different levels of maturity. they are working very hard to get master plans for all installations in place. >> let me go now to a

sustainability that we talked to india earlier panel. you mentioned in your written testimony that you have criteria regarding project sustainability. would you explain to us, since there are so many projects that have come to light that don't seem to be sustainable, would you explain to us how that process works with the corps? >> i will approach it a couple of different ways. in terms of sustainability, facilities that are buildable by local constructors' that have materials readily available that are sensitive to the culture of the area. if you put the western style sink in a bathroom, that is not required over there. you would not put wohlers then it that are required to be heated by gas -- would not put

the oilers in. we standardized designs for certain facilities, the ones that you see a lot of. >> why did it take so long to get to this point? >> in terms of standardizing, it is the maturation of our footprint over there. the record workload we have experience here in the state's, to meet the deadlines, in order to do that we cannot design every single building by itself. we needed standard designs to a debt building facilities. our district in afghanistan and as we established our relationships with our customers, with the rotation of

people over time, it has taken time to get the proper process is in place to make that a reality on the ground. i mentioned about the operations order that was released by the commander that gives construction contract in guidelines for afghanistan. it gives a vision and intent on the commanders part and give some pre -- some key principles on things like sustainability and lays out 16 criteria to make sure that everyone involved, their interests are recognized. simple things like picking the right site location, taking security into account, in user participation, and what the building should look like in the end. >> did include local participation during the

process, or is it just the initial sign off for project? >> we do local participation -- >> i don't mean the builders, i am talking about the end user. who first tells you i don't need it sinks? >> the end user for a specific installation is probably a number of unit that will occupy those barracks. the and it belongs to the ministry of defence. there is a dialogue to achieve standards that will provide buildings that meet life safety codes. on the ground when we are building this thing, the interface with the local people who are going to occupy it. >> in your testimony there is a statement in their that it does

the participate in the process in that host nation project selection. is that true? how do you guys then integrate the afghan government into your projects? where is that done? >> the projects are selected and prioritized by a joint program integration office in afghanistan. they go through and worked the entire list of construction projects that are required and they dispersed them out to either us or the court to build projects. our local interaction with the local government is somewhat limited because by the time we go in there, we are counting on

the sides to be made available to us. if there are people on the sides, the controlling authority, the landowner is also responsible for providing the site. >> i am not worried about the side. i am talking about some of the cultural issues, for example. how do you know you are building the right kind of barracks? we struggle with some of the same issues as the general went through. for the barracks on a military post that we are going to use, there are criteria that are set out there. we use the same criteria that the army does. that has changed over time. >> thank you, commissioner.

when we discussed going ahead with the power initiative and the desire to me the time lines of general petraeus, there were issues at aid which had to be answered and dealt with by the military. i remember three, and it is the second one that is particularly interesting. one was the questioning about whether electric power was going to be a counterinsurgency tool. the second one was that it would irritate the karzai government's to take on the energy costs. we have already heard about this for other diesel plants, that since it costs 22 cents per

kilowatt hour for diesel and a fraction of that for alternative sources, i know in kandahar they cannot get a transmission line in, but it costs less to do things differently. what was done, what was the answer about how the irritation of the karzai government would be dealt with? was it by donor subsidies for a couple of years? >> i think that the decision was accompanied on our part by intensive thought about how do we make the power supply to southern afghanistan more sustainable. while there was a move forward on putting additional diesel generation capacity in place this year in kandahar and that was being done by the department

of defense spending their funds on diesel generators, we agreed to do several things. >> could you get to what it is that would remove the irritation of the karzai government ?uestio >> it is in our interest to look at the long term more sustainable power supply. we are in discussions with the afghan government about both the further rehabilitation of the dam to deliver hydroelectric power as well as the extension of the northern network which is largely bringing in cheaper power, as you noted before, from central asia. and then delivering it further to the south and east of the country.

the kabul proper plan is not the main power supply for kabul, it is back up. last month that pled guilty -- that a plea agreement -- they were defrauding by known false overhead billings of aid. the chief financial officer and the comptroller also both pled guilty to the same charges. according to press reports, aid

made them pushed out and buy out the chairman of the holding company who was also -- it had to be bought by the company. what is your reaction to the criminal events? >> when i learned about the allegations in august and the investigations that have been going on for some time by the justice department, i was profoundly disappointed and very concerned about the impact of not only the individual issues being investigated, but more broadly, how that reflects on our ability to be good stewards

of our assistance effort. i believe that the settlement that was made was a very positive step in that not only was usaid able to recover the funds that had been allegedly defrauded from it, but collected something in the neighborhood of triple damages back for the american taxpayer. there was a fairly severe approach of dealing with louis berger to bring them back into compliance. >> i appreciate your reaction. i want to ask something about the kandahar our initiative. aid lumped together in that

several different pieces that have been alluded to. the big pieces are in the diesel power plant in the connor our industrial park, and also the dam which is not in con anbar province but in helmand province, which is 100 miles away and which is not diesel powered but is already there as a hydroelectric project. maya understanding is that the work on the dam was not done by black and veitch but by louis berger and what you said before was technically correct in that they were on the ground in, and are but they did not have prior

experience with that facility. you could say the joint venture did, but they were quite clear on who did what. you said a number of individual contracts for the different components could potentially be issued to conduct the work needed. wouldn't it have been, and i will not go further into why you did or did not do it, but wouldn't it have been potentially -- could we talk about the different components that could potentially be issued, couldn't the dam component, the hydroelectric turbines component, be separately awarded? >> it may be beyond my technical

competence to answer your last question. it is my understanding that the reason these were grouped together was a question of timing. >> i am trying to figure out what else could you possibly have been talking about in your jna when you said potential components could be issued separately. what else could have been talking about? >> what i am answering is that i believe these were all included at the same time. >> i am not asking why you did. i am talking about your phrase they could potentially be issued. i want to know what the different components for that could potentially be issued. isn't obvious that when you consider that possibility, the different components were the hydroelectric dam on one side

and the diesel plant on the other side? >> it may be that what you are referring to as a transmission line as the additional component that was not included as part of this contract. we looked at the timing of those. the transmission line was the piece that was left out. >> this is about what was put in, not what was left out. i will repeat for the fourth time what is in the jna. i wonder if you could check during the break what other could possibly be the components. let me ask a question about the time line. today in a story in the associated press there is a letter from the agency's afghan

director about the con our power initiative. -- the kandahar power initiative. usaid intends to procure services through an open -- my colleague has already worked with you to get the time line straight. in august, you were on the verge of contract and this, after months of a preparatory process with the joint venture. somewhere between february and when you started that process for the joint venture, at what point did you turn away from the promise of full and open competition between february and august? >> we never turned away from the promise of full and open

competition. the plan was to replace the existing joint venture. the decision specifically in terms of those components that went into the joint venture, those were accelerated the to the issues that i have outlined. >> at what point was the decision made? you were talking with them but between february and august, the decision was made? >> the timeline of wanting to put in place the newly competed awards did not match with our need to contract the work for, dark power this summer when that decision was being made -- for condor are power. >> i am sorry, but i really am trying my best.

was the statement made in 2010 not about the kandahar plant? >> we did not have the decision making mechanisms in place in time for the decision to be made. >> and when did you change your mind on having the competitive process he said in february 2010 you would have? >> no one changed their mind. what changed was the time line for our need to contract that work. >> when did you change the time line? >> the decision to move forward more rapidly was made roughly between june and august in a series of discussions that i've already described to you. >> and so it was between june and august? >> exactly.

prior to that we had not anticipated we would have to move forward with that word before the new competed mechanisms were in place. >> thank you. >> i have to start with a minor housekeeping announcement. we ask for your testimony in advance in time to prepare for the hearing and we did not receive it until saturday afternoon. would you commit to us that in the future we will get the written testimony on time? >> absolutely. >> i want to talk about the prison project. we talked about the training command in afghanistan having 800 projects on the books. how many projects does inl have

in afghanistan? >> we have to significant ones, the main renovation and the central training. >> if we spend $25 million in construction a year, it would be on the upper limit. >> this statement says in december 2008, the afghan central prison director had to form an emergency response team to train corrections staff to retake control of the prison. briefly, what does that mean? >> somewhat amazingly, the parts of the prison were basically under control of insurgents and criminals. it was a complete mess. the government of afghanistan decided to form a strong police,

military intervention unit and there was funding provided from both the u.s. military and ourselves. >> to offensively we take it. >> to fight their way back and clear out the insurgents. >> so there is a contract for two afghan companies to design and construct it. your statement says these accomplishments of significant have not materialized without challenge and some delay. the delay was on the two projects you have in the war zone -- the owner of one company

provided confidential bid proposal information to the owner. is that accurate? >> i am not sure the details of all the allegations. there is a continuing investigation under way in the decision. >> is that an inaccurate statement? >> i don't think it is, but i cannot confirm it. >> the ellerbe provided -- apparently has arrived in your contract officer representative who is supposed to oversee the contract. >> that was the allegation, yes, sir. -- barely has a right to your contract officer. -- apparently has brightened the year contract officer. have you fired that government

employee gregoire >> he would be considered to have some government functions. >> was he a contractor or a government employee? >> he was a personal services contractor. they would have full intergovernmental functions not to approve a contract but to it buys. >> can i inject clarification? mine understanding and i went to quite a length. this individual was more than the corps. he was responsible for everything from specifications to oversight to you name it. is that accurate? >> he played a central role. >> he was the chief engineer and

was replaced by someone else who came in and have that title the brief says. >> i think it is a good general characterization. >> i do too. >> you have two big projects in afghanistan. the one we are talking about, afghan forces and military have to fight their way back in. you had to contracts with afghan firms. -- two contracts with afghan firms. why wasn't the judgment to -- was it to put a contractor in charge of contractors? >> we would still have our other oversight mechanisms. which are the contracting officer. >> where is that person located? >> in frankfurt. >> that is in the rpso in frankfurt. >> i that that individual.

has that person ever visited afghanistan? >> i do not know. >> would you find out, for the record? >> what other oversight mechanisms to you have? >> we have a senior director and deputy director for all programs. >> where are they located? >> they are in kabul. >> how often do they get out and do they get to go? >> they get out frequently. >> just quantify that for us. >> i would be glad to. >> i have visited myself several times. >> they are out quite a bit. sited and travel around quite frequently. >> what is the distance from kabul?

>> 15 or 20 miles. >> your line of defense is there are employees in kabul. >> there are two senior officers who have run programs. quex are the government employees or they a personal services contract? >> that would be pfc. >> personal services contractors. >> what is the status of the investigation? >> i do not know. i would have to direct you to oig. >> would you take that as a question -- would it be fair to say that with all the structures and things in place which any of us -- would it be fair to say

that your oversight system did not find this, the ig found it. none of this came to light ecause of states or inl's or oversight mechanisms. >> without a doubt. the oig hot line was a key factor. our people were raising concerns not only about how the progress of the project was going, but also some other concerns. >> that is with the hot line is there for. >> i am out of time. >> thank you. >> you are saving me time so i will put myself in here. mr. buford has said no, he has

never been there. we will clear that up. you can verify but it was or people who were telling me that. it is my understanding that the inl engineer that is the subject of this investigation was in fact one of your people. right? >> i would have to double check his exact -- >> the person who replaced him, one of the things you ask is what bob asked. are you a career person? please verify that. one of the questions that is in here, this is an interesting and i know the colonel will say you are kind of harsh but this is what we ran into. i'm sure some of our experiences are solid.

in this case going out there it was incredible it was explained to me and commission staff, you have these other controls, cut out the contract officers are you do not do anything unless you talk to me. cut out the financial people, do not do anything unless you talk to me. you had a contractor out there, pae, raising issues about quality and he wrote them a cease and desist letter. you cannot tell us anything about basarat. it is a controlled situation. you had no management or financial controls. you allowed one person who was the top engineer to say everyone else butt out. it is a classic example that if

you do not have more than one person on a contract that is making decisions and gathering performance data and the like, it is a prescription to failure. i know you are trying to recapture, program bu -- recapture this program. what bob asked for is the time line with actually the companies. also was explained was one of the questions, why did it take you almost one year to get the stop work when the issues started to come up? people were debating it and they said rather than jump in and look people in the eye and say what the heck is going on, they started a project in february to send to people in. something called ccc, inc. to evaluate it and they took 60 or 90 days to say what they said was right and it was fraught

with risk. it is important that you outline the controls that are there. it is important to say everything does not work out the way we intended. commissioner? >> thank you. i would follow up on that. i found it disturbing that the processes you lay out in your statement sound so good but they have not been applied in this situation. why is inl doing construction in the first place? i do not think this is something your background qualifies you for. do you care to enter guess as to why you are doing instruction instead of the obo or your colleagues to the left and right who are more familiar and

have more experience? >> i would be glad to answer that. when normally try to avoid doing construction. only because our funds in programs are not aimed -- are aimed at building human capacity. and skills. we're usually asked to do these projects when they are of a certain nature and have to be done fast or address a certain need. the switch to the central training center for the police. that is when they had close links with the rest of the police program. we have some resources meeting and we had people meeting on the ground and we could build those kinds of things. in general, we try to avoid getting into heavy construction. also because it is expensive and our budget is not big relative

to the others. >> one of the first lessons i learned in the acquisition world is when you wanted bad, you will get it bad. that has proven out in a number of examples where looking at. in an earlier life, i had the opportunity to look at a number of the construction projects in iraq that the u.s. attempted to undertake. what we found there was many of the problematic outcomes were based on problems with the requirements. there were not defined or there were overly ambitious. -- they were not defined or thery were overly ambitious. there was a lack of locally suitable designs that we tried to build as buildings for an

entirely different culture and population. we did not have sufficient oversight. i will take your word that you are learning organization. when i go through your statement, recognizing that afghanistan is not iraq. there are different conditions that we encountered. that is listed, those topics are clearly the same as we have seen in your statement. you have said that the corps executes projects that are required by our customers. your the ones -- you are the ones who know what will be done. why haven't you taken a stronger role to tell someone that is not going to work the way you wanted to do? right.ess you're

i will go back to the guidance that was put out in the fall. you highlighted -- >> fall 2010. >> yes. try to build a -- in a situation where kinetics will not make sense. >> or the soil will not -- >> if the geotech is such that you will require such a foundation, you probably will not want to do that. the guidance came out in the fall from ijc. i think we are at fault