is i am an inventor, and i invented something to put out forest fires. nobody got the message on that. one thing we can do is savings bonds like we had in wartime, we need to have that today. host: don mathis, i need to get a quick response from you as well. guest: thank you for your service, and i'm grateful that during your air force retirement, there was a community action service to help you but that is what it is all about, that is what our nation needs more than ever. host: thanks for being here. the house is about to come in for morning speeches. i want to tell you up about a number of things we are covering on c-span. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will be on the hill testifying, live coverage on c- span2. on c-span is based 3, homeland security secretary janet napolitano -- c-span3, all the

security secretary janet napolitano is testifying. tonight, and explicit -- an exclusive with former defense secretary donald rumsfeld. he will be at the philadelphia national constitution center. we will have a booktv.org exclusive live on our website. he will be interviewed by historian michael beschloss and take questions from the audience as well. we will be streaming that live at 6:30, and you can watch the reair one hour after it is over. it will also be on book tv on saturday and night and on sunday -- saturday and again on sunday. thank you for watching today's "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> i thank the chair. we hear now that the republican majority is serious about the deficit. mr. blumenauer: that's good news. we are running up a huge pile of debt, which is going to be handed on to our kids and grandkids and won't be paid off over 30 years, some of this debt will weigh upon the country. but the question is, how do we get there? the deficit this year will be $1.5 trillion, an unimaginable amount of money, borrowed, a lot of it from china, and that is just virtually unfathomable. they're going to dink around, essentially, and pretend they're doing something meaningful next week. they're going to take, out of a federal budget of $3.7 trillion, and remember, $1.5 trillion of that is borrowed money, they're going to discuss cuts to actually $446 billion

of that. so $3. trillion budget, but the only place you can cut is $446 billion of that. let's see. if we eliminated that entire $446 billion of expenditures, we'd industrial a deficit over $1 trillion. now that doesn't seem quite to work. perhaps they've made a few too many things off limits in terms of where we might look to cut and then there's one other thing they've done which is totally bizarre and i don't think many americans would think very honest. they're saying if we decrease the income of the government in the united states, i.e., cut taxes, give you back your money, and we don't reduce expenditures the same amount, that doesn't count. as new debt or deficit. you've got to borrow the money, probably from china, and you

can send the debt forward, but it doesn't count. they're not going to look at something called tax expenditures. so, you know, we can't begin to address things like the $20 billion of subsidies in the agriculture bill for five crops grown in eight states that are in surplus and paying people not to grow things. that's off limits. that's mandatory spending. that can't be considered for cuts. paying people to not grow things, can't do away with that. we'll borrow the money to pay so they can get paid to not grow things. how about oil companies? exxonmobil reported the largest quarterly profit for a corporation in the history of the world. last quarter of last year. $9 billion. and they didn't pay any taxes in the u.s. last year. none. they pay a lot of taxes around the world but not in the united states. we actually gave them a tax

refund because of the loopholes in the tax law. that's called a tax expenditure. we're borrowing money to give to the exxonmobil corporation which had a $9 billion profit by gouging consumers in america. that's pretty extraordinary. but no, we can't talk about eliminating the subsidy to exxonmobil. the republicans have put that off limits. that would be called a tax increase. you know. by plugging that loophole, that's a tax increase. can't talk about that let's look at one other aspect of this. we were headed for a lower deficit this year, it would have been lower than last year. we were headed to $1.1 trillion. $200 billion reduction one year, if we could do that for five more years, we could be down to virtually zero. but with one vote work a deal cut between the republicans and the president of the united states, we increased the deficit by $400 billion this

year. yep, the tax cuts. but remember, tax cuts don't count. they increase the deficit by $400 billion. we didn't cut expenditures by $400 billion system of the money is going to be borrowed for those tax cuts from china and elsewhere and it's going to be passed on to our kids and grandkids, part of the national debt. but that doesn't count in the republican world. reducing the income of the government while not reducing expenditures by the same amount doesn't count. they pretend. let's not pretend. this is deadly serious. let's not go after programs that are essential to america. they're going to put things like pell grants that is helping people get a college education and become, you know, more educated so they will have better lifetime earnings, our country will be more competitive, educating the next generation of folks to lead our nation, that's on the table

next week. probably see some cuts there. other programs like that. that will be on the table. subsidies to oil companies, uh-uh-uh. tax -- uh-uh. tax cut we can do more of those . it is a real problem. let's stop pretending you really care about it and you're going to do something about it. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. poe: i want to follow up on what my friend has just said about cutting federal spending. i agree, cutting $ -- $400 billion is not much of a cut, especially in these times when

congress continues to spend more an more money. so let's talk about some specific areas where we ought to reconsider putting taxpayer money and maybe it's time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world. there are about $192 -- there are about 192 foreign countries in the world, give or take two that sometimes exist and sometimes don't. there are 192 countries and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them this map over here to my left shows the world and most of it is in red. all of the countries in red on this map receive american taxpayer foreign aid. the countries in green receive military aid from the united states. which is almost all of the countries in the world. there are a few countries in europe and part one in africa

in blue that receive no american aid. but the vast majority receive american money an we just keep sending it and sending it and sending it. we send it to countries that many americans don't even understand why we send it to those countries. i'm going to address some of those. here's how it works, mr. speaker. this rule needs to be changed. when a country wants foreign aid, all of the foreign aid that america gives is put into one bill, in other words, when we write a check, we're writing a check on one bill. in other words, we don't separate the cupries one at a time and vote up or down on whether they ought to get american money. i think if we did that, most of these countries in red wouldn't be seeing any american money. but the way the rule works, we put all 158-plus countries in one package and vote for all of them.

now i personally think it's good for the united states foreign policy that we support israel that we send them foreign aid and military aid work ought to keep doning that. but if we want to continue to send aid to israel, we have to send it to countries like eyipt and pakistan and others. right now with the crisis in egypt, maybe it's time we reconsider sending aid to egypt. if the muslim brotherhood takes over the country of egypt, the world is in a lot of trouble. an we've seen on television the tanks going up and down the highways and cities in cairos, those are american tanks they came from american taxpayers. it would be a tragedy if those tanks and other foreign aid ends up in that radical group the muslim brotherhood who may take over the government, we don't know. time to reconsider egypt. we also give money to pakistan. pakistan is on the board we are afghanistan. it's given in the name of helping that country. they don't support us adequately in our war on terror in afghanistan yet we continue

to give them money. we give money to venezuela. why do we give money to chavez and venezuela? he hates the united states, the fies our president, makes fun of our nation. he don't need to give him foreign aid. we give $20 million to cuba. why do we give money to cuba? americans can't go to cuba? it's offlimits. we're dutching money over there. we're giving foreign aid to this massive country over here, rush, that used to be called the ussr. and the zinger of them all this country, even though we are in debt $45,000 per american and most of that debt is owned by the chinese this nation gives foreign aid to our good buddy the chinese. why do we do that? it doesn't make any sense. and it's time to re-evaluate our foreign aid policy. it's a time to reconsider. let's start voting one up or

down on every one of these countries that want our aid. the last thing i want to say is, most of these countries we give money to don't even like us. there was a poll by fox news yesterday that said 82 pk of the people in egypt don't like americans. why do we keep giving them money? we don't need to pay them to hate us. as my friend louie gohmert, from texas, says, we don't need to pay them to hate us, they'll do it on their own. it's time to reduce foreign aid, we're at war in two countries now this debt is tremendous, we have a lot of issues in this country and we need to start taking care of america before we start sending american money to countries throughout the world. it's a time to reconsider foreign aid. that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. mr. moran: i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: you're

recognized. mr. moran: i was going to talk about jobs but i think in light of the last address on the other side of the aisle i'll talk a bit about foreign policy and specifically egypt. there's a quote in a play by samuel beckett called "waiting for godot," but the quote is applicable. it says something to the effect that this time, in this place, at this very moment in time, all mankind is us. and in many ways, mr. speaker, all man kind should be with the egyptian people. it's quite true that the egyptian people are not supportive of america's foreign policy. at least washington's foreign policy. but they are certainly

supportive of america's fundamental values. and in fact, that's what motivates this revolution. this protest was not started by the muslim brotherhood who may, at most, be 20% of the american people and foresworn violence and in fact, al qaeda's second in command has issued any number of critical statements of the brotherhood. that's not who is leading this. they may be jumping in now to take some advantage of it. but this was led by young, well-educated, men and women. very similar in motivation to those that led the american revolution. for the most part, these are folks like the google executive who yesterday explained that he

could well lead a life of low pressure, he was making a good income, his needs were being met, he had a nice apartment. but he didn't have his dignity. he didn't have his dignity when he can be arrested at any place, at any time, for any reason by the egyptian police. in fact, that's what happened. he was -- only because he was speaking out on the street, he was arrested, blindfolded, held in captivity for 12 days, had no contact with his family, now that he's released, he esit -- he epitomizes who it is that is conducting this protest and why they are conducting it. . they want sthir dignity back. sure they would like to be able to stand fall on the street and be able to say i am an egyptian without embarrassment.

but most of all they want their individual rights to vote in a free and fair election. to have a government that is not corrupt. that is responsive to their needs and desires. but that in fact also looks out after the 36 million egyptians who are living on less than $2 a day. these young people care but all the people of -- about all of people of that country and they understand under a repressive dictatorship, no one is able to fulfill their potential. they may be well cared for, some of them, but as john kennedy said in his first inaugural address, unless we are prepared to address the needs of the many

who are poor, we can't possibly protect the wealth of the few who are rich. they understand this. and it should also be said that in addition to upholding america's most fundamental values, they are empowered by american industry, by our creativity and innovation. it's facebook, it's all the social networking, the internet. it's google. it's all of that technology that we have exported throughout the world. we should be proud of that. one was quoted as saying the government can shut and lock all the doors on us.

they can't close the windows of the internet. these a time -- this is a time when we should be excited. when we should be proud. and we should be on the side of the egyptian people in freedom square. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. you are recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i said time and time again my top priority this session of congress is to focus on job creation and growing our economy. i think that many if not all of my democratic colleagues share that same goal. however, let me share a few numbers with you here this morning. on this new session of congress. these numbers suggest that perhaps not every member in this body shares that goal. five, the number of weeks that

this house has been in session under the new leadership. 12, the number of bills the house has voted on. zero, the number of house votes on bills that have been through their respective committees. zero, the number of house votes on bills intended to create jobs and address what should be our very top priority. the most important contest we face today is not between democrats and republicans, rather it's america's contest with competitors across the globe for the jobs and industries of our time. and economic growth is crucial for us to win this global race. not only for the future of our work force, but also as a way to balance our budget and drive down the deficit. during his state of the union address, i was happy to hear president obama reiterate that we share the same top priority, jobs, jobs, and jobs. in fact, the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, is sitting before the budget committee today. i plan to discuss the economic

growth rate and the g.d.p. with the chairman later this morning. in june, 2010, chairman bernanke suggested that the g.d.p. would rise by about 3% over the course of the year last year. and would likely increase at a slightly higher pace in 2011. in fact, the fourth quarter of 2010 showed a record -- a rate of growth at 3.2%. compare that nearly double-digit turn around to the end of the bush administration where we saw a 6% downturn in g.d.p. in addition to that slow but steady growth, we have seen the private sector add 1.2 million jobs. another stark turn around from the final month of the bush administration where we lost more than eight million jobs. though we all acknowledge that job numbers need to grow more, i have been surprised that the enthusiasm for these g.d.p. and private sector growth numbers coming from my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle. they have been quite enthusiastic, claiming the growth we have seen in the past few months is in large part from their policies. and yet we return to the numbers i mentioned previously. zero, the number of house votes on bills intended to create jobs since the start of this new session of congress. and now we look to finish the budget for this year and await the budget proposal from president obama for next year. we heard a lot in the campaign last year about the other side's job plan to cut and grow. in fact, we have seen that plan come to fruition through the republican study committee. they have proposed $2.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years. this plan would put more than one million jobs at risk, halt economic growth, and hurt middle class families. let me repeat that, this plan would put at risk more than one million jobs. some of the examples of job losses include small businesses where some 161,000 jobs were to

be lost due to $4 billion less in guaranteed loans. law enforcement officials would lose their jobs 12,900 jobs would be cut, 4,000 positions were f.b.i. agents, 800 a.t.f. agents, 100 d.e.a. agents, and 900 u.s. marshals would be lost as would 5,700 correctional officers in our federal prisons. 27,500 weatherization jobs would be cut. just imagine as one of the largest an strongest winter storms of the season just swept across the country, with some areas receiving record snowfall accumulations, temperatures that drop dozens of decrease below zero, and deadly storms that knocked out power an left people in the cold. we are telling the weakest and neediest amongst us they simply are not worth our investment. americans' top priorities are job creation and deficit reduction and they demand that we work together to meet these

goals. we are committed to deficit reduction but we are not going to do it in an irresponsible way that will threaten jobs, economic growth, and the security of our middle class. the budget cannot be slashed at the expense of jobs and investments in transportation, clean energy, innovation, and rebuilding. rebuilding america not jeopardizing our economic recovery. i agree with president obama that we must outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild the rest of the world, but we cannot risk or economic future by rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put people back to work. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. rothman. mr. roth moon: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. -- mr. rothman: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized. mr. rothman: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the republican side

of the aisle, have suggested that america would be better off if we cut out foreign aid. in my opinion there could be nothing further from the truth, mr. speaker. cutting foreign aid from the united states to our allies and others we want to work with around the world is vital to u.s.'s national security. i'll say it again. our foreign aid that we give out, which by the way, what's the percentage of foreign aid in our budget compared to the whole budget? 1%. it's actually less than 1%. some people think it's 20% or 30%. it's less than 1% of a whole budget. what do we do with that foreign aid? we make alliances with trading partners. we make alliances with strategic military partners all over the world. i think most americans

understand we still live in a very dangerous world. and we need allies and friends and partners. by the way, what does that foreign aid budget include? it also includes money for embassies and diplomats, interpreters. gee, wouldn't we be better off in a big complex interconnected hostile world if we didn't have embassies all over the world? if we didn't have people understood foreign languages? if we don't have people who had lived in these countries and were americans, who lived in these countries but nonetheless understood the cultures and way of thinking and history of these other nations who we are not yet friends with? we are friends with but want to be better friends with? or countries on the fence we want to bring over to democracy and to western values. i think we would be far poorer

and don't just -- if we did not have a foreign aid budget, take the word for example of the head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, who said to congress last year, the more significant the cuts to foreign aid, the longer military operations will take. and the more and more lives will be at risk. that's the joint chiefs of staff, not some crazy wild-eyed, naive person. the head of the joint chiefs of staff said cutting diplomacy in the state department and foreign aid threatens the lives of our war fighters, of our men and women in uniform. our how about when secretary of defense gates then under president bush said, in 2008, referring to cuts proposed cuts to foreign aid, said, it has become clear that america's

civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long. this is defense secretary gates under former president bush. relative to what we traditionally spend on the military and more important relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation faces around the world. my goodness, tunisia, egypt, lebanon, libya, iran, north korea, china to say now is the time to have less people understanding foreign languages, less embassies, less diplomats, to try to avert war and nuclear proliferation when it constitutes less than 1% of the budget already? that's going to solve our problems? that not only won't solve our economic problems, that will create more and more danger to u.s. national security.

that is why while we need to cut spending, while we need to get rid of waste, while we need to find additional sources of revenue, like the unnecessary $4 billion that this congress now gives already to the oil and gas and energy industries to do what? $4 billion to do what? to encourage them to look for energy. gee, i thought they were making a profit at that already. the greatest profits in their history. why, they are. why give them $4 billion in subsidies? let's use that for other purposes. cut taxes, cuts that use that to use our deficit, use that not to cut foreign aid which returns probably 1,000 times per dollar than what we contribute in terms of the 1% of our budget that goes to diplomats, embassies, state departments, and meager

foreign aid we provide to our essential military allies who are helping us protect against al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood. who are helping us protect our economic lifeblood around the world. i look forward to working with my republican colleagues but priorities are priorities and we ought to make cuts where they make sense not where they jeopardize u.s. national security. thank you. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon today.

>> >> he will be interviewed by historian michael besh love. the constitutional center in philadelphia. you can watch that live exclusively at booktv.org and listen to it on c-span radio. we wait for the house to gavel back in at noon eastern, we'll take you over to a hearing looking at trade issues, u.s. trade representative ron kirk, his first testimony before the house ways and means committee. he was appointed in march of

2009. just gotten under way. they are talking about pending trade agreements. live here on c-span. >> when you say we, are you planning to go to colombia and panama as well? >> i don't know i'm going to go. ustr is sending a team. i may go and may wait and see what the plans are as they involve the president's visit to south america later this spring. >> i guess my point was the time for generalities is past. we need to look forward on these. we need specifics. we need an action plan of benchmarks that we can meet to move this forward. i think these have languished long enough. and really far too long. and to the extent you can shed light on any specific items, i think we would be all enlightened. >> i want to do that, mr. chairman, but we are using the same approach as we did example

last year when i think it was in june that the g-20, president obama directed our office to negotiate with our partners in korea. we were able to do that. we want to take the same approach with respect to panama and colombia. the issues are different. as i said in colombia there are long-standing concerns in terms of the rights of workers and violence against union organizers. in panama we have made good progress on a number of the issues in terms of addressing some of their labor law concerns as i understand and they have worked with our department of treasury to address the issues of their having been labeled a tax haven by oecd and moving on the tax information exchange agreement. >> with panama, is there anything left for the panamanians to do? >> there are still a couple of kenches over some recent changes to their labor law, but we have been in consultation with the

panamanian government and trying to get those resolved to our satisfaction. >> thank you. mr. levin may inquire. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i think that your question has helped to frame the issue. you said the time for generalities, they weren't generalities. the issues with korea were very specific. the way it was negotiated it did not assure access to the market for our automotive goods, you worked on this. it was very specific. they were shutting us out, shipping 500,000 cars a year. we were shipping 5,000. honda has 1,500 dealerships here. ford has one. and our automotive producers and their suppliers insisted the trade be a two-way street. it was very specific. in terms of -- and if you had

your way, not you, but if the republicans had had their way, or the bush administration, we would have approved the korea free trade agreement essentially having a major part of our economy shut out from their market when they had complete access to ours. as to panama, we started discussions. the issues were very specific. they related to the violation by panama of basic international standards as outlined in our state department reports and in the reports in terms of worker rights, and it was a tax haven. and we tried to work and then they elected someone as the speaker of the house who had an arrest warrant out for him for killing an american and those discussions stopped. it was very specific. and when it comes to colombia, the issues and the ambassador

has laid out the areas where there are issues, and we have been discussing these for years with the colombians. and the i.l.o. and state department reports have spelled these out year after year after year. now, there's a new administration in colombia which says that it now wants to address these issues that were not satisfactorily addressed by the previous administration. and now the ambassador has said there is an effort to see if common ground can be reached. so i think there isn't a lack of spess physicality. there's been a lock -- specificity. there's been a lack of willingness to work with us to resolve basic important economic issues. let me just ask you, if i might, mr. ambassador, about t.p.p. and proceeding.

you intend to table something next week, do you, in terms of t.p.p.? and i think it's important we proceed but in the right way. there will be a tabling of some proposals next week? >> yes, there will. as you know we have had four rounds of talks. we are moving very aggressively to meet our own goal which is aspirationally, craft a trade agreement for the 2 isst century with the -- 21st century with high standards in every area across the board. we will be meeting in cheelee next -- chile next week for the first round of more intense negotiations and we'll begin tabling proposals in certain categories at that time. >> everyone should note that most of the participants in t.p.p. we have a trade agreement with. it's the newcomers in terms of a trade agreement, vietnam and now

malaysia. and they raise some important issues not only in terms of worker rights, which is important, but in terms of agriculture, etc. and as we have discussed, i hope very much that before those proposals are tabled, that there will be further consultation was this committee regarding the specifics, including those relating to investment. >> and we have -- and i think as you know, mr. chairman, we have had the most extensive consultations with this committee and your companion committee of jurisdiction in the senate, as well as all the stakeholders on t.p.p. as we have ever done before and we'll continue that. this is an opportunity in which one, i think we are all been fitted from the fact we are starting with a blank sheet of paper so to speak, we aren't burdened by some of the arguments that derailed some of our trade agreements in the past, but it's an opportunity for the united states to be in the lead in crafting in the

architecture for what we hope will be the most advanced trade liberalizing free trade agreement and one of the most dynamic regions of the world. >> thank you. >> thank you. i just want to comment that i was concerned about market access on the south korean agreement from the beginning, but that really sort of begs the question. it's not really -- i'm not interested in why these agreements weren't passed 2 1/2 years ago. i'm interested why they aren't passed now. with that i recognize mr. herger for five minutes. mr. herger: thank you, mr. chairman. i have a timeline here of key president obama administration statements regarding the colombia trade promotion agreement. unfortunately i won't have time to go through all of it -- in my five minutes, however i would like to have it included in the record. i would just touch on some highlights. ambassador kirk, the president's 2009 trade policy agenda since

february of that year, two years ago, stated, quote, we are in the process of developing a plan of action to address the pending trade agreement in consultation with congress. we plan to establish benchmarks for progress on that colombia f.t.a., close quote. in april of 2009, during a speech at georgetown university school of law you stated, quote, looking for new solutions to the issues that are dragged on and existing free trade agreements at the summit of the americas, president obama instructed me to lead a review of the colombia agreement to deal with outstanding issues there, close quote. now let's quip to about a year later -- skip to about a year later in march of 2010 and your testimony at senate finance hearings you stated that, the pending f.t.a.'s were a priority

and that ustr was working to resolve the outstanding issues so that they could move forward with the agreements. and in response to a question on the colombia f.t.a., you stated the following, quote, we are hopeful we can come to some solution with members of congress over the next several months so we can go back to colombia with specific goals. what we don't want to do is keep moving the goal post. this agreement is almost singularly to the benefit of the united states, close quote. moving forward a few months to july of 2010 and announcing the establishment of the president's export council, the president again reiterated that the administration was working to resolve the, quote, outstanding issues with the pending f.t.a.'s with the goal of submitting them to congress, quote, as soon as

possible. now in 2011 during a speech at third way, mr. ambassador, you stated, quote, we took the time to do the korea f.t.a. right, and so we think it's important just as we have done with korea, let as not short circuit that process with panama and colombia. they are just as important to us. mr. ambassador, how much longer will the way continue until the colombia agreement is ready for congress? it has been two years since the administration announced its plan to develop benchmarks on colombia. we waited a year, and then the administration again stated that it is working on a list of rentions for the colombians -- recommendations for the colombians. where are these recommendations, these benchmarks that the

administration wants to see in place, and again how much longer do we have to wait until the colombia agreement is ready? >> first your recitation of our commitment on that, we are firm in that. hope flir, mr. herring, it won't be -- hopefully, mr. herger, it won't be much longer. we want to move forward on these agreements. can you tell from this committee, there's been a very wide divergence of thought as to how we ought to proceed. the one thing president obama instructed me was to sit down with those on both sides of the aisle, stakeholders of every opinion about how we are going to go forward and see if we can't find a common way forward. but we also made a firm commitment when we came into office that we didn't feel it was our responsibility just to pick up all of these trade agreements as they were and move forward. we took the time to take a step back and take a strategic look

at how we want to trade to fit into our overall economic policy and our number one goal and that's how we get this economy going and how we create jobs. and that included not only looking and examining these free trade agreements, but the work that we have done on enforcement, the work we have done to engage labor and communities and business, to come up with a plan that will allow us to do as we have done with korea. as i announced today the president directed us to do the same thing in the coming months with our partners with colombia and panama. as ranking member levin noted, we have new leadership in colombia. vice president garzon was here last week. we have met with him. there is a renewed sense of urgency on both parts. and we'll be meeting with them in the coming weeks and months to address those issues. and it is different in the case of korea because it isn't just related to market access, it goes to some of those core values that i think many americans want congress to take

into account as it relates to how we treat and respect the rights of workers. that's an issue that at least for the obama administration we won't compromise on. >> i appreciate that, but that sounds very much like we have been hearing for the last two years. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to welcome my friend from dallas. too bad you were there. super bowl might have been a better place to go. >> unfortunately i was there sliding around. but i didn't go to the game. >> god bless you. ambassador kirk and i have known each other for a long time. i've glad he's finally had an opportunity to visit here on the committee. i would like the committee to note for the record he and i used to bet dinners and he still owes me one. mr. ambassador, as the norme mayor of dallas i know are you well aware of the benefits of trade to our area.

i'm sure you know the delal area is the ninth largest metropolitan exporter in the united states. to that alone, dallas exported almost $7 billion to both nafta and cafta. the numbers go on and on. three years before the u.s.-australia agreement, exports from texas to australia averaged $800 million. in three years after that trade agreement, texas exports averaged $1.3 billion per year. an increase of 66%. before the u.s.-chile agreement, texas exports to chile were declining. since the agreement texas exports have increased by 107%. those numbers just tell me that we are spinning our wheels. this agreement was signed in 2007 and this is 2011 and we still haven't finished them. now, i'd like to know why we are delaying because other nations

in the world are taking our place in the trade environment. and it's because you haven't been able to finish the job. and most of it you are telling me is labor related. i would like to know your opinion on that and what you intend to do. i tell you what, you get these three agreements done, you don't have to buy me a dinner. >> i've enjoyed your friendship and we have shared a lot of plates over the years. and it would be loathe for me to karl with a good friend of public. we won't make dinner contingent on these. let me say this. i was incredibly honored and humbled when president obama asked me to serve the administration in this capacity. and frankly there are a lot of people who were a little skeptical of me coming from dallas for the reasons you

articulated. we believe in trade. we understand t we have seen the impact of it in our city and our state. texas is the number one exporting state in the contry. so you don't need to convince me how important these agreements would be to our economy. but when i raised my hand and took that oath, i agreed to be united states trade representative for the entire contry. like congressman over here, my wife is from detroit. so i brought with me not just our passion for exports that we have in texas, but also brought with me the concern and frustration of all of my in-laws in detroit, in cleveland, in pittsburgh who when i showed up and told them i was going to be the trade representative thought i was a two headed monster because they believe they haven't been fitted from trade. so what we have committed -- they haven't been fitted from trade. so what we have committed to doing is trying to find common ground. the only way we can go forward that allows our former and ranchers and manufacturers is we have to keep faith with the rest

of america that wants to know we have a trade policy that works for everybody. and not just for some of us. you know i like african proverbs and one of my favorites is simple, it says, you should take no comfort from the hole in my end of the boat. the problem of too much of our trade debate is in places sometimes like texas or florida or washington, we just look at our heads and say poor pittsburgh, poor carolinas, poor detroit. and we aren't going to get there. that's why these agreements were stalled. i don't have to tell you there are strong differences on this committee whether we go forward or not. what we have been doing is trying to not only craft trade policy that allows us to have open, fair access to these markets, address that asymmetry we have with many of them, but also helps us restore the american public's faith that trade can work for us. that we can create jobs here. that's what we did successfully. i think with korea, that's what we are working to do with panama

and colombia. >> it will create jobs. >> right. >> but how about getting it done? all three of them. can you tell us you'll do that? >> i can do it if i can get this committee to come together and agree just as important as it is to open up markets it's equally important to make sure we keep faith with america's workers and we don't compromise some of our core values of standing up for workers' rights. if we can come together on that we can do anything. we did it on korea, we need to do it on panama and colombia. >> thank you. mr. stark is recognized. >> i yield to mr. mcdermott. >> mr. mcdermott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. good to see you here. i would just on a historical note i would point out to the members of the committee, they want specifics. in five days the t.a.a. program ends. 150,000 american workers will be

ending their trade adjustment assistance. now, if you are serious, it was on the calendar yesterday, you took it off the calendar, it's not on the calendar today. this is wednesday. is it going to be on thursday or friday and be passed through the senate by monday so that 150,000 workers in this country do not lose their assistance? if you're serious about trade and you want to make it all about somebody else out there and ignore the people in the united states, the workers, you are going to have a tough time. but let me move to another issue because i think there are other things besides colombia and panama. how are we going to work and move forward on intellectual property protection in china? how are we going to keep the focus on this issue in china? i know when the chinese were

here, the piracy of business software, they continue to be long on promises, very short on performance. it practically didn't come up with president hugh was -- hu was here. it doesn't appear the chinese are stepping up to address the piracy, including the state-owned enterprises which put u.s. companies at a competitive disadvantage. and it seems to me the chinese are very clever in how they have moved around, but the chinese audit authority has the ability to track how much money in the china procurement system is being spent. that's helpful. but it doesn't end the piracy. they don't check as to whether the software used in their government is legal or not. now, what's the plan? what would we need to do to help

you enforce the good words that come out of beijing? nice words, i appreciate them. but we'd like to have some help from you about how we can help to enforce that. >> the issue of piracy and compromising of america's intellectual goods and work product is one of our key concerns at ustr, a key component of our enforcement efforts and key part of our dialogue with china. i would only add one correction perhaps to your introduction. this issue did come up in the president's visit with president obama. he addressed it directly. as you know we recently concluded the joint commission on commerce and trade with secretary lock and i take the lead in december. we did get a commitment from the government of china to begin to

address more rigorously the absence of using legitimate software in their government procurement. during president hu's visit we got two additional important commitments one they'll provide money for. the chinese have said they would do this a number of times. but they didn't give their governments any resources to purchase legitimate software. for the first time they have committed to do that. secondly, we did get them to make a commitment to audit that. but as you know, our engagement with china is important, it's complex, and there's the reason that we have regular engagements with china through the jcct wells strategic economic dialogue, and we will be as diligent. as you say the chinese are crafty in pressing them to make sure they honor and respect american intellectual property and copyrights. that is an extraordinary opportunity for our industries

to grow into that market. >> i would like to also -- thank i appreciate that. if there are things we can do i hope you'll let us know. i think this committee would be interested in trying to support the ustr in their enforcement efforts. we know that peru passed during the bush administration, the free trade agreement, after the agreement made in may 10 by mr. rangel and mr. levin with the president and ustr and that administration. you are about to tackle something in chile and i hope you don't weaken the things that were agreed possible in that may -- upon in that may 10 agreement that made possible the peru agreement, thrick the access to educations. i think that's one of the issues that kind of gets slipped under the table. we talk about labor but sometimes the access to medication provision in there gets lost and i hope that will be a part of what you table on

monday when you get to chile. >> if can you respond briefly. time has expired. >> i don't know that we are to that point we are tabling on access. i would say for us the value of our administration, the may 10 agreement represents a good sound bipartisan agreement among democrats and republicans and that's certainly something we are going to reach for in every one of our agreements. we have the opportunity from what we have learned over the last seven years that there are some areas that weren't addressed like indigenous innovation and state-owned enterprises. that is something we are using as sort of something we are striving for certainly and something as aspirational we hope to achieve through the transpacific partnership. >> thank you. the chairman of the trade subcommittee, mr. brady, is recognized. >> thank you. i would like to ask consent to insert my statement for the record. >> wowed. >> i want to thank you -- without objection. >> i want to thank you.

by shining a light on this job producing issue and house republicans, especially this committee, are going to conduct a very aggressive trade agenda, focused on three areas. on finding new customers and opening new markets and a level playing field for american workers and companies. secondly, resisting protectionism both here and abroad so we can tear down barriers for american producers and companies. and thirdly, working both within the united states and with our trading partners to find innovative ways to move goods and services faster, better, and cheaper around this world. your presence today, ambassador, we think is key to those goals and we look forward to you as a partner in all those. we will be just a willing partner but an insistent partner moving forward on trade. i appreciate, one, your openness, and willingness to consult and listen and talk about all these issues. these past two years.

i congratulate you on successful improvement of south korea free trade agreement. very much applaud the joining of the transpacific partnership. i think that's key to both job production, setting a state-of-the-art agreement and getting us directly into china's back beyond a reasonable doubt and that growing market. three -- backyard and that growing market. three points i hope you'll take with you today from this committee. one, the time is up for colombia and panama. they have not only done all that we have asked, they have gone far beyond it. signing the original agreement with the united states, the contract with us. then they amended it at the direction of democrat members and republican members in a bipartisan may 10 agreement, both agreed to improve labor standards, improve environmental standards, improve intellectual property rights standards, a

whole host of demands that have been levied upon them and they did it. both went beyond that. reaching in panama the tax information treaty addressing more labor issues. they have done everything we have asked them. it's time for panama. colombia has done the same, spending a decade improving the rule of law, their labor rights, creating a peace where there is violence. they, too, have been waiting to jump, frankly, to meet our demand so that we can be actual trading partners and i think it's embarrassing we have not moved forward on them. so i hope you'll understand this isn't about -- these free trade agreements need to be submitted in the first six months. it's not about embarrassing any party or the white house. it's about making sure america doesn't further embarrass itself by turning its back on our trading partners and our workers in the meantime. the second point is that russia,

there are tremendous benefits to moving them into rules-based global system. and i applaud your work in that area. as a priority, i think it's important to know that there is virtually no chance that russia permanent normal trade relations -- pntr will be moved ahead of panama and colombia. i think it's critical those be signed by the president before we take that up. russia's progress can be measured in months. panama and colombia's efforts can be measured in years and years. and they deserve movement now. final point, the administration look at reorganization of trade and exporting. at first i think that's very important. but ustr is unique. it's very lean, entrepreneurial, very nimble agency in a economy worldwide that requires all that, i'm not interested in moving -- turning ustr from a cougar into a hippo on trade

issues, stay nimble. you'll get great force from us. i would like you to comment on those points and as well on t.p.p. as the job opportunity looking forward, i know you are working hard on that. can you address any of those issues? >> i am aware of the time constraints, mr. chairman. let me say congressman, brady, we very much look forward to working with you and your leadership on the subcommittee. being from houston, understanding the importance of that port, the one thing i would tell you in t.p.p. also with our partners in north america, we really are looking at the logistic side of all of these, knows nonbarriers to make it easier, cheaper to move those goods around. that's a big part of what we are doing. i hear your concerns and those of members of both sides on panama and colombia. i assure you we are ready to get started. we want to try to get those resolved. .

with respect to ustr, i'm exceptionally privileged to lead an agency that provides the best bang for the buck, we do an excellent job of negotiating agreements, enforcing america's rights and that does make our work special and we want to keep that. at the same time, having been in business if you don't examine how you to what you do every three, four, five year, you're losing ground. we welcome this review under the president's commission but will also make sure we don't lose what makes ustr special and our ability to go autoand help create jobs with what we do. >> as a fellow texan, thank you very much. >> mr. noonan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kirk, welcome to the committee. here, virtually everyone on this side of the aisle has asked about specifics as it

relates to colombia and panama and we still haven't heard any specifics. mr. -- the ranking member mr. levin mentioned that the specifics do exist, though we still don't know what they are. we have, i did hear you specifically say, when mr. johnson was questioned, you mentioned the communities of pittsburgh, detroit and the carolinas as not benefiting from trade. i wondered if that was getting close to specifics and wondered how do those communities not benefit from the colombian or panama trade agreements? >> first of all, if i said that i misspoke myself. i think all americans benefit from trade. every family benefits when we make it easier and cheaper to put food on the table to feed your families, when we make is eat -- make it easier to provide the most advanced electronics for your kids to vaps their education. there are opportunities, i know you won't find it a surprise

that feel like our trade policy has not operated to our benefit. like they've been harmed more than they've been helped. it's a broad brush you get west of the mississippi river, most of the members i talk to, democrat or republican, are wanting know move forward. you get into the rust belt, there's a little more cynicism. our consider is an overwhelming majority of americans now disagree with the proposition that trade has been good for us. >> when it comes specifically to panama and colombia, those countries have access into our market and we do not have access into their market. we would under these trade agreements if they were advanced. if it's true, when all we want are specifics, all colombia and panama are asking for, is what do you want us to do in they've gone beyond the chapter in the

andean trade act. they've incorporated the international labor organization declaration into this agreement. so i'm just, all we want are specifics as to what are -- what is the opaw ma administration asking colombia and panama to do before the president will submit these trade agreements to be approved by the congress? >> let me make it plain. there are different elements involved in panama and colombia. they are not the same. with respect to colombia, we are decidedly focusing on the issue of labor rights, the violence against workers, there has been some progress and obviously some of you are reading from perhaps different hymn books but i think this is a fairly strong divedgence on this committee and among our stake holders how much progress colombia has made in putting in place the necessary changes to their labor law to just provide

those basic rights. we're not asking them to mirror our rules in the united states. and to strengthen their judiciary and the law enforcement to bring those that have perpetrated this violence to justice. those are the issues that we're trying to focus on. we want to take advantage of the fact finding mess am -- mission of your ranking member, again, chairman baucus is going to do down, we're sending a team, we're going to do everything we can to expedite that, mr. nunes. >> aren't these matters outside the confines of the trade agreement signed on may 10, 2010? >> in many cases they are. i think they are issues that the american public believes are sacrosanct for us. again, the reason i gave you that recitation about my appearance arn the country, the biggest thing i shear

frustration. nobody plays by the rule but us. they felt like trading partners weren't playing by the rules an we wouldn't stand up and enforce our rights and we've addressed that. the people's other concern is we'll sign an agreement with anybody. we don't care how they teet our workers or if it undercut ours workers or creates an unleavell playing field, that's why we think it's important to address that, to begin to get americans' confidence that trade works for us, we can create jobs here, and we aren't creating incentives to move production to another country that may not preserve the rights of those workers. >> i know president obama is going down to south america and brazil, i don't have a problem with him going to brazil, init's a positive step, but, you know with colombia still sitting out there and he's going to that hemisphere and for that trade agreement to be sitting out there, i don't know what credibility the president

will have or the administration will have when we still have pending trade agreements from 2007 and we're operating outside of the confines of those trade agreements by asking for things that quite frankly, mr. ambassador, go outside all the rules of engagement on making these trade agreements. i will submit, mr. chairman, for the record a question on the mexican trucking issue. >> all right. thank you. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. stark for giving me another phi minutes. i would like to go on with the question of china. section 301, the green technologies issue, there was a letter from us, 178 democrats and three republicans, asking you to look into what was going on there at the green technology and wind turbines. it's my understanding you decided to file a case on the

wind turbine issue and we're very much pleased by all of that and you said in doing that that you lacked the tools and resources to uncover all the evidence in the statutory time frame. tell us what you need to make it possible for you to do this in other areas and in a more timely fashion. we want to work hand in glove with you to make these things work for our workers, for our economy. >> first of all, we do appreciate your letter and as you know a 301 petition was filed last fall regarding china's industrial policies and the number of energy areas. there were five different complaints alleged. the good news is we were able to successfully resthove overwhelming majority of those by directly engaging and confronting china through our office at ustr and also through

jcct. we did initiate consultations on china's we think illegal subsidy of their projects in the wind area. we're ginching consultations there. i want to be careful in this environment in which i know at the same time this committee is meeting, your budget committee is meeting and you're in a horribly con streaned environment and we're asking american families to tighten their belt and make decision and i know it's too easy, sometimes, for us to come say, give us more resources. having said that, we have a strong team at ustr, but we're not all lawyers. that 223 employees is everybody from top to bottom, and if we are going to have the robust enforcement we committed ourselves and engaged on, one of the things we are going to be looking perhaps through this organization is how we can strengthen our resources there. because we have great legal talent that understands the law and can prosecute cases, we are

weafully short, frankly, on the investigative side. so in many cases we've had to rely on the resources of other agencies, something as simple as when we take on a case with china, in the tires case that congressman he vip mentioned, we exhausted our translation budget in three months on one case with china because of the amount of money we had to spend on translators working with other agencies to see if we caint dress that. we'll be happy to come back and visit with the committee on ways to have the resources to stand up for our rights and america's workers. >> can i ask further, we've talked about the korean free trade agreement. i would like to hear from you what you think the positive impacts, we were fussing about the timeline and when will it be up here and all of that, when that happens, give us an idea of what you anticipate

will be the positive impacts on the economy? i understand you estimate $10 billion as opposed to $1 billion for colombia, so it seems like a much bigger deal. where is that going to happen in the economy? >> $10 billion number is one that the i.t.c. estimates. we don't do economic estimates, they take that away from us. we think there's a fairly conservative number. the way we capture trade data right now is much more hovely -- heavily weighted to manufactured and exported good, not as propre-sice to economic services. we talked a what -- about how this will level the playing field in the automotive secor but this is going to be good for all manufacturing jobs in america, we'll see the elimination of those tariffs, and 80% of our trade to korea

and manufactured states. those in farm states, this is a good bill. we're exporting almost $500 billion worth of beef in korea. the tariffs on those will come down, it's going to help grains and soybeans an others system of those sectors will benefit as well. where we really see an opportunity to gain market access is in korea's service market. it's a $560 billion market that we have had little penetration, for the first time we have access to that. we think the $10 billion you were in is compelling. the $7,000 -- the ,000 jobs, we believe that's a conservative number. it gives us a foothold again in one of the most economically dynamic regions in southeast asia and strengthens what is already a stongstratenalic partnership. >> mr. tiberi is recognized.

>> mr. ambassador, thank you for your leadership. i'm from ohio, one of those rust bell states you talked about, i know you have an ohio connection as well. the president talked about doubling exports. can duo that without passing additional trade agreements? >> it would be difficult. again, one of our passion for getting korea and the others right, mr. tiberi, is to do that. our exports are running at about a 7% per anumb clip, above what's needed but if we can get panama an colombia and others don, it will make that goal easier. >> and increasing exports means increasing jobs and exports. you talked about cynicism. in many my district there's a

great deal of cynicism between trade. last farmer in this room from my district, his name is john davis. he's cynical as well with respect to washington, d.c. here's why. if you sat at his farm home in the fall of 2008, during the election, you would have seen a candidate obama talk about repealing nafta. how cafta was bad. how trade has cost jobs. if you would have sad sat in his farmhouse in the last election in 2010, you'd have seen more money than i've ever seen spent in central ohio as well as in the cleveland market and the cincinnati market about how trade has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in our state. trade is the big bogeyman with respect to how ohio's economy has suffered. so if you'reon davis sitting in

this room and you want to hear about cynicism, how do we stop that cynicism when every two years in an election we have people running for office making trade the bogeyman. nobody, nobody understands that you're going to -- in my state at least, other than people who work this every day who you talk to, who maybe run companies or farms like john davis that we can, frips, with panama, by passing panama, we can double agriculture exports from the united states which meens, again, more healthy farmers. but that's the minority. it's not the majority of ohioans. all they see coming from leaders like president obama when he's campaigning in 2008, the trade costs jobs. that puts a tremendous amount of pressure on you and on me and everybody else up here when we try to tole them, no,

exporting and trade actually is going to grow our economy. i think the president is disranged when now he says, we're going to grow the economy by exparting and by the way, in the talking about trade agreements, because he is one of many who have said that trade has cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. as you know, nafta is ohio's largest trading partner and has created a ton of jobs in ohio and canada is a great ally, not just a great trading partner. so how do you, as the point person who has been dealt a very difficult hand and handled it professionally, how do bridge thatties keck with the american people and people in the rust belt that know trade is good, can be very good, trade can depre our economy, exports mean trade and it can actually create more jobs in america and create a better america for all of us and our

kids? >> you heard mr. brady talk about my work as a mayor. i always tried to govern myself with one principle, that the truth is always an option. unfortunately, i don't know that either one of your statements is wrong. one thing we are doing is going to placesic -- places like cleveland and detroit, not just going to dallas and washington and others and talking truthfully about what the promise of trade is, but it also means, then, that we have to have a less tin ear to those who say we need help. i think it was congressman mcdermott, we do need to pass trade adjustment assistance. we need to enforce our rights as we did in the case, we can make the case and help them understand trade can help create jobs. rob portman made a good case of it. >> i hope you use your leadership to help us get colombia and panama across the

line as well. if weir going to double our exports in the next several years, it's critical to pass colombia and panama in the next few years. >> thank you. mr. davis is recognized. >> ambassador kirk before asking my question, i'd like to comment briefly on the japan post-insurance issue which is a matter of serious concern to many of us on the committee. members of both parties are watching closely to see the how the japan post-privatization is handled. this issue is important to u.s. insurance companies. i know you urged japan to reform in accordance with his w.t.o. promises. mr. am pass dorsch we sort your efforts an those of your predecessors an hope you achieve a successful resolution to this soon. bill submitting a question for the record pertaining to this

issue. but for my question today i'd like to come back closer to home, i'd like to hear your thoughs on the geopolitical or geo--ee yo political aspects of the area. venezuela's president seeks to undermine u.s. interests and dominate the landscape. by not implementing afreements, we're allowing some in latin america in question -- to question our belief. five former heads of the united states southern command wrote an open leder -- letter to congress strongly urging support for the free trade agreement. in light of of this, i'm afraid the failure to move these afreements would be a set b.c. for the re. do you share these concerns? if you do, would you comment on them? >> we have examined our

relationship in latin america from every standpoint. now i am always -- i try to be guided by the reality, the only reason the office of u.s. trade agreement -- representative exists is because congress mandated that there be someone who look at this from a commercial standpoint, not a strategic one. that's why we're in longer in the state department. having said that, we understand the strategic importance of our relationship with colombia, we applaud work with the uribe administration an now the sanchez administration to work with us on the drug area. panama, everywhere i've gone if the port of baltimore to the port of orlando is getting ready and building infrastructure here to take advantage of the widening of the panama canal and the impact

it can help have on our port facilities here to handle greater shipment of goods back and forth. we've examined all elements of the benefits of that and i think it creates a great imperative for us to get together on this issue. >> i guess i'd like to go to a deeper level on it. the -- i have, i appreciate the, as mr. tiberi noted, you have been dealt a difficult hand in dealing with this. you understand firsthand the issues, the benefits of trade, but when we talk about raising the issues they have i.l.o. standards we can talk about various perspectives out of concern for the colombians, let alen the panamanians, we have had their military come and plead with us, mill tears across central america to bring these about because of their internal security issues. labor lead nrs colombia have come and pleaded to have us bring this forth and those who

are strong, organized labor advocates in the democratic caucus are chosen to ignore the voices they say they're trying to help. i guess my -- is, consider considering colombia is more in compliance with the inch l.o. demrines than we are, don't you think this rhetoric is a little bit -- not yours, -- but a little bit dissonant? that we need to agree that it needs to move forward both for economic and national curt concerns? we want to address all the outstanding concerns. i'm not going to comment on your inteptation of the democratic members of the committees understandings of those inch l.o. commitments. i appreciate mr. tiberi's concerns put i eny the work that i have. i think the president has den a good job ar techlating to the american people how we can win and have trade agreements that

fairly reflect our values, that open up marks, that are enforceable. if we work in a manner to get those done, i think we'll get to a place that we're not sthrg conversation next year. the longe -- longer we want to plame people, that's how you end up staaled for four years. let's find common ground and stop pointing fingers at one another and figure out a way to move things forward. >> before i recognize mr. lewis for five minutes, after mr. lewis we'll go to three minutes of questioning. i know the ambassador has to leave at 12:30 and i want to give everybody a chance to ask a question of you. with that i recognize mr. lewis of five -- for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. ambassador, thank you for being here today. we heard a great deal about

delay, waste. is it better to rush and get an agreement or to wait and get it right? i am concerned about the issue of human rights, workers' rights, environmental issues and some of these concerns and issues are long-seated problems . it's all right to talk the talk, but sometimes we need people to walk the walk. and i'm not sure that the leaders even, the new leaders are prepared to walk the walk. that's too many killings. too many violations of human rights. too many people disappear.

and as you said, and i agree with you, that a trade agreement, trade policies should reflect our core values. will you elaborate? what are you going to do to see that the people in colombia do the right thing? as someone said before, the time is always right to do right. if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything. >> congressman, thank you for your question, thank you for your leadership. you have opinion an inspiration to so many of us. i will say what i've said to others. we think there has to be a way to show the sense of urgency to

conclude these free trade agreements so we can say to that farmer, here's an opportunity for you to grow your business. but we have to keep faith with the american people that wants us to have a trade policy that reflects those values. my simple answer is we believe we have to be responsive to both and we can do so. i know you have spent years studying and devoted to the issue of human rights, labor rights in colombia. i will tell you we are greatly encouraged with nottle on the rhetoric but the actions we've seen of the ans so -- santos administration. that's part of what's driving the president to encourage us to intensify our negotiations. i know for some there is still an unacceptable level of violence but we do believe, not only under the current administration but under the previous administration, colombia has made great strides. we think we can build on that

and work with the new administration, work with those of you on the committee on both sides ap come up with a passport that allows us to address their sense of urgency and your concerns of making sure we do so in a manner that takes care of and respects the rights of those workers. ? mr. chairman, i didn't take my five minutes, i think i took about three. >> mr. reichert is recognized for three minutes. >> welcome, mr. am pass tore. i've enjoyed working with you. you do enjoy your job, i've noticed that. qual though it is a tough one. the bottom line is we want to sell american. that's the mess am. i think you're delivering that message loud and clear. i'm pleased to be part of the export council initiative with mr. tiberi and yourself and secretary lock. the goal, as i understand it so far that the two meetings we've

had is to create two million jobs by doubling exports. as save said in some previous trade hearings, we haven't done that, doubling exports, since 1995, between the period of 1995 through 2007 and during that period of time, we passed nine trade afreements. one of of the first questions i was going to ask is whether or not you thought passing the current free trade agreement or not passing it would impact the doubling exports initiative and your answer was, it would be difficult. so i also want to say that i really appreciate your recognizing it right up font, washington state's issues as far as canada attracting new customers into their ports and not into the port of zeile an port of tacoma when we first visited.

and the important to -- importance to washington state as korea's fourth largest trading partner. what effect do you think this trade agreement would have on meeting the export initiative's goals? and do you believe that we will lose hundreds of thousands of american jobs if the e.u. implements its agreement with korea before we execute ours. we know that china has increased their exports to colombia by 200%. we're losing mark share. if that's true, we're going to lose thousands of jobs with these two things happening, doesn't the same hold true with colombia and panama? >> yes. first of all, congressman, thank you for hosting us during the road show with the aussiian ministers when we were in washington.

the answer to all your questions is yes. i would answer one thing, briefly, when we look at korea we look at the 70,000 jobs. it is important to note, four years ago we were the number one exporter in the korean market. today we're number four and sinking fast. there's two ways to look at this. you can say, we passed it, we have the opportunity to reap the benefit of those 70,000 jobs. if we don't pass the korea free trade agreement, we put at risk 172,000 jobs that are tied to all we export to korea. i would say to those concerned about panama and colombia, it's easy to discount it. every job is important wlsm panama is a $1 billion market or another place is a $ billion market, they find a -- they are

a business for a farmer. >> ambassador kirk, i'm glad we have you in front of our committee. welcome. i appreciate the work done on the south korean free trade agreement. i know it's going to happen workers, but i can't pass up this opportunity to say that rice, which is very porn to my state, louisiana, was excluded. we know no trade agreement is perfect, but i do belief procrastination really hurts us from a standpoint of prestige, credibility and lev ram. it's time to move forward on this agreement. by contrast if we look at colombia, our commodities, including rice, are included. we've seen amazing statistics whereby u.s. exparts of clomity to rims over the last year or two paw we have in the moved forward and other countries are moving forward with clomfree trade afwreepts.

i hope we will get to the point where we stop hurting our farmers and rural communities and get moving on these because it's going to help us export our commodities going forward. i want to raise an issue. you an the president talked extensively over the past two years about enforce. . as an arnt part of your trade policy, i have a mid sized louisiana company that cannot get pames on nearly $3.7 million in china b products they sold to china. i believe having a robust, bilateral investment treaty is imperative. other cupries are doing this. if we're going to -- we gain a competitive footing an help small and mid sized perms we need a robust mechanism to handle this. i think we're falling behind. so what's the delay on the part

of the administration in moving forward and getting a bilateral investment treaty specifically with china? >> first of all, congressman, thank you for your comments about agriculture. parenthetically, i will tell you america's ag exports were up dramatically, almost $06 billion according to the u.s. ample. they're forecasting that 2011 could be our highest year ever. we may reach as high as $114 pl. that extremely important to all of america's farmers and their workers and families. we will be looking to try to aggress -- address some of your concerns about rice in t. perform p. and others. we are trying to do two things with china, we are -- it would be helpful. we have had four negotiating rounds thus far. we are moving on parallel tracks, one we had already begun a process to review our

model, we needed anup date because it hadn't been revised in almost 10 years. we are hopefully at the end stages of that, we have had extensive consultations an there are only a couple of issues that remain to be resolved if we're going to try to get that concluded as soon as possible as well. >> mr. neal. >> mr. ambassador, i want to weigh in, as mr. davis did, on the issue of japan post, it's an important issue to my constituency. we have gone back and forth on that with ustr for a number of years. i hope that you're going to continue to vigrauseloy pursue that issue. let me take us to an issue that's important here. our friends on the other side

said repeatedly there's delays we've constructed into the f.k.a.'s. in many ways the easiest bilateral was panama. and the problem was the complication offered by the assembly speaker who murdered, i believe, an american soldier, allege to have had murdered an american soldier. the bush administration correctly pulled back on that bilateral because of that human rights violation. we can't say that weir going to, as mr. lewis pinted out, dismiss certain -- pointed out, dismiss certain bad behavior with human rights if it's a republican president and then insist human rights ought not to be a conversation if a democrat is president. that's the issue we were trying to shop with you. can you give us an update on where we are with the panama bilateral and what's happened that might ensure an easiest -- easier path to completion?

>> >> i will try. you are right in noting that one of the reasons panama talk staaled was one of the asemipli convicted of murdering a u.s. soldier. the bush administration said we weren't going to do business with them. after that person was sent to prison, we went back to the talks, then we had the o.e.c. kezzig nation of panama and webbed them in the summit of the americas, mr. mcder in the was there and others an that administration told us if we're going -- if quour telling us we have to put in place a tax information, we're not sure we

won't distill. they do value this relationship as we do, we made great progress on a numb of issues on labor. they have been working with treasury to address the tax issues. i do understand they had initial tax informing ex-cheage agreement. there's some legislation that needs to be passed to address a corollary issue relating to shares but frankly we're making good progress. >> the point i think that needs to be raised is that this committee's history in the 22 years i've been a member, has been largely bipartisan. i think as we try to find a path forward on these issue that these bilaterals were hanging out there, we want to be sure that the language offered makes certain that going forward would be a bipartisan undertaking. thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. heller. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you mr. ambassador for being here and you spending time and effort to be here with us. from a state that's drugging, mr. speaker, with almost 15% unemployment, we talked about these free trade adepreems and the impact and what it would mean to a state like nevada, clearly it's incredibly important, in fact, trade as you probably well know certainly has helped nevada since its inception, 1864 to the year 2000, we went from zero trade to $1 ppt 5 billion. the from the year 2000 to the year 2008 it was from $1 ppt 5 billion to almost $6.2 billion, an increase of 266% in just nine years. the president challenged all of us to double exports in the

next five years and i would argue they've already done this. from 2004 to 2008 our exports jumped 10%. we did this by taking advantage of fast developing markets, helping provide companies access to these marks, such as china. in 2000, china was nevada's 21st largest export market. in 2008, it was our eighth largest. trade has always been very, very important for a state like nevada and clearly as we move forward with this economy, trade will may a big part in picking this state up. mr. boustany talks about rice and rice is important in louisiana and mining is very important in nevada. i'd like to share a real story, we have miners here in the building and some of their concerns are with pending free

trade agreements. with panamaing their concern is that they have taken the lead based on encouragement from the government that there will soon be a free trade agreement but in their efforts to mine and do the research and development, which they are doing, what they're finding is the corruption in the government in panama right now is making it difficult for them to make a profit, even though it's been very good. a lot of international mining companies come out of the state of november. i guess they'll pay the licensing, pay the fees, they have a corrupt government they have to make under the table payments and it's making it difficult for them and their shareholder to make a profit. in light of a panama free trade

adwreement coming through. to give them soment encouragement. >> i want to follow up and get more specifics on that. i wasn't much of a lawyer but what you framed to me would be a hypothetical, because american -- they don't take bribes. that would be illegal. we can talkafter wards and i will learn more about that. one of the values of free trade agreements and one reason we won't rush it is we do have them in a legal, rules-based environment to address these issues. i'll be happy to follow up with you. we don't talk enough about travel as a part of our exports and as congressman reichert can tell you, our export promotion counsel that's one element

we're looking at. since i was in your great state for the c.e.c. council, it was refreshing to see the tourism and foreign dollars those businesses bring help to bring nevada back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, i do appreciate the effort to resolve outstanding issues to create a business climate that is welcoming for foreign investment as well. the chair recognizes mr. roskam. >> ambassador, thanks for your time. you said the administration was going to move forward on the korean free trade agreement in a matter of weeks. it sounds like a pro"antz" and a lot of thought was depin into that. is that a matter of weeks that can mean months or is that a matter of weeks to the common understanding of weeks that is less than a month?

>> i went to public schools in texas but for us, weeks and weeks. >> so less than 30 days? >> we are trying to finalize the text. as you know, we are operating under trade for -- from ocean authority so there's a fairly structured process by which we submit this to this committee, and finance, and you begin, i thinking mock hearings on those, we are concerned that -- as you are, we want to get this before the congress ap passed so we aren't putting exporters at a competitive disadvantage. >> the common understanding of weeks is less than a month and that's what we're looking at, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> how about colombia? >> you may have missed my introductory remarks but the president, just as he did last year in directing us to see if he could conclude our fworkses

on korea has directed us to intensify our engagement with clma to resolve those outstanding issues this year. we've had, i think, a fairly exhaustive discussion with a sense of urgency and sense of concern, and we're doing to try to find some way to foo some common ground to allow us to address those and move forward. >> we will send a team to colombia next week. the vice president was here, two weeks ago, he met with myself, members of the administration, the secretary of state. we are encouraged with their new ledership, we're going to move forward as quickly but thoughtfully as we can. >> i want to highlight an experience in a nutshell and i'll follow up with you with a letter, ambassador. a corporation in my district, fellows manufacturing, is involved in a nightmare scenario with a joint venn her that's gone south.

they have not been able to get the legal remedies they deserve. i think it's a serious example of manipulations on the part of some in china that have taken advantage of an incredibly significant manufacturer. i won't belabor the point but i want to highlight it because it's an area where the administration and congress can advocate an defend an american manufactures who in some cases, and in this case, a quick reading of this story, it sounds like the wild west. i know you don't have the benefit of the details but i'll follow up and get these to you for your consideration. i yield back. >> thank you. i inadvertently had a member who was not here, so i would like to recognize mr. rangel.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a great pleasure to see you here and the difference being made with our dear friends in korea. i first went there in 1950 under different circumstances but i cannot believe the tremendous advancement they've made economically abdemocratic principles and quite frankly it's much more difficult to alter agreements that have already been made than be involved in the first instance and you've done a fantastic job and i'm so pleased to hear that. you know better than most people that we've reached a point, due in part to high unploipt, that when you say trade, people believe you're selling out made in the u.s.a., you're transferring jobs, of course. what the republican and democrat have business or labor, i don't think we do a good job in identifying exactly where is the job creation?

it just seems to me as a former mayor that if you were selling anything, the bottom line is, what's in it for me, yak. that's how you sell things. that's how politicians do. so if you'd asked me as to what the system of america, i relate so closely to detroit and the maybe that we feel as americans, the same way with nevada, when you see this type of pain you know if it's good for detroit, it's good for us and you have gentlewoman cover a big obstacle. what about the rest of the jobs, the surfaces, whether it's agriculture, why don't members come and say, you know, rangel, why don't you help us got this bill, it's beginning to create jobs. i hear that from the chamber of commerce, i hear it from republicans and certainly those who have a concern about making

america great because we have to trade in order to survive. but how do you reach out to see what jobs will be created? if they're in new york, that would be great. but they're not. if it's good for the country, i don't get that response on trade. >> forgive me, mr. chairman. congressman rangel. thank you for your kind words and thank you for your service to our country. we would love nothing more than to work with you to provide you that date. we are reasonably small, but i can tell you we can get data for every member, every district, what the free trade agreement means in your community. in the case of the korea free trade agreement, there is not a member here who doesn't have tens of thousands of workers that will benefit. sole some may be in manufacturing, some may be in insurance, some may be in

agriculture, we tend toover look the fact that many of those beneficiaries of trade are those small businesses that were supplying to caterpillar, chrysler, ford. they may not realize they're benefiting from trade. we would be happy to sit down with any member and give you the best tai -- data we have and you can elingt us on those issues. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. >> mr. gerlach. >> mr. ambassador, thank you for testifying today. when you talked about trade in pennsylvania, the first word that comes up is china. everyone is so considered about the current trade policy or lack of trade policy that we have in that growing economy and we've heard from so many different businesses and entrepreneurs in pennsylvania

that the cunchcy ma nip lage problem is one that's greatly impacting adversely their ability to trade their products in china and have a fair price for a chinese product here in the united states. in the testimony you shared with the committee before you started, off trar here that says enfwainlment with china including through the joint commission on commerce and trade has been very productive, showing results in addressing inkidges now and other properties, improving intellectual property rights, securing greater use of legal soft rare. that -- but there's no mention of the currency manipulation problem that continues to be such a problem. my question is, what was the specific discussion if you know, between president hu and president obama when they met recently on this issue? and what can you tell me the specific plan is of the administration to try to get this currency manipulation

problem resolved once an for all? >> i appreciate your concerns about china. it is a complex but long-term and ex--- extraordinary opportunity for america's businesses and exports just as they are trying to move 600 million people from an ag rarne society to one in which they can have a need for and afford the types of products, services, good produced in the country. my remarks were never drafted to reflect these areas that it will most impact. as you know, our secretary of the treasury has the responsibility to address the currency issue and i know he has spoken on that and i so i don't want to say anything that attracts or distracts from the stance that secretary geithner has enumerated on that.

i will tell you this in every occasion has engaged president hu. it is important to note that we have progressed to a point where it was a big deal 10 or 15 years ago that a president entertained his chinese counterpart once or twice a year. president obama and president hu have had eight face-to-face meetings. our work at ustr is to make sure you're responsive to other concerns. you heard members talk about their concerns of intellectual property rights, piracy and individual inknow vague. that's where we think we can had the most value. while the currency issue is important, what we hear from small businesses is the fear of putting a problem in china. we hear businesses that are concerned about their

indigenous innovation policies. we think the time and energy spent on those areas db as porn to your business as addressing a currency issue. >> the house -- >> the gentleman's time has ex-pirated -- expired. mr. cannon is reck thesed for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, i appreciate you being here today. i share, i think the intensity we just talk for a couple of minutes, your views as far as doing what's best for americans and american companies. we need to continue to fight for them in terms of trade agreements. i do want to say i applaud the efforts that you guys have moved forward on korea. i think that's important. but let me mention to you, as it relates to my district and the state of florida, we have 14 ports in florida, but i have a port in our area, the closest port to the panama canal. it's something we've been

working on for a lot of years, they're doubling the capacity in terms of panama, we've had -- i've been there, had the ambassador in our area, we've met with the president and had delegations from the port to go down there. they're doubling the capacity, spending i think $5 billion in terms of improvements in that area. i'm concerned that these things go on for four years. you know, it's -- you've been in business, i've been in business, you've been involved in complicated deals before, there's a saying you can't imagine it if you can't measure it. that's high we need reasonable time frames because it's affecting us in terms of our jobs. we've got 20,000, but we've been waiting six months, nine

months, some as long as two or three years. at some point, you can't get the perfect deal, you get as much done as 90%, but i think it's imperative that panama and colombia we get those off the table. to me, it's a lot about politics. if we don't do something now we'll run into more politics coming up here shortly. we need to get that done. i want to get your comment. the second thing, i to share a lot of concerns about china and a lot of issues with china. what happens, because we can't move forward here, we don't get a chance to get to the china discussion. it's imperative we get this done in the next six months. i think for the sake of the country, florida as well as my district. >> thank you. the every point is panama was started in 2004. here we are in 2011, after seven years, the law declares you legally ted. we don't want panama to die.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. it is always good to see a fellow from austin do so food and do so much important work on the world stage. i appreciate your service, ambassador. i voted as a member of this committee for most of the trade agreements that have come here and hope to vote for more. if we were looking at it solely in terms of trade impact, the three agreements we've been discussing would be very easy to support. these bush-chaney trade propose also are very much at the margins. even the korea agreement, much larger than the other two, was described by the international trade commission as having a probable negligible impact on output and employment in the united states as you know and had studied. but there is much more at stake and particularly in panama than just trade. panama has made a name for itself not only as a place of a canal but as one of the leading tax havens in the entire world.

let's be an equal opportunity, wouldn't cooperate on taxes with anyone. as recrenly as four months ago, the oecd outlined a long hist of deficiencies in panama's leading framework. they have refused about as much as any country in the world to cooperate anywhere on taxes. you've indicated you're getting close, being ready to submit this agreement. can you assure us before you do so that panama will have provided full compliant in making all the necessary changes to correct these the de-efficiencies and fully implement them. since it appears the trade agreement is the only thing we have to ensure they do what they should have done many years ago? >> congressman, i can tell you we have worked with the -- we made it very clear last year that it was frankly their call to make, that they did not choose to engage us on the issue of addressing the tax

questions, then we would accept that. i would say that we have endepainled them, treasury has taken the lead, so i want to be careful because it's a fairly precise question. i can tell you we have had a very good engagement. >> i appreciate that. given the short time, ill just say, just as there has been seven years in which you could be declared legally dead, there's been seven years for panama to stop being a tax haven, it hasn't done it and that remains a big concern to me. you and president obama have spoken eloquently on this -- of the need to make significant changes on our trade policy and that it's not just ability moving widgets across borders but incorporates the environment and working standards. i have some concerns, mr. lewis indicated the performance has not been up to the standards of the speeches. specifically on the question of opening up the process and

involve manager public representatives in the way our trade policy is developed, you had lisa garcia come an testify in our committee almost two years ago. she could not iden fi any example where having public representation on these trade advisery committees had caused harm, as some have alleged in trying to increase pluck representation. i gather you an your staff, thousand having had almost two years, are unable to identify any substantive experience while having the public involved in this process through environmental representatives and health representatives have caused a problem. have you fund any such problem in the history of usdr? >> your time has expired. if you would briefly answer? >> we have submitted an answer. president obama is committed, mot just in trade policy.

>> we are going to break away from this hearing, you can see it later in our program schedule and online at c-span.org in the video library. a quick note, senator jim webb of virginia says he'll retire when his term is up next year. the associated press report he is made his announcement in an email in which he said he intends to return to the private sector. in the house side of things, they're in momentarily with a couple of piece of -- pieces of business, first with a bill honoring the murdered judge john roll and another that seeks to recoup overpayments to the united nations. votes later this afternoon. live coverage next here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] for. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the jurm of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stand as i proved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from illinois, congressman jackson. mr. jackson: will everyone please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance to our nation's flag? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for 15 one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> madam speaker, yesterday, buy ron york, in the washington examiner, correctly recognized the memory of ronald reagan on the 100th anniversary of the president's birth. without question president reagan stood for policies like lower taxes, less regulation and a strong national defense. having served president reagan's energy secretary jim edwards as deputy general council 1981 to 1982, i saw firsthand his success in reducing regulations. mr. wilson: i witnessed the success of a strong national defense, by being an international republican institute election observer in bulgaria, witnessing captive nations achieve freedom and democracy, with victory in the cold war, causing the defeat of communism across europe and asia. ed was quoted for his contracting -- contrasting the liberating policies of reagan as opposed to the big government agenda of the current president. the resources for conservatives are highlighted in california at the reagan library and the

reagan ranch center of the young america's foundation at santa barbara. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jackson: madam speaker, the unemployment rate last month dropped from 9.4% to 9% but only 36,000 jobs were created. wow. 36,000 jobs equals .4%. how did the rate drop so much with only 36,000 new jobs? mr. speaker, madam speaker, it's an illusion. if you're chronically unemployed and have given up looking for a job, you don't count as unemployed in america. you fall out of the statistics. so as more and more people are out of work from long -- for longer periods of time, they are literally left out of the system. houdini couldn't have performed an illusion as clever as the bureau of labor statistics.

but shouldn't a government of, for and by the people care about its most vulnerable in this economic climate? i want to remind the government of the urgency of our economic situation. send me your resume and your story to resumeforamerica@mail.house.gov. i want to have your story entered into the congressional record to remind the congress of the fierce urgency of now. madam speaker, stop the illusions. the american people need jobs and they want to go to work. we have too many americans who are chronically unemployed and we don't even coy count them anymore. we -- we don't even count them anymore. we need to do something about it and we need to do something about it now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, my colleagues, the american people are watching. more than anything thells congress will be judged on what

it does to help move the struggling economy forward. mr. butterfield: one of our most important and effective programs to assist workers displaced by changes -- changes in the global economy has been the trade adjustment assistance for workers act. unfortunately key provisions to this program are set to expire this week unless congress takes action. last year this -- displaced workers in north carolina received over $46 million through t.a.a., the second largest amount given to a single state, to ensure that they had the support and training necessary to transition into an emerging sector of the economy. this program is working. we must support the economy and these workers by immediately approving a long-term extension of the trade adjustment assistance for workers program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i rise to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker in 1970 our air was so polluted that breathing was a public health threat. recognizing that need to give americans clean air, republican president richard nixon signed into law the clean air act. it is its 40-year history, the clean air act has saved the united states trillions of dollars by keeping americans out of hospitals, in schools and in the work force. the nonpartisan american lung association estimates in 2010 alone it saved over 160,000 lives. mr. cohen: bedi despite saves lives and trillions of dollars the last 40 years, the republican majority claims this legislation is destroying the american economy. they believe that act must be repealed so big oil and corporate polluters can no longer be held responsible for destroying our air and endangering public health. if republican efforts to repeal the e.p.a.'s clean air act authority are successful, we will return to a time when every breath you take will endanger your life.

history proves republican claims -- disproves republican claims and illustrates that the clean air act saves lives, create jobs and saves the governments tens of trillions of dollars. but apparently these facts that richard nixon understood do not matter. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman from indiana. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: you know, madam speaker, one of the things that we're going to hear from our good friends on the democrat side of the aisle day in and day out is how the republicans are callous because we're cutting spending and they can come to the floor and enumerate hundreds and hundreds of programs that are so good for america that they cannot be cut. and therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce our spending.

we have a $14 trillion national debt, we're $1.5 trillion short this coming fiscal year. if we don't do something we're going to feel it, but our kids and our grandkids are going to have a lower quality of life because we cannot sustain this kind of spending. so i would just like to say to my colleagues, i anticipate listening to you rant and rave about how we're cutting programs, but long-term, unless we get our fiscal house in order, the future of america is really at risk and i think the people across this country understand it's time to take a scalpel to the budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, yesterday afternoon 26 republicans joined me and 121 of my democratic colleagues in defeating a misguided attempt to extend without badly needed changes

three soon to expire provisions of the patriot act. mr. holt: we must remember that the powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the most important powers of government, but also the most fearsome. they must be used very, very carefully of the last year i joined representative conyers and other members in offering the u.s.a. patriot acts amendment. this bill would have revised the three controversial provisions we debated yesterday and other provisions, to ensure government agents would have to demonstrate a clear connection between the target of vare lance and terrorism investigation -- surveillance and terrorism investigation. it's that bill we should be voting on and i ask the house lope -- leadership to schedule hearings and a vote on that bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of general powell. he passed way on january 6,

2011, and today marks the sixth-day and final day of the long spiritual practices which were traditionally conducted by the mung community by the passing of an individual. the accomplishments and service to general poa has given to the united states are not only numerous but are everlasting. not only was the general determined to protect his country, but he served to protect the lives of american soldiers. he fought to cut off the hoe chi men trail so supplies couldn't be utilized to supply the enemy's war efforts. he supported american pilots and defended american outposts. the leadership of the general helped save thousands of u.s. service members' lives and was influential force during the vietnam war. the dedication and service of the general not only earned him the title of lord protector of the country, but has also made him a hero in both mung

community and the united states of america. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam speaker. we look for ways to put our economy back on track. we have to be mindful of the quality of higher education that we are providing our future generations. i agree that difficult positions must be made -- decisions must be made in order to guarantee this country's economic prosperity. but access to higher education should not be negotiable. in california we have seen tuition increase by as much as 10% on higher education and governor brown has proposed a $1.4 billion cut to higher education funding. we argue that sensible solutions to our economic difficulties are essential to prevent this burden from being passed on to the next generation. but let's look around.

our next generation is here, it's at higher education. students are dropping out of colleges not because their g.p.a. is too low but because they can't afford the higher tuition costs. our future doctors, our engineers, our politicians, our educators, this is what we're talking about. we cannot rebuild our economy when we do so at the expense of our future generations and their american dreams. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i talked this morning to the people at the good jobs, green jobs conference. mr. ellison: this conference is dedicated to building jobs for americans that are sustainable, that are green and will help our country meet the needs of the future. they talked about efficiency, they talked about saving money

through weatherization and putting people back to work doing it. manufacturing wind mills, solar, all these things are so vitally important. but also transit, all these critical important things to make our employment grow and to help us stay green. unfortunately, however, madam speaker, we still have 14 million americans who are unemployed and in this time that we have spent in this new congress we have not spent any time talking about job creation, green or otherwise. the time is now to focus on jobs. i implore the majority caucus to begin the dialogue about jobs, because we haven't talked about it at all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker, i rise today to ask my republican friend as simple question. mr. connolly: where is the job creation agenda? and the first -- in the first months of the 112th, this body has not taken up a single piece

of legislation that will create jobs and put americans back to work. let's look at what we've done. h.r. 2, repeal protections of health insurance reform. created no jobs. h.r. 359, eliminating public financing for presidential campaigns. created no jobs. h.r. 38, establishing a budget with no numbers. create nod jobs. h.r. 519 on the floor today, to reduce our annual payment to the united nations and go back again create noes jobs. madam speaker, my republican friends claim that job creation was their number one priority. the american people said that job creation should be their number one priority. during the previous congress we made that our priority, which is why we're in the midst of 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. i ask my republican friends to put aside ideology and join with the democrats in making job creation their number one priority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house

the following communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 803-a of the congress allege recognition for excellence in arts education act, i am pleased to appoint the honorable sheila jackson lee of texas to the congressional award board. thank you for your consideration of this appointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 5, 112th congress, i am pleased to reappoint the honorable james p. mcgovern of massachusetts as co-chair of the tom lantos human rights commission. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to 2 united states code

2081 i am pleased to reappoints the honorable marcy kaptur of ohio to the united states capitol preservation commission. thank you for your consideration of this appointment. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later today. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i mover to suspend the rules and pass senate bill 188. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 188, an act to designate the united states courthouse under construction at 98 west first street yuma, arizona, as the john m. roll united states courthouse.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. den yem, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on senate bill 188. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. denham: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: senate bill 188 would designate the federal courthouse currently under construction in yuma, arizona, as the john m. roll united states courthouse. on january 8, our nation suffered a horrendous tragedy. one of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from arizona, representative giffords, was carrying out her duties meeting with her constituents in tucson, arizona as, when a gunman shot 19 people, killing six. among those killed that day was judge john roll, who was simply

stopping by on his way back from attending mass to say hi to his congresswoman. judge roll was chief judge of the u.s. district court for the disfrict of arizona and first appointed to the federal bench by president h.w. bush. george h.w. bush in 1991. his commitment to serving the public predated his appointment to federal court. for nearly 40 years he dedicated his life to public service and the law before becoming a federal judge, judge roll was a judge on the arizona court of appeals serving as presiding judge. earlier in his career he was an assistant u.s. attorney general for the district of arizona. he also served as the citizens of arizona at the local level. first as a tucson assistant attorney and later as a deputy county attorney in pima county. it is fitting to honor judge roll in this way given his reputation as a respected jurist and his service to the law. although we are honoring the life of judge roll through naming a federal courthouse

after him, we must also honor and remember the others who were killed and wounded that tragic day. among those killed was one of representative giffords' staff members, a pastor, a secretary, a homemaker, a grandmother, and a 9-year-old little girl. who had just been elected to her student council. each of them simply going that day to meet their congressman never thinking their lives would be in danger. in this tragedy we must forget -- we must not forget the heroes, those who took action, risking their own lives, stopping the gunman, and preventing more deaths and injuries. our prayers continue to be with congresswoman giffords, the others who were founded, and the -- wounded and the families of all the victims. honoring judge roll by passing this legislation, it is important that we do not forget that all the victims that day should be honored and remembered. i support passage of this legislation and urge my

colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: s. 188 is a bill to honor the life and public service of judge john mccarthy roll who was gunned down along with others at a community meeting in tucson, arizona. judge roll graduated from the university of arizona law school in 1972. and he spent the next 40 years of his life dedicated to public service. upon graduation from law school, judge roll served as a bay live in the pima count -- bailive in the pima count -- baliff in pima county. after his service as the prosecutor, jung roll moved to the u.s. attorney's office in arizona where he served both as a civil attorney and criminal attorney until 1987.

primarily prosecuting drug cases for the federal government. judge roll then served as a state court judge until he was appointed to the federal bench by president george h.w. bush in 19 the 1. -- 1991. from this perch judge roll earned his reputation as a giant amongst the legal community in arizona. judge roll was respected by his lesion and the attorneys a period before him as someone who devoted his life to the rule of law and afforded all who appeared before him a fair opportunity to present their case. judge roll's 20-year service to the judiciary ended tragically on january 8, 2011, when he was shot and killed while attending a local event sponsored by the gentlewoman, our colleague from arizona, gabby giffords. judge roll attended the event in the course of his duties to thank congresswoman giffords for sending a letter to the chief judge of the ninth circuit court

of appeals requesting that he declare judge roll's federal district a judicial emergency because it is besieged with a high number of immigration and drug cases. judge roll also worked closely with congresswoman giffords to justify the federal officials the need for construction of the yuma, arizona, u.s. courthouse to add jude cailt the growing backlog of these cases. madam speaker, given judge roll's extraordinary service to his country, it is so fitting and proper that we honor his memory by designating that very same courthouse, the u.s. courthouse now under construction in yuma, arizona, as the john m. roll united states courthouse. this action today, madam speaker, will clear the bill for the president and hopefully provide a small comfort to judge roll's wife, his three children, and his five grandchildren in honor of his service. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting s. 188, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: madam speaker, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. quail. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quail: -- mr. quayle: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of s. 188. i can think of no one more worthy of this honor an judge john roll. naming a federal courthouse after judge roll won't make the pain of his passing any easier for his family and close friends, it will help ensure his exceptional legacy and final act of heroism will never be forgotten. while the painful memories of the tucson tragedy will eventually begin to fade, there will always be a john m. roll united states courthouse in yuma. madam speaker, john roll's job was to look out for the people of arizona. that's what a good judge is supposed to do. and john roll was a great one. we have heard from friends and

colleagues about how fair he was in the courtroom. and how he worked to make sure that arizona's judicial system with its ever-growing caseload was working efficiently for the people. and it was no surprise, madam speaker, we learned that judge roll died while helping to save the life of ronald barber, one of congresswoman giffords' staff members. even to the very end, madam speaker, judge roll was doing what he did every day before that, looking out for the people of arizona. for your service to our great state and this country, judge roll, we offer our deepest thanks. we will never forget you or the other good americans who passed away on that terrible day. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman, the leader from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is

recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her and you, mr. chairman, for bringing this bill to the floor, this resolution to name a federal courthouse in yuma, arizona, for john m. roll. to be called the john m. roll united states courthouse. how appropriate. chief judge roll was a dedicated public servant, as our colleagues have referenced, serving as a federal judge in arizona, a state judge, and prosecutor for the city, county, and at the federal level. and chief judge roll was a proud son of arizona, moving there as a little boy. lived the vast majority of his life, receiving his undergraduate and law degrees at the university of arizona. tragically chief judge roll was one of the six americans who were taken from us during the horrific shooting in tucson. he died while helping to save

the life of ron barber a. staffer for congresswoman giffords. protecting him with his own body. he had just come from mass. i spoke to his wife the other day and she said that was his regular routine on saturday to go to mass in the morning. then he went from there to see congresswoman gabby giffords as congress on your corner, and you know what happened next. he was talking to her, going to talk to her about securing the sources for the overwhelming court system, this is characteristic as he dedicated his entire life to ensuring justice. he was known as a scholar of the law and man of integrity. and he is an example of the public servants who are doing serious and significant work in the judiciary every day. we had the honor when we went to tucson with the president to visit gabby and to meet with some of the families to also

take pride in the fact that justice anthony kennedy from the supreme court came on the trip, as well as sandra day o'connor, who is from arizona, who was there that evening as well. they were joined by other judges who served -- justice who is served with judge roll as a tribute to him personally and officially. it was wonderful to hear the beautiful statements that they made in our conversations about chief judge roll. and they all sang the praises of maureen. so i hope it is a comfort to maureen, to their three sons, and five grandchildren that so many people are saddened by their loss. and are praying for them at this very sad time and that this courthouse will long stand as a tribute and appropriate tribute to judge roll. i yield back the balance of my time. thanks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california.

mr. denham: i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gosar: i stand here today in support of senate bill 188. judge roll lost his life in the tragic shooting in tucson one month ago. and i believe it is a fitting tribute to honor his memory and service to our country by designating the yuma courthouse the john m. roll united states courthouse. judge roll loved his country. his service as a federal judge, and the chief judge for the united states district court was admirable. he served selflessly as he always worked to ensure that the rule of the law -- rule of law was upheld. judge roll loved arizona. attending the university of arizona for his undergraduate work and the university of virginia for his law degree. he returned to the state, he loved, to serve as pima county,

arizona, and united states. his patriotism was evident in the fact he went out to talk with his representative at the local congress on your corner event. his love for his country inspired him to serve and motivated him to come. judge roll lost his life trying to protect another. his act of courage will always be remembered and his upstanding character will never be forgotten. my thoughts and prayers are with his family today. the united states and arizona have lost a distinguished public servant, but he will always be remembered for his diligence and dedication to our nation. may god be judge roll's family and all the victims of the shooting in tucson. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to our colleague from arizona, another of our colleagues from arizona, ed pastor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pastor: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pastor: first of all, i want to thank my colleague from maryland for yielding the time. about three years ago judge roll informed us that the courthouse in yuma, which is in southeastern arizona, lacked the space because of the increased cases dealing with the drug cases and immigration cases that the federal court was facing in the yuma area. and it was very interesting because at the time the request was kind of unusual because in the line of things, at least in the court itinerary, the yuma court was not under consideration. but judge roll impressed on the delegation that this was sorely needed in the yuma area and that -- requested the arizona delegation to work in bringing forward some money. and i have to tell you that in

the last appropriation bill that passed this house, the omnibus bill, chairman hirono was able to appropriate the money to have this courthouse constructed. and so today and, first of all, i want to thank the leadership -- the congress, the house of representatives, for bringing this bill, it's very appropriate that we name this courthouse in the name of judge roll who was the presiding judge of the arizona courts. as you've been told and rightfully so he was a jurist, a scholar, a man who had a deep belief in god, but more than that, he was a father, a good husband and one who continually supported the efforts of his community. and so on behalf of the arizonans we thank this house for naming this courthouse in yew marks arizona, in honor the -- yuma, arizona, in honor of judge roll and may he rest in

peace. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i wish to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the kerr are committee for bringing this resolution forward. i rise in support of it. as judge john roll poured over the plans and designs for a new courthouse to be built in yuma, i'm sure his attention -- intentions were not to cement a legacy in brick and mortar to. anyone who knew him, maintaining a reputation as a fair, ethical and intelligence jurist was legacy enough. one tucson attorney said, quote, one of the finest compliments you can give him is that you got your fair day in court. in fact, when the ability of the arizona federal court to court system to ensure such timely attention to all of its proceedings came into question from what he called a tsunami of federalcation, he -- cases, he declared a judicial emergency for the district of arizona.

and arizona -- an arizonan since childhood, a two-time graduate of the university of arizona and a public servant within the state for nearly 40 years, judge roll was a tireless advocate. his mission would bring him to seek the assistance the his representative, congresswoman gabrielle giffords, eventually their efforts it hepped to secure approval for the funding for the yume ma courthouse. with the construction of -- yuma courthouse. with the construction of this building set to begin this july, judge roll labored over the finishing touches. the judge john m. roll united states courthouse will now represent and commemorate judge roll's legacy as a selfless public servant. let me just say that i had the honor to ahend his funeral, along with some of my colleague here's and to hear the stories of selfless service and care and

what an incredible, wonderful jurist he was, to represent the united states government and to ensure that justice was served and for his service to the people of arizona, there was such an outpouring of love and support for the family and basically just honoring the legacy of this great man. and so i'm glad we can do this small part to ensure that people remember what he has done for the state and for his country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> i yield to the gentleman from arizona. swell swell thank you, madam speaker. i never met judge roll but if you were judged by the comments, the love, the number of touches i've seened just in the last 24 hours, we have a gentleman here with an amazing history, an

amazing reputation. mr. schweikert: he could not stop sharing the fairness, the devotion to his faith, and the fact of the matter is the reputation of he was tough but you were always going to get your appropriate day in court. and therefore naming this courthouse in yuma that he pain stakingly spent time on, helping, you know, design and get it right, i hope -- hopefully is just a first step in a fitting tribute to a life well lived. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, is the minority party ready to yield back?

the speaker pro tempore: is the minority party ready to yield back the balance of the time? ms. edwards: madam speaker, we have one speaker on his way from arizona and so i'll continue to reserve. madam speaker, one of the things that we don't talk about very often is that there are different ways that people choose to serve. some choose to serve in elected office, some choose to serve in uniform and judge roll chose to serve in our judiciary. and it's one of those parts of our system that judge roll lightly recognized is one in which it's important to hear with fairness those who come before the court. and every indication of jum roll's service -- judge roll's service indicates that as those

adhered before him, he operated and functioned fairly in his courtroom. it is why he was so respected. as we look at the 20-year -- his 20-year service ending just in january, 2011, so tragically, we think perhaps several months ago one would not have thought what the name of the courthouse would be under its construction in yuma, arizona, and yet today, because of judge roll's service and the tragedy that met him, it seems so obvious that this courtroom should be named for such an important public servant. given judge roll's extraordinary service to the country, it is true that in his memory we will remember him as a public servant, but we will also remember the purpose for which he served this country in our judiciary. the john m. roll united states courthouse will be a place not just that his family, his wife,

maher even, and his family will be -- maurine, and his family will be able to recognize their memory, but it will be one that other attorneys and judges and litigants will recognize as a place of fairness, as fair representation of his service to this nation. so i do join my colleagues in supporting s. 188 and at this time -- at this time i'd yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, we have no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 188. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> madam speaker, i demand the

yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 519. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 519, a bill to secure the return to the united states the $179 million overpaid

into the united nations tax equalization fund as of december 31, 2009, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and the gentleman from california, mr. berman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. i mean from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate it. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. the american people have spoken. they overwhelmingly voted for today's youcut proposal, calling for u.s. taxpayer funds overpaid to the united nations to be returned to the united states. the united nations holds about $179 million overpaid by u.s. taxpayers into the u.n. equalization fund. this is not about the u.n.

finally doing the right thing by paying for security upgrades at its headquarters in new york, the u.n. is not paying for anything. after years of avoiding its responsibilities, the u.n., with the support of the obama administration, is asking the american taxpayer to bail them out once again and pay 100% of the proposed construction costs. to make matters worse, allowing the u.n. to take $100 million of the refund owed to u.s. taxpayers would be an increase for the u.n. budget. this youcut not only ensures that u.s. taxpayers receive the funds owed to the u.s. treasury, but it prevents a $100 million increase for the u.n. the u.n. doesn't want the american people to know this, so the u.n. and the state department are now stating that they should allow this increase because it is for security

upgrades. this is not about security, this is the u.n. and the obama administration looking for another excuse to avoid making the difficult choices and requiring accountability from the united nations. this is not like u.s. embassy construction projects which are -- where the needs are assessed, where a detailed plan is developed on how to secure -- on hour how the security needs will be addressed, on how the funding request is presented and how will the congress then allocate the funds. no. after months of requests, my colleagues on the committee and i are still waiting for the details on this proposed construction project and more recently on how the u.n. would fund it. in news reports i read that the state department may have already -- may have already handed over to the u.n. $100 million of our overpayment into the t.e.f. the tax equalization fund,

t.e.f., is a round-about mechanism premised on the u.n. belief that u.n. employees' salaries and benefits should be tax free. the t.e.f. has collected much more from the u.n. -- from the u.s. than it has paid out. the u.n.'s most recent biannual financial report states that the amount of the u.s.-paid surplus has grown to $179 million. the u.n. readily admits that it does owe the overpaid money to our u.s. taxpayers. according to the u.n.'s official financial report, the t.e.f. surpluses, quote, payable to the united states of america, pending instructions as to its disposition, end quote. this youcut proposal declares that it is u.s. policy to seek the return of those funds and the reform of the t.e.f.

assessment process. and until the secretary of state certifies to congress that those funds have been returned, the bill with holds from our u.n. dues an amount exactly equal to the overpayment identified by the u.n. that's a simple question, madam speaker, framed by today's vote. should the $179 million taxpayer dollars, which the u.n. again admits it has no right to keep, be returned to the united states taxpayers? should the american people be asked to foot the entire bill for the u.n. construction project? since this issue has begun receiving public attention, there has been a great deal of misinformation that i would like to address briefly. last week the assistant secretary of state for international organizational affairs reportedly said that, quote, the 179 -- $179 million in overpayment are in the form of credits, not cash, and thus

cannot be refunded per se. madam speaker, this is simply not true. not only does the statement by the i.o. assistant secretary conflict with what the state department budget professionals have most recently told the congressional budget office, but it conflicts with the u.n.'s own position. they can't even get their stories straight. the u.n.'s most recent financial report makes clear that the $179 million surplus is a distinct account payable to the united states of america. the question is should the u.s. pay an additional $100 million to the u.n.? i first raised the t.e.f. surplus issue in a letter to secretary clinton in november 18 of last year. the state department response since that time has been tardy, incomplete, and evasive. at a november 18 hearing --

briefing the state department mentioned for the first time that it was considering whether to allow the u.n. to spend part of the u.s. surplus on an unrelated construction project at the u.n. headquarters in new york. nothing certain. the foreign affairs committee requested detailed plans, cost estimates for the proposed construction project so we could credibly assess the claimed $100 million price tag. i repeated that request on december 22, then on december 29, then on january 4, and on january 25. we are still waiting for those details. only thing that we have gotten, madam speaker, other than a few power point slides, the only figures we have received is this, less than a single page of summary totals with no

supporting documentation. this is it. the state department has admitted that this construction proposal in the words of the undersecretary for management, quote, is primarily the responsibility of the united nations, end quote. they want to stick the american taxpayers with the bill. i disagree with the state department and the american people, they know that we should not be penalized because the u.n. failed to adequately plan for its own security needs. if the administration wants to fund this project, the state department should identify cuts to u.n. programs to offset the cost and then ask congress to pay for it directly, explicitly, and clearly. whatever the merits of this proposal, it should not be taken from a refund owed to u.s. taxpayers. my colleagues, let's join

together in support of this week's youcut. with that, madam speaker, i respectfully reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: this is called the youcut agenda. the second bill on the youcut agenda. if this is the kind of bill that's going to be on the youcut agenda, i would suggest that we rename it the youcut what agenda. the c.b.o. says in its official cost estimate, implementing h.r. 519 would have no effect on the federal budget. no effect. not one dollar is saved by the

-- this particular proposal. so we are faced with a piece of legislation that jeopardizes critical security upgrades at the united nations headquarters, let me just point out here there is a large improvement plan for the u.n. building that's going on now. that is not paid by the u.s., it is paid by the apportioned assessed dues of all the member countries. this is about a perimeter cost dealing with f.d.r. drive that our colleague, mr. thompson and mr. king and the other new yorkers who will speak on this will go into more detail on, that's a host country obligation. there is not $180 million in that fund has been committed to the request of the new york police department to secure the perimeter of the u.n. building where the f.d.r. drive goes under the u.n.

secondly, it puts us back in arrears at the u.n. we tried that once. that doesn't get our agenda through. we have a big agenda and bigger form agenda at the u.n. failing to pay our obligations is not the answer. and because of the nature of this fund and the commitments already made, i repeat what the c.b.o. says. h.r. 519, this legislation, would have no effect on the federal budget. so we are not saving money, we are skirting the important security requests, and we are going back into a pattern of arrearages that undermines our efforts at the u.n. and does not help to achieve those goals. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm so pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and supporting and

sponsoring this legislation. madam speaker, it seems fairly simple to me, american taxpayers have overpaid the u.n. the u.n. didn't tell anybody about it. heritage foundation found out about it and published it last year and all of a sudden the u.n. admits, yes, we had $180 million of american money that was overpaid. the state department has intervened in a letter today that i ask unanimous consent to be filed into the record, by saying we not only have intervened but we kind of told the u.n. to spend $100 million of that money on security in new york. now, no question about it, new york probably needs more security around the u.n. that's a different issue. this issue is basic honesty. it's an overpayment by taxpayers . the u.n. got caught. and they should return the money

to the united states. and the united states should decide if we want to appropriate more money for security around new york city or the u.n. that is a different issue. but this is an issue of honesty. first of all, the state department didn't have the authority to go ahead and say, keep a little of that money. $100 million of it, and spend it on security. they didn't have that authority. and now there's only $80 million left. so i submit we should pass this legislation. we should expect that the u.n., like everybody else, deal in basic honesty. when we make an overpayment. if you make an overpayment in your private personal business, whoever you sent that money to owes you that money. somebody else can't come in and say go ahead and spend it on security or something else because they overpaid the money. the money returns to that individual. just like this taxpayer money should return to the american public and we should decide whether we want to spend more on the u.n. or not spend it or send

that $180 million someplace else. i'm somewhat dismayed that the state department has taken the position against basic honesty and saying that money should go ahead and stay in the u.n. because it's already spent. somebody needs to return the $180 million. if the state department spent part of it without authority by congress, then they need to fork over another $100 million and we get our money back from the u.n. because it's an issue of basic honesty. then we'll deal with the issue of security. if we need more security around the u.n. then let's have legislation to deal with that and let congress pass that legislation one way or the other. but it's simple. not the u.n. money, give us back our money. it doesn't belong to the united nations. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: madam speaker, i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the

chair of the middle east and south asia subcommittee of house foreign affairs and ranking member, sorry, mr. ackerman of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. ackerman: thank you, madam speaker. i'm opposed to this bill for one simple reason. it's not a smart thing to do. it recklessly jeopardizes the security and safety of the people of new york city and it does so for no reason. this is a national security issue. it would be irresponsible and delay the vital security improvements to the perimeter of the u.n. campus in the city that the state department wants to undertake and has the resources. why do this? overwhelm a radical wild-eyed obsessions with taking a pound of flesh out of u.n. which at times deserves it and do so no matter what the cost to our national security. where's the common sense in

calling back money that is going to be used for desperately needed long overdue security upgrades that we have the money for anyway? and have the responsibility to do anyway. where's the been fit to the taxpayer for -- benefit to the taxpayer for maintaining the vulnerability of the most international target which happened to be al qaeda's most targeted city. i can see how the terrorists been fit from -- benefit from reduced security. i'm having a hard time where a million tourists or multitudes of representatives to the united nations will been fit. the u.n. capital market plan calls for $100 million in security upgrades. as the host nation, that's something about which we should be proud. we are the guarantors of the u.n.'s physical security. we have the money and tax equalization fund we can use for these security upgrades.

the state department has already committed to do it. the u.n. wants us to do it. the new york city police department is on its knees begging us to do it. we have the money. we don't need further appropriations. all we need to do is stop this bizarre and radical effort to derail the whole effort. you want to eliminate $100 million in jobs? why? security in new york is something i take very seriously. i think most members do. as the bill shows, some clearly don't, they are all too happen -- happy to rush to the floor on september 11 and boast of the heroism of our police, firefighters, and first responders. one day of the year they think new york city is part of america. it is all patriotism and bomb bat filled with promises to do whatever it takes and then comes the time for paying for it. and then, madam speaker, some members have a change of heart, proudly remembering 9/11 here

with no impediment to telling work is definitely owed. congress didn't have the money for them. at least not until the story got out. those of us from new york haven't forgotten the patriotism and fought tooth and nail to stop the passage of the 9/11 health care compensation act. and now instead of fighting to get congress to do the minimally decent thing, we find ourselves on the floor of the house fighting to prevent congress from doing the maximum stupid thing. i'm not sure this constitutes progress. taking money from vital security upgrades is radical. irresponsible, and reckless. it's stupid. on this vote no on stupid. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume. just to rebut some of the arguments. to my colleagues i ask if this was so urgent why didn't the

obama administration request these funds legitimately last year? why didn't the last congress fund it? secondly, c.b.o. needs to have the actual fund reimbursed so that the savings can be tabulated. and also, madam speaker, i hold out this letter from the undersecretary of state from management which says that this construction is primarily the responsibility of the united nations. they themselves are saying this is not a u.s. host contrip responsibility. and -- host country responsibility. and less than two hours ago we received a letter finally from the state department even though we asked for it repeatedly claiming for the first time ever that the current surplus is, quote, now approximately $80 million. it's either the new math or it took the scheduling of the bill on the floor of the house of

representatives to get the administration to effectively admit for the first timing that it has already given away $100 million. this is an outrage, madam speaker. even now the state department doesn't have the honesty to admit its decision, but tries to hide behind the u.n. in that letter they write, as the state department notified the congress in december, 2010, the united nations advised the department of its intent to apply $100 million of previously existing t.e.f. credits to fund critically important security enhancements at the u.n. headquarter complex, end quote. but the u.n. cannot and will not do any such thing without express instructions from the u.s. don't take my word for it. this is what the state department told congress when we started asking these tough questions a few months ago. questions a few months ago. the u.n.,