deported african-americans. washington had no interest in colonization, not deportation, but -- lincoln had an interest in colonization, not deportation. i do not think it is knew that he harbored this vision after emancipation i think he thought politically he had to talk about colonization so not to panic white northern laborers who might oppose him, and emancipation host: harold holzer has been our guest. thank you for being with us. the house of representatives is just going into session. pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., february 10, 2011, i hereby appoint the honorable jason chaffetz to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, john a. boehner,

speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will recognize members from lists is submitted by minority and majority members for debate. each member other than the majority and minority leader an minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond beyond 11:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, for five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. as i rise today mindful of events occurring in egypt, and i want to extend my congratulations to the lillian thrasher orphanage in egypt which is celebrating 100 years of service this month. as our ally, egypt, stands on the cusp of a new future, one

hopefully based on respect for democracy and human rights, we honor the people who have worked for decades to build an educated civil society there. the lillian thrasher orphanage, begun in 1911 by an american from jacksonville, florida, is one of the oldest orphanages in the world. it serves over 600 children along with widows an staff. it's been home to thousands of children who needed food, shelter and a family. orphanage graduates serb around the world as bankers, doctors, teachers and even in the u.s. government. the wonderful staff has continued to serve the children no matter what the circumstances. we applaud the cloud of witnesses over the past 100 years who have supported this organization through service, friendship, prayers and donations and we support and stand with this great institution and voice our ongoing support for this and other similar egyptian grass

roots organizations in this period in their history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. braley of iowa for five minutes. mr. braley: thank you, mr. speaker. there are 435 members of the house of representatives. we come from all over the country. and every one of us encounters people from the towns and cities and rural parts of our district that inspire us through the heroic action that they exhibit in every day of their lifes. i rise this morning to talk about one of those heroic people that i've known for 35 years. her name is bev renz, and i met her when i was working with her husband at a grain elevator in the small town of hartwick, iowa. i later got to know her better

playing softball for a team called the front street tap in iowa. her voice was always the loudest on the field because that's the kind of person she is. she is passionate, she is fear in our dedication to our friends and she has devoted her entire life to making her community, her state, and her country a better place for all americans. bev recently had a curveball thrown at her, when she was diagnosed with a.l.s., lou gehrig's disease. bev has always taken life head on and that's how she addressed this channel. the same way she has lived her life every day that she's been on this earth. she didn't get into self-pity. she started thinking about what she could do to stay connected to her friends, her family and the important issues that she has cared about all of her life.

those of us who have known bev have known her as a nurse, as a community volunteer, and a political activist. and in fact, her start in politics began in 1988 in the iowa caucuses when she went to caucus for a candidate named jesse jackson. she participated in her last iowa caucus for another political candidate jamed barack obama. -- named barack obama. bev sell brate her birthday on february 3, you can see her surrounded in this picture by friends and family including a grandson that's the light of her life. one of the thicks bev's life teaches us is we face channels every day and no challenge is too great for us to solve if we come together in a spirit of cooperation and a belief in the common good that we can solve

the problems we face as a country. and that's why i'm here talking about my friend bev because she is an inspiration to all of us in terms of what we can do to fight for a better america. she decided a long time ago that access to health care was an important priority being denied millions of americans and she knew that from her work as a front line care provider, taking care of sick people and trying to take care of them in their end of life experiences which is one of the most precious times that a family gets to spend together. and so as a nurse, bev fought for health care improvement that would improve quality of care to patients and expand access to care so that no american could say that they died, no american family cowl say that a loved one died because they didn't have

access to the type of care that all american december serve. it's important for -- that all americans deserve. it's important for those of us struggling with this issue of how to provide quality, affordable care to americans to think about inspirational people like bev and what she's done her entire life to help people need, whether as a community volunteer, as a nurse, as an activist, what is the legacy that we will leave to our children and grandchildren when they look back at this congress and say, what did you do to help me in my time of need? bev never worried about that question. she says, i'll be the first one in and i will fight until i don't have any breath in my left to give. that's why you'll still find bev on her computer every day networked with friends around the country, talking about issues of rye tall public importance, trying to be part of

the important discussion that americans have every day about improving the quality of this country. predictably, in the wonderful small town where i grew up, brooklyn, iowa, bev's story has inspired many others to pick up the cause and they formed what's been called bev's brigade. an army of loyal volunteers who show up at her house every day to take care of her basic needs after a lifetime of helping others. it's one way we pay it forward in this country through the example that others have given us to think every day about what we can do to help each other. that's why bev is an example to all of us. of what american spirit is all about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms.

ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. a few days ago, i lost an irreplaceable part of my family, my mother amanda ros passed away from complications due to alzheimer's. she was a warm, loving and caring woman. she was my father's rock, soul mate, best friend and companion for 65 years. they led a unique and joyous life. she always kept him company and guided him with her wisdom and her kindness. it was her strength that helped our family transition as we fled the cass tremendous regime and settled in south florida. it was her determination and sense of purpose that inspired my father and her to start a small freight forwarding company in miami that they ran together for over 30 years. she was an amazing grandmother. when i was first elected to congress my kids were very young and my mother was an unwavering

source of support, taking care of them and traveling with me whenever i was in d.c. her actions made my transition to congress all the more manageable. my most ambitious goal was never to be a member of congress or to be chair of an important committee, it was to be for my children the kind of mother that she was to me. she always taught me to be proud of my cuban heritage and of my jewish legacy. my mother had many causes that were near and dear to her heart. first and foremost both my parents championed the cause of a free cuba. they participated in many projects to achieve this noble goal and it saddens me deeply that my mother did not live long enough to see this goal of a free cuba become a reality. her other passion, mr. speaker, was promoting organ donations. my mother believed in a world where individuals would help and care for one another. she believed that organ donation

was the least that one could do for ores and i hope that others heed my mother's passion and become enthusiasts of orr began donations. losing someone we love to alzheimer's is sadly becoming all too common in our country. they call alzheimer's disease the long good-bye and it is something that no family should have to go through. you see a person who you remember to be full of life, wonder, and passion become a shell of her former self. it destroys brain cells and causes memory changes, erratic behaviors and loss of body functions. it slowly and painfully took away my mom's identity, her ability to connect with others, to think, to eat to talk, to walk, to find her way home. every 70 seconds, someone new develops alzheimer's. too often, alzheimer's falls under the wrongly held belief that it's an expected part of

aging. we must raise awareness of the disease and provide a voice to the voiceless. we must improve early screening and detection, giving families and loved ones a better chance to prepare for and slow the onset of this disease. families living with an alzheimer's loved one need all the support they can get. my mother was fortunate enough to have our entire family rallying around her as well as outstanding medical personnel that helped us manage the disease. 87% of the time, it is family members who are the primary care givers, family members need assistance. it is tough for families to deal with everyday struggles of caring for loved ones with this disease an the emotional stress is quite high. 1/3 of care givers develop symptoms of the disease, the financial toll is significant. my mother may be gone but her legacy and love will forever with a constant presence in our

lives and we must all work together for a cure for alzheimer's. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson, for five minutes. mr. jackson: let me first identify with the two previous speakers and offer my sincere condolences and heartfelt feelings. there is in higher sacrifice in our nation than military service. our men and women in uniform serve honorably whether here in the united states or in come with the zones far if home. some join the military out of patriotism, some join to see the world, but for many, those motivations are coupled with another factor, the lack of jobs in our communities. facing shaky prospects, many young people turn to military service as an honorable, good-paying career. but too many veterans wind up unemployed. they find themselves jobless in the marketplace. in the last few weeks i've issued a call for unemployed americans to send me their resumes at resumesforamerica

@mail.house.gov so i may enter their story into the record as a way of dramatizing the unemployment stories across the nation. i've heard from many incluing veterans. israel is a navy veteran, he's an information technology specialist who has been out of work for a year. as mr. israel said, there are a lot of great people out of work like myself who believe in the american dream and society and want to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. rankey was an army lieutenant. he said his career was brief and undistinguished but anybody who puts on a uniform is distinguished and has the right to a good life here in america he worked for an event staging company for over 20 years. as he put it, unfortunately the economic downturn forced our

company to lay off 50% of the staff in an attempt to remain economically viable. i was one of the casualties. after serving our country, he became an economic casualty he lost his job in january of 2010 and has been substitute teaching where he tries to make ends meet. andy lang, a retired disabled veteran from snow hill, north carolina, has been out of work since last january wrote, you don't know how scared i am. some days i don't eat. americans need help and need it now. ms. harmony leonard of pennsylvania wrote to me she served in the u.s. navy from 1975 to 1979 and was honorably discharged. she's works a teacher, a grant coordinator a yep manager of a restaurant, he's active in her community and said, i did everything i could to be a vital part of my community and now i have accumulated experience and education, i seem to be invisible and of little use to society. she continues, my saving grace is that i am a veteran so i have

medical care should i need it and i'm not starving because my partner is working in the natural gas industry, but what about me? what about my self-esteem? what about the stigma attached to not working? mr. speaker, there's not a member of this body who has a good answer for ms. leonard. how can we our veterans in the eye, thank them for ourer is -- for their service and tell them they're fresh out of luck when it comes to finding a job? how can we let them down like that? i want to hear more stories like this, i know they're out there. i know there are more veterans who serve with honor and dignity and now find themselves unemployed. i'm calling on unemployed veterans to send me your story to resumesforveterans@mail.house.go v. send me your resume will not get you a job but can help force washington to enthe unemployment

once and for all. again veterans and service members can send their resumes to me at resumesforveterans@mail.house.go v. serving our nation is an honorable profession and we should see that every veteran has a job when their service is other. when you risk your life for your country, we should make sure you have a life when you return. no veteran should be left questioning how they will feed their family, wondering about their self-worth, or fretting about their financial future. . it's we did something to end unemployment once and for all for everybody, especially four veterans. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for five minutes. mr. cicilline: good morning, mr. speaker. thank you. i rise today with a question for

my friends on the other side of the aisle. when we get down to the business of putting people back to work? my constituents in the first district of rhode island sent me here to do everything i can to get our economy back on track, pave the way for sustained recovery, and get rhode islanders back to work. that's why my colleagues and i and the democratic minority are focused on job creation, economic development, and debt reduction. however the first action is about a new republican majority during the first month has not been consistent with these principles. unfortunately, my constituents like rhonda taylor, for example, from north providence, rhode island, who i met with yesterday do not months and months to wait for my republican colleagues to get their priorities straight. she's already been waiting and waiting. and that's because rhonda lost her job in the information technology field due to outsourcing almost three years ago. and her unemployment compensation benefits were exhausted nearly a year ago. rhonda is a mother of three.

she's liquidated her savings and sold her possessions and now she's afraid she'll become homeless. rhonda proves why there is no time to spare. we need to focus on policies that create jobs today. the struggles of our unemployed friends and neighbors are heartbreaking and unfortunately all too common. people like rhonda have no time to wait. the partisan gains have to end. unfortunately, rhonda's story is not unique. i have been hearing similar messages for the past year from men and women all across rhode island. but instead of working on policies that will help real americans like rhonda, my friends on the other side of the aisle are playing politics with the federal budget and the national debt. a budget that even republican economists say could lead to double-digit unemployment and reverse the economic growth that is starting to take hold. blind budget cuts my colleagues in the majority are pursuing won't help people like rhonda but would rather do more to cut jobs than save to create them. what my friends recognize is

that partisan political games will not solve our nation's unemployment crisis which plagues nearly 14 million of our friends and neighbors. the fact of the matter is, the challenges facing us as a nation are not democratic challenges or republican challenges, they are our challenges. and they require american solutions. the work is demanding, yes, and it will test the will of both parties to make difficult choicings, but as a congress we need to both responsibly reduce the defendants, cut spending, but also make the smart investments that will create jobs now and guarantee the prosperity of our great nation. our nation must make the investments in education, innovation, infrastructure, science and research that are critical to rebuilding our economy and putting people back to work. because we cannot compete in the short term if we cannot innovate. and we cannot innovate in the long term if we fail to provide our children with access to high quality education. we cannot move goods and certificate throughout the economy if our infrastructure is

crumbling. and america cannot make these again if we do not support the research, the entrepreneurs, the small businesses and manufactures that transform ideas into new products. people like rhonda back home in rhode island and hardworking people all across this nation have suffered for too long. we must have the courage to set the rye priorities. cut what doesn't work or isn't needed. live within our means and make the right investments that ensure our ability to compete in the global economy today and into the future. i call on my republican colleagues to join me so we can focus on putting americans back to work by developing commonsense solutions and focusing on jobs. i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am so pleased to hear my colleagues start talking about the need for jobs. for the last four years since

they have been in control of the congress, republicans have been talking about that and how their job-killing policies have worked against the american people. but, mr. speaker, today i want to speak about an outstanding industry in the fifth district of north carolina that has gone about creating jobs. businesses that create jobs and invest in their communities are our ticket to economic growth and recovery in today's economy. that's why it's impressive that ingersold rands manufacturing facility in north carolina recently received the daily county chamber of commerce's business of the year award. the hardworking people at inker sole -- inker soled -- ingersold have brought about 200,000 jobs which during these difficult

economic times is a tangible boost to the community. these are good jobs that are strengthening the local economy. ingersold's major investment is a tribute to the fact that the area's work force is composed of men and women who are dedicated to producing the best products in the world. the hundreds of workers at ingersold are the driving force behind this award and i tip my hat to everyone at ingersold rand for this important recognition for their hard work and investment in daily county, north carolina. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virgin islands, mrs. christensen, for five minutes. mrs. christensen: next week president obama will send his

budget to the white house. the news of a budget war promises to make a bad situation worse. from what we are hearing all of us can expect the same republican policies which took an over $5 trillion surplus the democrats and president clinton sacrificed to create and turned it into the dream crushing deficit we are faced with today. they have made cutting spending sound like a good thing, but it is not when you look at where the cuts will come from. they will not come from the tax cuts for the wealthy and not from the wars we need to end, but they will come from programs that communities and families need now more than ever. this is bush deja vu all over again. and every economist that i have read says that with this economy and such a fragile state with the country only at the beginning of recovery and with far too many of our fellow americans hurting, this is not the time to cut spending. it's not that i'm against making prudent cuts to reduce the defendants, but the cuts i'm hearing about so far will hurt those the president said should not be hurt, the most

vulnerable, children, poor, for majority of whom are racial and ethnic majorities and elderly and disabled. no one is willing to name the nameless. they are native americans, alaska natives, african-americans, hispanic americans, asian and pacific islander americans, and poor and rural americans of every race and ethnicity. we will develop a budget that treats all americans fairly, does not leave anyone behind, but gets a helping hand to those who need it and also reduces the deficit. we agree with president obama that his budget must put the country on a firm path to winning the future and we know that winning the future means creating opportunity for everyone who lives in this country. but the c.b.c. is further committed to making sure that everyone means everyone. to making sure that those who have been most hurt by this recession and those who have long been marginalized even in the good times have the special help they need to be a part of creating that future and benefiting from it.

i cannot believe there could be one member of the congress who does not support our country being number one. who does not want to win the future. but we can't win the future without ensuring that every child has access to quality education and those schools which have lagged behind because they lack resources and adequate well-trained staff are held to meet the standards required to do that. we not win the future if we turn back all the newly gained benefits of savings and affordable care act. we will never win the future if we allow the republicans to pass a budget that causes us to lose those provisions which enable minorities, rural residents, and poor to achieve better health. to be more productive and to have a better quality of life. these health equity provision also begin to end the inequality and injustice in health care that dr. king called shocking and inhumane. we cannot win the future if we do not -- if we don't do all that we can to make sure that we address the mortgage crisis and help families keep the homes they need to raise their families in.

we cannot win the future without jobs and more jobs. and i'm talking about good jobs. so we know that they will have to be limits to spending but we want to make sure it starts at the most effective time and the sacrifice is fairly spread. those who have sacrificed over the last decade while corporations and the rich made off like bandits will not be the ones to continue to bear the brunt of the cuts, continue to suffer while big business and the wealthy continue to amass more wealth at their expense. that is an affront to the principles of fairness and equity that this country was founded on. and so we want a realistic budget, not one the republicans are preparing that will cause us to lose more jobs, send more people into dire poverty, that will deny education and health care to those who need it most, that will continue the loss of homes, that will weaken programs like medicaid, medicare, and social security with so many depend on, and one that will increase the deficit and continue to drive this country into decline, continuing what the republican policies over the last decade have done.

that is not what we want, that's not what the country needs, that is not the kind of budget that will win the future. so in this congressional black caucus are willing to roll up our sleeves, put on our thinking caps, and work with our president and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to pass a different budget, one that will create jobs, give people the tools to lift them and their families out of poverty and keep them in her homes. one that will create an educational system that will put all of our children first and a health care system that ensures quality health care to all americans. a budget that will provide the retirement security our seniors deserve and keep our country competitive and strong and number one in the world. a budget that will win the future. we know it can be done because we have shown how it can be done every year with the c.b.c. budget. working together i know we can create a budget worthy of this contry. one that livers up to our ideals. one based not on political ideology but one that sporneds to the needs ever our country --

responds to the needs of our country and the people depending on us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. chairman, as we prepare to debate and as we have already begun to debate a budget, a budget that in many instances and in many ways spells gloom and doom for people who have been expecting and looking for some opportunity to move our government and our country forward. in order to really understand how we got to where we are, i think it's important for us to remember that president clinton left president bush with a 10-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001.

whereas president bush on january 20, 2009, left president obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit. let's keep in mind this was the deficit on day one of the obama administration. weeks before the president enacted a single piece of legislation, and the american recovery and reinvestment act, the failed economic policies of the bush administration led to this enormous deficit. the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts totaled $1.3 trillion over 10 years in which most of the tax relief went to the top 1% of income earners.

a medicare prescription drug benefit with a 10-year cost of nearly another $1 trillion that was not offset. two overseas wars that are nearing a cost of $1 trillion, a $700 billion bailout of wall street banks. . all of these unpaid-for policies were compounded by the worst economic recession in 70 years that began in 2007 that led to huge shortfalls in tax revenue and increased reliance on unemployment insurance and other federal social safety net programs. in order to get these huge deficits under control, we have tough decisions to make.

we have serious and difficult decisions as we attempt to balance the budget and as we attempt to continue to promote and project economic recovery. i've always been told that you can measure the greatness of a society by how well it looks after its young, how well it looks after its old, and how well it looks after those who cannot look after themselves effectively. so as we begin to begin to talk about cuts -- as we begin to talk about cuts, i've been told that if all you do is cut, cut, cut, all that you're going to get is blood, blood, blood, and of course the blood of the people will be on the hands of those who have the knives.

so as we cut, let's look seriously at the community services administration, the one little program, one little agency, one little area that still provides resources to fund programs like those established during the old war on poverty days, when we took a good look at poverty and what was causing it. as we begin to cut, heths understand that health -- let's understand that health is essential for wealth. let's make sure we don't tamper with what i consider to be one of the most effective ways of providing primary health care to large numbers of poor people in this country, the community health centers that provide primary care to more than 20

million low income americans without regard, in many instances, to their ability to pay. and let's understand that our prison system has become the largest in the world. more than two million people are incarcerated. so let's not cut or decimate the justice programs that we are funding to help these individuals try and successfully rei want grit back into society. and so i thank you -- re integrate back into society. so i urge you, mr. speaker, as we cut, let's make a good cut an not those that cut the poor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair d

>> house coming back in at noon eastern for legislative work. they will take up two rules for legislation. the first one deals with a resolution that requests house committees to look into business regulation and their effect on jobs and economic growth. that resolution would provide for 9 1/2 hours of debate. the second one, a rule governing debate on extending three provisions of the patriot act that are set to expire soon. you might recall the house trying to pass those extenses earlier this week but they failed to get 29/3 majority. we'll have live coverage when the house returns at 12:00 noon eastern. the senate is in today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. ahead of that there is word that minority whip john kyl is set to announcement his retirement. it's being reported by the politico. as we get more information we'll pass that along to you as well. the senate in later today. on the house side of things the appropriations committee today is expected to release their complete list of proposed 2011

budget cuts along with the continuing resolution to fund the government after march 4. also in washington today, the conservative political action conference under way, three days, and we are covering that on c-span.org. live coverage on c-span.org. a number of speakers, pat toomey speaking now. on c-span2 today we are bringing you a house intelligence committee hearing. they are looking into worldwide threats. over on c-span3, the house foreign affairs committee holding their second day of hearings looking at egypt. we'll take you next live to the house transportation committee and john pistole is on your screen. he heads the t.s.a. testifying on security threats. transportation security threats live coverage on c-span. >> notices something suspicious about a person. that's where we are moving to. again we'll have more information as this goes on. i have committed to doing

something this year that would demonstrate a different paradigm for how we go about doing passenger screening. who we screen and how. >> it sounds like much of that will be based on intelligence gathering. >> part of it will be. again it's something -- there's privacy issues that want to be they attuned to, as a frequent traveler, for example, is willing to voluntarily provide the information like they do for other trusted travel programs like global entry coming back into the u.s., exexpedited processes through customs -- expedited processes through customs, i'm interested in doing that and making sure that we can verify the identity of the person. then make a risk-based judgment, again we are not risk in the -- we are not in the risk elimination business. people won't have car accidents, no guarantee unless they stop driving. so that's -- we don't eliminate risk, we try to mitigate risk in

an informed fashion that's what i'm committed to doing. >> leapfrogging to another issue, t.s.a. created the screening partnership program, airports have checkpoint screening done by private contractors, currently being done at 16 airports. in your estimation why was this partnership begun to begin with? >> as farther of the enabling legislation of the act it was required that five airports do a two-year -- to see whether that worked. some members felt strongly that should be an option. so that five was done from november of 2002 to november of 2004. and then other airports applied. so we are at the 16. but there hasn't been -- there's only been two applications since i started on the job last year. one that just came in last week after i announced my decision. there hasn't seemed to be that much interest in the program and

it's -- so that's where it is right now. >> was the pilot program deemed successful? >> yes. >> ok. at the 16 airports where it's currently being practiced, is it fair to say that it's being fairly successful at those as well? >> yes. of course they follow the exact protocol, standard operating procedures we have at the other 435 or so airports around the country. they have to use the same equipment, same training, all those things. it's just the actual individuals happen to work for a private contractor rather than for t.s.a. >> the expansion beyond 16 airports, that's got to come from the airports them selves? >> sure. they apply and then we evaluate and so in my announcement i'm simply saying i want to see something clear and compelling. something substantial that would make sense to justify changing from what the system's already

working. >> ok. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i appreciate your frankness in responding to the questions. let's look how cargo -- air cargo for a moment. as you know we recently received notice that the department has done 100% passenger cargo screening. have there been any problems relative to cargo being interrupted, not delivered on time with the implementation of this 100% screening? >> no. it has worked efficiently through a combination of

certified cargo screening facilities, about 1,200 of them around the u.s., coupled with the screening done at the airports. >> i think that's part of closing a vulnerability loop that pretty much all of us identified. moving to another area, repair stations, i understand that you are in the process of doing some rule making. for whatever reason we don't have it. can you give us some idea when some of the proposed rule making will be completed? >> we have the demessisk repair stations, you -- domestic repair stations. foreign repair stations we work with f.a.a. in terms of their certification of those facilities as being qualified to do the repair work, especially on the u.s.-based carriers.

part of the challenge is how do we validate what they are doing meets our standards in the u.s.? in certain countries there's security protocols are just not as thorough. that's part of the challenge. how we work with the host government, their civil aviation authorities, and their cargo companies to give us that highest level of confidence when they are making repairs to aircraft that there is not something in fairous also taking place. -- nefarious also taking place. and the mechanics working in those facilities. it's a logistical challenge for us to validate, inspect and validate all those foreign affair stations. how can we do that in concert with industry? >> can you give us an idea when you -- >> i have to get back with you on that, sir. i don't know off the top of my head. >> reason i say is i think we have gone beyond the expected time on that. if you could get back to us, we

appreciate it. for the record also, mr. chairman, i want to kind of share with the committee relative to the collective bargaining issue there are already people who have collective bargaining rights within the department of homeland security. our customs and border protection offices, immigration customs enforcement, and the federal protective service, but also within the federal government we have the department of defense police, united states capitol police, united states park police, united states marshal service, department of veterans affairs police, as well as the united states mint police, but also the whole issue of security and whether or not expected bargaining compromised that security. i'd like to say that the two

officers who brought down the shooter at fort hood were members of the american federation of government employees union. so i think those two heroes deserve recognition. just as a sidebar they were union members. i think they did a wonderful job and i hope some of the concerns about collective bargaining and belonging to a union can be put to rest. i guess the only other issue, you talked a little bit about it, was implementing with our image -- imaging machines the new software. can you give us how long the pilots are expected to go before we can recognize the new results on that? >> yes.

the testing began last week, washington, national reagan airport, and atlanta heartsfield this week and we are doing between -- hartsfield this week and we are doing between 40 and 60 days testing to test whether the results we had in the lab will be commensurate with what we are experiencing with real passengers, real screening. it's too early to say i know from las vegas it's gone well, and we are working through some of the issues. for example, an individual with a pony tail that may show up as an anomaly that could be on the machine because it may be slightly out of the algorithm that's normal. that's easily resolved with a visual inspection. part of the training for the t.s.o. to say how do we resolve that? and completely i believe addresses the privacy issues that have been raised because it's just that generic object, that icon of a person which is the same for every passenger, as

opposed to individual, with the area highlighted with anomaly. it's a targeted pat down of that area which also addresses the patdown issue some people have concerns about. >> thank you. yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. a few questions with respect to collective bargaining. if the t.s.o.'s elect to form a union, who would they been bargaining with? >> unthe construct of enabling legislation, it gives t.s.a. and the administrator great discretion, so it would be only national level collective bargaining, and it would be with the head quarters of t.s.a. we wouldn't have local collective bargaining. it would only be processes and procedures as opposed to

individual airport issues. so it's at the national level. >> it would be with you ultimately? >> well, perhaps ultimately, but hopefully there would be others engaged on a day-to-day basis. >> if i understand correctly, the collective bargaining would be such things as performance management process, awards and recognition, attendance management guidelines and processes and things of that nature? >> correct. >> how do we know that that won't be expanded at some point in the future to include many other items? >> because the enabling legislation gives the administrator that sole discretion as to what can and cannot be bargained about. so it's basically like going through a cafeteria saying i like this and this, don't want that. what's on the tray right now are just those items that i believe do not adversely affect security in any way. i other a successor administrator would have to agree to add things to that. >> if you or your successor were

to change the scope of what the collective bargaining would be about, it would be changed? >> yes. >> what would the union's remedy be should they disagree with the results of the collective bargaining? >> because of the broad authorities, there's basically he decision with the administrator and there's no repeal, if you will, from that. >> well, traditionally unions have collective bargaining doesn't go as they wish, they have, as you know, exercise strike rights, and they have, as you know, exercise work stoppages or work slowdowns. do we have any assurances that would would not happen in the united states and disrupt our security at airport facilities? >> again, congressman, because ever those unique and very broad authorities that actually gave the administrator none of those or possibilities are options f. any employee does not show up for work, then they would be

disciplined, there is no issues on that under the collective bargaining. all those prophecy, employing engagement things would remain in place. there is no work slowdown or stoppage or strike that is allowed. so an employee could be fired for doing those things. >> to some degree it seems our country visited this issue back in the early 1980's with a professional air traffic controllers organization. as you probably recall, president reagan ultimately had to fire all of the employees en masse. are you willing to do the same thing should any of the t.s.o. workers decide to exercise a work stoppage or work slow down or strike should they disagree with your determination of the collective bargaining process? >> sure. i won't allow anything to happen that will adversely affect the security. if an individual or group of individuals are not performing their duties as assigned, then

we go through the normal process of discipline and perhaps termination. >> you are on the record willing to terminate en masse if need be should these individuals unionize and should they engage in work stoppages or slow downs of any sort? >> i can't envision that in this concept because it's not traditional collective bargaining. it's no right to do that. if an individual wants to risk losing their job by not showing up or doing a work slowdown, they would be subject to normal disciplinary process which could result in termination. >> papco had no right to do what they were doing once reagan ordered them to return to work. they were terminated en masse. i'm trying to get a clear yes or no answer from you. if there is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement should they engage in a work stoppage or slow down or should they engage in a strike, are you willing to fire them en masse? yes, or no. >> i'm willing to, yes.

>> thank you. >> i think the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and mr. administrator, let me just say straight out from the beginning that i am in favor of t.s.a. employees having the right to organize. however, i also want to feel as safe and secure and as protected when i travel and i also want to feel that the american public and all of the public who make use of our transportation system can feel the same way. i note in your memorandum relative to collective bargaining you stated that surveys have shown that t.s.a. ranks poorly in terms of

employee morale. how important do you think morale is in terms of service? and do you think that the organization or the right to organize a union will have a positive impact on morale building? america online as you are aware last year in the o.p.m. survey in terms of the best place to work in the u.s. government, t.s.a. ranked 220 out of 226 agencies. in doing a number of town halls around the country, listening to security officers and their supervisors and the management and executives in three separate sessions, what i found was a great deal of frustration with the lack of uniform and consistency in the way we handle our personnel policies. so that was part of what informed my decision and

judgment to allow them to vote, recognizing that 13,000 of the 47,000 or so are currently paying union dues without collective bargaining. i think there's a lot of distraction among the work force with these personnel issues that could be improved with better uniforming consistency. so that's the -- part of my reason and rationale for allowing them to vote on whether they want to have a union representing them. >> i know that individuals are always concerned about the possibility of public employees striking or slowing down the work or in some way disrupting normal flow of activity, what are perhaps some of the ways that individuals who have grievances or who are dissatisfied, what can they actually expect to do to try to get those resolved?

>> so all the existing processes, protocols we have in place will continue, and so they are encouraged to raise an issue first with their supervisor and work through that on just a partnership basis, if that doesn't work, depending on what the issue is and their concern, then they have other opportunities to raise those if collective bargaining is voted on, and a union is elected, then they would be able to have that representation at a hearing or whatever would come up as a result of that issue. >> of course, i come from chicago where it's obviously quite cold right now and it's good to be from there. that is away from there. but we are also the transportation hub for a region, as a matter of fact there are those who would suggest that we

are the transportation center of america and that's because of our strategic location. much of that relates, though, also to surface transportation. are there any new thoughts, provisions, guidelines that are being proposed to increase safety and security related to surface transportation? >> so we recognize that surface, particularly trains, subways, are vulnerable and have been, multiple attacks around the world. the challenge is how do we shore up those defenses getting either on a passenger train or a subway. so we have to be several -- we have done several things. partly through the transportation security grant program where we are working with fema and state and local authorities, we provided over

$300 million last year to a number of different transportation systems, including some of those in chicago, that use that money for several things, one is training of officers. it may be additional canine program and training. it may be such things as even new york city where last year they were able to hire 120 or so officers at nypd just for enhanced security in the subway, there are over 450 subway stations in new york city. that was money through the grant program. we also have viper teams visible and mobile protection response teams which are designed to be visible, unpredictable deterrence to those whether it's here at union station or penn station in philly or new york or chicago, and start working with

state and locals. we recognize at t.s.a. we can't be all things, all people, all times, we can't protect against all threats. we have to work through that local partnership, whether state and local police, amtrak police, whoever. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. my friend and colleague from california, mr. lungren, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. pistole, for your service to the f.b.i. and service now. thank you for taking some arrows on the issue of full body scanners when that came up a little while ago. i mean a few months ago. i would just like to ask you, though, about your decision with respect to the screening partnership program. you said that members of congress when they enacted the legislation wanted a pilot project. pilot project was conducted. you said that the results were good. you then said, however, that you made a decision with respect to granting collective bargaining

rights to the employees because you listened to them and you thought it would be a good idea they should vote. are you denying the airports of this country the right to vote. airports, a number of them, want to be involved in this. and you basically now raised the bar and said there has to be a compelling reason. do you have that same standard when you decided with respect to collective bargaining, compelling reason? >> i think those are two distinguishable issues. >> my question is, was that standard, the one you used in collective bargaining? it had to be a compelling reason for to you do it? >> no,dy not use the same standard. >> i don't understand why you are doing it in this case. you said the surge, you need the flexibility, the surge, yet you then testified that only a couple of airports have asked for it. there's 400-some odd airports. are you saying adding two more would complicate your situation with respect to flexibility for the surge so you couldn't accomplish your task?

>> no. what i'm saying i didn't see a compelling reason to add to the existing 16 that would be a reason to make a change from the existing approach of using federalized work force at most airports. >> when we passed the legislation, we wanted to see whether that would work. we didn't say there would be a compelling reason to go further. the idea was to have a pilot project to see if it would work. you told us it worked. now you're saying it has to be a compelling reason. i don't understand the bias against the private sector, frankly. that's what it appears to me to be. if you look at the experience in san francisco international airport, which has been outstanding, that airport provided competition to the others. and when this program first started, one of the highest rates of injury of the entire work force in the nation were screeners. the private employer in san

francisco decided that instead of having all the screeners lift heavy baggage, they would actually get heavy baggage lifters and pay them at a different rate. what happened? they didn't have the same injury rate that the public sector did. then the public sector saw that was a good idea and they did that. the idea of competition allows those kinds of things that can happen. i'm trying to find out why you say you have to have a compelling reason, and you talk about katrina, how many private sector people responded to katrina? . you say somehow because these folks work for a company that makes a profit -- that makes a profit, that somehow that's different. airports are saying they like

the alternative. >> i appreciate and would understand your concerns. >> i don't believe you do. based on what you said. >> i share your concerns, i think if we look at from the perspective of what happened pyre to 9/11 with private screeners, there was -- prior to 9/11 with private screeners -- >> that's completely different. >> i believe there should be a federalized work force. >> you've answered it then. you believe a federalized work force. >> i mentioned that in my comments before you were here. >> so you believe in a federalized work force rather than one that has private folks working. >> that's exactly right. that's what i testified to earlier, i guess before you came in, that's my philosophical approach, i believe it should be a federalized counterterrorism work force. >> have you worked in the private sector? >> yes, i practiced law before i became a -- an f.b.i. agent.

>> is there something about the private sector that make thems unable to participate in the security of this country? >> absolutely not. >> i'm astounded, frankly, that you would say that, particularly since that's contrary to what the congress indicated they wanted done. they wanted a pilot project to see if it works. it has worked and you have said, in your testimony, it's worked. but despite that, you say we should not allow it to go further because you believe it ought to be a federalized work force. >> i'm saying i'm open to the possibility, and if an airport comes in and can demonstrate there's a compelling reason to change because they can do things better, i'm open to that. i'm not ruling it out. >> what is your bias against private sector people being involved in the security of this nation? 85% of our critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector are you suggesting we need to

federalize 85% of the critical infrastructure in this country because somehow only federal workers can do the job? >> so we've had just the two airports come in since i've been the administrator request this. there hasn't been a rush, a knock down the door, have airports submit applications to do this. >> would you believe they might be discouraged by your comments? >> i'm saying up until my announcement, there was only one and one came in after. >> hardly encouraging what you said so far? >> i don't know how they'd take that. >> they would say that you have said it ought to be a federal screeners work force, that you have to find a compelling reason, which means you've given them a higher were and you've given all sorts of reasons that you believe it's beginning to interfere in your flexibility to respond to a potential disaster. i understand what you say,

philosophically, i disagree with you, i think the congress disagrees with you, and frankly i'mties pointed because i think you're saying you're going to set a standard that's not in the law because you have, for whatever reason, prepared for believing that those in the private sector can't do as good a job as those in the public sector and i'm sorry to hear that. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pistole. can you touch more the -- for me on rail security, i know it's probably in many districts but our rail lines go through neighborhoods, close to schools, close to big sporting venues and a numb of other things. one of my concerns has always been, what happens if the rail line is used as a weapon, they share bridges with our automobiles many times, can you

touch on that for me? >> sure, congressman. i share that concern, recognizing the vulnerability and access to rail not necessarily associated with aviation. as i mentioned with the attacks around the world with attacks on rail, particularly passenger rail, and also the partnership we have both with freight and passenger rail in terms of their actions that they can take without government regulation, but just say, this makes good business sense for us to reduce our risk and what i said about the 90% reduction hazard risk through urban areas by industries' own nearbytive. that's an ideal model for me where industry does that voluntarily, it's not a regulation, it's simply because d buness sense. we work closely with, whether it's the am track police or other rail police, address the security chiefs of all the major rails, both freight and passenger, several different settings and what we hope to

ensure is that partnership will have intelligence to make informed judgments to what actions they should take to secure the rail. >> my last question is a yen question on the future of the card and the program, where are we and where are we headed with it? >> we have about 1. million twit cards at this point, i have to check that number to make sure but i think that's right. it's not where i'd like it to be. it's taken longer than it should and there have not been successes that i would like to see in terms of trying to ensure the best safety of ports by those who have access to the most critical areas. it's focused on that, want to make some improvements in the timing and rollout, it's taken too long, frankly. >> thank you for your time. i yield back the remainder of mine. >> the gentleman yields back.

speaking of cold weather, mr. davis, our next questioner is from minnesota, it can get colder than illinois. mr. cravaack is recognized. >> in my hometown, it was below zero this morning. and i love minnesota, it's good for ice fishing. i appreciate your service to this country. i do have a couple, being an airline pilot, the ma sheeps i walk through routinely grab my interest. last week, the t.s. ample began using new software, it's the current advanced imaging technology ample i.t. machines. it will enhance passenger privacy by eliminating passenger-specific imannals instead of auto detect problem

areas on a passenger instead of the detailed outline. they're conducting tests at las vegas and at hartsford-jackson international airport and ronald reagan international airport as well. have we gotten feedback? >> just from las vegas, congressman. welcome to the committee. it's something we're getting positive feedback because the passenger sees the image along with the security officer as opposed to a separate security officer seeing it. i think it gives the passengers greater confidence. if they have something on the right hip, they can say, oh, i forgot to take the handkerchief out of my pocket or something. it's increased the through put some and so thus far, so good. >> t.s.a. should be congressmened for listening to the public on that. that's great my concern is, can this technology make sure it can see any size of any object on the passenger from the top

of his head to his toes, full screen without getting into detail? i appreciate that last caveat. there are challenges. obviously the christmas day bomber presented one of those challenges. that's why we're field testing this. it's actually the same equipment, just a different depiction of the image, so we have, we believe it's the best available technology to detect those types of nonmetallic bombs, that's what he had on christmas day, but it's -- there's no 100% guarantee silver bullet here, it's just the best technology available today and we're always trying to improve that. >> currently the new software is being tested for mill mitre wave a.i.t. machines, where do -- when do you expect this to be piloted? >> the manufacturer is working on the auto detect function and the algorithms for that, we're

thinking it will be late they are summer with lab testing and feel testing in the fall. >> if the pilot project does go well, do you plan to put these machine nervous airport? funding obviously will be key there. >> funding is key. as much as the budget will allow, we will con rert the existing, it's a simple, two-hour conversion. minimal cost. so it's, as soon as we are able to do that assuming we get the good results we're hoping for. >> excellent. thank you very much, sir, for your time. i yield back, sir. >> the chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. currently, transportation workers carry a number of different identification credentials. among these, but not limited to this, are the twit card, hazard -- tw pimbings card, the hazardous materials endorsement and others.

they all require separate processes and background checksmark of which are redundant. stake holders continue to express their strong concern to me that we need to address these redundancies. can you tell me what you can do to give them relief? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i afree with you. i agree there are too many cards with too many applications for too little return on that process. i don't have much in terms of positive news on that, obviously it's larger than just t.s.a. or even the department and so working through a number of areas on the universal rule of having ideally one card that would give access, the question is, if it's a person who has access to a port, then what are the applications there, if they don't need access to an airport if they don't need access to a commercial driver's license with hazmat endorsement. there's few people who would have all of those needs of

access such as the sensitive area of the airport so there's a sound basis for it but i think it's become much too cumbersome and i look forward to working with you and the committee on trying to streamline the process. >> you offer that comment, one of the other things i'm doing with the various sectors of the transportation industry is inviting them to give me proposed rule changes. whether it's regulation that, you know, they find is eredundant or overly burdensome and i would urge you to, as we tender those to you to consider us working to get rid of redundant, unnecessary rules and i don't know if you've had anybody in your department looking at existing regulations, things you could streamline, if you haven't, i would urge you do to the do that, it's becoming problematic for a lot of different sectors. my colleagues on the committee would be disappointed in me if

i didn't bring up canines, so i'm going to doha. as you know, i'm se louse advocate for the use of canine explosive detection assets. you menaced earlier the use of those. tell me where you are with that sector of your layered security. >> i'm a big proponent, not surprisingly, of canine program both in the actual detection of explosives but also the deterrent effect to those possible terrorists who might be deterred by the presence of a canine and handler regardless of whether that canine is actually a bomb sniffing dog or not. i'm also heartened by the initiative through auburn university in terms of the vapor weight technology, the ability for a dog trained properly to not just hit on the package or the backpack or whatever may be containing the explosives but can pick up the

vapor from that as somebody's walked through and so, for example, at moscow, if there had been a vapor weight trained dog in that area, even after the person walked through that dog would have likely been able to pick up on something hike that. it's something that we're very interested in. appreciate your support in terms of what we are doing at auburn and we have a number of adecisional opportunities to deploy those dogs as the budget will allow. >> that's what i'm hoping we are going to see in the president's budget next week. i know the secretary expressed her desire to see those assets more utilized within various sectors of our security system. as you know, the facility you have at lackland, the money as has been suggested by the secretary is spend to expand that facility, it's going to be at its maximum capacity, which will yen rate 275 teams a year.

we have have to have a second site, at least, for those assets. i hope you're working with the secretary to that end and i can assure you i want to be a partner. we need those in every airport, in every rail station and they're just a very low cost, rresquive asset. my time is up, i now recognize the gentlelady from texas for another series of questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, i appreciate the time spent with us today. i'm going to give some questions, not aimed at you, but if i can get some quick answers, i appreciate it. you need to answer the original questions i had about the notice to us, ranking members on the changes that occurred, well, change that occur back then but let me skip and not go all the way back to november

but the changes that occurred in the immediate last two or three weeks that i called about and saw first on our local tv program that changes were coming to the enhanced process. it was aired on our local station in houston. i'd like to have a better communication an so if you would answer that when i give you these series of questions. first of all, i want to reinforce and thank you, i thank your thought processes on the s.p.p. were thoughtful and i think it's important to acknowledge again that you found the security operations at airports, private screeners cost the government more money and we are cost conscious, though we don't want to be cheap on security. i think that's important. i also believe, as i asked my earlier question, that it is important that we have an integrated system of federal screeners that allows the agency to quickly react to terrorists and threats in a more secure way. ial believe the connection of

intelligence is so very important. i want to congratulate you for getting the high number of security cleared vims. might i also specifically note appreciation for the colonel in my jures dix, she's done a gate job and let me say on the record, colonel chester, i look forward to touring the cargo space you've invited me to, i hope to be there shortly. i want to follow up quickliering these are the quick questions. status report on the t.s.a. repair station. we've been working on that repair station security, we've been working on that a long time and if i can fete one or two updates. after yemen, we rushed overseas to establish the -- and also after the christmas day bomber incident, the last point of departures in foreign countries and i'd like to know what we've done, how about our agreements,

how we in congress can be helpful what tools or resources would help you achieve increased passenger baggage and security at foreign airports. some of those are international agreements but we need to know how we can ramp it up and achieve it fast . aye always been concerned in making sure america and the american government looks like american so i am very much interested in a targeted, forceful, meaningful approach to diversify the executive and nonexecutive levels at t.s.a. and working with people from diverse backgrounds. i asked that question of the secretary, including people of the different faiths, religions, particularly the muslim community and a i'm also interested in homegrown jut reach for his pap ibblings, african-americans, asians, and native americans and of course in texas anglo americans. a diverse work force that

reflects everyone. so i'm hoping someone was writing those questions down, if i can get some bullet answers from you, again, quickly. thank you. >> thank you marx dam. i wasn't sure if you wanted those right now? >> yes. >> so let me briefly on air car go, with yemen, i think you're aware, i was in yemen five days after the plot was uncovered, worked with the authorities there, very briefly, fully engadged with industry to ensure that any car ge coming from yemen, once we lifted the car go hold, which we put in effect immediately, would have the best screening possible. and we are still continuing that process and i can give you faurt update. >> are you working fast on the international agreements. >> yes and working with the international civic aviation organization. >> repair station. >> repair stations, as i mentioned earlier, i don't have specific date, we have to get

back to you. >> very important. mr. chairman, as you well know the whole idea of what happens when airplanes are exposed overseas and need repairs is a key issue that a good colleague, the gentleman from rhode island, had begun working on. we need an extensive answer on that. >> diversity, t.s.a. has one of the most diverse work forces. >> let me get that in writing. you're talking about t.s.o. officers, i'm talking about the executive level and that is extremely important. i want to speak with the chairman on the professional development issue. i travel through what i hear is bright, intelligent folk with no place to go. we need to get an understanding of how we advance their -- give them the opportunity to be professionals and move forward. so i really want to ensure --

we hear things on television -- >> i apologize for that. >> we're talking about the a.i.t. and -- >> how -- >> our news reported you were changing. >> for the testing? >> yes, this is now 2011. i'm not going back to november. >> honestly, i wanted to keep you and the chairman fully informed and when i don't do that, that's on me to do a better job. i'll do that. >> i want to say it's not only the chairman that mentioned canines, you've been a leder on this issue, i look forward to you hopefully pumping that up with talented, healthy animals that really are a great asset. i hope we'll be able to visit gep as we've done in the past. i thank you for your indulgence and i think i will yield back

at this moment. >> the yealt yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for a second series of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. understanding that being in the military, also being an airline pilot, i understand there's a best way to go about things, layers of security an layers of threats. there's no silver bullets, as you said. it starts basically from when a person purchases a ticket to when they arrive at the airport to when they check in their bags, or not, to when they go through a creaning point, when they actually go onboard the aircraft. so in recent terrorist attacks, this was conducted in a nonsecure area. that's why these threats, these layers of curt are so important. i was just wondering what your thoughts are as the t.s.a. increases security for the

nonsecure areas and one of the things that i think are promising, especially having gone through it several times myself is the human intelligence, human interaction, we candy certain a lot of these threats before they actually enter a, more of a secure area. i was wondering what your thoughts were. >> couldn't agree more, congressman. i believe strongly in behavioral detection, the observation of individuals, and we have a numb of officers trained in that regard. i'd like to increase that in terms of the training and capabilities, basically toup grade that even more. i think that has a good return on investment. we work, as far as the nonsecure areas of the airport, such as in moss tow cao, we work closely with airport police in all the major airports, the 28 largest airports, and then of course the smaller airports which may or may not have a dedicated police force. we try to do that in

conjunction with them, recognizing their law enforcement authorities an their ability to protect and the ter somebody coming -- and deter somebody coming in from curbside. though our behavioral technology services are outside of the area, in the nonsecure area, looking for people going to check points, it is an opportunity for the airport police and others to detect in conjunction with us, given our responsibilities, marleauly at the check point and beyond and federal air marshals and things like that on the flight, i look forward to working with the subcommittee on additional things we can do, there's a whole range of things we can do, i've outlined that in a paper to the secretary and we've provided information to russian authorities who asked what can you do in terms of the check points, l.a.x., los angeles international, from time to time they'll doran dom vehicle check points before you ever get to the curb.

that's something that can be done. you can have more teams walking and again, visible, unpredictable deterrents. last range of opportunities limited by the range of what the resources are, the budget and things like that. >> i couldn't agree with you more. pause of the layer of threlts, we need layers of detection, intervention as well. >> good way to present it. >> also following your confirmation hear you commented on the shift from airplanes to ground transportation you view that rail and subways are equally as important. i couldn't agree more. i wouldn't want your job. as threats against the auation -- wal have to look at our ground transportation. the resources allocated, the aviation security efforts, account for roughly 80% of the t.s.a.'s bunnell. do you see that moving at all? >> we're working with the

committee and the rest of congress, interested in the opportunities we would have to do more in surface transportation. i believe there are some as a rule nrblets there that are inherent in the con struck of being able to get on a train without any security screening. again, we do viper teams in high profile stations, whether it's union station penn station, new york, things like that rails themselves are vulnerable in certain respects. you can go into a lot of detail from that perspective. i agree more could and should be done. it's a question of, at this point, do we take something away from aviation security to address that? i'm reluctant to do that given terrorists' continuing interest in aviation plots. >> thank you, sir. i have one last question, it's yes for thic, and i don't expect too much detail but what keeps you awake at night? >> the unknown that, this is based on my nearly 27 years at

the f.b.i., the unknown that somebody we have not identified being able to do something an we miss it. >> thank you, sir. i yield back the rest of my time. >> the chairman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. beard, for five minutes. >> -- ms. spears. >> i'd like to welcome the gentlelady to the committee. >> i was in government and oversight reform, i snuck out of that committee to come in and say hello to mr. pistole. i'd like to explore the issue of foreign repair operations. you know, we are struggling with how we can create more jobs in this country an meanwhile, some of our carriers are offshoring the repair work of many of their facilities. we have mechanics that are now

out of work. that's one issue. but the more crushing issue and the one i think you're going to be most concerned about is the fact that in a briefing that i received just last week, the security at these foreign locations is very, very little. and i was shown pictures of how they actually check people in and it's, basically with a card you can pick up anywhere. it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to get one of those cards to get into the area to stow away a bomb or some biowarfare that could create serious problems for us. so numb one, what steps are you taking to beef up the curt that these airlines are evidently not pursuing in these foreign venues, and secondly, is there

some thought of bringing these jobs back to the united states so we can have a greater sense of security and more jobs here in the homeland? >> thank you, congresswoman. we welcome you to the committee, the subcommittee. clearly the issue of form repair stations is significant. i want to address -- i won't address the job issue too much, i'm focus odd then curt aspects, but clearly the carriers at times need those repair stations based on whatever has happened in terms of naint -- maintenance or repairs that are needed. you have identified what the challenges are there a is a great inconsistency around the world and our challenge is how we go about inspecting those with any sense of assurance an confidence that they are doing what they should be doing, are they creaning the personnel,

are they screening the material that they're bringing in, so there's not something bad in there that they're putting on a pleap, a bomb or anything else? we don't have the resources to do what i would want to offer to the american people as a high level of confidence in those operations. we work with host governments, with the civil aviation authorities bilaterally an through the swer national aviation corporation but it comes down to how do we trust but verify? we have to have some amount of trust in our foreign partners but the question of verification and validation is what they're doing and i can't give you a positive report to say, yes, every single foreign repair station meets the standards we'd like to see here in the u.s. that's something we're working on but it's not there yet. >> let's not even talk about

foreign carriers. let's talk about u.s. carriers who have offshored their mechanical repair work in el salvador and aarp the world. we do have some authority over them, do we not? >> sure. ? this is united airlines i'm speaking of right now. >> obviously we work with united, we work with the facility, the foreign repair station, to basically assess whether their standards are up to ours and if they're not, then we can say you're not allowed to do that repair work. it's incumbent on the air station and the aim and the host government and sil aviation authority to ensure that's the case. my concern is being able to as i mentioned to validate what they're ding. >> what i'm asking is, i want you to assess the security in el salvador at the repair

facility united runs there. it appears to be incomplete and lax. if you do not have authority to force them to beef up their security there, we need to make sure you have that authority and any other penalties that should be imposed. >> that's something we do in conjunction with the f.a.a. in terms of their certification of repair facilities. >> so you'll are port back to the committee? >> the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for a sec series of questions. >> earlier i mentioned i thank you for taking the issue of the advanced imaging or full body scanners. i'd like to ask you about that. i've sugg jed that we have an i

don't care line for those of us who don't care, i can go through the full body scanner. i get a chance -- as a recipient of a new hip and new knee, i get a chance to get up close and personal with your screeners every time. if you want somebody to testify to the new enhanced screenings, i can testify to that. i'm strongly in support of getting these advanced imaging -- the various types of advanced imaging out there. i was wondering, what has been the decision making as to which airports have it and which do not? everyone talks about reagan. i had the chance to go through reagan one time, that was a much better experience was much

better -- than at dulles. but i usually fly through dulles. they just completed a new entire floor for people going through the screening process yet i have not seen a single enhanced image piece of equipment there. is will a -- is there a reason why we don't have any at dulles? >> it may have been a while since you travel through the there. >> yesterday or three days ago. >> we do have a.i.t. at dulles. i don't know the exact number. it's been in the process the last several months being deployed so it may just be that check point. >> i'd love to find it, i will use it. i guess my bigger question, how to we decide which airplanes get them as we're moving them on. it seems to me you're committed

to that and believe in that. >> i do. >> and you believe now that we can do a better job of assuring people of the privacy concerns. >> absolutely. >> even though i believe we did a pretty good job in the past. in i believe we have also. >> is it airport request? >> it's several factor, one is the airport authority's configuration, their readiness, basically, because the machines do take up more real et -- estate, more space, than the metal district of columbiaors so in some airports we have to reconfigure the check point. so those airports, those airports who have the space and ability and interest and willingness to take those machines, that's where we went first. those where we have to do build out, there's costs involved, all those issues make it more complicated. it's a longer process. but eventually, and we've got

2,200 check points around the country. budget doesn't allow for every check point but many of those are small airports. >> it was when i left sacramento that i did not, when i went through the one at dulles 2 1/2 weeks ago, i set off the detectors, went through the patdown and after i got the patdown they said, you should have asked for the machine, no one told me there was a machine. it might be helpful that they give an opportunity for people to use the machine if they want to. i would be happy to testify for anybody as to the thorough -- as to theless invasive privacy aspects of going through one of your new pieces of equipment as opposed to having the pat down because your people are doing a very, very good job of that let me talk to you about the secure traveler program. are we checking for things, or are we checking for people? >> right now we're checking for prohibited items but where i

want to move to is assessing a person and that's what i was tucking about earlier in terms of using a more intelligence, risk-based approach. clearly, i think there are many opportunities which i'd like to go into detail with the subcommittee at a later date. i'm still working internally but i think there's some good options we'll see later this year. >> for several years, a number of us have been arguing it makes no sense to make the pilots go through it when they control the airplane later on. >> that's why i changed the policy. >> i know it's politically incorrect to think yud treat congress any differently but i pozz sit a question. if off group of people who are permit to have had the highest classified briefing you could possibly have, it seems strange to me that we're -- maybe you have some intelligence you'll share with us later that finds that members of congress are a suspect class but all i can say

is your people to a very good job of making sure that i know they do a thorough examination of me every time i go through. >> i appreciate that. i will note, congressman, that i just had a briefing by g.a.o. who does all types of covert ting and beats us every time but they said that this most recent testing inian, they found to be the most thorough and the best system of i think the subcommittee will be interested in some of these ways forward that use a risk-based approach and taking what we know about the person, doing some precreaning basically to go to more of an identity based screening as opposed to the other screening. >> every time i've forgotten hairspray, they've gotten it and i had to throw it out. i appreciate that. >> we have 16. a i.t. at dulles now. it is being deploy. >> the gentleman yields back.

i have no further questions, the ranking member has no further questions. we will close the hearing. i want to thank you for your time and your answers. i want to thank the members for their questions. we will hold the hearing open for 10 days. members may have written questions they want to submit an we ask that you get those back in the -- in a timely manner. we have given you question, i urge a timely response to those. i hope you work to address your concerns and theirs and other things we've discussed here today. >> thank you, chairman. >> with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this hearing wrapping up, we want to let you know the hearing on eyipt continues, the foreign affairs committee hearing continues, we're covering that on crmbing span 3. the latest news we have from the associated press says that state tv in egypt says president hosni mubarak will speak to the nation tonight if

his palace in cairo. that's the latest from the associated press. we'll update that as we get more information. the u.s. senate is in later today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. there's news ahead of the senate gaveling in. senator john kyl, the minority whip, plans to announce his retirement at a news conference later today. according to a number of news sources and a high level source familiar with his thinking, if he does, he'll be the fifth member to announce he's leaving the chamber in 2012, joining jim lieberman, kay bailey hutchison and others. the u.s. house coming back in in about 20 minutes. they will take up a bill to request house committees to look into regulations and their effect on economic growth. if that rule passes, there will be 1/2 hours of debate starting this afternoon. they'll also try again with the patriot act on extending three

provisions of the patriot act set to expire soon. the end of the month, the house tried to pass those extensions earlier this week but failed to meet the 2/3 necessary to do that. john wayner -- boehner, speaker of the house, wrapped up his news conference in the capitol. we'll show that to you, it runs about 10 minutes. ld >> good morning, everyone. the most important thing we can do to revitalize job creation in america is to create the right environment for workers

private investment and spreading uncertainty among employers both big and small. without stability, we cannot have economic stability. next week, we'll bring to the floor a continuing resolution that contains the largest discretionary spending cut in the history of our country. we will meet our pledge to america and we are working with send the signal that we are binge. president obama offered a different way forward. he asked congress to raise the debt limit and pass more ineffective stimulus spending. i'm concerned he'll soon send

congress a budget that destroys jobs because it spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. here i think we see a clear choice. we can do nothing an leave the spending process on auto pilot an shorten the path to sharp tax hikes or higher interest rates, or we could go ahead and liberate our economy from big government, runaway spending, and endless regulation that comes with it. that's what the american people want and the pledge to america is our job to get that done. it's a blueprint that creates the right environment for job creation, reening in costly regular nation -- reigning in clost i costly regulations. it's a smart way to make short-term decision needed for long-term prosperity, just as

any good business would. the pledge isn't scrust a plan or strategy. it's a long overdue culture change for here in washington. it's a bill with a promise of a smaller, less costly, accountable government and recognizes that jobs aren't created here in the halls of washington. they're products of hard work and risk taking by employers and entrepreneurs. we'll do our best to convince democrats and president obama that this is the best plan to get our economy moving again. if the president is willing to work with us, we will be ready to work with him. but the american people sent us here to work on their behalf an that's exactly what we're going to do. we're going to have a relentless focus on creating jobs that the american people expect from our new majority. answer your questions. >> mr. speaker.

the way representatives pelosi and poi hoyer handled things. did you take your own advice when you asked congressman lee to resign? >> congressman lee made his own decision that he thought was in his best interest an the interest of his family. the resolution that comes down in order for that to pass, the nat an the president will have to agree to defund the program. given that fact, is there any way the house majority led by you will found obamacare after march 4? >> we are opposed to obamacare. we have voted to repeal it. that also includes $700 million in tax hikes, about $2.6 trillion in new spending. weir going to continue to take all the actions we can to make

sure that we do not ruin the best health care delivery system in the world, bankrupt our nation an most pornly get in the way of job creation in america. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to ask you about some of the spending cuts we don't see talked about. i see the list the appropriations committee has put out. why is there nothing about cutting funding for the extra engine for the fmbing-35, for example? isn't this a no-brainer? >> i'm sure we'll see this bill soon and all the details that come with it. >> another no-brainer, as in oil subsidies, $6 billion a year -- >> the things that you are mentioning are not in the discretionary spending pot. >> but shouldn't you -- >> i remind you, we've been in the majority now five weeks. we're going to have a long year. you're going to see more spending cuts come out of this congress than any congress in the history of this country. >> last summer, you called out

some of your members for some of their conduct which might have been inappropriate. mr. lee was supposedly one of the memberings among this crowd. what specifically concerned you about their conduct and what did you say to them and is that contention -- contingent upon actions? >> my conversations with members are private and will remain that way. >> you spoke to "roll call" about it, didn't you speak to "roll call" about some of the conversations you had with members who were liing? >> i gave a generic quote about talking to members to one publication. a generic quote. >> can you tell us generically about -- >> i believe that members of congress should be held to a the highest ethical standard. that's what the american people

expect. >> according to the list of the appropriations committee yesterday, some of it, the wmple i.c. program and liheap, considering the economic times are still hard for many families right now, is this the right time to be cutting these programs for women and eating for the poor? >> everything is on the table. we're broke. let's be honest with ourselves. it's time for washington to get serious an that's exactly what the american people expect of us. >> mr. speaker, where do things stand with the c.r. mr. rodgers put out a framework, mr. ryan put out a figure, it doesn't seem to be enough for a lot of your members, so where do things stand? >> we're working with members and committee chairman to achieve the largest cuts possible. >> what how big would that be?

>> we're working with members and the committee chairman. >> so it's not people just picking a number and telling your appropriators to make it there? >> we're working with our members. >> mr. speaker in your opinion, there seems to be almost an annual sex scandal on capitol hill. do you think it's the lifestyle of members? >> i wouldn't know. >> if appropriators cannot finish wrapping up work today is there any fear that they won't be able to get the bill next week? c.r. next week. >> when did you first become aware of the situation with congressman lee and when he'd resign? >> sometime yesterday afternoon and then it was a little after

6:00 that i heard that he had resigned. >> are you pleased with that decision? did he make the right one? >> i think he made the right decision for hims and his family. >> was it a mistake for the majority leader to bring some of these bills to the floor this week when it was clear that they didn't have the votes to pass? is there any concern about the process -- >> now, listen, we're in a new era. i've made it pretty clear we're going to allow the house to work its will. that means the leaders may not get what they want every day. i really do believe that it's early in the process, the house works its will, under the suspension bills, and the bills didn't pass. i think part of the issue here is the fact that committees are just now finally, all of them, have been organized and we get back to a regular process. we wanted to get off to a fast start that means that a lot of

committees weren't organized and things were brought to the floor. it's a good reason why we ought to have a substantial committee process before we bring a bill to the floor. it's certainly not the first time, probably won't be the last time. but i'm committed to allowing >> mr. speaker, are you willing to cut spending to prestimulus levels? >> absolutely. and we're going to. >> mr. speaker, you said that it's important to have a substantial committee process but yesterday's u.n. bill seemed to show a failure of not having that. is that a flaw of youcut a lot of things are put up there without deliberation by committee to determine what the consequences are? >> i think the committee process is important, you work out the kings in a bill, build support from members of both parties in that process.

and because a lot of these committees weren't organized, we weren't able to do our work with a full committee process. now that the committees are all organized, i am hopeful that we'll get back to a re-- get back to re-establishing the importance of committee work with the mashing of bills an doing real oversight of many programs that have not been looked at for decades and decades. >> will youcut bills be subject to committee process going forward? >> i think you have to ask the majority leader. >> jim boehner, within the hour, his briefing at the capitol center. the house will be in in a few mins, a couple of rules they'll be taking up, one a rule for a resolution to direct house committees to look into

business regulations and their impact of jobs and mick growth. also bringing up rule that governs debate on extending three provisions of the patriot act set to expire at the enof the month they feel house did tried to pass those under suspension of the rules earlier this week buffetted to get the 2/3 majority. they'll gavel in at noon, eastern, for legislative work. no release of the continuing resolution and the budget for the rest of fiscal year. the c.q. is reporting that the chair of the appropriations committee huddled with his subcommittee chairman to make plans to write a new bill that's also called the continuing resolution to make sharper reductions to agency budgets. that is expected to be released on friday. we started off our washington journal program talking about federal budget cuts. we'll show you those congressmens until the house gavels in at noon. a couple of articles related to federal spending and the budget. this is from "the washington

times." the chairman of the house appropriations committee announced it beat federal spending cuts -- deep federal spending cuts.

that is "the washington times." here is politico. david rogers writing.

this available bit of david rogers' article in politico. from the fox news website, here is some budget facts just to set our conversation and then we will begin talking to you, what

would you cut. this is the u.s. federal budget fact sheet fiscal year 2011. this is from the fox news website. overall, 2011 spending -- $3.80 trillion. 2011 discretionary spending, out of that 3.8, $1.40 trillion is the discretionary spending. 2011 projected deficit, $1.30 trillion or 8.3% of gdp. 10-year deficit reduction, $1.20 trillion. that is excluding war savings and tax cuts. $300 billion in the next 10 years for individuals, families, and businesses. a the budget season in washington. henry in new york city. a democrat, what would you cut? caller: thank you.

i would cut funds from the 10- year billion dollar a week war that we have not paid for and we are paying for with all the domestic cuts that are hurting people. my only question is, where is the humanity of it all. that is what i would cut. a billion dollar a week war. host: linda in orlando, republican line. >> you can watch all of today's "washington journal" online at c-span.org. we're leaving now as the u.s. house is preparing to gavel in for legislative work. two rules under consideration today, first up a rule on theres. lugs that requires house committees to look into federal regulations and their effort on jobs an the economy that rule would allow for nine hours of general debate and also three provisions of the patriot act a rule governing debate on extending those three provisions that failed earlier this week under suspeps and that rule is coming up today as

well. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer today will be offered by our guest chaplain, cardinal donald rural, archdiocese of washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us face

ourselves in the presence of god. good and gracious god, you call us to make our way through this life with you and challenge us to walk on and -- arm and arm with each other. as we confront the human condition you bless us with intellect and free well, to establish institutions to guide our human affairs, to confirm the possibility of freedom, personal development and prosperity and the common good. we ask you to bless and strengthen all who striving to improve the human condition -- who strive to improve the human condition and foster a respect for each person. in your goodness, bless the members of our nation's house of representatives. may all their deliberations and discussions be inspired by the wisdom and vision of your kindness and may the work conducted here today bear rich fruit that nurtures all of the citizens of this nation and of

our dreams for a better world. all of this we ask in your most holy name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his atrolve thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: 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 up to 15 further requests for one-minute

speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, speaker of the house, mr. boehner rise? the speaker: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker: mr. speaker, it's my distinct honor to welcome his emnence, donald cardinal rural, archbishop of washington, d.c., and to thank him for offering the opening prayer as we begin our work today. like many of his parishioners, i know cardinal rural to be a man of generous spirits and immense gifts. a true leader of the faithful. when he was elevated to the college of cardinals last fall by pope benedict it was a proud and humbling moment for all of us. his elevation came nearly a quarter of a century after being ordained a bishop by his holiness, john paul ii. cardinal went on to serve as bishop of pittsburgh where he was born and raised until his

appointment here in washington, d.c. around the world the cardinal is respected and admired for his efforts on behalf of catholic education and he currently serves as counselor of the catholic university of america and is a champion of the d.c. opportunity scholarship program which helps disadvantaged students gain access to quality education. again on behalf of my colleagues it's an honor to welcome cardinal rural to the people's house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as a member who represents the area of pittsburgh and is part of the pittsburgh diocese, i'd also like to welcome the cardinal to the house of representatives. he's a great leader in the state community and a friend and certainly a friend to everybody in the nation now as well as those in the pittsburgh region. mr. murphy: he began his career

as an assistant pastor in pittsburgh, became secretary to pittsburgh bishop john wright and then worked as a recter. in 1988 the bishop was installed as the 11th bishop of pittsburgh where he lead 18 years, he led 800,000 roman catholics and 214 parishes throughout pennsylvania. we also knew him from his television series called "the teachings of christ wgs "which was distributed throughout the cable channel and his best selling catechisms of the same name which is now i believe in its 30th year of publication, translated over 10 languages. i echo the comments made by our speaker in terms of the cardinal's leadership and the esteem we all hold him in and we are most grateful that he came here today and led us in prayer. and with that i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, attached

is a letter of resignation submitted by representative christopher j. lee to the pertinent executive authority in the state of new york. it was received in the capitol last evening. it previously laid before the house was addressed to the governor rather than to the secretary of state. this document will round out the papers of the house on this matter. signed, sincerely, john b. sullivan. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain up to 15 further inquests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> it's time for congress to roll up its sleeves and begin to work together. democrats and republicans must come together to create new jobs for the american people, strengthen our recovery and reduce the debt. yesterday instead of finding some common ground -- yet

instead of finding common ground solutions, republicans have put forward an agenda that only serves to divide the american people. mr. baca: yes, we must lower the deficit and national debt but it is wrong to balance the budget on the backs of vulnerable americans with dangerous cuts that may lead to double-digit unemployment. in my district in california, our unemployment is near 14%. my constituents can't afford to have congress play politics with a budget in the national debt. they need jobs, they need to make sure that they're putting food on the table, paying their mortgage, not another government shutdown. i urge all my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to focus on the big picture and get to work on creating jobs. let's build our future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, american missioners nancy and sam davis

ran a charity in poor places in mexico. they were ambushed near the border by a road block of masked gunmen who opened fire on them. nancy was shot in the back of the head. sam bravely raced against oncoming traffic to the border while nancy sat in the passenger seat bleeding to death. nancy did not survive and died in mcallen, texas. the mexican government has already said they will not investigate this homicide. and the american government must hold mexico accountable. the narco terrorists continue to murder americans in lawless mexico and they will continue their terror on our side of the border if they are not stopped. they are international bandits. meanwhile our federal government continues to whistle by the graveyard of victims while the people in the border towns live in constant fear and danger. but it's just another day on the texas border. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, we need to put politics aside and pursue policies that move america forward. i encourage my republican colleagues to focus on legislation that creates jobs, economic recovery and debt reduction. while cutting spending is an important aspect of reducing the deficit, we must ensure that it's done in a way that it will not threaten jobs, economic growth and the security of our middle class. mr. sires: i am particularly troubled by recent proposals that it would slash long-term investment in transportation, clean energy, innovation and education. spending cuts of these are unwise for our economic future, and especially when it counts -- comes at the expense of the american workers. we need to continue it foster investment in these fields in order to expend private -- expand private sector growth. the situation in this country is such that every bill that comes before this house must be one

that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class and reduces the deficit. it is imperative that we come together to meet these goals in order to lay the foundation for future prosperity in this country. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke of dylan, south carolina, is the latest leading economist to admit that out-of-control deficits could hurt our national economy. last week mr. bernanke warned, sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners. this borrowing would lead to higher lending costs with small businesses and consumers. this threatens small businesses across america trying to create jobs. at the same time house republicans are proposing billions in spending cuts. house budget chairman paul ryan

called this a down payment on attacking washington's spending spree. this is just the beginning, as speaker john boehner has stated, there is no limit to the amount of spending we'll be willing to cut. republicans made a pledge to america and we're now making good on that. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as you know i come from chicago, home of the world champion chicago blackhawks, and i rise today in support of the national hockey league's designation of the month of february as hockey is for everyone month. hockey is for everyone is a nationwide initiative that works to break racial and economic barriers that prevent children from playing ice hockey. it reaches more than 300,000 underprivileged boys and girls annually across north america and includes programs for veterans and the disabled. i believe that no matter your

background, every child should have the opportunity to play the greatest sport in the world. increased access to healthy exercise will aid in the fight against childhood obesity and continue to decrease high school dropout rates. on behalf of kids all over the continent, i thank the national hockey league and hockey is for everyone for putting more hockey sticks in more hands and more pucks on their sticks. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, here we are, it's mid february, the republicans took control, they won the election in november. on an agenda of trying to create jobs for the american people. two months into -- after being sworn in, here we are now, still haven't created a job, haven't put a single bill on the floor of the house of representatives to create jobs for the american people. with over 9% unemployment among

african-americans, 16% unemployment, communities across this country hemorrhaging, corporations in this country sitting on $2 trillion in cash and still no jobs. so what are the republicans doing instead? here's what they're doing. they're trying to further restrict a woman's right to choose. not creating jobs, but want to get in the middle of your doctor's office to restrict your right to choose. hours and hours of debate to direct committees to oversee regulations. well, that's our job, to oversee the regulatory process. we don't need hours of debate to give us permission to oversee the regulatory process. still no jobs. what else did the republicans do? they're reviewing. what do we have to review? our job, of course, is to review. but our job is to create jobs for the american people. that's what they expected out of the election. that's what we need to deliver them. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> so far the republican majority hasn't created a single job. in fact, they haven't even put a jobs bill on the house floor. instead they are focusing on partisan priorities that just don't help the country come out of recession. instead of putting people back to work, they are restricting women's reproductive rights. ms. chu: next week they will gut title 10 funding for family planning. this federal money is a critical health care safety net for women around the country. it's helped improve the quality of women's health, given women free choice and also saved lives. title 10 helps low income women afford pap smears and s.t.d. testing, it helps reduce unintended births and abortions. and who doesn't want to do that? it's month one and instead of working on the economy, they are working to limit women's personal choices. instead of doing the bidding of ideological extremists, let's join together and address the real needs of the american people. jobs. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, it takes real heroes and leaders to believe in the possibility of what we can do through hard work, perseverance and commitment to make the world a better place. i'm proud to say that my hometown of louisville has many of these leaders and this week one of them, 13-year-old, was recognized nationally with the glory of prize for young heroes. it's a well-deserved recognition and i rise today to applaud her work for beating to beat autism. three years ago after learning that an underfunded treatment program could help thousands of kids in lieuville with autism like her brother, she stepped up. she planned to enlist her friends and family to raise $200,000 by making beaded bracelets and selling them for $3 each. people told her it was impossible but she said, it's just like a ball game. if you don't believe you can win, then it's game over before you start. you got to believe. and after six months she had reached her goal.

to date she's raised $350,000 to help children with autism. now through beading to beat autism, she helps to raise $300 million to finance an autism research center in louisville and i don't doubt that she can accomplish that. mr. speaker, i urge the members of the house to join me to salute her. i'm proud to wear her bracelets and proud that she's a resident of the third district of kentucky. congratulations. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. >> in a time of great economic strife, americans deserve more from their leaders than attacks on their constitutional rights. let's not deny women access to birth control and wellness care provided by planned parenthood or the presidential women's senter in my district or the many other providers instrumental in reducing unwanted pregnancies in america. let's not levy special taxes for

women who never had an abortion, but pay for a health plan that covers them. let's not subject anyone to government inconstitution in a doctor's office because of their gender. the retired women in my district who are on the frontlines of equality and replodive rights know what path these policies will lead us down. let's not create a crisis in america, a cry siffs public health, back alee -- alley abortion, less education, of fewer routine screenings, and more cervical cancer. mr. deutch: we already have a crisis on our hands in this country. a jobs crisis and in november americans voted this congress to address it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? without objection.

ms. wilson: mr. speaker, today i rise to talk about jobs. my constituents are hurting. they need help. they want to work. i have been here for almost two months and i'm still waiting to hear a republican plan for jobs. so far this week the only things i voted on are renaming 6 a white house and taking back money we have already given to the united nations. when are we going to talk about jobs? i came to washington to focus on jobs. my constituents sent me to washington to focus on jobs. all across the nation the high school class of 2011 is getting ready to graduate. some will go on to higher education, and some will enter the work force. what type of world are they entering? what type of jobs will await them? i propose we invest in the class of 2011 instead of political games and bills that cut jobs, i propose we invest in education,

innovation, and infrastructure. please, i urge all of my colleagues to turn toward the future of our children. turn toward creating jobs for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of the regular everyday american families, those who work for a living. just yesterday my friends on the other side of the aisle released their job-killing spending policies. make no mistake about it, these policies will deeply hurt the middle class and will not help grow jobs. let's look at these statistics. 83% of all united states stocks are in the hands of 1% of the american public. the bottom 50% of income earners in the united states now collectively own less than 3% of our nation's wealth. i encourage my republican colleagues in this house to stop in their efforts to take money away from those who use it to stay warm in the winter and cool

in the summer. to stop in their efforts to take away money from those who keep our air safe and water clean. and to stop in their efforts to take investments away from technology and jobs of the future. mr. speaker, the middle class has been ignored for far too long. as a backbone of our country it is time they get their fair share. i stand for empowering our middle class not reducing jobs in america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objection. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to give advice to members of the majority party. my grandma used to tell me, son, keep your promises. as we all know the majority promised to be focused on job creation but the 11 bills that have been passed this body thus far, two months, they have failed to create a single job. watch out for these budget cuts that these republicans are proposing also. i'm going to tell you, if you

are a firefighter or police officer or teacher, you are out of luck. this recovery needs to work for the working people of this nation not just the wall street bankers. today we should be voting for investing and making products in america not on toothless resolutions. if we continue on this path much longer, the american people will see for themselves that they have been lied to. to the majority party, you need to keep your promises and stop shrinking the middle class. you need to be about job creation like you promised. don't turn america into a pipping slip nation. and -- pink slip nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? without objection. ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, about

15 years ago there was a commercial that is really applicable today. it was a woman who got there and looked through hamburger buns and said, where's the beef? the american people are telling us, where's the jobs? we managed to survive and avoid the great depression of this century. and let me tell you, mr. speaker, what we need to do to continue with our recovery is to build public confidence. the only way we are going to build that public confidence is for people to feel that we are looking at what is so essential to their future, so essential to their building of their confidence back in themselves and in government and that is the creation of jobs. mr. speaker, i believe all members of this congress must look to that. we must get down and address jobs. that is what we are here to do. that is what we need to do.

or we are failed the people who sent us here. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may inquire. >> can any memorize, mr. speaker, and move to suspend the rules and pass h.res. 72 prior to the rule being called up? the speaker pro tempore: that is within the chair's prior recognition. today is not a spudges day. mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry. if a resolution can pass with unanimous support, is there any provision in the house rules that would allow the house to bypass 9 1/2 hours of debate proposed in house resolution 73, agree to house resolution 72, and begin to consider other legislation dealing with job creation? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot respond to hypothetical questions. mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry. is there any provision in h.res. 72 that will create jobs? the speaker pro tempore: not a

parliamenttry inquire. mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry. is it in order to ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table h.res. 72 and ask for its immediate consideration and for it to be adopted? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is constrained not to entertain such a request. mr. jackson: further parliamentary inquiry. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speakers' table h.res. 72 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house so that we can move on creating jobs. the speaker pro tempore: announced policy of the previous speaker, the chair is not constrained to take that request. mr. jackson: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table h.res. 72 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house so we can move on creating jobs? the appropriate response, is there objection? the speaker pro tempore: under the announced policy of recognition, that request is not entertained.

mr. jackson: that request is not entertained. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. session: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 73 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 7, house resolution 73, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution the it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, house resolution 72, directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and propose the regulations or orders from agencies of the federal government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth. the amendment recommended by the committee on rules now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted much the resolution as amended shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution as amended to final adoption without intervening motion except one, nine hours

and 30 minutes of debate with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees. eight hours equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture, energy and commerce, financial services, the judiciary, natural resources, oversight and government reform, transportation and infrastructure, and ways and means. and one hour equally divided among and controlled by respective chairs and ranking minority members of the committees on education and the work force, the small business, and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. you look great up there. mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, my friend, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 73 provides for closed rule for consideration of h.res. 72. it provides 9 1/2 hours of debate divided by the committees outlined in h.res. 72 and provides the minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this resolution and the underlying bill. the legislation is simple, direct, and easy to understand. the text of the three-page bill was posted last week on the rules committee website. this legislation is an attempt and effort to provide more transparency and accountability in the government, regulatory

process, something that my colleagues and i have called for numerous times in the last two congress. the legislation before us today calls for 10 house committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulatory orders from agencies of the federal government, particularly with respect to their effects on destroying jobs and economic growth. with the current high unemployment rate, it is essential that we do everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce government rules and regulations that impede job creation, economic growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose unnecessary paperwork, and a cost on small businesses, and that results in large-scale and often unnecessary, unfunded

mandate on employers. and that is exactly what this legislation would do. we are on the floor today to talk about this as an important component of allowing america to get back to work and to highlight these rules and regulations that stifle not only investment but also job creation. every single member of congress understands and believes that regulations are needed to provide the rules, safety, and structures for this society to function properly. while regulations are important, they can also cross that fine line and become too burdensome. it is essential to strike a balance to ensure that the imposed rules and regulations do not lead to higher cost and less productive societies. the federal government creates an average of 4,000 final

regulations each year, about 500 to 700 that are reviewed by the white house. according to a recent report from the small business administration, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to $1 trillion, $750 billion a year to the u.s. economy. $1.75 billion -- $1.75 trillion is what this is on the free enterprise system. regulatory and paperwork costs were found to be more onerous for smaller firms than their larger counters parts, more specifically the -- counterparts, more specifically the cost of regulation per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585, a 36% difference between cost incurred per employee by a larger firm.

. this is absolutely outrageous. this is outrageous because small business is the backbone and the energy of our economy. it represents 99.7% of all employers. small businesses, according to the small business administration, have generated 64% of net new jobs over the past 15 years, while employing over half of all private sector employees. one of the fastest ways to put america back to work, republicans believe, is to limit the regulatory expenses that these small firms have to comply with simply to satisfy federal government regulation. regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. regulatory burdens are hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most basic and fundamental freedoms in america.

congress and this administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new regulations, they must also review, study and eliminate unnecessary rules that are already on the books. on january 18 of last month, president obama signed an executive order to provide a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations. in an op ed placed in "the wall street journal" last month by the president, he clearly states that, and i quote, sometimes these rules have gotten out of balance, placing unrealistic burdens on business. burdens that have stifled innovation and that have a chilling effect upon growth and jobs, end of quote. mr. speaker, i applaud and i appreciate the president for recognizing this.

and i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand what we are attempting to do today. and that is to support as best as we cannot only the ideals that the president talked about but also a focus on these rules and regulations that stifle innovativeness, create cost and ruin jobs in america. mr. speaker, while the president is now taking a step in the right direction when it comes to regulation, in the last fiscal year alone, the obama administration unleashed 43 major new regulations that will cost america more than $28 billion annually. these costs will affect americans in many ways from raising the price of cars, where we buy food, where we eat and every single one of these stands in the way of making the free enterprise system more efficient

and somehow does not help in creation of jobs. the president will have to take a step back from some of the major bills that he signed last year and i believe he can do that, by employing the ideas that he had in this op ed he can do something about it and that is join republicans who today are attempting to work with the president. if the president's serious about reducing regulatory burdens impacting every american, we can do this job together. 15 of the 42 regulations proposed last year were from the frank-dodd regulatory -- financial regulatory bill, another five stemmed from the obamacare bill and 10 others from -- come from the environmental protection agency or what is known as the e.p.a. including the first mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. the annual compliance cost

constitute only a part of the economic burden of regulations on business. many of these new rules curtail the purchase of new equipment, conversions of industrial practices and are about revising data collection and reporting procedures. one example is the new restriction on short sales, from the frank-dodd bill, that requires the security exchange commission to make modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms for gathering and managing this information that will cost over $1 billion. mr. speaker, that defies balance and i think ultimately the accountability of what the regulations should be about. mr. speaker, we have an opportunity today to direct our committees to take the first step in reining in big

government. we do -- reducing our deficit and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. a simple bill is three pages long and it shines the light on the regulatory process and provides the necessary transparency and accountability on federal agencies that have been lacking for years. my republican colleagues and i remain committed to putting america back to work through creation of new jobs. this legislation is a way to be a part of that good start. i encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.res. 73, which directs certain standing committees to inventory and review existing pending and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the federal government.

mr. hastings: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the revolution isn't objectble -- objectionable in and of itself. we all agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. the president has said that, democrats have said that and republicans have said that. in the -- and the rules of the house already require committees to carry out this oversight. so i question, mr. speaker, why are my friends on the other side of the aisle insisting on spending 9 1/2 hours debating a resolution that is entirely redundant? we're committing the same offense that republicans claim to have to -- to abhor about government, wasting time, effort and taxpayer dollars. devoting 9 1/2 hours to this excise is squandering yet

another opportunity. we could be using this time to pass legislation that will create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already mandated to do. what's next, mr. speaker? 9 1/2 hours of debate instructing the house to close for thanksgiving or christmas? republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a lacer-like focus on job creation. and they've done nothing -- laser-like focus on job creation. and they've done nothing toward that since. de-- today's debate is yet another reminder that republicans care more about their antigovernment ideology than they do about getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking americans.

democrats did also to improve today's rule by adding language instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their highest priority. and for such legislation to be considered under an open amendment process. in other words, mr. speaker, democrats made the effort to work in agreement with republicans on this matter and to ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve the american economy. but the republicans said no. they said no to working with democrats, they said no to prioritizing job creation, they said no to fulfilling their promise for an open and transparent legislative process. my friend from texas, mr. sessions, declared at the end of last year that, and i quote him, open rules will make a triumphant return to the house floor.

unquote. and that all members, and quote him again, will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislation -- legislative process. the house has been under republican control for five weeks. in that time we voted on 11 bills. none of those bills went through their respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules. one had a modified open rule. that's not very triumphant in my opinion, mr. speaker. it's already the second month of this congress and republicans are still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real jobs and improve the american economy. and republicans are still refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of the american people. which regulations do republicans

propose to get rid of? the ones for clean drinking water? the once preventing financial abuse on wall street? i was here, mr. speaker, a long -- along with my friend on the other side of the aisle when republicans assumed control and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the securities exchange commission. i for one thought when a friend of ours who served with us went to be the chair of the securities exchange commission that finally we would get some regulations there. we did not get regulations and what we got, and there's no secret about this, nor finger to point at anybody, the simple fact that the matter is by not having adequate regulation on wall street this country came to the brink of disaster in november of 2008. do they want to get rid of the ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine

collapses? so far this year republicans have moved to repeal health care , they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose and they've moved drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national security. it seems that republicans want to use their majority to settle old scores. but i don't think that's what the american people have in mind as a national priority. republicans seem to think that if we spend 9 1/2 hours debating a resolution that simply remarks on what house committees are already doing they will suffice to convince the american people that republicans have a plan for improving the economy. it's clear that this resolution is really about demonizing federal regulations. but the republicans ignore the

benefits of regulations. the importance of protecting existing jobs and the necessity of leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for all americans. if our constituents had the choice of whether to spend this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, i believe they will vote for jobs. let's get back to what the american people need from us and that is to improve the american economy. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. and i appreciate the gentleman, my friend, mr. hastings, for his words. i'd like to state that the bills that we've done in the rules committee during these 12 bills have been about original jurisdiction by the rules

committee which is what this bill is. this bill is a jurisdictional issue where the rules committee, through the legislation that my name sits on as the chief sponsor, is directing other committees to have hearings, to be part of an open process, to do the things that will be necessary, not only for minority participation but any member who chooses in these committees to come and have their voices heard , for hearings to be held, for thoughtful people across this country to come and provide us information about the way they see the regulatory burdens that are being placed upon them. if someone thinks that what we're doing today is all about trying to stifle regular order, it's completely the opposite. 9 1/2 hours of debate, which is unheard of for a three-page bill

, is all about regular order. exactly what i've been arguing for for years. that's what the republicans are delivering today on the floor of the house of representatives. now, notwithstanding that the gentleman brought up some good ideas about job creation, i would like to just put it into some bit of context. today what we're trying to do is to gather steam behind rules and regulations that stifle the ability for the free enterprise system to employ people. . in the harmer scheme of things our friends on the other side are upset because what we as republicans are going to do is to find a way to live up to our campaign promises to cut spending during the year by $100

billion. now, some people say, oh, that's not enough amount, or it's too big of an amount because it will mean all these draconian cuts across the government of the -- the government. i would remind this house that $100 billion is a small part of the $3,000 billion spppeding plan that the congress has already given to government. $3,000 billion and what we are talking about not just today and not just over the past few weeks, but taking $100 billion and trying to take that as a burden off the american people. the reason why is, because 30% of all government spending today or more ends up as debt. meaning that we have to borrow it from somebody else. but this is so important. we've got to make sure we do it.

republicans disagree. we think not only a review of regulatory process but a review of spending is important in washington. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record what might be a sheet of paper that was in print, described as obama announces review of government regulations. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: within this paper there is a paragraph, a short paragraph that i'd like to read which perhaps embodies exactly why we are here today. it says, business leaders say government regulations, including those being written for health care, and overall financial reforms, have hurt job creation at a time of high unemployment. in fact, the department of treasury describes where we are as chronic unemployment for

today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can see. last year at some point, even the longest projection by this government showed no net new job creation. that is what republicans have inherited. we intend to be serious about what we are doing and we intend to make sure that the american people see this for what it is and that is an opportunity by congress to work on the issues that they are demanding. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i would suggest that we need more jobs and less speeches. what we will get from this bill on the floor is more speeches and no jobs. it is very disappointing in the

current economic context that what we bring to the floor for 9 1/2 hours is a bill that simply instructs the committees to do what we have already instructed them to do. this is already in the rules. it's already required. we all agree on it. what are we doing here wasting 9 1/2 hours? if we just produced 1,000 jobs an hour, we could have produced 9,500 jobs instead we are going to produce 95 speeches. that's not what this needs. if you want to look for waste in government, take a look at this bill. 9 1/2 hours down the tube doing something we are already doing. i was at a hearing yesterday in the commerce committee. we are already talking about these regular lailingses -- regulations. let me give a warning to people about what happens when the republican party wants to look at regulations. the first thing they did, trying to repeal the clean air act. they are trying to gut the clean air act which is the guardian

angel for the air that our kids breathe. they have -- first hearing we had was to pass their dirty air act. you bet. they have a dirty air act that would gut the ability, that would eliminate in total the ability of the environmental protection agency to regulate harmful gases, carbon dioxide, ozone, and a host of other dangerous chemicals. can you believe that? their dirty air act will eliminate the ability of the e.p.a. to do things to try to prevent our kids from having aggravated asthma attacks. their dirty air act would eliminate the ability of the e.p.a. to deal with dangerous gases that exacerbate respiratory problems of our senior citizens. you take a senior man with cardiac problems, we should not pass the dirty air act.

if you think i'm just blowing smoke here, go take a look at their bill. their bill doesn't try to fix the regulation. it absolutely eliminates in total the ability of the e.p.a. the e.p.a. was started under a good republican, richard nixon. it is a sad story that the first bill out of the box they want to go backwards on clean air. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm joined by the gentleman, chairman of the rules committee, and i will tell you that he is so pleased that we have not only this bill that's been brought to the floor, but is so pleased we are taking time to speak about the facts of the case. one fact is that the first bill we took up was the bill to repeal obamacare. it had nothing to do with the clean air act. it had everything to do with a bill which has caused an amazing number of regulations. i'd like to quote, if i can, a

fact that since the passage in march, 2010, the patient protection and affordable care act, which is known as obamacare, has added 6,123 pages of regulations. and the federal register has printed those just over the last nine months. secondly, according to a september 2010 report from the small business administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, which is nearly twice as much as all individual income tax collected last year. that means that the ability for a person to have to fill out all their paperwork, the cost of that is twice what we have collected in taxes. there is a balance here that has been overrun. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include this article within this debate. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i was waiting. i thought he said -- mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from florida for yielding. as we meet this afternoon there are 15 million americans who are unemployed. and for them this is another day of searching the web or the want ads to try to find a job. they have been unable to find after months of diligent searching. so what's the congress of the united states doing about this? we are wasting yet another opportunity to work together, republicans and democrats, to create an environment in which

small businesspeople and entrepreneurs can create jobs for -- small business people and entrepreneurs can create jobs for our economy. we worked last year and passed legislation, 80 senators voted for, 270-some house members voted for across party lines. the majority says that this process will somehow help to create jobs. it's important to understand what this resolution really says. it says in response to the 15 million unemployed people we have in this country, let's have a bunch of politicians have a bunch of meetings that we are already scheduled to have. right? so their response, mr. speaker, is let's spend 9 1/2 hours debating a bill that says a bunch of politicians should have a bunch of meetings they would have had anyway to talk about the problem. if we called 9-1-1 to report a

fire in our home, we would be very happy if the fire department said, we are going to immediately have a meeting to decide whether to put the fire out at your house. we expect the fire company to put the fire out at your house. the majority's not putting on the floor regulations they want to repeal. that would be a worthy debate. we should have that. what they are doing is saying, let's for 9 1/2 hours talk about whether to have a bunch ever meetings to talk about the problem. the last five weeks there has not been one word in one bill or one hour debate about a plan to create jobs for the american people. now we are going to spend 9 1/2 hours talking about whether to have a series of political meetings. why don't we put on the floor and argue the pros and cons of a plan to put our people back to work building schools and

bridges and highways? you can be for or against that. but it's a real plan that would actually put people back to work. now, the majority says that they do want to create jobs by cutting spending. reducing the deficit. of course the very first bill they pass increased the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years. then they ran on a promise, a promise to reduce the current year budget by $100 billion, but two days ago the appropriations committee reported out a bill that reduce it is by $32 billion. i would ask for 30 more seconds. mr. hastings: an additional 30 seconds. mr. andrews: the american people are placing an 9-1-1 call to washington that says this country needs help. it needs a real plan to produce real jobs for the american people. what they are getting from the majority once again is wasted

words, wasted time, wasted opportunity. yes, looking at regulations is a good thing to do. we support that. but, mr. speaker, there is a difference between analysis and paralysis. the majority is giving us paralysis. all talk, no jobs. the right vote on this resolution is no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate, the gentleman, mr. andrews, coming to the floor. i'd like to let him know we are doing 9 1/2 hours of debate and at the end there will be an opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions that has been lacking for the previous four years by my colleagues on the other side that they extended us. so you'll have every single opportunity, if you want, just to use your wrain power -- brainpower and put together that great jobs bill you want to talk about. i would say to the gentleman we have chosen to talk about the things which stifle jobs and we

believe as we talk about these that a lot of the american people will get it. for instance, if you lived out in the country, i just bring up one example, the e.p.a. has issued a draft policy doubling the stringentcy of the standard by which dust is regulated. dust. the speaker would understand dust because he's from a rural state. i understand dust in some perspective being from texas, but the e.p.a. regulates dust and they are going to issue a draft policy, already did, that doubles the stringency of the standard many farming activities kick up dust, tilling the feed, operating a feed lot, driving farm vehicles, even dusty roads. mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i would yield to the gentleman. mr. andrews: i thank my friend. i think we could have a very worthy debate about whether that rule is a good one or bad one. why are we having that debate? why don't you put a bill on the

floor that state let's repeal that bill and do that debate? mr. sessions: that's a good point. perhaps the gentleman, i don't think he was in the rules committee yesterday to hear this, but the rules committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. we are sending this bill when passed on the floor to 10 committees asking them to look at specifics and dust will be one of those issues and it will be in front of a committee, probably the agriculture committee, perhaps it could be in front of resources committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is and -- mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i continue to yield. mr. andrews: it still seems to be all wind up and pitch. if you really believe that that regulation should be repealed, why don't you put a bill on the floor that repeals it and let's do something rather than just talk about it? mr. sessions: i appreciate -- reclaiming my time, the an