commodities from other countries if we don't do something ain't. and the president sent 14,000 national guard people down to the gulf of mexico when that oil spill took place off that derrick. and we've only sent 1,400 national guard troops down to the texas-american border which is 1,980 miles long. we're never going to solve that border problem unless we really realize that it is an area that we have to focus on that it's a war, that our citizens are in danger down there and we can't any longer allow drug dealers to have sites in the united states where they have binoculars and weapons so they can watch where the border patrol agents and tell their counterparts to bring drugs across the borders or bring terrorists across the border because they know the coast is clear. this is something we can't tolerate and we need to protect

our boarder agents. they need to have -- our border agents. they need to have guns. they shouldn't be shooting bean bags. and we shouldn't be asking our d.e.a. agents to go into mexico to fight the drug dealers and tell them what's going on and tell them they can't have a weapon to protect themselves. this is insane. and the other thing i talked about earlier was the oil situation. it's insane for us to become more dependent on foreign energy when a time our economy is floundering. we still have unemployment at 9%. business people can't make plans because they don't know what their energy costs are. and the people that go to work are paying $3.50 to $4 a gallon. we ought to do better. the president ought to do better. i hope, mr. speaker, the message will get to the white house loud and clear before it's just too late and our economy is hurt further. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes now the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. again, a privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and it's a privilege to sit here in this chamber and listen to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, talk about these critical issues for the united states of america. and each of us as they have come down here on so many days come down here to bring up these critical issues, informing you, mr. speaker. while that's going on there are people all across america that are listening in and deciding for themselves the priorities and deciding for themselves what kind of a job we're doing here in congress. and i'm here -- i'd love to step in on the immigration debate and burn up about 30 minutes talking about that, but, mr. speaker, i think to

start out with -- i need to have this discussion with you about obamacare. and there's a fair number of different strategies that are working here in the house of representatives and perhaps a different number and a different strategy to some degree going on in the united states senate. but the circumstances are this -- almost a year ago obamacare passed the united states congress and was message to the president where he eagerly signed the bill. it was a combination of legislative shenanigans that took place. the bill that came to the floor was not a product of committee. it was a bill that was written in speaker's pelosi's staff and it was dropped on us in a fashion that didn't allows -- speaker pelosi's staff and it was dropped on us in a fashion that didn't allow us to talk about it. one was obamacare that was sent

over to the senate and the senate on the promise that obamacare passed and the votes that was necessary to pass obamacare was generated because the senate decided they would do under a reconciliation plan would -- they sent us a reconciliation plan that altered and amended obamacare itself and in that package was a promise from the president of the united states that he would issue an executive order that would take care of the concerns of the pro-life members, pro-life democrats who wouldn't vote for obamacare as long as it funded abortion. and so the audacity of the president of the united states to take the position that he could amend legislation that passed this congress by executive order, which is not a constitutional position, mr. speaker, but that audacity was swallowed by enough people that they voted obamacare out of the house marginally, that a reconciliation package that came from the senate, squeaked out of there because of the promises that were made and

came over here and was passed because of the promises that were made and the final cap on it was that the president's executive order that was supposed to amend obamacare and what do we have in all of this mess? 2,500 or so pages that are so convoluted that if anybody in this congress, any lawyers out there that propose to be experts, anybody that's staff or energy and commerce or former speaker pelosi or anybody else out here, i don't think there's a single person on the planet no matter how good their background, no matter how intelligent, no matter how well-read, no matter how much research books, if you would shut them in an office and cut the wires to the outside world, not a single person out of the 6 bill-plus people on the planet could read obamacare and analyze all that it does nor its implications on the lives of 300 million-plus

americans. we did, i think, a very good job of analyzing what it was in broad terms. some of us knew going in that there was deceptive language written into obamacare that automatically appropriated funds that would be set up the implementation of obamacare even if congress appropriated no money to it that would put the implementation in place and turn it on in perpetuity, mr. speaker. and some of that information, i believe, came out of some of the members of the energy and commerce committee that have been analyzing this bill last year, last fall, and i believe that we had some verbal discussions on it not here on the floor, necessarily, but on the side conversations that i had with some of the better informed members of this congress. they aren't all here in this 112th congress, but as we came into january, i'm thinking about how we unfund obamacare. and it's been my argument all

along, mr. speaker, that the strategy that is this that, first, a lot of us used a lot of our energy to kill obamacare. and in spite of all of that, in spite of the tens of thousands of people that came from every single state in the union that came here to surround this capitol and tell them, keep your hands off of my health care, still, the former speaker of the house went through the crowd and imposed obamacare on america. shortly after the moment that that vote went up on the board, i went down to the people that had -- and i say surrounded this capitol. it wasn't just a human chain around the capitol, it was a human doughnut around the capitol. it was six and eight people deep around the capitol. human doughnut around the capitol. still with thousands of people left over in the corners, so to speak, if you envision a

circle. they were standing in clusters by the thousand still not part of that human doughnut, they came here and said keep your hands off of our health care. that bill finally passed here on the floor and was messaged to the sent and i went down to that group as well as michele bachmann, pete hoekstra came to mind, and there were people communicating back and forth that came here to peacefully petition the government exactly in line with the first amendment of the constitution. i promised then as did michele bachmann that i'll introduce legislation to repeal obamacare. that happened the very next day. and it happened for us within three minutes with each other. i laid out, though, the strategy over the next few days and weeks to repeal obamacare. and i am going to refresh this

now, mr. speaker, for the minds listening. first, all energy was focused on obamacare. i didn't burn up one minute of media time i could think of talking about what i would do if it passed. i remember people says, what will you do if it passes? and my mind was focusing on killing it. that's another subject for another time. i'm focused on killing it. well, it did pass, and we focused on repealing it. the opening of business, after midnight on a sunday night, so it was monday morning, this congress opened for business at 9:00. at that minute there were two bill draft requests waiting to bring the legislation to repeal obamacare. then, to begin to lay out this strategy which was get as many co-sponsors on the repeal as possible. sometime in june or towards the summer, i introduced a discharged petition.

the discharge petition was to gain 218 signatures with that the speaker of the house and no one can block it. it must come to the floor. no amendments for an up or down vote. well, we got up to 178 signatures on the discharge petition. which is pretty good. i believe it was 178. i question that because there were six republicans that didn't sign it. but all but six signed it. and we had one democrat that signed it. so i guess that takes it down to maybe 173, it looks more like the number. i just correct that for the record, mr. speaker. let there be 173 signatures on the discharge petition. yet the discharge petition that if it had been brought to the floor would have been voted on and could have been -- i say could have passed and if had been forced to the floor under discharge petition would have been passed and we would have repealed obamacare from the house then. but it always was a way to get people on record so we knew who

was for repeal of obamacare and who was unwilling to go on record for repeal of obamacare. and it always was something that candidates for congress could look at that and challenge the individual that they were running against, why didn't you sign the discharge petition? you're really against obamacare? your name was not on there. and it was good for a number of candidates. and some said they wouldn't be here in congress to measure their opponent with. so it always had a utility in two ways. seeking to repeal obamacare and putting a marker down so that the american public could discern who's for obamacare and who's against it and who's afraid to take a position. all of that was taking place last summer all the way on up through august, september, october and into the election of the second day in november where through the summer continuing the strategy was not just the discharge petition, it was use it and other things,

win the majority here in the house. when we have the majority in the house, then we can bring the repeal of obamacare. and i said for a long time repeal of obamacare needs to be h.r. 1. that's the highest priority for the speaker of the house. the speaker traditionally gets the first penned bills to name h.r. 1 to h.r. 10. and you can look at the priority by the number. so number one i believe needed to be repeal of obamacare as highest priority, mr. speaker. well, it turned out that h.r. 2 was repeal of obamacare. there's no complaint on my part. we did pass the repeal of obamacare. consistent with the strategy i laid out way last summer. and then way last summer in making the case that no money can be spent by the federal government unless the house of representatives agrees to it. we can shut off all funding to obamacare here in the house of representatives. and if the senate disagrees, then the house says no, then no

money gets spent by the federal government until we reach an agreement. that's what's going on right now, mr. speaker. so i argued then and i argue now that part of the strategy to undo obamacare has to be to unfund obamacare, to defund obamacare, to phrase it a little bit differently. and it was always part of the strategy going back almost a year. and as we move forward to defund obamacare, we need to understand that there were automatic appropriations that were written into obamacare, and that's part of the dialogue that was going on last fall in a very quiet little way. but no one had drilled into it that i know of and looked at all of the pieces on our side. on the other side they wrote it in. so i'd like to hear from someone who was involved in that on the democrats' side, i'd like to hear from former speaker pelosi or maybe i'd like to hear from the whip, steny hoyer, did they know it was in there?

of course they did. did they direct their staff to write it in there? probably. who on that staff devised this strategy to put in all of these threads that add up to $105.5 billion? i'd like to know the answer to that. and that will emerge over time. as history has a way of uncovering these things. but in any case, the automatic funding was there. another way to phrase it was self-enacting funding was there. and i drafted language to cut off the funding to obamacare patterned off of the funding that was shut off, that put an end to the vietnam war. i'm confident that's in the congressional record and in the media record sometime back, but about five or so years ago i got curious as to how i remembered the vietnam war being ended versus what actually happened. and i went back and read the congressional record and the debate on that, mr. speaker,

and the congressional record reveals this. there were about three different places and perhaps more. we uncovered three different places in appropriations bills where congress shut off the funding to carry out the war in vietnam. it began in 1973. the most significant was on a continuing resolution in the spring of 1974. and as i read through that language, maybe five years ago, it gave me an inspiration on how to bring language to shut off the funding to obamacare. and i'm going to go from memory here. it's in the congressional record. so it won't be precisely accurate but it will be thematically right. in a continuing resolution in the spring of 1974 that shut off the american support in the war in vietnam reads close to this. . notwithstanding any provision of law, no funds in this act, and

no funds in any act heretofore appropriated shall be used for offensive or defensive operations and the land of vietnam, in the skies over it, the seas adjacent to it or in the adjacent countries and names laos and cambodia and i believe they said thailand. named the countries next to it and said no funds shall be used for offensive or defensive operations, to the countries adjacent to it and no funds shall be used for any purpose. whatever money was in the pipeline was shut off. they shut off all involvement. and i don't know if this is factually true, but there were bullets and grenades that were being loaded on the dock that were being loaded up on the ship and hauled away.

but figuratively, that's what happened, they shut off with language written into a continuing resolution, they shut off the war here in the united states congress. if we can shut off a war here in the united states congress and stop the money that's in the pipeline and any money that might be coming at the same time and all the funds that are in the act, none of them can be used to conduct the operations in vietnam, we can sure in the world, in a continuing resolution, write legislation that will shut off all of this automatic funding that was written into obamacare. somehow, because the congressional research services define the spending that is automatic spending here in the obamacare act and called it mandated appropriations and fund transfers. mandated appropriations and fund transfers have been defined by some folks as mandatory spending.

and then they go on to argue that mandatory spending cannot be addressed in an appropriations bill. i would remind them, this is the united states congress. and the former majority in this congress wrote all this into a bill. and it's automatic funding and self-enacting funding and not completely unprecedented as a tactic but completely unprecedented in its magnitude. and therefore, this congress can't be hiding behind a rule or defining a piece of legislation as mandatory spending. we aren't mandated by any previous congress. no congress can bind a subsequent congress. if this house of representatives says no, then no means no. and we sometimes are have to remind the senate over and over again and we will have to do it under the proposal i'm making. but i will tell you, mr. speaker, this is an

unconstitutional bill. it has been pushed through this congress in an unprecedented fashion with a series of shennigans that this country has never seen before. judge vincent found it completely unconstitutional and it's on its way through the circuit and to the supreme court and should be guided directly to the supreme court, except the white house is holding the ball. the white house is holding the ball because their tactic is to try to get obamacare implemented to the maximum amount until such time till it becomes too late to pull it out by the roots. so from a litigation standpoint, the unconstitutional components or the mandates compelling states that they have to comply with an act to provide these services. and compelling individuals that they have to buy insurance even though they aren't participating

in the system whatsoever. it is completely unprecedented, mr. speaker. we feel the obama administration now offering a little carrot out there to the states, to the governors, saying, we will waive the mandate for the states. now, the caveat is, you have to provide an equal or better policy yourself in order to be able to qualify for the waiver and you have until 2014 to do that, but that act, which likely won't come to any kind of fruition is the means, i believe, to take away the argument that it's an unconstitutional mandate on the states. and the white house with language a couple of weeks ago, they would entertain the alteration or the elimination of the individual mandate. now, that's the second component that might come out of the white house that if those two provisions were altered in practice, they can can go before

the supreme court and add it's not a constitutional violation because it's not really a mandate. and that's how they hope to walk through this thick et of prohibitions and hope they will allow to impose obamacare on the rest of america. that's their litigation tactic and their legislation tactic is this. they are trying to take the pressure off. so when the house played into their hands a week or so ago by bringing legislation on the 1099 component of this, this outrageous requirement that people report to the i.r.s. any cumulative transactions with any entity that exceeds 6 e $600 in a year, which means if you pay someone to mow your lawn, and this is something that was put

into obamacare and put it into it because they were able to score it $17 billion to generate in taxes because they were going to audit these 1099 forms. in any case, that was the most objection jabble come -- objectionable component and the house picked it up and they are going to senched it to the president -- send it to the president. why? because people shouldn't be required to file the 1099 forms and find a place to come up with $17 billion? no, that's not it. they understand that the objections to the 1099 squeal forms are the most egregious of all in the short-term and they want to take the lid off the pressure cooker, let some steam out and put the lid back on and want to continually implement

obamacare with the dollars written into it. and the self-enacting automatic spending that is there. so, as the pressure builds against obamacare, they are willing to take a little piece off there and lift the lid off the pressure cooker there and drain the heat down and hang onto the major components of obamacare and get it implemented. and while we have a series of different initiatives that are going on around here driven by the new republican majority, five different proposals to change the language from mandatory spending to optional spending, all of those are authorization pieces of legislation and no leverage to get those passed. and if energy and commerce passes those, it goes over to harry reid's desk and probably into the trash and not into the desk drawer. we have to look at the leverage that we have, the leverage that

we are gifted with, and it's this. this government comes to -- it runs out of midnight -- money on midnight on march 18. and the house of representatives have demonstrated that we want to avoid having the president shutting the government down. functioning in a responsible fashion is not turning a blind eye to $105.5 billion and not wondering wra this number came from. this number is in this c.r.s. report. this is a congressional research services report titled, "appropriations and fund transfers in the patient protection and affordable care act," written by a specialist written on february 10, 2011. and in this, now that the

numbers are in here and you go through here and highlight the numbers, we put it into a spreadsheet. this spreadsheet shows the total of these automatic appropriations and come to $10 5,464,000 and that is over a period of time. this is the minimum, threshold number, not the maximum amount that can be spent. just to give an example, here's one of the items in here of automatic appropriations, self-enacting appropriations that shows this. $10 billion -- excuse me, let's see, totals $10 billion through fiscal year 2019, medicare innovation, medicare innovation, funds that goes to medicare and medicaid services, fiscal year 2011, $1 billion and written in such a way that it is $1 billion

every year and here's the language, in perptute. one example that innovation that gets appropriated written into the bill, $1 billion that goes on forever and it isp nt requiring an act of congress. it isn't an act of the appropriations committee in the 112th congress that funds any subsequent year. this is the perpetual motion machine that spits out money and will spit out money forever. and will spit out money until congress conducts an affirmative act to shut off this funding and that's what i sought to do in h.r. 1 which said patterned off the vietnam war amendment and i'm going to do this summary, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds in this act and no funds in any act

-- no funds in any act previously enacted shall be used to carry out the provisions of, in summary, obamacare. that language pulls out by the roots everything that's here in this c.r.s. report and shuts off the automatic appropriations. there is an issue also written into obamacare, another slight of hand that took place. there are many others. but this one is particularly egregious that grants the authority of the secretary of health and human services to do transfers to fund the implementation of obamacare essentially at her discretion and probably out of the u.s. treasury just to do the automatic appropriations to grant that kind of authority to a bureaucrat, to circumvent congress and set up that authority, which is equivalent of an appropriations authority that goes on forever to the

secretary of health and human services. while there is automatic appropriations to the tune of $105.5 billion for a decade that goes on forever, so binding the future congresses in a way that requires affirmative action on this congress' part to shut it off. mr. speaker, where i am is this, i'm down dancing around with all of this. i have looked at it, i have analyzed it and i have joined with some of my colleagues and i thank my colleague, michelle baum man and doing this -- bachmann and doing this. we were working on this and passing h.r. 1. i'll continue to do so. we must shut off this funding. we must do it affirmatively and do it where we have leverage. there are only two places, and that is in the continuing resolution in one place and the

other is the debt ceiling. and what i have said is i will vote for no appropriations bill that funds planned parent hood. i will vote for no appropriations bill that should be shutting off the funding, the automatic funding to obamacare. that's where i stand. that's where i will stand and if enough members of congress stand with me, we will put an end to obamacare and need to do so early. we have a lot of good work to do in this congress and we could look for a battle that goes on for the entire 112th congress and on through the elections of 2012 and the presidential elections of 2012 or we could pull this tumor out by the roots, this malignant tumor called obamacare that is spreading as we speak while this funding is being poured in, we could put the brakes on it and pull it out by the roots, get

rid of it lock, stock and barrel. it's our pledge. and this house has voted to repeal it. and every he republican in the cows and senate has voted to repeal obamacare. two federal courts have found it unconstitutional and irresponsible to tolerate it while it goes on on our watch while we have the power to shut it off and while we understand it is unconstitutional. mr. speaker, i came to this floor tonight to urge this house to stand together to write the language into the c.r. that i ask be written into h.r. 1 so we can go forward and join with the american people, the super majority of the american people that have rejected obamacare and want constitutional legislation coming out of this place, the reason there are 87 new freshman republicans, every one of them voted to repeal it, they brought

a new mandate here. many of us have been standing here fighting it, i welcome them, god's gift to america and i ask all to join with me. let's shut off all of this funding of obamacare. that is in the existing appropriations and that that is automatically appropriated, whether some might want to call it mandatory spending, i call it automatic appropriations, written in a deceptive fashion and i will continue to work on this cause with every effort that i have, mr. speaker. i appreciate your attention and indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from iowa wish to adjourn? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

it is a key point of contention. >> reading the tea leaves of chuck schumer's comments,. except for social security. democrats are very wary of touching that traditional third rail and they would be under a lot of pressure. >> where's the white house on all of this? >> the white house is sort of keeping its distance and doing

its part behind closed doors. vice president biden called speaker boehner today as well as mitch mcconnell and tried to reach senator reid, but failed. they are guiding things. the white house press secretary took a question and said, you know, given the question whether they should restart like senator schumer has said and look at all options, the white house would prefer to focus on discretionary spending. >> the short-term spending bill expires next friday, march 18, what's going to happen? >> there are going to be several options. if the government runs out of money, it will face a shutdown. that is what we had last friday and last week, they extended funding for another two weeks. republicans have said that is a possibility if they don't reach a deal. not everybody is thrilled about that possibility, but i don't think anybody wants a shutdown.

however, if they don't come to an agreement of some sort, they face a very toif choice between the government shutting down. >> michael, you can read his articles at the hill.com. >> become tv is live with panel discussions and interviews. panels on immigration, women in leadership and look back at the 1960's. this weekend on c-span2 book tv, barack obama. for a complete schedule of this weekend's programs and events, go to booktv.org.

>> washington today on c-span radio. every week day, we'll take you to capitol hill, the white house and anywhere news is happening and we'll talk to the experts, politicians and journalists as we put today's events into perspectives. the stories that matter to you the most on c-span radio. you can listen in the washington-battle radio on 90.1 fm or go online at c-span dorgan available as an iphone app and on podcast. >> president obama nominated commerce secretary gary locke to be the new u.s. ambassador to china. he will be the first chinese american to hold the ambassadorship if he is confirmed. the former ambassador is

resigning and may seek the republican presidential nomination. >> good morning, everybody. as many people know, our current ambassador to china has decided to step down from his current job. john has been an outstanding advocate for this administration and for this country. he made a real sacrifice in moving his family out of the states they love and helped to strengthen our relationship with the chinese people. i'm very grateful for his service. in replacing ambassador huntsman, i can think of nobody who is more qualified than gary locke. his grandfather left china on a steamboat bound for america where he worked as a domestic

servant in washington state. a century later, his grandson will return to china as america's top diplomat. in the years between these milestones, he has distinguished as one of our nation's most respected and admired public service. he worked tirelessly to attract jobs and businesses to washington state and doubled exports to china. two years ago, i asked gary to continue this work as commerce secretary. i wanted him to advocate for america's businesses and america's exports all around the world, to make progress on our relationship with china and use the management skills he developed as governor to reform a complex and sprawling agency. he has done all that and more. he has been a point person for my national export initiative and his department led a historic number of trade

missions that promoted american businesses and jobs. he has overseen an increase in american exports and particularly exports to china, a country we recently signed trade deals that will support 235,000 american jobs. as commerce secretary, gary oversaw a census process that ended on time and under budget, returning $2 billion to american taxpayers. he has earned the trust of business leaders across america, by listening to their concerns, make it easier for them to export their goods abroad and dramatically reducing the time it takes to get a patent. when he is in beijing, american companies will count on him to represent their interests in front of china's top leaders. our relationship with china is one of the most critical of the 21st century. over the last two years, we worked hard to build a

relationship that serves our national interests, addressing global security issues and expanding opportunities for american companies and american workers. continued cooperation will be good for america, will be good for china and will be good for the world. as the grandson of a chinese immigrant who went on to live the american dream, gary is the right person to continue this cooperation and he will bring the same skills and experience that he brought tore commerce secretary to this new position that he is about to embark on. i want to thank him and i also want to thank his gorgeous and extraordinary family who is standing here, mona, emily, dylan and mattie. it is always tough to move families. emily just turned 14 today so i

was talking to her. i assured her it would be great 10 years from now. right now, it's probably a drag. but i'm absolutely confident that this is -- we could not have better representation of the united states of america in this critical relationship than we are going to get from the lockse family, and gary, i wish you all the luck in beijing. >> thank you, mr. president. and i'm deeply humbled and honored to be chosen as your next ambassador to china. my grandfather first came to america to work as a house boy for a family in the state of washington in exchange for english lessons. and he went back to china, had a family. so my father was also born in china and came over as a teenager a few years later. he enlisted in the united states army before the outbreak of

world war ii and became part of that greatest generation and saw normandy and berlin and came back to seattle to raise a family. my father never imagined that one of his children could serve as secretary of commerce in the united states of america and he was beaming with pride the day you presiding over my swearing-in ceremony. my dad past away this past january but if he was still alive it would have been one of his proudest moments to see his son named as the united states ambassador to china. i'm going back to the birth place of my grandfather, my father and my mom and her side of the family and i will be doing so as a devoted and passionate advocate for america, the country where i was born and raised. as commerce secretary, i have helped open up foreign markets

for bitses so they can create jobs here in america and i'm eager to continue that work in china and help you manage one of america's most critical and complex economic and strategic relationships. i'm excited to take on this new challenge, as is my wife and our children to varying degrees among the kids and will be leaving washington, d.c., with great memories and many new friends. being commerce secretary has been one of the best jobs i ever had thanks to the dedicated men and women within the department of commerce, in the white house and within the cabinet and i'm proud of the work we have done at the commerce department, delivering services faster and serving the needs of workers, saving tax payers billions of dollars and these accomplishments will stand the

test of time. i'm eager to assume this new position and it's a privilege and a solemn responsibility to serve you and the american people as the next united states ambassador to china. thank you for the confidence and trust that you have placed in me. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> do you support a no-fly-zone over libya? >> gary grandfather left china on a steamboat bound for america where he worked as a domestic servant in washington state. a century later, his grandson will return to china as america's top diplomat. >> the current commerce

secretary and former washington state governor has appeared on c-span over 60 times. just one of over 115,000 people you can search for and watch any time all free online at the c-span video library. it's washington, your way. >> after 39 missions and 27 years in service, just before noon eastern today, space shuttle discovery touched down in florida for the final time. >> touchdown. the nose of the shuttle being rotated down toward the flight deck.

the parachute being deployed and nose gear touched down and the end of a historic journey. and to the ship that has led the way time and time again, we say farewell, discovery. >> and a look at our prime time schedule, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a coalition of civil rights groups discuss tomorrow's hearing or muslim radicalization

and leaders of internet voted 15-8 to nullify regulations and some of today's house sessions dealing with terminating the emergency mortgage relief program. and a house hearing examines whether federal employees are paid too much. tomorrow, a hearing that examines american-muslim communities and how they respond to extremism. we will hear testimony from keith ellison and frank wolf and the president and founder of the american islamic forum for democracy. we will have live coverage at 9:30 on c-span3 and c-span radio. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, howard

university professor on the participation of african americans in the civil war and focus on the political philosophy of our 30th president . and the commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the dade massacre in florida that led to the second see him national war. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org and have our schedules emailed to you. >> the c-span networks that provide coverage of public affairs, nonfiction books and american history, available on television, radio, online. and find our content any time through c-span video library and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. now available in more than 100 million homes created by cable,

provided as a public service. >> earlier today, the head of the customs and border protection agency testified on the president's budget request for 2012 before a house appropriations subcommittee. the budget aims to increase passenger and cargo screening at foreign airports while attempting to save $100 million. the hearing is an hour and a half. >> the hearing is called to order. this morning, we welcome the commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection as we consider the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request to secure our borders and facilitate lawful border and trade. commissioner, we look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. they have experienced dramatic growth in the past eight years. it is the largest agency within the department of homeland security with a budget of $11.8

billion and a work force of nearly 60,000. given the significance of c.v.p.'s mission to our nation's security and prosperity and considering the continuing threats we face, congress has certainly provided robust resources. going forward we expect to see results for those investments. commissioner, in a time of financial crisis, the american people are demanding responsible budgets and accountability for every dollar spent. that's why i'm pleased to see your budget pledges to cut costs and put a priority on front-line operations. as i said before, these are also priorities of this subcommittee. i am concerned that the president's request for the c.v.p. includes undefined deficiencies and administrative savings that will likely impact operations. for example, the request cuts $60 million from air and marine personnel and assets that will

reduce surveillance at the southwest border and reduces flexibility by $20 million that will increase wait times at ports of entry. i'm not sure this will sustain the work force much less support investments in technology, infrastructure and assets needed to meet the mission. commissioner, during this time of fiscal crisis, there are two things, truth in budgeting and clear results. first, let's tackle the truth in budgeting. those so-called efficiencies in savings that i mentioned earlier, in addition to those account for 130 million. while it represents some savings, the ress are fix. operations will suffer. the president's request also proposed a hypothetical increase of 55 million for fiscal year

2012. authorizing legislation would be needed to require passengers entering the u.s. from canada and mexico to pay the fee. if not enacted, the history tells us these changes are difficult to enact. c.v.p. will likely expect to fill that hole. the second thing we need are results. a clear understanding of how your requests supports operational needs. the united states has invested billions in the southwest border operation in recent years. across law enforcement agencies, but in particular in the c.v.p. we are scheduled to hear from the field operations and border patrol next week on detailed operations, but today, i look forward to having a clear understanding of how you will define operational control of the border and your plan to get there. equally significant, the subcommittee, particularly is to

have mr. price and is pushing out the border than a a i would like to hear how it requests the overall overseas operations to secure travel in the united states. the american public demands answers to our border security efforts, truth in budgeting and transparency with respect to operational needs are essential. i appreciate you appearing before us today before the subcommittee and thank you in advance for your candor in helping us to understand c.v.p.'s budget request for fiscal year 2012. i would like to recognize, former chairman of this committee, mr. price, for his opening remarks. >> i will be very brief, because i know because of the joint session, we are going to be pressed for time. let me welcome you, commissioner, and make a couple of brief comments. over the past few years, the size and assets of c.v.p. has

grown substantially since 2006. the number of border patrol agents who patrol the mexican and canadian borders and coastal waters surrounding florida and puerto rico has grown by 70% from 12,349 to 21,370 border patrol agents funded in 2012. the number of c.v.p. officers has grown by 18% to 21,186 agents to enhance southwest border port of border operations. your heavy reliance on people for all of your activities with 2/3 funding salaries and benefits alone. from 2010 to 2012 salaries and benefits grew. this leaves very few dollars to invest in technologies and tools for your personnel and conduct maintenance on your facilities. mover during this time of fiscal restrabet you will be asked to

do more with less. in doing so, critical operations are not negatively affected. commissioner, your agency carries on one of the core functions of d.h.s. keeping dangerous goods and people out of the country while facilitating cross border movement. accomplishing that task is requiring an agency that is flexible and forward leaning, making good use of intelligence, intercepting threats before they reach our borders. a good example of that approach is the c.v.p. officers in foreign airports to stop potential terrorists from boarding flights to the u.s. i commend you on the progress of that initiative and pleased to note the expansion of this program in your budget request, along with additional funds to improve our targeting capabilities. recognizing the staffing needs at our ports of entry, i'm glad you proposed 300 new c.v.p.

officers and new canine teams and call your attention to integrity. you proposed $26 million to enhance the polygraph program and conduct background investigations. i do have concerns about what's missing from this request. no funding for air cargo security even though you asked this committee to provide additional resources after the attempted air cargo bombing out of yemen last fall. the budget reduces funding to your facilities, delaying repairs and alterations and air and marine programs which your own budget brief says will reduce the transport of personnel and equipment. and finally the budget contains changes in maritime security which is at odds which has been proposed for the last few years. i look forward to discussing

these in detail during the hearing today. we hold the men and women of c.v.p. in the highest regard and place great value in the work they and you do day in and day out. many operate in dangerous areas and put their lives on the line to protect us. i know we will discuss this in detail next week at our hearing on southwest border violence. as we begin this hearing to more closely examine your 2012 budget, no program or account will be off limits to scrutiny. our obligation is to take a balanced, realistic approach to weigh risks appropriately. i have no doubt that you share this point of view and look forward to working with you again this year. thank you. >> thank you, mr. price. commissioner, we thank you for taking time to address the subcommittee and we would like to hear your testimony before the subcommittee.

>> good morning and thank you mr. chairman, ranking member price and representative lowey, c.v.p., all of its nearly 60,000 employees join me in thanking this committee and the congress that you have provided to providing the resources and funding necessary to accomplish the mission sets that the nation is assigned to customs and border protection. i recknies that time is limited today, so i will shorten an already brief statement so we can get to the questions and answers. . but i do want to reiterate and emphasize the high points. customs and border protection is charged with keeping dangerous people and dangerous things out of the american homeland, away from american communities and families. we do that in terms of two

direct approaches. first, we are charged with protecting the land borders of the united states. this encompasses the southwest border, which has garnered the most attention in the last years because of the activity there is and in mexico, but it also encompasses the canadian border, more than 5,400 miles on the northern boarder from nine seattle and the state of washington. it also encompasses, in concert with the united states coast guard responsibilities on the maritime approaches off the coasts of the united states. the resources that this committee has provided have had an impact and will continue to have an impact on all of those mission sets having to do with the border. we also look at the border not simply as a boundary between the united states and mexico and the united states and canada, but we also look at it as securing the flow of goods and people toward the united

states. the trend in this issue is is as the chairman and ranking member indicated. we have a responsibility to identify dangerous people and things as far away from the border as possible and as early in time as possible. that's why we have the international footprint of c.b.p. we also have an enormous responsibility with regard to the expediting of lawful trade and traffic. and the approach c.b.p. takes to this task is by risk management by assessing risks and being able to distinguish between trusted travelers, trusted shippers and those about whom or about which we have adverse information or lack sufficient information to make a judgment as to how we ought to expedite their passage across our physical borders. these two mission set, securing

the land border, southwest border, the northern border, the latorals and also securing the flow of goods and people through programs such as the immigration advisory program or the container security initiative are the way in which we accomplish our task. the 2012 budget that's been proposed by the administration is under consideration by this committee and the congress provides us with the resources we need to do this job. it's not a perfect budget. it never is. but i hope that in discussions with this committee and generally between the administration and the congress that we can sharpen the budget, fill the gaps that are perceived to exist and continue the progress we've made both in protecting the land borders, protecting the aviation borders, protecting the maritime approaches, and also securing flows of people and goods so that we can continue

to partner with the private sector to process $2 trillion worth of imports that come into the united states each day, each year, pardon me, and we can also expedite the movement of $1.8 trillion in exports that leave this country each year. with regard to the channels rather than go into them as i thought i originally would, i think the ranking member and chairman have each raised the major challenges that we face with regard to maintaining the personnel, also, maintaining the ability to make efficiencies, show efficiencies at the time of constrained budget and keep the productivity of our men and women of c.b.p. high and growing and also make their activities more efficient and effective at the same time. with that, mr. chairman, and in the interests of beginning the

dialogue so critical to this enterprise, let me again thank you on behalf of the 58,000 men and women of the c.b.p. for the support that this committee has always shown our efforts. >> thank you, sir. thank you, commissioner. we will enter your full statement into the record. we thank you for your opening comments. >> the first issue i'd like to bring up as far as border security, the united states goth has made significant investments in mexico directly and the united states enforcement agency to counter mexican drug trafficking organizations and to assist the calderon administration. while it's clear that these are disrupting cartel activity, it remains to be seen what the end goal is and how we intend to

get there, especially as the calderon administration draws to an end in 2012. how would you describe our progress, the united states and mexico efforts to undermine drug trafficking organizations and what evidence of the impact on the cartels? >> mr. chairman, an issue critical to our border security and also to our national security. the enterprise of cooperation with mexico is a work in process but in fact, we have started down a path that is truly historical. the decision in 2006 of president calderon to take on the organized crime elements that had so infiltrated both mexican politics and mexican society and we're having -- were having such a detrimental impact on our border and on our country was truly a turning point in mexican history and in the history of our two

countries, particularly at the united states-mexican border. that effort has led to the kind of violence that we've seen in mexico that is -- that has resulted in the deaths of more than 35,000 mexicans since 2006. recognizing how critical mexican national security is to our own border security, and, i would argue, our national security, the obama administration, continuing their work, has taken the level of collaboration and cooperation to a new level and a new status. this is a work in process. but i believe that we have achieved something that is a critical as we look forward. i believe, regardless of changes that might take place in the leadership of the united states or mexico that we have with our neighbor to the south, for the first time, really since the 19th century treaty that ended the u.s.-mexican

war, reached a level of collaboration and cooperation that will never, ever go back to where it was, where we had correct borders, not violent borders, but never terribly cooperative borders between the united states and mexico. the key to this has been the understanding between president obama and president calderon that in fact the issue of guns going south and cash going south and drugs coming north are not the occasion for finger pointing, which it was for so much of our bilateral history. mexicans blaming us for the consumption of drugs in the united states for their problems of violent crimes. mexicans blaming the united states for the passage of weapons into mexico without excepting the notion -- accepting the notion there was a a mafia of frightening proportion growing in their cuventry. that is actually, thankfully, a

matter of the past. for the first time in our history, instead of pointing fengers at one another, the united states and mexico recognize drugs coming north, guns and cash going south as being part of a common problem for which we have shared responsibility. that acceptance, mr. chairman, has permitted us for the first time to not only design common solutions, but to be well along the path of implementing them. it's a major change for the good >> just to follow up on that, you mention it has changed historically, the finger pointing, as the presidential election year approaches, 2011 is a critical year, president calderon is of course under increasing pressure internally and has even seen evidence lately of lashing out at the

united states. and i know that he is -- he has called the united states notoriously insufficient in saying how can americans cooperate, by reducing drug use, which they haven't done and the flow of weapons hasn't slowed, it's increased. while the tone was better in the calderon meetings with the president last week, there is still that concern. let me just follow with that and your take on that. >> mr. chairman, i think that actually that's an index of the relationship that we now have. that in fact when you are engaged in the kind of partnership that we now have, there can be candid, even publicly candid remarks about the shortcomings that are perceived in the performance of the other partner. so for example, yes, the fact is that president calderon underlines with regard to what drug trafficking, the critical

role-played by drug consumption in this country. he also outlines with regard to illegal immigration the lack of a legitimate labor market between the united states and mexico and the desire on the part of some americans for both secure borders and cheap labor. i look at that as the candor and the frank discussion that will permit us to start to address those issues together. so, for example, we point out to the mexicans in ways that were unsayable even three to five years ago that they have a major problem of corruption in their law enforcement. in fact, that their state and local law ep forcement and much of their judiciary, unfortunately, remains plagued by problems of corruption. those are the kinds of public statements and acknowledgments that i think reflect the deeper partnership and the greater potential for cooperation than has ever existed before. but i take your point. there are candid exchanges

between partners that in fact are peoples, both in mexico and the united states, need to hear and increasingly understand. >> you've stated in your public comments that the border is the securest it's ever been but that doesn't tell us how close we are to securing operational control of the border. so that begs the question, given the billions we have invested into the board e, what is your goal for border security and how close are we to achieving that? >> mr. chairman a critical question and well asked and reasonably asked. what does border security mean? let me begin perhaps by describing what it does not mean and cannot mean. if we understand border security to be the absence of any illegal migration at all

across the united states borders or the absence of any drug smuggling at all, we have set a goal that is impracticable and not possible in terms of an absolute sealing of the american border. that is -- that would be an issue of resources and an issue of actually having to correct those problems that as i indicated in response to your previous answer has led to an understanding that the consumption of drugs in this country is as much part of this problem as the smuggling of drugs by organized criminals in mexico across the border. we need to work on that and under ondcp and its efforts, we are making very serious efforts at curtailing drug use and seeing some progress. the same thing with regard to the labor market. as long as the magnet, the jobs magnet, exists, we will see

this flow. but mr. chairman, security means these are not flows that disrupt american family life and community life either in border communities or in the interior of our country. and there we need to basically take the position that if you try to cross into our country illegally, either to smuggle drugs or come to work here illegally, you will be detected and you will be arrested. that is the sense in which we approach our task at customs and border protection. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to report to you that compared to certainly five years ago, certainly 10 years ago, and i know myself, having started with the border first as the united states attorney in the southern district of california, 15 years ago, that the border is actually more secure than it's ever been in terms of the ability to detect

and apprehend those who come into the country illegally. having said that, we have considerable work to do, particularly in the tucson sector. that sector, from mexico and sonora, to nogales, to tucson and phoenix, half of the illegal population in the united states comes through that corridor. half the drug smuggling in the united states takes place through that corridor. that's why secretary napolitano beginning in march of 2009, two years ago, began the greatest buildup of resources in arizona that we have ever seen. as this committee has facilitated the growth of the border patrol, syndicated by the ranking member such that by the end of fiscal year 2012, we'll have 21 3rks70 border patrol agents, i remember in 1993 when i first became

involved with the border, we had 2,800 border patrol agents in the entire country. we now have nearly 10 times that many. and they're being used to good effect. no place better than in the tucson sector where we have more than 6,000 customs and border protection people between the ports of entry and at the ports of entry and they are showing results in their work. what do we mean by bringing that border under control and that sector under control. ? it means redeucing the from the of illegal traffic into the united states from mexico to a point that is -- that both assuring public safety and is perceived by the people who live on the border and the people who live in arizona as being safe and secure. i can tell you, having lived and worked myself and my family still lives on the border between baja, california, and

california, in san diego in 1994, when in fact proposition 187 was passed and -- by the people of california, proposition that was reminiscent of arizona's bill 1070, this last year in the context of arizona politics, 565,000 illegal immigrants, illegal aliens crossed over from mexico and were arrested on the san diego-tijuana border. at least twice that many, mr. chairman, got by the border patrol and made their way up to los angeles. today, the situation is completely different in terms of the resources congress has provided, we have more than 3,000 border patrol agents in the san diego sector. we have a complete set of infrastructure in terms of fencing and pedestrian fencing

and vehicle fencing and we have technology that permits us to detect the very large majority, i estimate 90% of the people who are trying to cross illegally into the united states in that sector. what that means, mr. chairman, is that when we say 58,000, as opposed to 560,000, people were arrested last year in san diego, i can tell you that my friends and neighbors in san diego will tell you this border is not out of control. san diego is one of the safest 10 cities in the united states and there are three other border cities that are among the 10 safest cities in the united states. el paso, texas, austin, texas, and phoenix, arizona. so what will it take to complete the job? i would say, respectfully, mr. chairman, that until we have the kind of legitimate labor market between the united states and meblings coe, until we reduce the level of drug

demand in the united states, we are going to continue to have attempted crossings on our border. the issue is, how many and how many do we arrest after detecting them? the situation there is considerably improved and it will be in arizona as a result of secretary napolitano's initiative and frankly the congress' southwest border supplemental bill of last spring. >> thank you, commissioner. let me turn to mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner i'd like to ask you to address air car go security, first in respect to the capacities that you're developing and secondly some of the budget implications of those efforts. prior to the attempted air car go bombing plot out of yemen last fall, c.b.p. was receiving air cargo manifests four hours before air cargo arrival in the united states, that is, after the plane was airborne. in response to the october 29,

2010, mailing of inch ro vised explosive devices from yemen, the national targeting center has been working with air carriers so they can analyze -- analyze cargo manifests before flights take off. in december, c.p.b. -- c.b.p. began piloting this type of screening with the big four all cargo carriers. two have been completed, two are ongoing or starting shortly. i know you call these pilots but i don't believe there's any plan to turn them off. maybe some analysis will follow but this is going to be, we understand, a permanent improvement of capacity. so i wond every first if you could highlight what efforts c.b.p. in conjunction with carriers has take ton strengthen air cargo security before it arrives in the united states and what you believe the next steps are. second, i want to ask about the

budget implications of all this. the 2012 budget, i was surprised it didn't apparently include additional funding for better targeting of cargo. last september, the c.b.p. said it kneed up to $80 million for these specific needs, then it was revised twice. it includes funding to develop new targeting rules. so since final funding for 2011 has not been resolved, unfortunately has not been resolved, we were unable to provide these resources. however, we did expect to see something in the 2012 budget and apparently it's not there. so last december, c.b.p. told the subcommittee it would

expand its review of cargo transportation documents known as boifls lading to countries surrounding -- as bills of lading to countries surrounding yemen, and they needed to expand to have adequate band width to support the load. so what has changed so that you didn't include these needs in the 2012 request? and i guess the obvious question is, are you now planning to fund these activities from base resources? >> ranking member price, thank you for that question that focuses on that dimension of our mission that is securing goods so that when they arrive at the physical ports of entry, we have done everything we need to do to identify as best we can dangerous cargo. in fact, the yemen cargo plot, with regard to packages and freight, led to the same kind of changes that we saw a year earlier with regard to the processing of passengers as a

result of the attempt to blow up the northwest airliner over detroit. so let me indicate what we've done and then provide a very direct response to your question about how will this be funded. two major neartships characterized our response. remember, as you indicated, what happened in the yemen cargo plot was that we received intelligence, our government did, from the saudi intelligence that indicated there were two cargos, two packages that were on their way to the united states that were intended to be detonated in the cargo plane over chicago. so the question then was, how do we locate those packages? i think one of the changes in the global supply chain was we did identify out of this mass, tens of millions of packages and cargos involved in the international trade, we were in

relatively short order working together with our partners abroad, able to pluck out those two packages and to neutralize them so they did not do damage to the american homeland. as we analyze the situation, though, we were able then also to identify very quickly where the other packages that had come in the preceding days from yemen were. what we also noticed was that we needed, as we did in the passenger context, to be doing much more work away from the american homeland and early in time. that's what led to the pilot projects that you indicate. three critical partnerships that characterize the work, the first is, as i suggested the partnership with foreign customs and police authorities. which need to be very close and are increasingly close. the second has to do with the partnership within d.h.s.

between the transportation security administration, charged with car go security, and with customs and border protection. and the linking of the work at c.b.p. and t.s.a. on this has been extraordinary. i know that government agencies always talk about the extent to which they cooperate. but i can tell you having been in the federal government, this is cooperation with real results that we see complemplefied and illustrated in the way in which our nation has responded to the car go -- cargo plot from yemen. the third partnership and key to this is the way in which we collaborated with the private sector from day one, we began working with the express cargo carblingts with the con gregs -- commercial airlines and the large cargo operators to begin to co-create the solution. so what is the -- so what does the solution look like? i would say parenthetically

that the way in which we worked with the private sector contrasts with what i believe the ranking member and members of the subcommittee are familiar with which is the contentious manner in which we began to deal with maritime security in the wake of 2001. that situation is vastly improved but it has taken a long time for those engaged in maritime trade to look at the requirements that we imposed on them from top down, in part through congress, imposing requirements on d.h.s., but we basically mandated a series of changes to require advance information and a whole variety of fre pre-departure and prearrival changes. we took a different approach, frankly, mr. price, to this situation of air cargo. from day one, secretary napolitano convened working groups involving the private sector with t.s.a. and c.b.p. to address the issue.

within a month, we began what you refer to as pilot projects. they basically have two dimensions to them. we get advance information, right now the law provides that when a cargo is coming toward the united states, it must be given to c.b.p. four hours before arrival. it must be entered into our system. or if the arrival -- the place of disembarkation is fewer than four hours from our homeland, then it, upon wheels up of the cargo plane or the commercial plane carrying cargo, what the pilot project basically does is articulates and start toimplesment a new grand bargain between governmental authorities and the private sector. basically, the grand bargain is, if you give us information early, in advance of the departure, we will use the national targeting center and

we will analyze the information you give us in terms of manifest data and we will make a judgment about whether or not we need to screen and look at it and which way we need to look and screen the cargo much earlier. that has led express car go and right now the pilot is between the united states government, d.h.s., and the express carriers, fedex, u.p.s., i believe it will be extended to d.h.l. soon and to t.n.t. in the not too distant future. and basically what we see from u.p.s. is that we're getting the information sometimes 24 hours earlier. before departure. sometimes even 36 hours. and we're able to make this decision working together as to, do we screen it? do we isolate it? do we do it abroad?

do we do it en route? or do we do it when it arrives at the physical boundaries of the united states. that's the nature of the bargain. it's an extraordinary collaboration and will be extended over the next six months to commercial airlines and the large cargo eerptors. so then, mr. price you say, so why haven't you asked for additional funding to support this and the answer is that we have asked for additional funding, as you indicated in your question, we've asked for additional personnel at the national targeting center for cargo. we've actually asked for, i believe, 33 additional targeters that will work in herndon and be able to get that manifest data. and we will be coming back to the congress when we have perfected this, when we have

gotten to the point where we can say as a result of the experience we've had, these are the additional measures we need to take and i think you've understood that we are not bashful about asking resources but taking the chairman's caution into account and the environment in which we're operating, the secretary determined that we need to perfect these protocols and we're able to do that within our existing resource base together with the exist regular sources we ask for for the national targeting center. >> i know my time is expiring, just one clarification, though, i thought these additional personnel that you referred to were aimed at at a passenger screening operation. >> no. the national targeting center, i will correct the record if i misspeak, but i believe these are going to be national targeting center for cargo.

we have the ntcp, national targeting center for passengers that is in reston, virginia, and that's the program that works with the immigration advisory program. but i believe these were designated for the ntcc. >> that's not the information we have but if you can get this straight str the -- straight for the record, and provide us with whatever accounting you can these items that we'd earlier been breefed on and had anticipated where in the budget these might be embedded and to the extent that they're not in the budget, how you're making up the difference, so to speak that would be helpful to us as we try to support this program fully. you understand, that's what -- we want this to happen. we want to make sure that we understand the full budget implications of the -- of this capacity building. >> yes, sir.

>> thank you, sir. >> mr. dent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. a couple of things following up on mr. price's questions. it's my understanding that 100% of outbound commercial aircraft carrying cargo is now screened, is that correct? >> there -- no, i don't believe that 100% of the outbound cargo -- >> on passenger planes. >> on -- this may be a t.s.a. function. i focus toms and border protection is not screening 100% of outbound. >> on the issue of inbound -- on the issue of the inbound, you just referred to the yemen situation. even if we were to screen 100% of all inbound cargo coming on nonpassenger aircraft, how confident are you that we're going to detect problematic material, given what you know

-- >> again, mr. dent, with regard to inbound, on commercial planes coming to the united states there is 100% screen big t.s.a. certified screeners or by the t.s.a. itself of inbound cargo. i believe with regard to that extent, we have -- we do have -- we can always improve our screening capacity. we need to improve our detection capacity in terms of the technology, but that situation is considerably improved from where it was even a few short years ago. >> my understanding on the inbound coming from overseas, and we are still not at 100%, outbound. >> i will correct the record. again this is a t.s.a. function. >> understood. >> i will correct the record if i've misspoken. >> i want to follow up on civil air patrol issues. for the past several congresses i've been advocating the use of the civil air patrol on the

border, the southwestern border. you have a shortage of assets down there. it seems the civil air patrol is willing to help, they've been effective in the past, what relationship does c.b. perform currently have with civil air patrol? >> i know from the days in which i was the u.s. attorney that the civil air patrol played a very important role in assisting the border patrol in those years to patrol. because of the increase provided by congress and the air and marine assets of the customs and border protection, we rely hardly at all now on the civil air patrol. i do know of your interest. we do not at this point except in very spotty cases regularly use them in part because the air and marine assets provided by the congress and are at work, for example, in arizona, are on the order of 10 times

what they were years ago. >> are you amenable to establishing a working relationship with them? >> absolutely. a partnership with civil air patrol, with state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies are critical. >> i think we could use them in a cost effective way to help us develop more effective aviation assets. on f.b.i. net, the sec re-- the spi net program, it has endorsed the fixed towers at the heart of the spi net and intend to buy 52 more integrated fixed towers for arizona, on top of the 15 that are already out there. 10 these additional towers are for some of the most problematic areas, as you know but you postponed the purchase until fiscal year 2012 and delivery isn't expected until sometime in early 2013.

why aren't we moving afwressively in building those? >> mr. dent, you've correctly the scribed the situation. the large scale -- described the situation. the large scale implementation was ended by the secretary, i think to the general approval of members of congress on both sides of the aisle. but we do, where the boeing-developed technology, the so-called block technology, which integrates video and radar works is in flat terrain. there will be a need for it. where there is -- where there are canyons and mountains, that technology is not very useful and the secretary has directed we fill in the gaps in those areas with mobile surveillance systems, remote video surveillance systems and our agents confirm this is the best technique, together with

i.s.r., the ability to integrate surveillance from air, aviation platforms. the reason for the delay and i believe we start purchasing in 2012 and continue to purchase in 2012 and 2013, is that we need to fill in the gaps we have in arizona, which is our area of greatest priority on the border, we have the towers in place on the flat areas. we need to fill them in with technology better suited for the canyons and mountains. but you're right. we want more of those towers to use in other places where the terrain makes them very useful. the priority is one reason there's a delay until 2013. -- until 2012. the second is to get the competitive bidding that will be required to give companies other than boeing an opportunity to compete for this contract and provide the fixed towers. we think both as a matter of tactics but also good and efficient business sense that

that schedule will not do us harm on a security -- from a security perspective and get us a better product in due course. >> mrs. lowey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. i want to say, we're very fortunate to have a person of your wisdom, experience, and caliber in this position. i thank you very much. if you could just clarify in writing for the record, it's my understanding that the 100% screening of cargo on passenger airlines won't be completed until the end of 2011. i don't think it could be done soon enough. i think it's urgent and i'd like you to clarify that for us. i'd like to know why and i'd drn why it's not completed. i'd also like to know if there's some nations that are not being cooperative as you seek to implement better screening abroad and what can we do about it? perhaps the first one you can

submit in writing. second, if you're aware of certain places that have not been cooperative, i'd like to know that. >> yes, with regard to providing information on both. as you know, the legislation provides the extension, although the deadline is coming up and i believe the secretary, if she hasn't already, will be indicating the further extension on the 100% scanning and with regard -- >> i just happen to think on that issue it's unacceptable. i'd like to know what you need, how much money, how many people to get it done now. >> i understand. and then with regard to the information on countries that have not been cooperative, no one comes to mind but i would need to consult with administrator pistol with regard to the cargo screening from abroad. i'll do that and supplement the

record if he so advises. >> thank you. another issue, i've recently heard reports about staffing issues at kennedy airport, including that one quarter of all customs and border patrol officers are handling basic immigration work rather than searching cargo for weapons and drugs. perhaps more alarmingly, i'm told that 18 flights a day leave without searches due to staffing shortages. number one, what steps are you taking to ensure that they're searching cargo at kennedy airport rather than performing administrative tasks and secondly, what additional resources do you need from congress to achieve this mission? >> i was at kennedy airport on friday, on thursday and friday of last week and we are constantly looking at the

staffing issues and theals allegations -- allocations of duty. so at kennedy airport which has more customs and border protection officers than any other airport because of the size an scope of its operations, we have just under 1,800 now with a staffing model that actually allocates both to the processing of people, which we have to do to prevent dangerous people from coming into the united states, but also increasingly we check obviously on screening of freight and cargo coming into the united states, and kennedy leads the way in terms of outbound checks. we have more outbound checks led by an extraordinary experienced and good group of officers. but we need to look at how do we allocate scarce resources and when do we need more resources for any particular function.

i believe we can improve the situation at kennedy but i'm satisfied that the leadership in this new port director at kennedy, who i hope you have the opportunity to meet, mr. brian humphreys who was at o'hare airport, now in charge of kennedy airport and i will make him aware of your concerns and confirm that he's always looking at how best to allocate the resources among the functions that we have. >> i'm not questioning anyone's ability, i'm just saying i think it's porn we get the job done. if you need more assistance, you should let us know. in that regard, i've been to the san diego entryway and i've spent hours there and to me it looks like a need until a hay stack, so i applaud you, i don't know how you do that work. i also want to say, you talked before about the issues involving our government and the mexican government, i've

met with calderon, i've been there, i've talked with him, and i think this has reached proportions that are just extraordinarily dangerous. we know of 35,000 lives that have been lost there. and i personally think it's not enough to say guns are going there an drugs are going there, i think we have to push for an assault weapons ban and i think we have to do something about controlling our use of drugs here in the united states of america. what you do about the infiltration of the military, infiltration of the security force with the cartels tpwhaze cartels pay more than the government and the corruption, another whole story for another hearing, mr. chairman. but i appreciate your mentioning those issues and i think we just have to do something about it. so thank you again for appearing before us and i think my time is about gone so i'll save the other question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, commissioner, thank you for being here.

thank you for all the people in your department that are doing very important work to protect our nation. we in texas see probably as much, or more countries as far as what you're doing on our borders, we're very appreciative of it. my friend just raised the issue of the question that seems to come up every time we address the border, we certainly are aware of the violence coming from the south and the question then comes up, where do the weapons come from? and it seems to be, the finger gets pointed at the united states and we're allowing weapons to be smuggles into mexico. i don't know whether that's true or not. we assumed it was true. we've had this discussion in the last congress. we thought we had put adequate resources on the border, to be

able to inspection cargos going south. there are accusations we are failing in that inspection. first and foremost, i want to make sure that's actually true. i know something about the interdiction you may have had on weapons going south. the reason i question, ak-47's are not american manufactured weapons, they are european manufactured weapons and that's what i see the bad guys carrying but maybe we're importing them into the united states and ship themming down there, i don't know. i think it's important we do interdict weapons flowing south if they're coming from the united states. if we have a fault in this violence in the border, we need to correct that fault. my governor in my state has said he is perfectly willing to assist with the resources of texas law enforcement. would that be of assistance to you? if texas law enforcement were willing to, and the law enforcement of other states,

were willing to assist in the interdiction of weapons going south? and do you have any evidence of weapons coming in from other sources besides the united states of america? >> with regard to the source of weapons flowing to mexico, i think we have to acknowledge that many of the weapons do come from the united states. i think that's been established by the work of i.c.e. and a.t.f. as they traced weapons that are seized in mexico and traced back to sales in the united states. i think we should acknowledge that. because it's a fact. i think the extent of it, though, is not certain. you hear charges from certain quarters in mexico that it's 98%. others say 90%. others say it's 80%. i think we should just acknowledge that it's an issue and we need to deal with it in terms of the new situation. at the same time, there's no question in my mind that weapons are being smuggled into

mexico from the southern border as well, through central america, particularly some of the heavier weapons that are there. but in keeping with this new relationship between the united states and mexico, we acknowledge the issue and as you suggest it's one we need to work on. with regard to outbound operations, secretary napolitano, beginning in march of 2009, instituted in the first -- for the first time, not southbound checks of which there were intermittent ones, but instead what is new is that there's a regular systematic check, not a 24-7 check but a systematic, well orchestrated effort to intercept guns and cash going south. with regard to the participation of low can law enforcement, they do participate now all other the boarder from california to texas. texas d.p.s. is a big partner of ours. and border patrol agents speak highly of it, as do i.

with regard to local sheriffs and local police departments in texas and elsewhere, they are often involved in task forces that are participating in southbound checks and they share in the forfeiture of assets seized and liquidated as a result of those seizures. so the answer is is, yes, those partnerships are critical. they can always be improved. they are very extensive, as we speak. >> we certainly are perfectly willing to be involved in our state and our governor is speaking out publicly that he will be willing to share any resources you need to protect our state because quite honestly, we're concerned about the violence across the border. i was with people from laredo yesterday. we were talking about how much we used to share a great celebration we have on our border, george washington's birthday celebration and it used to be flowing back and forth between nuevo laredo and

laredo. that flow now stops and we have snipers protecting our meeting of governors on the brempling. that's a situation that shouldn't occur between friendly neighbors. it concerns us greatly. >> it should concern all americans. i will say for all the violence taking place in northern mexico, including nuevo laredo, the fact is we have not seen that spillever violence into the united states frevpb juarez to el paso. mr. carter, it's a mange, major mandate of c.b.p. to see that that does not happen. we need to make clear to the cartels, particularly in the wake of the killing of the law enforcement agent in mexico, that we will not tolerate the widespread violence coming over from mexico into our country and we will not tolerate the killing of american law enforcement officers. mr. carter: my time is up.

i assure you, the state of texas stands ready, willing and able to assist you in any way you request. >> thank you. >> ms. roybal-allard. >> as you are well aware, protecting american businesses and workers from illegal imports is key. unable, we have been unable to keep chi meeze shippers who evade paying dues on many import into the united states. senate investigators posing as business owners found 10 chinese companies willing and able to sneak merchandise into the united states to avoid paying duties which have been imposed to protect more than 120 domestic companies and 12,000 u.s. workers from unfairly traded imports.

also, steel industry investigators recently discovered a consignment of tubing bound for the los angeles market, used books, again to avoid detection of the required duties. this failure to address industrial smuggling, as you know, is costing american jobs and robbing our treasury of much-needed revenue. what is preventing c.b.p. from doing a better job of addressing this threat posed by chinese illegal imports and what is it that you are doing, you know, to address this and how can we be helpful? >> ms. roybal-allard, i would say that of the many changes the secretary has instituted and that i'm proud to be implementing, one of the largest has to do with re-emphasizing the importance of our trade function at customs and borter protection,

that in addition to securing the flow of goods, we need to expedite the lawful movement of goods and we see that expediting of lawful traffic as being entirely consistent with and critical to raising our security profile. it is only by expediting the movement of the vast amount of lawful traffic that we can actually concentrate our attention on the very small amount of traffic that prevents risk of harm to our security and we include in the definition of security our economic prosperity and our economic competitiveness. so in fact, we are revamping the relationship between our ports and the trade function that c.b.p. to see to it that trade enforcement of intellectual property rights, of various anti-dumping provisions has a new emphasis

in our activities because we don't see that as being antithetical to our security duties. i think you will see over the coming weeks and months a focus on such industries as the textiles, as you see a focus on the evasion ofed on the defrauding on the basis of nafta distinctions. i think you will see increased tension both from customs and border protection and from immigration and customs enforcement to intellectual property rights enforcement. these are important objectives of the secretary and ones that we see as completely consistent with our mission of keeping dangerous people and dangerous things out of the united states. >> which brings me to my second question. the national immigration forum and the texas border coalition have found that while billions of dollars have been spent between ports of entry, such as the vast expanse of desert

along the southwest border, by comparison, d.h.s. has spent little to improve security at the ports of entry. according to a white paper by the texas border coalition, the probability of a person being apprehended for criminal activities between ports of entry is 70% and only 30% at the ports of entry where the bulk of criminal activity occurs. this is a vulnerability as has been discussed earlier that mexican drug cartels have ex-ploilted. and according to the 2010 national drug threat assess isment, more than 90% of hard drugs smuggled into the united states in 2009 actually came through our border ports. in addition, according to the border trade alliance, which is a network of leaders and business -- in business and government, insufficient staffing at border crossings is

creating bottlenecks that seriously impede the flow of commerce vital to the economy of both countries. while i'm pleased that your fiscal year 2012 budget request includes additional funding to meet this need, it falls far short of what is needed to come watt bat drug cartels and facilitate the flow of goods and people through our busy border ports of entry. i understand that earlier you spoke of efforts along a specific corridor in arizona on the southwest border and i applaud your efforts in that area. however, given the reports that i referenced, can you please tell us what strategies you have to address the threats at the ports of entry and wouldn't our country be better served if our resources were directed toward these areas that appear

to be the main port -- the main ports of illegal activity? >> ms. -- >> commissioner, if you could, go ahead and answer that question and then we'll go on. >> the issue is not a zero sum game. you're exactly right. we need to see the border not as divided irrev kaably between the ports and at the ports but as a continuous border. we do view it that way at customs and border protection. as you noted, we've asked -- the budget asked for 300 additional customs and border protection officers necessary to staff new ports of entry on the southwest border. we've also received 250 more customs and border protection officers in the southwest supplemental bill which is in the 2012 budget made part of the base budget but over time we do need to address that issue.

there's no question. in 2006, there were -- i'm sorry, fiscal year 2004, there were 17,689 c.b.p. officers and there were 10,819 border patrol officers. in fiscal year 2011, there are 20,7 -- 20,370 border patrol agents and 20,377 c.b.p. officers. so while we've seen growth in c.b.p. officers, we've seen much greater rates of growth in the border patrol. we are conscious of the issue you raised but we see it as a continuum. and we believe that we can continue to grow c.b.p. always in a way that will address more effectively the issues you raise. >> welcome, commissioner. i've heard from different

people inside the department, outside the department, you know, getting to the issue of contraband coming into this country, whether it's drugs or whatever it may be, that maybe we're not using the kind of authority we already have and i'm talking about the border search authority. that there has been a change, i don't know if you would just tell us what your policy is, if in fact it's being utilized to the point where it should be. >> mr. latham, i can speak as a former prosecutor, and assure you that there is no place in the american landscape where american law enforcement has greater powers of search without any reasonable suspicion or any probable cause but rather as a matter of protecting the american homeland at the physical ports of entry. those authorities are fully in

use, in fact, are even in greater use with regard to matters of questioning. so for example, in the wake of the assassination of agent jaime zapata, we exercised those authorities to the fullest to question and hold in secondary anybody with the remotest link to the group believed to be responsible for the murder of agent zapata. i want to assure you as a prosecutor, also as the head of c.b.p., that we understand our authorities, we understand that they need to be used responsibly, but they also need to be used fully and they are being used to the fullest extent consistent with our tactical objectives. >> and i don't understand why we keep hear regular ports that

it's not being used as it should be. are there any other agencies that give that authority to? >> when people across -- are cross-designated from i.c.e. or the d.o.j. agencies or as mr. carter suggested when local law enforcement is part of the task force on the outbound, if they are cross designated they are empowered with the same authorities of search to the fullest extent permitted at the border. .

the experience and skill and knowledge of our officers, which not perfect, but the alternative is not one that the congress has ever commended to us which is to open up every trunk and subject every car to an x-ray which would bring trade and travel into the united states, so critical to our economy, to a halt. but you're right, there is a decision that can be made. i submit to you, sir, that we want to use our powers to the fullest but we want to use it where we have good reason to believe that they will provide

us with a secure result and not represent an undue burden on lawful trade and trafpk traffic. >> do we have any idea which percentage of the amount of drugs are being caught at the border? >> mr. latham, i've been involved in border-related activity for 20 years and i've heard a whole range of estimates. rather than provide one, all of which are at best educated guesses, i'd just assume share my personal view which is not an official view, offline. it's not -- i can't state it with any official information and would hesitate to do that and thereby mislead people that there's some more certainty to it because of the position i occupy. >> ms. roybal-allard, talking about trade, a lot of the companies in the u.s. have

teamed up in the partnership, the custom trade partnership against terrorism, border self-assessment programs, but they still seem to have significant delays. apparently there's 47 different agencies involved some way in order of inspection. is it working? >> sir, there are now more than 10,000 companies that are part of the customs trade partnership against terrorism. and these, as i indicated in response to ms. roybal-allard's question, one our major objectives consistent with maintaining a high level of security and increasing security levels is to restructure the relationship with the trade and provide a more expedited passage for those members of the trade community who are trusted shippers, who have engaged in the i.s.a., who have engaged in the supply chain security matters and i think if you consult with the trade

associations you will see both in the air cargo where we've partnered on the security measure having to do with freight, so too in terms of this idea of what benefits can we provide to the trusted shippers, to the trusted importers, to the trusted customs brokers, and we are working with the private sector to enhance those benefits and to work with our partner government agencies. while there are 47 agencies for which we serve as the executive agent and we take action at the border on their behalf, there are really seven agencies, including e.p.a., f.d.a., notably, agriculture, the highway safety transportation are the main agencies for which we work and that's where the a.c.e. program is critical. and i look forward to discussing with the committee the work we're doing with the automated commercial environment that's critical to the issue you raise. >> thank you. >> let me yield now. you've got a quick question for

clarification. >> yes. just quickly, could you clarify for the record the respective roles of c.p.b. and t.s.a. with regard to screening and inspecting international air cargo? it's my understanding that c.b.p. inspects arriving cargo at ports of entry under its custom authority, but the t.s.a. inspection screens u.s.-bound cargo overseas and departing the u.s. because of its aviation security responsibility. it's the only agency in power to carry out such a screening overseas. >> you can clarify? >> that's generally correct in terms of where the fiscal inspections take place although t.s.a. relies on certified screeners in many cases abroad. but we are involved very heavily in this work in partnership with t.s.a. because the targeting work that takes place is done through the national targeting center for cargo in virginia.

so, for example, when a cargo is placed on a commercial airline or on an express carrier there is a manifest filing that is processed by c.b.p. officers in virginia. we are partnering with t.s.a. so there are t.s.a. officers -- >> [inaudible]. >> we also -- we analyze the passenger manifest as well at the targeting center for passengers. but we co-locate with t.s.a. so that the targeting is being done by c.b.p. at the n.t.c. but the actual screening, you're correct, is being done by either t.s.a. personnel or t.s.a. certified screeners. >> thank you. let me turn now just briefly, we've got very limited time and i want to get to a couple more just for a second round. as you know, commissioners have been difficult in getting the

custom seat changes and of course it's out of this committee's jurisdiction. but how will c.b.p. make up that $55 million fee revenue difference if the legislation's not enacted as we had discussed earlier? >> mr. chairman, this is part of a larger issue and challenge that faces c.b.p. so, for example, 37% of our c.b.p. officers, 37% of the 20,186 officers are actually paid by user fees. so when we see a decline, which we've seen during the height of the recession. in 2009 we saw a decline of user fees of 8%, we need to make up the difference and we do that in the appropriations. it is not a satisfactory situation which is why we've

asked for the help of the congress in both repealing the exemptions from the cobra fee to generate the $55 million in a period of constrained budget resources, but you're correct, if that relief is not there we need then to turn to our appropriations and we do it in a way consistent with the appropriations but in a way that does not permit the predictability or as ms. roybal-allard's question suggested with the growth projectry that we've seen where there is an appropriation made, in the case of the border patrol, and we've seen a steady growth. >> as mentioned earlier, it's about truth in budgeting. we need a responsible request from the administration, especially in light of the fact that we do have short of officers at major airports and there's things that need to be, you know, certainly we need to pay attention to. this time let me go ahead and

recognize mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. commissioner, i want to get into another of the 100% mandates you're dealing with from the 9/11 act. this one having to do with the overseas -- with the scanning of u.s.-bound cargo overseas. i will not have time to ask the full question and you won't have time to fully answer it. so we'll both no doubt make sumitions for the record. but let me flag this issue because i think it's important and i think there is a certain ambiguity in your budget with respect to your intentions. i've made it clear that i share the secretary's skepticism that the 100% mandate is achievable. certainly within the 2012 time frame. she's just said it's not going to work. and i believe it would probably take a prohibitive amount of resources to scan all cargo overseas at any near point in time.

in any event, d.h.s. has chosen a different pact. i think you've made that quite clear. you're using a risk-based methodology, using advanced information and intelligence to target the high-risk, highest risk maritime cargo for scanning overseas. now, in light of this i want to ask you to elaborate on your budget request and on the future in particular of the secure freight nig initiative program which, as you know, is the pilot program employing 100% scanning overseas and the container security initiative which involves dozens of ports overseas where the targeting methodology is being implemented and perfected. the earlier budget request that you made, 2011 and 2012, seem to envision the -- certainly

the scaling down, if not the phasing out of the secure freight initiative pilot. in all places except pakistan. yet your 2012 budget includes funding for two pilots to test the 100% screening mandate and one in essence, as i read it, recommend cating the model used in pakistan in a different high-threat corridor, likely on the arabian peninsula. i do not understand the consistency of that request with the path that the department has chosen and with your earlier funding proposals and then also we need to know what the future of c.s.i. is. you know, is it really feasible to reduce the overseas physical presence of your officers in these ports where this is a very difficult thing to carry outer? is it really feasible to reduce that to the decree that you're suggesting and in any event,

what is the future of the c.s.i. approach? and the kind of pattern you anticipate for continuing and enhancing this kind of work overseas? >> commissioner, let me just say, if you could briefly maybe answer mr. price and maybe summit the rest for answer. i do want to let mr. carter get one question in before we go to the joint session. if you'll briefly answer that and then we'll go to mr. carter. >> yes, sir. in a word we should supplement the record and we will. these are very serious issues and with regard to secure freight initiative, we think that the pilots have demonstrated that we should restrict the application of that model, which is basically getting x-ray images taken abroad by foreign service nationals and transmitted to virginia for analysis. and we think that that should be restricted to those relatively few countries where

american officers would not be safe. so in fact we do not have officers in pakistan and that's why we have maintain the s.f.i. in that -- maintained the s.f.i. in that form there. the c.s.i., frankly the changes there which we need to elaborate, are fully consistent in the differences circumstances between 2002 and today. so in fact in 2002 we had no advanced data, we had no automaticed targeting capabilities, we had no n.t.c., we had no do not load authority, we had a limited overseas presence. we had very few international relationships. that situation is completely changed eight years later. nine years later. and the c.s.i. program, still very critical, needs to evolve and is evolving and this budget reflects that. mr. chairman, if i may, we'd like to supplement that and, mr. price, if possible, i'd

like to have an opportunity to go into much greater detail on what the new c.s.i. looks like and how its consistent with the goals that you've espoused and articulated. >> thank you, commissioner. mr. carter. >> thank you. we have a short time schedule here. operation stone garden grants, those are in your budget, how are they being utilized, has there been any mention of that today, and are there anything that's preventing them from being utilized? >> noes, what we've done is channeled and -- no, sir, what we've done is channeled and funneled the grants of the we've funneled them to the area of greatest impact and need which is the southwest border. these funds permit local law enforcement sheriffs, democratics in texas, police departments in california to actually use their officers' overtime in operations that are related to border security. the secretary and i are great proponents of this program and that program will continue and

hopefully be strengthened over the years to come. >> there are ways to strengthen, let us know what they are. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will. >> thank you, commissioner, for being here today and we look forward to working with you on these issues and the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible]

>> a look at our primetime schedule here on c-span. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a coalition of muslim and c rights groups discuss tomorrow's house homeland security hearing on muslim radicalization. then leaders of a house commerce subcommittee give their opening statements at a hearing looking at internet regulations recently handed down by the f.c.c. that subcommittee later voted 15-8 to nullify those regulations. after that, some of today's house session on a bill debated earlier today dealing with terminating the emergency mortgage relief program. and finally a house hearing examines whether federal employees are paid too much. about that hearing on thursday, it exams american muslim communities and how they've responded to extremism at home and in the world. testimony from congressman keith ellison and frank wolf as well as the president and founder of the american islamic forum for democracy. the hearing's held by the house

homeland security committee and we'll have live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and c-span radio. congress held a joint meeting earlier today to welcome australian prime minister julia gillard. she spoke on a number of issues including u.s. relations with her country and the ongoing political unrest in libya and the broader middle east. the prime minister is the 27th person to hold the office and the first woman. her remarks are about 40 minutes. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister of australia.

>> mr. speaker, the prime minister of australia.

the speaker: members of congress, i have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the honorable julia gillard, prime minister of australia. >> thank you very much. mr. speaker, mr. president pro tempore, dwibbed members of the senate and house, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, i'm the fourth australian prime

minister to address you. like them, i take your invitation as a great honor. like them, i accepted on behalf of australia. since 1950, australian prime ministers, have come here speaking for all the australian people. through you, to all the people of the united states, they each came with a simple message, a message which has been true in war and peace, a message which has been true in hardship and prosperity. in the cold war and in the new world, a message i repeat to you today. distinguished members of the senate and the house, you have a true friend down under.

the defining image of america was the landing at normandy. your boys risking everything to help free the world. for my own generation, the defining image of america was the landing on the moon. my classmates and i was sent home from school to watch the great moment on television. i always remember thinking that day, americans can do anything.

americans helped free the world of my parent's generation. americans inspired the world of my own youth. i stand here and i see before me the very same brave and free people. i believe you can do anything still. there is a reason the world always looks to america. your great dream, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness inspires us all. those of you that have spent time in australia know that we are not given to overstatement. we are iconic speakers and by conviction we are really quick thinkers. in both of our countries, real mates talk straight. we mean what we say, so let me

say this to you. you have an ally in australia, an ally through war and peace, an ally through hardship and prosperity, an ally for the 60 years' past, an ally for all the years to come. geography and history alone could never explain the strength of the commitment between us. rather our values are shared and our people are friends. this is the heart of our alliance. this is why in our darkest days we've been glad. glad to see each other's face and hear each other's voice.

australia's darkest days in the last century followed the fall of sing apour in -- singapore in 1942 and you were there with us. under attack in the pacific, we fought together side by side, step by bloody step. and while it was australian soldiers at the bay who gave the allies our fifth victory on land in the pacific war, it was american sailors at the battle of the cold sea who destroyed the fear of an invasion of australia. distinguished members of the senate and the house, australia does not forget. we will never forget. the ultimate expression of our alliance was not signed until

1951. but it was anticipated a decade earlier. in the judgments, the clear, frank and accurate judgment of an australian prime minister. and in the results. the extraordinary resolve of an american president. in the decades since, we've stuck together in every major conflict. from korea and vietnam to the conflicts in the gulf. your darkest days since pearl harbor to 10 years ago in washington and new york and we were with you. my predecessor, john howard, was quite literally with you, and he came to this capitol when you met on september 12 to show you that australians will be with you again. and after 50 years under a new prime minister and a new

president, the treaty was invoked. within australia's democracy, john howard and i had our differences, but he was and is an australian patery ott, a -- patery ott, a man that was moved during that terrible september. he was and is a friend of america. when john howard addressed you here in 2002, we were already with you in afghanistan and we are with you there still. i want you to know what i have told australiaa's -- australia's parliament, what i told general petraeus, what i told president obama in the oval office this week, australia will stand firm with our ally, the united states.

friends understand this, that we will stand firm with you, but perhaps more importantly our enemies understand this, too. we must be very realistic abouting afghanistan's future, australia firmly supports the international strategy led by president obama and adopted in lisbon last year. australia is doing our part across the whole of afghanistan. the government of afghanistan must play its part, too. we know transition will take some years. we must not transition out only to transition back in. we must not.

from my discussions with your country's leaders in washington, my meetings with generals in afghanistan, and my time with our troops this is my conclusion, i believe we have the right strategy in place, a resolution, courageous commander in general petraeus, and the resources needed to deliver the strategy. i am cautiously encouraged by what i have seen. for a moment i want you to see afghanistan through the eyes of corporal ben roberts smith. ben is australia yeas most recent victoria cross winner, our equivalent of your medal of honor. then is a veteran of five tours of afghanistan, and first went there in 2006. when we met recently, his words to me were compelling. he said, it's not the same

country i wept to five years ago. we are making a difference. friends, there are hard days ahead. i flew to your country the day after attending the funeral of a young australian who served in afghanistan. jamie lashingah, was from my home state of south australia. from a small community with the most perfectly australia yain name, kangaroo island -- australian name, kangaroo island . his ambition was to serve his contry. he was a long way from home when he made the ultimate sacrifice. we will remember. i know very many young americans

who serve their country and lost their lives in afghanistan, too. as a friend we share your grief. as an ally we share your resolve . afghanistan must never again be a safe haven for terrorism. just as our security alliance is one for war and peace, our economic partnership is one for hardship and prosperity. in hard days we work together. our societies share a deep understanding of the importance of work. we believe life is given purpose and direction by work. without work there is corrosive aimlessness. with the loss of work comes the loss of dignity. that's why in each of our

countries the great goal of all we do in the economy is the same, that great goal is to ensure that everyone who can work does work. in turn, this is why each of our countries talk early -- took early and strong action in the face of the greatest threat to the world's economy since the great depression. and we did not just act locally or individually, we worked hard together when we -- we worked together when hardship came. it was difficult but we did it together. new global realities and the emerging economic weight of countries like china, india, and brazil meant the vital forums, the global response with the g-20 nation. my predecessor, kevin rudd, worked hard to ensure this was so. the world needed a global response to the economic crisis,

and global leadership was vital. together the g-20 coordinated $5 trillion in fiscal stimulus for the global economy. while there has been very real pain, the global response averted true economic disaster. economic stimulus has been crucial. to limit the worst effects of the downturn, economic reform is crucial now to deliver the best hope for a strong recovery. like you, i'm a leader in a democracy, i know reform is never easy. but i know reform is right. the general economic outlook remains fragile and uncertain. global economic balance and we must address them or risk future instability.

your leadership in the g-20 is still needed to ensure we make the reforms which will keep the global economy on the path to strong, sustained, and balanced growth. and that is the path to growth in america as well. we worked hard with you during the global economic crisis to resist protectionist pressures. our decades working together to promote free trade in the world. i know many of you worked hard to achieve the australia-u.s. free trade agreement. can i say each of you today, thank you. our free trade agreement shows the benefits of free-throw and we aim for even larger benefits from the transpacific partnership which is a great

economic opportunity for our two countries and seven of our regional partners. and we have other opportunities to promote trade and jobs as well. i'm looking forward to your country hosting the meeting later this year. we will work closely together there. australia is also working for an ambition and balanced conclusion of the w.t.o. doha round as soon as possible. and we look forward to your congress passing a 2012 farm bill that advances free-throw rather than distorting it. and through free-throw creates jobs. we know the equation is simple, trade equals jobs. a very simple equation. our society shares a deep understanding of the importance of work, and our societies share a deep commitment to the value

of education. we understand education's transformative power. we know education is the future for every child who learns. we also know education is the future for our economy. our future growth relies on competitiveness and innovation. skills and productivity. and these in turn rely on the education of our people. australia and america are partners in a globalized world where open societies flourish and competitive economies thrive. that's why i went to a school until wakefield, virginia, with president obama this week. the president and i not only saw children learning, we saw the future of your people and the future of your prosperity as well.

australians are deeply grateful to your greatest generation for their mighty deeds. this week i have seen a new generation of americans. i genuinely believe they can be greater still. achieving prosperity while sharing its benefits requires farsighted educational reform. in the same way achieving growth while caring for our climate requires farsighted economic reform. breaking the link between economic growth and emissionings growth is a difficult challenge for our economies, and we conal -- can only achieve it by working together. our cooperation in key international forum and research and development is making an important contribution. we must work together to acheeve

an his tork transition -- historic transition to high technology, high skills, clean energy economy. shared values are the basis of our security alliance, and shared values are the basis of our economic partnership as well. through hard work and education, we can deliver a strong economy and opportunity for all. americans are great optimists, and australians will always have a go. so conceived in the pacific war and born in the cold war, adapted to the space age, and invoked in the face of terror our indispensable alliance is a friendship for the future. it is this year the 60th anniversary of the signing of

our treaty. it is because of that i have the opportunity to speak to you today. for that i'm grateful. as i said to president obama, it is an alliance 60 years young with so much future to share. and this is a timely opportunity not so much for reflection on the past as a discussion of our future. the bipolar world in which our alliance was signed has long since disappeared. i'm not sad about its passing. hundreds of millions of people have a better life today. democracy and human dignity has spread wide in the world in the last 20 years. we have seen this from eastern europe to east asia in recent years, and we have seen the hope of it in the middle east right now. we understand that nothing is certain. there is still much for the

people of the middle east to do. and the governments of the world will be there to help them do it. yet i believe what we are seeing is unchanging realities of human nature, finding a new expression in a new light. for australia's part, we will do what we can and work with you to support orderly transitions to democracy. to foster human rights and religious freedom within the countries of the middle east. and to secure lasting peace between them. a peace where no nation threatens another. which is why we join you in condemning iran nuclear program.

and we also strive for peace, a peace where israel is secure and where palestinians have a state of their own, which is why we join you in calling on all parties to negotiate in good faith. our lives were signed 60 years ago in the cold war and released in a new world today. and the changes in the middle east, i believe it is in the asia pacific where the global order is changing the most. we admire india's example as a true democracy. we never forget indonesia's transition to create the world's third largest democracy in the world's largest islamic country. and we applaud china's lifting some 500 million people out of poverty.

the global, strategic, and economic weight is shifting to this region. the rise of the asia pacific will define our times. like you, our relationship with china is important and conflict. we encourage china to engage. and we ask where difference does lie. my guiding principles is that prosperity can be shared. we can create wealth together. the global economy is not a zero sum game. prosperity there is no rein for chinese prosperity to detract anywhere in the world. america has always understood

this principle of the economy that everyone can benefit when everyone competes. and for 60 years your leadership in the asia pacific has showed this. your commitment to free trade and investment fuels the growth. your presence, a net work of allies ensures the stability. you were indispensible in the cold war and you are indispensible in the new world too. so your growing engagement with key countries in the region like japan, india, south korea and indonesia, is enormously welcomed. we will work closely with you to strengthen the fabric of these relationships and underpin regional stability. strengthening regional institutions so that the countries that the asia-pacific increasingly manage the friction of a growing and changing asia-pacific.

that's why your nation's decision to join the east asia summit is such good news. the summit brings the leaders of the region's major powers together and has a mandate to deal with the whole range of economic, political and security issues our countries face. our relationship is evolving to meet these new challenges. from defense and intelligence to diplomacy and trade. australia and the south with south korea and japan to the north form real asian-pacific relationships with the united states. regional stability. an alliance which was strong in the cold war, an alliance which is strong in the new world. in both of our countries, true friends stick together. our nations do this and our people do this as well.

nothing better tells this truth than the story of two firefighters. many australians and americans work together in the late 1990's to be ready to protect the 2000 sidney olympics from possible terrorist attacks. one spent two months in new york training and working, including a long time with new york's fire department rescue one. they worked hard together and became more than colleagues. they became meats. so -- they became mates. so when it was time to go home, the australian commander gave rescue one chief his australian army hat and the chief presented the australian with a battled scarred fire helmet. december, 1998, and signed by members of the rescue one crew, including kevin.

three years later, kevin was one of the hundreds of new york firefighters killed when the towers came down. kevin led his people. his remains were never found but his helmet was in australia. an aussie firefighter rob frey found kevin's sons. jane is one of new york's bravest. a firefighter, like his father before him. patrick is wearing his country's uniform in afghanistan. rob came to america to give james the helmet his father signed, a precious possession, a last link to a father lost. and i give you their story of precious position too. these two men are here today, rob, james.

rob, james, we are so proud of what you represent. your story about the friendship between australia and the united states. together in the hardest of times, friends for the future. when our alliance was signed 60

years ago, the challenges of the space age was still to come. the challenges of terrorism was still to come. for 60 years, leaders from australia and the united states have looked inside themselves and found the courage, the courage to face those challenges. and after 60 years, we do the same today, to protect our people, to share our prosperity, to safeguard our future. for ours is a friendship for the future. it has been from its founding and it remains so today. you have a friend in australia, and you have an ally, and we know what that means. in both our countries, true friends stick together. in both our countries, real

mates talk straight. so as a friend, i urge you only this -- be worthy to your own best traditions. be bold. in 1942, john curtin, my predecessor, my country's great wartime leader, looked to america. i still do. this year you marked the centennial of president reagan's birth. he remains america's symbol of great optimism. the only greatest symbol of american optimism is america itself. the eyes of the world are still upon you. your city on a hill cannot be hidden.

your brave and free people have made you the masters of recovery and reinvention. as i stand before you in this, this cradle of democracy, i see a nation that changed the world, a nation that has known remarkable days. i firmly believe you are the same people who amazed me when i was a small girl by landing on the moon. on that great day i believed americans could do anything. i believe that still, you can do anything. thank you.

the speaker: the purpose of the joint meeting having been completed, the chair declares the joint meeting of the two houses now dissolved. the house will continue in recess subject to the call of the chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] senators today defeated got

proposals to cut federal spending in the cunling year. h.r. 1, a house passed republican bill to cut 61 -- $61 billion from the fiscal 2011 budget failed 54-46. no democrat voted for it. three members of the senate tea party caucus opposed the g.o.p. bill. senators from south carolina, rands paul of kentucky and mike lee of utah. the democratic alternative plan to cut $4.7 billion in federal spending fell short by a vote of 42-58. 10 democrats and one independent, bernie sanders of vermont, joined republicans in voting against the bill. the current short-term continuing resolution on federal spending expires next friday, march 18. for more on today's vote and what's ahead, we spoke to a capitol hill reporter. >> swuss michael o'brien of "the hill." what do today's test votes reveal about any potential for a compromise on federal spending?

>> well, they reveal right now that there is no compromise on spending. i think that's the fairly obvious point. what these sort of demonstrated was that both the democratic proposal are not viable in their current form. they can't get the votes in the senate. so it's sort of points to a moment where democratic and republican leaders with the aid of the obama administration are going to have to find some place in the middle between those two proposals. >> is there any middle ground senator out there, a group of senators that either side is looking to work with? >> well, there's this group of six, a group of six members, three democrats, three republicans, who sat on president obama's fiscal commission. what they're working on is a longer term spending deal that would bring down the deficit and debt over time. however, senator charles shumer from new york, a leading democrat in the senate, said this morning that that sort of approach kind of provides the framework for a deal so that

sort of bipartisan spirit, whether or not that's going to come to fruition, we'll see. >> and you reported on senator shumer's remarks from earlier today that the senator called for what he, quote, reset in the budget. what is he looking for particularly? what is he calling for? approach to both the short-term and long-term spending should take a look at a variety of things. revenue raisers, reductions in mandatory spending, so programs like health care, medicare, social security, although he didn't specifically mention in domestic discretionary spending. democrats complained that this current spending bill is solely focused on domestic discretionary spending and cuts too heavily from that which is a key point of contention. >> so reading the tea leaves on chuck shumer's comments, does he indicate that everything should be on the table? >> well, you know, we saw a statement from senate majority leader harry reid who said that a number of options should be on the table.

he released in this afternoon, except for social security. democrats are very wary of touching that traditional third rail and they know they'd be under a lot of pressure from their liberal base if they do. >> what's the white house in all of this -- where's the white house in all of this? >> the white house is sort of keeping its distance and doing its part behind closed doors. speaker boehner today as well as senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. he tried to reach senator reid but fail. they're sort of guiding things. however, the white house press secretary did get a question this afternoon and said, you know, given the question whether they should sort of restart like senator schumer has said and take a look at all options, the white house said they'd prefer to focus on domestic discretionary spending at this point. >> the bill expirings next friday, march 18, what's going to happen? >> well, there's going to be several options and scenarios. if the government runs out of money on march 18 it would face a shutdown.