this is the islamic american hearing live. keith ellison is now testifying at this hearing. you could watch it on c-span3. you can listen to it on c-span radio. 90.1 in the washington/baltimore area. and you can listen to it or watch it at c-span.org. go there and you can what this hearing live without comment. the house of representatives is now in session. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 10, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable robert e. latta to act as speaker pro tempore on this day.

signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognize nation between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. yesterday, dennis kucinich, ron paul and i, along with other colleagues, held a press conference to announce house concurrent resolution 28, which would require the president to withdrawal all united states armed forces from afghanistan by the end of 2011. last month's "u.s.a."/gallup

poll, 72% of americans favor congressional action this year to bring our troops home from afghanistan. this week, the rasmussen report finds that 52% of voters want our troops home from afghanistan this year. and to quote this poll, a majority of voters for the first time support an immediate withdrawal of all u.s. troops from afghanistan or the creation of a timetable to bring them all home within a year. 14 months ago i asked a retired military general to advise me on afghanistan. i have asked him for his thoughts, and i will read some of them to you. back in november i emailed this general and i said, what do you think about the possibilities of being in afghanistan for four more years? and, mr. speaker, i am going to read his quote. i do not believe that 40 more years would guarantee victory, whatever that is. the war is costing money and

lives all in short supply. mr. speaker, there's a retired lieutenant colonel in jacksonville, north carolina, which is in my district. he served in the united states marine corps for 31 years. his name is dennis adams. he wrote me a letter and the last paragraph of the letter i'd like to read to the house. i urge you to make contact with all the current and newly elected men and women to congress and ask them to end this war and bring our young men and women home. if any of my comments will assist you in this effort you are welcomed to use them and my name. mr. speaker, i want to show the faces -- i want to show the faces of war and the faces of pain. this is a young man whose name is philip jordan. at the time of his father's death, his father was a gunny sergeant, he was 6 years of age. i wish people could see the eyes of this young man 6 years of age with a folded flag.

this is war. children feel war as adults feel war. mr. speaker, i also want to show you. this is a poster from the honor guard at dover walking a transfer case, which most people know is a cauven, it's the remains -- coffin, it's the remains. this, again, is war and the pain of war. mr. speaker, this is a beautiful, handsome couple. it's a young marine, his wife and his wife. this young marine had been deployed so much that he developed ptsd. and a year ago on the main drag at camp lejeune, known as mchuge boulevard, he committed suicide. he step out of the car, put a gun to his head and commuted suicide. mr. speaker, i hope members

will join us and mr. kucinich to begin this debate. let's bring our troops home before we break the military. it is time to bring our troops home from afghanistan. mr. speaker, i always ask god to bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to bless our families. i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god. and i ask god to give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of god. and three times i will ask, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to chairman upton's dirty air act.

in 2007, the supreme court issued the massachusetts vs. e.p.a. decision directing the e.p.a. to examine greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the public health. e.p.a. conducted a highly credible peered review scientific analysis under the bush e.p.a. and the obama e.p.a. this was not a political analysis. it was a scientific analysis. but that has not stopped the chairman from trying to legislativively undermine scientific fact. according to the e.p.a., president nixon's clean air act will prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020. but chairman upton has decided with much help from corporate polluters, lobbyists that the fiscal and physical well-being of the american people are less important than big oil's

importance and big oil's billion dollar bottom line next quarter. the bottom line for america is that undermining e.p.a. science will cost trillions. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nudgely, for five minutes. mr. nunnelee: the rising gas prices are a serious strain on an economy that is beginning to show small signs of recovery. right now, the average gas price in mississippi is $3.50 a gallon. and i don't think anybody would be surprised if that number continues to rise. every time gas prices go up by one penny, that costs american consumers $4 million a day. families in north mississippi have been dealing with tight budget for the last couple of

years. and rising gas prices severely impact an already tightened family budget. we all know that ultimately gas prices will be passed onto in higher prices through higher transportation costs, increased cost of groceries and other commodities. when there's no extra money in the pocketbooks, there is no padding in the family budget to deal with this higher cost of living associated with oil prices. with what's happening in the middle east coupled with third world countries that places demand on foreign energy demands, that's going to cost gas prices to further increase. this problem is serious and it needs to be addressed now. it needs to be addressed through exploring more domestic energy production. however, president obama has offered a short-term solution,

tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve. this strategic petroleum reserve is available for national emergencies in a time of crisis. mississippians can all agree that when president bush tapped into the strategic reserve during the aftermath katrina, it was in response to an un foreseeable disaster. when we tap into this when gases are at $4 a gallon, what will happen when resources are depleted? it does nothing to protect america from future energy prices skyrocketing, nor does it help lead toward american energy independence. from the beginning, the obama administration has failed to initiate a serious energy policy. instead, this administration has actively taken steps to block or delay american energy production, therefore, making

us more dependent on unstable foreign countries' oil production. recently, we remembered the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's inauguration. and following that inauguration, the president stood in this very chamber and challenged our nation to make it a national goal to place a man on the moon and return him safely back to earth before the decade is out. today, we should make it a national priority that before the end of this decade the united states should achieve energy security and energy independence. by actively producing our own energy resources, america will not only be independent from volatile regions of the world, but we will supply our own energy. now, there's no single silver bullet, and republicans support an all-of-the-above approach which includes more american oil, more american national gas, coal and nuclear energy.

we need to expand u.s. oil exploration immediately in the gulf of mexico and alaska. the gulf produces nearly 1/3 of our domestic oil. offshore natural gas produced in the gulf region accounts for 13% of the total u.s. production. however, a de facto moratorium still exists. even though the official moratorium was lifted last may and october. not only is the gulf lost 12,000 quality jobs because of the moratorium, but the -- these rigs are actively leaving that region and moving to foreign countries such as cuba, brazil and mexico. in february, federal judge feldman gave the department of interior 30 days to rule on seven deepwater drilling permits. as of today, only one of those permits has been issued. and that's simply inexcusable. this negligence fails to meet the struggling needs of the u.s. economy and that's why i'm

a proud sponsor of h.r. 140, which calls for streamlining for shallow and deep-water drilling in the gulf. in 2008, president obama put the entire pacific coast, the eastern gulf coast off-limits to future energy production. this includes a large portion of alaska's outer continental shelf. even though expanding production would ultimately create upwards of 1.2 million jobs and generate $8 trillion in economic output. that's why we must immediately begin a long-term energy policy and begin to drill today to deal with higher gas prices. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: mr. speaker, the effects of the foreclosure crisis and economic downturn has had a devastating impact on american families. because of shoddy business

practices and enormous risks taken by big banks, our housing and financial system have utterly collapsed, and in the wake of this destruction, millions of americans have lost their jobs, their homes and their quality of life. as the casualties rows and they clammered for some re-- rose and they clammered for some relief, the government stepped in. government foreclosure relief programs alone just aren't enough. we should do more, more to fix the housing market and more, especially to create jobs because putting people back to work will do more to right our economy, help people pay their mortgages and get the banks back to lending than anything else. but the republican house leadership hasn't gotten the message. in the last 10 weeks since the republicans took control of the house, they haven't created a single job. what's worse, they haven't even put a single jobs bill on the

house floor. instead of creating jobs, they are slashing them. the g.o.p. spending plan eliminates 700,000 jobs and stiffles economic growth. rather than moving the nation forward, they are forcing america backwards. and this week is no different. republicans are making things worse for american families as they continue their assault on the middle class. they want to completely abolish four programs designed to help homeowners keep their houses and avoid foreclosure. republicans have no interest in making these programs work better for the american people. by offering nothing in their place, the g.o.p. is simply abandoning hardworking homeowners who are underwater and struggling to find jobs to pay the bills. now, we all know that government foreclosure programs are not perfect.

but why are we completely dismantling programs that have helped thousands of americans stay in their homes? though not perfect, why are we targeting the victims of the foreclosure and financial crises instead of helping them by fixing these programs? there's a lot that we can do better without giving up on people like francisco. francisco is from my district. after a year he was under water at the height of the recession. he tried to modify his home loan. . he was pushed back and forth tweep customer representatives. after two years of fighting for help, he only had four pieces of mail from the lender to show for it. he was eventually denied the modification and he can't even appeal the decision. and though we should be doing more to help him, the republican plan of doing nothing means that he's completely out of luck.

commonsense improvements can be made to the government foreclosure program. ones that could provide relief. take the home affordable modification program, or hamp. simple fixes like having a case manager assigned to each case would allow for better communication between the customer and bank. if a customer is denied a loan modification, it would be more effective to appeal the decision instead of having to reapply all over again. and we can do more to provide incentives for banks to complete modifications and ensure that servicers complete due diligence before denying modifications. these are reasonable solutions that servicers have been slow to adopt if at all. and if we don't make changes to these programs and instead just throw them away, what will struggling homeowners be left

with? they will be left to the banks whose bad policies caused this financial crisis in the first place. they will be left with unstable communities strewn with abandoned homes. and they will be left without a home and no one to turn to for help. it sounds like republicans would rather return to old policies that we know don't work rather than trying to fix the policies we know that can work. struggling americans deserve better than that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. paul: the important question being asked today with regards to foreign policy is should united states impose a no-fly zone over libya? there are leaders on both sides

of the congress and leaders on both parties who are now advising this as well as individuals in the administration. it is my opinion that we should not, it would be foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very carefully before we go expanding the wars that we are already involved in. we are in two major wars with iraq and afghanistan, and that involves pakistan and yemen already. so to go into libya now and impose a no-fly zone. we have to remember a no-fly zone is an act of war. what moral right do we have to participate in war activity against libya? libya hasn't done anything to the united states. they are not a threat to our national security. there's been no aggression. there's no constitutional authority for a president to willy-nilly go and start placing no-fly zones over countries around the world.

and you 2340e we tried this -- we tried this -- you know we tried this in the in the 1990's and did it for eight or nine years. we had a no-fly zone along with sanctions, blockades around iraq. and finally it ended up with war. the wars were based on lies. when that happened they said, yes, but it was well worth it because we got rid of a bad guy. but we also lost close to 4,500 american military people. 30 some thousand severe injuries. hundreds of thousands now applying for disability because we went to car when we shouldn't have gone to war. and to expand this car now makes no sense whatsoever. it's against international law. it challenges the war powers resolution. and for that reason we should stop and think. congress should act. i'm proposing -- preparing to introduce a resolution next week and it's a sense of congress that executive branch can't do this without approval from the

congress. why should we do this? do you think it will cost them money? yes, it's going to cost a ton of money. it's going to -- innocent people will be killed. you can't just all of a sudden turn a switch and say don't fly over libya. you have to bomb a lot of anti-aircraft sites, a lot of military establishment. so the war is on. and from my viewpoint this is the kind of thing that's been going on too long. it contributes significantly to our bankruptcy. we are now spending approximately $1 trillion a year maintaining our empire around the world. we are in the process ever remaking all the borders and leadership in the middle east, central asia, now north africa we get involved. we invested $70 billion trying to prop up a dictator in egypt. look how that ended up. now we are hustling around to find out who the next dictator is. if we get involved, i'm not sure they even know who to bomb and

which one and who is going to come out on top. that is an internal matter. it's a civil war that's going on. and we can -- it is not a justification to place the burden on the american people, both militarily and individualwise as well as monetarily. some would say that, yes, that sounds good. i agree with you. but as long as we get approval from the u.n. and nato, it will be ok. that's just a cop out. what army and air force and technology does the u.n. have and what does nato have? you get a resolution, the u.n., say, let's take out this bad guy and do these things. or nato does it. they are all our airplanes, all our money, no matter what, anything and everything that goes wrong, the united states will be blamed for it. there's enough resentment against us already for pretending that we can tell every other country how to live. the best way to look at this, i believe, is how would we as a

people, how would we as a congress, respond if we were a weaker nation and there was a stronger nation that they came and imposed no-fly zone over us? or had sanctions against us? or had a blockade? we wouldn't accept that. that would unify us. so i don't buy into this thing that -- this is the only humanitarian thing we can do is expand the war. if we want to do something for humanity, we need a new foreign policy. we need a foreign policy that isn't built on mill tarism -- militarism, it's built on cooperation and trade and not picking our dictators. look what happened after we picked the dictator for iran. it lasted 25 years, but eventually it radicalized the islamists and they had a revolution and we came out on the short end of that. i think it's time that we reassess this and think about a policy that makes a lot more sense than economically we need to do it. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley, for five minutes. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i have been in congress now for 12 years. the very first speech i made on the floor of the house was why nuclear waste should not be stored at yucca mountain, nevada. i cannot believe 12 years from when i first made that speech i am back in the well of the house talking about why nevada should not be the nuclear repository -- site for the nuclear repository for this country. president obama defunded the yucca mountain project. let me tell you why he took this very bold step. because 77% of the people of the state of nevada do not want nuclear waste stored at in. -- yucca mountain.

there are ground water issues, seismic activity, volcanic activity, and it is 90 miles from a major population center of las vegas. it is dangerous. there are no current e.p.a. standards. why is that? no current e.p.a. radiation standards? because there is no way to set radiation standards for material that has a radioactive half shelf life of 300,000 years. but the republican budget that has just been submitted resurrects yucca mountain. and starts the process of dumping another $100 billion into a hole in the nevada desert where there will never, ever be any nuclear waste stored. at the same time that the majority is calling for spending more money to dump nuclear waste at yucca mountain, they are also pushing for devastating cuts that will end the loan guarantees for our new solar power plant in the state of

nevada near the community. the result will mean the loss of 600 jobs at a time when the silver state has double-digit unemployment. almost 15% of the people that live in nevada have no job and they are going to take away 600 more by this very foolish act. construction of this new solar plant will not only provide hundreds of paychecks to nevada workers, it will also supply enough clean and renewable energy to power 75,000 homes in the state of nevada. without these loan guarantees, that are now on the republican chopping block, this solar pro ject's bright future is looking mighty, mighty dim. tapping renewable energy sources like the wind and solar and geothermal all in great abundance in the state of nevada is where the future of this nation and certainly nevada's energy needs are. do we want to continue to rely on the saudis and venezuelans

and libyans for our energy needs to be met? i don't think so. renewable is the way to go. this nation and nevada's future is in clean energy not in nuclear waste stored at yucca mountain. yet the republicans want to cut funding for solar and other renewable resources that can be harnessed to provide clean energy and job for our local workers. and they are pushing these cuts while calling for $100 billion to be dumped down a hole in the middle of the nevada desert. as i said 90 miles from a major population center. i reject these efforts to restore the funding to yucca mountain. it's more wasteful spending at a time that they are talking about fixing the deficit. this is no way to do it by adding an extra $100 billion. i will make this pledge to you now. there will be no nuclear waste shift to yucca mountain because it will be shifted over my dead body. i will lay across those railroad

tracks and stop that train from depositing nuclear waste in my great state. i oppose the cuts as much as i oppose the funding of yucca mountain. i oppose the cuts in the solar energy loan guarantee program that will cut 600 jobs from the state of nevada and prevent us from moving forward for a bright, renewable energy future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, for five minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. i come before the house this morning with great sorrow but also with great honor to celebrate the life of lance corporal ramon johnson who answered his nations call -- nation's call of duty in 2007 after graduating in gicks. -- 2006. on october 13, 2010, he made the

ultimate sacrifice. while serving his country and protecting his country and fellow service men -- servicemen abroad. he was killed while conducting combat operations in the hell mund province of afghanistan. -- helmund province of afghanistan. he was employed to afghanistan as part of the first battalion, eighth marine regiment, second marine division out of camp lejeune, north carolina. he leaves behind his mother, his father, a sister, a brother, who serves in the georgia national guard. he also leaves behind a nephew. ramon desired to become a united states marine from an early age. family members call ramon's spending hours playing military video games and watching the military channel when he was a teenager. ramon began training to enter the service even before he graduated from high school.

he passed up recruitment offers from the navy, army, and air force to join the marines. many family members were apprehensive about ray moan joining the marines, but he felt that it was his duty to serve. he told his family, don't try to worry about me much. i'm glad i'm doing what i always wanted to do. friends and family members who recalled ramon remember a young man who was not only driven to serve his country but also someone who was caring, compassionate, and filled with integrity. at his funeral, his twin brother remembered the good times he and his brother had baking cakes with their grandmother. his uncle, a reverend and former marine said, ramon wanted to fight for a cause. like all men and women in the armed services, lance corporal johnson wanted to serve his country bravely, and he did. he took satisfaction in his job

every day because he knew his work touched so many millions of people. he was encouraged every day because he truly felt that the afghani people appreciated what the u.s. military was doing. he desired to build a school for the afghani children once the taliban had been driven out. no words can express the loss of lance corporal johnson's family and how they feel. i'm proud to salute such a fine young son, brother, uncle and friend. . the young men and women of our armed serves continue to make sacrifices every day for a nation that they love and a nation that will never forget to remember the debt that they paid. thank you, ramon johnson. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yolds back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes.

without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, it's been two years, five months and 23 days since lehman brothers collapsed and the wall street dominos began to fall. it's been 2 1/2 years since wall street mortgage bond traders and their criminal management brought the world financial world to its knees. there hasn't been one person held accountable for it. not one conviction. the biggest scandal in american history and there's been no jail time for anyone. we democrats cleaned up the mess. we saved the country from riots in the streets, but no one was convicted. i think a lot of voters, tea party voters included, are seething with anger about the injustice. riding this wave of voter anger two weeks ago this house passed one of the worst bills ever

considered in congress, h.r. 1, a bill the republicans called a budget that was nothing but an attack on children and working people in this country. i think all the people who voted for it should be ashamed. budgets are moral document. they say what a country's priorities are, but looking at what the republicans passed in this house, it's hard to believe that the bill is what tea party voters really bargained for in the last election. in the papers this week, we're reading that the tea party freshmen are now going to school. they are taking classes on the federal budget. budget 101 is what they call it. so after they balanced the books of the country entirely on the backs of children and women they are actually learning a thing or two about the budget. it's about time. learning the basics after the vote, but i don't think the tea party voters wanted a war on children. tea party freshmen certainly didn't run on that basis.

i think the voters look at what this country has been through in the last few years and they see the terrible injustice of it. i don't think the tea party movement is about punishing women and children and poor people. i think they want commonsense justice. mr. speaker, only 12% of the country's budget is spent on these important programs for the needy. when you cut these programs you pull american children out of head start, you put americans on the street, you let the bridges we go to work on crumble. the budget deficit will drop $500 billion in two years. now, that deficit will slowly rise again. this slow rise in the coming year is the big issue and is caused by two things. increased health care costs and a defense budget that is out of control. mr. speaker, we're going to fix

the long-term budget deficit of this country by lowering health care costs and by having a sensible defense budget. we aren't going to do it in an orgy of intolerance and demon great lakes of the middle class and working people in this republican -- demonization of the middle class and working people in this republic. tea party voters have been brought to think that basic services and public employees is where the big savings are. that is a terrible myth and a terrible disservice to the public. i hope the tea party members in the house quickly learn the basic math of the budget, defense and health care spending, not about pushing more children into poverty. every member of this house ought to watch the "60 minutes" segment from last sunday night on children who are living in

cars, living in motels, living in shelters because they lost their homes. 25% of american children in this country are living in poverty. that show looked like we were looking at bangladesh. that's what we ought to be pointing to, not spending our time out here today on h.r. 830 , whacking the daylights out of another bill to prevent foreclosures. it's simply not what america is about and i urge all my colleagues to vote no and go and pull up on the web that segment from last sunday night and look at the faces of those children. and realize you're creating their lives by the kind of economy you put together. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes.

mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to congratulate the gentleman from washington state for focusing america on what the issues are before us. in recent weeks i've come to the floor to argue that the republican spending plan does two extremely harmful things. it weakens our economy and fails to seriously reduce our debt. democrats agree that cutting spending is part of the solution to our difficult problems that confront us. but we also believe that cuts should be smart and targeted, not reckless. rather than cutting investments in growth at the same time our international competitors are ramping up theirs, democrats support the make it in america agenda, a plan to invest in innovation, manufacturing, jobs and middle-class opportunity. that's what the president talked about in his state of the union, and he was right.

unfortunately, the consensus that the republicans' spending plan is that we will halt our economic recovery and cost jobs is widespread and nonpartisan. fed chairman ben bernanke, apointed by president bush, tells us that the plan will cost, and i quote, a couple of hundred thousand jobs. macroeconomic advisors tell us that the republican plan will wipe out approximately 450,000 jobs. moody's an lytics chief advisor , zandi, tells us it will cost up to 700,000 jobs. the economic policy institute puts the number at 800,000 jobs. whatever the precise number, it is a large number of jobs that will be lost if we pass the republicans' budget solutions. what they want to do, as the

gentleman from washington state said, this is all exempt. this is security. these are all mandatory spending. this small slice of the budget, about $460 billion, though republicans want to cut by 22%, give or take a percentage point. so they're not -- they're holding harmless almost all of 85% to 86% of the money that we spend and say we cut from education, from health care, from children, from community development projects, the guts of what makes our communities have a better quality. at the same time i've argued that the republican spending plan barely puts a dent in our budget deficit. it's reasonable to ask, how can this plan have such severe consequences for our economy yet so little impact on our fiscal predicament? this chart helps us answer the question.

all of the proposed cuts, all of the cuts come from this small slice of the budget. the category of our budget called nonsecurity discretionary spending, but nonsecurity discretionary spending, as i've said, the gentleman from washington state said 12%. we have here 14%. it's in that neighborhood, depending upon exactly what you include as security or nonsecurity. when the attempt to find $100 billion in savings and when you insist on getting these savings from 14% of the budget, you have to cut very deeply into absolutely essential projects and programs for our people. you have to cut billions in funding into the medical cures and energy technology for -- you have to kick 200,000-plus children off of head start. you even have to cut port and transit security by 2/3. let me say that again.

they are cutting port and transit security by 2/3 while they're holding terrorism hearings. the chairman of the house homeland security committee, a republican, said those cuts were, and i quote, too dangerous. as david brooks recently argued, congress should, quote, never cut without an evaluation process. but instead, legislators, quote, he referred to the republican initiatives, are simply cutting on the basis of what's politically easy and what vaguely seems expendable. closed quote. it may be possible to portray taking on the 14% of the budget is fiscally responsible, but only because doing so exploits americans' misunderstanding of the budget. a recent poll shows that 63% of americans think we spend more

on defense and foreign aid than we do on medicare and social security. all the blue, all the green and then the yellow. that small sliver which, by the way, includes discretionary foreign policy expenditures. mr. speaker, i thank you for the time. i urge our citizens to look at the consequences of these cuts and look at the small sliver that the republicans are focusing themselves on and you and i on. we need to see the whole picture if we're going to come to grips with the challenge that confronts us, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, the national football league

contract bargaining fight could teach an important lesson to the governor of wisconsin about how to ensure high-quality teachers in his state. when governor walker dictates that teachers will lose their collective bargaining rights except for negotiations over pay, he shows how out of touch he is with the teaching profession, with school reform in america and, frankly, with the american workplace. having a voice at work has never been just about pay. it's about whether america's workplace will respect and nurture workers' skills, their ability or ingenuity or will it simply crush their spirit? it's about the total workplace and the ability of workers to be valued by and to add value to the enterprise. whether that enterprise is a school, a factory or an nfl team. ask yourself this -- if he could, would governor walker limit collective bargaining for the world champion green bay packers to just the question of

pay? if he tried he would discover rapidly that in the world of millionaires as in the world of teachers it is not just about pay. it's about the quality of the job and the career. the governor would quickly discover that as important as pay is in the world of pro sports, an nfl player cares about the conditions of employment. he knows that his ability to get to that all-important second contract is governed by more than just his talent. will he have to play 16 or 18 games? what is the increased likelihood of concussions or other injuries that could end his career from an extended schedule or fewer practice games? probably good for the wallet but is it good for the player? the nfl owners who are worth $40 billion, want the players to give back $$1 billion, saying they need to build new stadiums. is that with or worth the taxpayers' help? the players ought to find out. yes, in the world of megastar

athletes, pay is important, but the workplace dictates so many important issues that nfl players must be concerned with if they are reached the potential of their profession for which they have trained their whole lives. research tells us that a very significant number of teachers start thinking about a career in teaching while they're in middle school. not too different from athletes who start to get serious about their athletic futures. like an athlete, the teacher's desire will not be enough to sustain his or her career. other important elements are involved to ensure a teacher's success and the success of his or her students. how will teachers be supported in schools? what will their access to meaningful professional development? will teachers be given time to perfect lesson plans and presentations? will he or she have a say in campus safety? will they be included in a reform decision that are made for schools and for students? all over america, school

districts are changing the rules. from the mere platitude that teachers are the most influence outside the home in the education of our children to really making to possible. districts are soliciting teachers' view to improve both the learning and the teaching environment. it is happening in the states and schools in tough unionized areas where some said could never happen and it will continue because it reflects what the new and dedicated new teachers view as a modern workplace. will results matter -- it's not just about pay. teachers advocate for our children. they advocate for our children when they are sick or troubled or when they are being bullied, when they need help learning. the wisconsin's governor dictating without say, the collaboration that teachers want and expect in their careers is a broken model from the past and it will not give students, parents or our economy the results that our country needs as we enter the

next generation of a highly except tif globalize economy. many teachers -- many americans may not care who wins between the wealthy team owners and the often highly paid nfl players, but no one is suggests that they should lose their right to collective bargaining and only to bargain just on pay. governor walker should stop attacking his state teachers and his public servants. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. almost one in our homeowners in our country is under water. meaning they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. and all of this misery is due to wall street's rigging of our economy.

but on wall street they are popping champagne works. the nation's biggest banks, bank of america, wells fargo, citigroup, j.p. morgan chase, goldman sachs, and morgan stanley, have been raking in huge profits, all at the expense of the american people. in fact, these institutions have doubled in size through predatory mergers since the fall of 2007, and six banks, these six banks, now control 2/3 of the banking system in our country. they cleaned up with profits in 2010, $51.6 billion in profits. more profits than they made before the american people bailed them out. main street is under water, wall street's going on a pleasure cruise. it doesn't take a mental giant to figure who got our money.

accordings to a recent report -- according to a recent report, the economic crisis that wall street precipitated has now caused massive tax revenue shortfalls for the federal government and our state governments totaling nearly $300 billion. this is why people are at one another's throats in wisconsin and ohio and other places. so ordinary americans, teachers, police, firemen are being pink slipped and the american people are being forced to accept cuts in government services while wall street keeps winning and winning big. they know well how to win for themselves. this year bank of america is receiving an income tax refund, are you ready for this? $666 million. america, for 2010. that followed $3.5 billion in refunds that bank of america reported in 2009. bank ever america's federal

income tax benefit this year is roughly two times the obama administration's proposed cuts to the community development block grant program, which is a life line to communities such as i represent, where unemployment is still over 9%. six banks, bank of america, wells fargo, citigroup, j.p. morgan chase, goldman sachs, and morgan stanley together paid income tax at an proximate rate of 11%. those poor companies. of their pre-u.s. tax earnings in 2009 and 2010. had they paid 35%, the federal government would have received an additional $13 billion in tax revenue. you know how much that is? that's enough to cover the salaries of 132,000 teachers whose jobs have been lost since 2008. who do you think caused all the layoffs? wells fargo reportedly received a $4 billion federal income tax

refund on $18 billion in pre-tax income in 2009, and only paid 7.5% on its pretax intomorrow of $19 billion in 2010. its federal benefits for 2009 and 2010 is $2.5 billion which equals the obama administration's cuts to the low-income energy assistance program that is vital in cold weather to senior citizens, particularly women over the age of 80 years in districts like i represent. so who took their money? pretty clear to me. banks use a variety of mechanisms to avoid corporate income taxes, including offshore tax shelters. 50% of these six big banks have 1,871 foreign subsidiaries incorporated in jurisdiction that is we know as offshore tax havens bike the cayman islands. the bank of america operates 371

tax shelter subsidiaries, and 204 in the cayman islands alone. for goldman sachs, 75% of its foreign subsid yars are incorporated -- subsidiaries are incorporated in offshore tack haven. who is paying? you are, the american people. closing tax loopholes for the financial sector, making them pay their fir share ever taxes, and i would support imposing the financial speculation tax could generate more than $150 billion in federal tax revenue. what could be more fair to those who cause such harm to the american people? something's really out of kilter in america and it's not the state budget. it's the balance of power in our bill political system. everywhere you go, big money and wall street wins and the american people pay. mr. speaker, i just say to the american people, think about who hurts our republic and it's not the american working people.

mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you very much. the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in rec >> federal housing administration program that refinances mortgaging higher than the value of the home. a number of amendments are pending. the house will take up a different home mortgage bill tomorrow, eliminate the program to help unemployed homeowners. live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. secretary of state hillary clinton, she's on capitol hill this morning explaining her 2012 spending requests. she has warned against budget cuts this year as well as next year. the state department's growing role in iraq. this is live coverage on c-span.

>> we are reaching out to everybody we possibly can. we did evacuate nonessential personnel and families from cairo, but we left a solid team with a very experienced ambassador. we are bringing people back in. we are talking to everybody who has ever been identified as a potential leader. we are talking on a regular basis, both i am reaching out to the new prime minister, the new foreign minister in egypt, bob gates, and mike mullen reach out to field marshal. we are constantly communicating. it's been -- i think it's been challenging for everyone. starting with them. because who do you negotiate with? who do you bring in to sit down across the table? because by the nature of a lot of these social networks, they are leaderless. they are -- people coming together through technology and through the streets but not designating anybody to be their leader. so the elections are going to be

very important there. >> quick question. aid to equipped, military and otherwise, what can you say about that now? >> i think we have to continue and look for new ways to assist egypt. they had a serious drop in their gross domestic product. their tourism industry was very badly hit. ? fact it stopped. so their economic condition is quite challenging. they have not yet opened up their stock market because they are worried that wealthy egyptians will take money out of the country. they have a lot of big problems. so what we are doing and what i hope to be able to tell them when i get there next week, is that we reprogram with your approval $150 million, $90 million of which we will put into economic assistance, $60 million of which we put into helping them prepare for election, set up political parties, help train people to do their part.

but we are going to have to look at bigger things than that. i know from my conversations with egyptians both inside the government and outside the government, they are not looking to europe. they are not looking to the gulf although they are happy to have their help. they are looking to us. that's a good thing. we need to be there to help them. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you. mr. dicks. >> thank you for your outstanding testimony. one thing i'm concerned about, the situation in iraq, as we build down our military forces, can you give us a picture of what the state department's doing? i know there's a major increase in -- a number of people there, and contractors, can you give us kind of an overview on this and tell us what your concerns are? >> i have a lot of concerns, congressman. i want to go back to also the

chairwoman's comments in her opening remarks. now, we are aiming to be able to take over from our military as they leave. as you know very well, under the agreement signed in the bush administration, the status of forces agreement, all of our troops will be out by the end of this year. most of them will be out by october. and there's been no decision made by the current iraqi government for any kind of request for any of our troops to stay. under the strategic framework agreement that was also signed in the bush administration, the state department and usaid are now expected to take over all those responsibilities. and here's what we are trying to do. we are trying to have a consulate in bags a -- basra which we think is very important in the south, where most of our oil companies are going to be doing business. right across from iran.

we want to obviously keep our embassy in baghdad safe. those of you who have traveled there know that we have a lot of alerts and a lot of missiles that still come in. we don't know what the situation will be once our troops leave. and take their surveillance and their intelligence capabilities with them. we want to have a consulate in kirkuk. we want to have one in the kurdish part of iraq. and branch offices in mosul so that we are able to stay on top of what is continuing center of al qaeda in iraq. all that costs money. we are going to have to put in a very significant number of contract security forces in order to keep our diplomats safe once our military forces leave. the total u.s. government population in iraq following the

2011 transition will be approximately 17,000 personnel. that includes civilians from state, usaid, d.o.d., d.o.j., d.h.s., you name it. plus security contractors. it's going to be 50% security. then we have what are called life support contractors. >> is there a number that goes with that? >> 50% of the 17,000. >> got you. >> so we have 17,000 all together. 50% security. 30% life support contractors, which are the people who prepare the food and do all of that support work. 10% management, aviation security because we have to run our own aviation assets in order to be able to get people around iraq. and then 10% programic -- programmatic staff. we are looking to set up office

of security cooperation outposts in iraq. they will have about 4,000 personnel out of that 17,000. so it is going -- direct hire will be 16% of the total. contractors will make up the other 84%. that is not an optimal situation, in my view, but it is what we have to do in order to meet the obligations we took on under the bush administration. that we accepted in the obama administration. and that we are prepared to fulfill going forward. >> two other things i want to mention. in the last decade the global alliance for vaccine and immunization has provided new access to immunization to almost 300 million children. in that period, it has saved over five million lives in developing countries. is the united states taking a leadership role in supporting gave to save the lives of

children? >> yes. it's one of our most important partners achieving our child health goals. as you know as a partnership we get money from other countries, plus the gates foundation, and we have invested $647 million through f.y. 2010. our f.y. 2012 request is $115 million. that leverages $7 from other contributors which we think is a pretty good deal, and we believe we can demonstrate to you we save five million children's lives, we are on the brink of eliminating polio from the world which would be great news for everybody. . working with the >> still a problem in pakistan, nigeria. >> and northern nigeria, right. so we are working with the -- the imans and the elected

leadership as well that polio vaccine was good for their children. it wasn't some kind of conspiracy that would sterilize their children. we tried to get elected leadership to do public announcements and other things. we put a lot of effort behind it. we couldn't do it without the global alliance because they leverage our money. >> thank you. thank you. madam chair. >> thank you. chairman lewis. >> thank you, madam chairman. before turning to the secretary, let me say that i'd like to echo the remarks to our chairman for coming to this job. you are absolutely going to be a magnificent chairman of this subcommittee. >> thank you. and thank you for helping me get here. both of you. [laughter] >> madam secretary, you and i have had a chance to spend sometime talking about my concerns about india and others in the region. >> yes, sir. >> i cannot tell you the number of occasions i've had to

discuss with my people who have knowledge in the arena, democrat, republican, largely nonpartisan, the numbers who have expressed great appreciation for not just your home work and knowledge but the articulate way you go about expressing our interest in that very diverse world marketplace. and thank you for that. >> thank you. >> having mentioned that, nonetheless, while you were in that former job that you mentioned earlier, you heard a moment ago at a glance relative to what occurred in our successful effort in dealing with the medellin in colombia. indeed we were successful there because we were able to forge a coalition of partners among a number of partners in our hemisphere who were willing to go a long, long way to deal with harshly and directly with the cartels and eventually broke their back and colombia has a chance, then, of being

back as a real world country in our hemisphere. then, you kind of referred to mexico. i know that we're making some efforts to develop similar coalitions. there's absolutely no question we're not going to deal with the breaking of the back of these cartels and this drug scourge without that kind of effort going forward successfully. do you -- can you help the committee what steps are taking place in real terms? >> i will. we have, as i said, focused on mexico with the initiative which predates this administration to try to do in mexico the kind of work that was successful in colombia. and in fact, colombia is now training some mexican law enforcement officials. we have started by building up

institutional support and training as well as providing equipment, helicopters and other things that the mexican government wanted and needed. we are making progress. it is comparable, i would argue, to where we started with oklahoma bee i. where -- with colombia. where, when we started, it looked pretty helpless. it was an insurgencey. hundreds of thousands of people were being dislocated because of the violence. so colombia in many ways was a worse situation than we see in mexico. where the violence is fairly -- i mean, it's horrific but it's fairly limited. there hasn't been massive dislocations internally. we have a president in president calderon who shares the commitment that president uribe had. but this will take time, congressman. this is not easily done. and the other problem we have

which we are addressing is the central american countries. several of them are very weak, very dominated by the drug cartels. so that the southern border of mexico is an area that we have to help the mexicans try to for theify because a lot of the drugs are coming north. a lot of the guns, a lot of the other problems. so we're looking at how we strengthen central america at the same time that we strengthen mexico. and we're making progress. we have a long way to go. >> madam secretary, in mexico we've known for a long, long time that mordida seems to be always alive and well. when we're dealing with cartels and you're dealing with that history, breaking the back of these drug warlords essentially is indeed an intense, difficult task. i believe that both our defense people but also the department of state needs to have our

members, both houses, better know the harsh steps we took to be successful in colombia and the harsh steps, very harsh steps that may be necessary to identify and deal directly with these cartel leaders. >> that's an excellent idea. if i could take you up on your invitation, we'd like to put together a kind of -- hold a government briefing for members who are interested here in the house and then, of course, we would do it in the senate. because i want everybody to know what we're doing, what we're up against. as you probably heard, the attorney general announced arrest in the murder of our consulate employees yesterday. so we're making progress. we're bringing down some of the high-value cartel leaders. but i'd like you to know more and we'd like your help and advice on that. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you. >> and let me thank you for that commitment because it's extremely important.

i believe the congress would respond very positively to that. mr. jackson. please. >> thank you, chairwoman greaninger. welcome back to our subcommittee and thank you for your testimony. mom says hi, by the way. >> thank you. secretary clinton, before 9/11, this is not the first time killing hundreds in inside robery. since 1999, i, along with several bipartisan members have provided compensation to these 12 americans who were bravely serving their countries despite intelligence unbeknownst to the victims to show that they were likely al qaeda targets for the attacks. the congress passed legislation to address the issue only to be held up in the senate. furthermore, the subcommittee has continually risked your department provide the legislative proposal for compensation for state department employees killed by terrorists, yet no such

legislation has been brought forward, and the state department has not brought anything forward since the first request of 1999. i'm sure we will have more in the fiscal year 2012 bill. can you help bring peace to those families? >> i would work with you. i know that this is a passion of yours, congressman, as it is of many of us. i remember meeting families of the victims at the memorial service. and we will certainly see if there is any way. i can't make any promises, but i will certainly work with you on that. >> thank you, madam secretary. about three weeks ago the house passed home run 1, which eviscerated some accounts in the state operations bill and yesterday the senate rejected the bill. they have the fiduciary responsibility to reflect the interest of the american people. the 150 budget represents less than 1% of the total budget. as head of the state department, why should

americans support this funding even in these tough economic times and what's at stake for all americans? >> well, congressman, first, thank you for helping to set the record straight because i know that in many polls the american people think that we can balance our budget by eliminating foreign aid and that foreign aid is 20% to 25% of our budget. so thank you for saying that everything we do in the foreign aid world, which is more than just the state department and usaid is less than 1%. our share of that is obviously about 1%, a little bit less. now, why should a hardworking person in my state of new york or the chairwoman's state of texas or your state of illinois either care about or think we should support this foreign aid budget? and i think there are three reasons. i mean, first of all, i really do believe this promotes american security. i think it gives us tools that

are in addition to and different from our military tools. and i think most americans don't want to see young americans going to war. they'd rather see us prevent war, work with like-minded nations to try to help societies resolve conflicts, which is what our diplomats and our development experts do every day. and it's a lot cheaper than seasoneding america to war one more time. so it promotes our security but it doesn't -- it doesn't substitute for defense but it is an important part of our national security arsenal. second, it supports our interest. i think the american people, as you see the response after the earthquake in haiti or you see the concerns that americans have about drought in africa or hiv-aids or any of the challenges that they -- that they see on their television screens or if you're living along our border with mexico and there are so many ways that

americans are affected by what happens in the world around us. and so promoting our interests is another area where we can't do it without what the state department and the usaid do every day. and finally, it reflects our values. you know, we are a really generous, extraordinary country, and people know that. i sometimes am amused, i go to a country where the leaders may be publicly, you know, criticizing us and then in private they want all the help they can get. they want us to support them. and it's because we are not a former colonial power. we are not an ism like communism or fascism or extremism. we try to help people and that reflects who we are. for our security, interests and values, nearly every american has some concern that fits into one of those categories and that's where it happens. it happens out of our budget.

>> one final and quick question. the chairwoman -- chairwoman granger, ranking member lowey and i found ourselves in a peculiar position late one night defending our bill and to eliminate the institutes of peace. arguments were made on the floor of congress that the state department and the institutes of peace have duplicative things. would the secretary tell us what your mission is and what the institutes of peace does? i thank you for your time. >> well, the institutes of peace is a not for profit institution formed by the congress to operationalize our commitment to peace by working with like minded individuals and groups around the world. you know, sometimes the united states government coming in to train people in democracy is not as effective as seeing one of our expert teams from usit

or u.r.i. or i.n.i. you know, we have face-based groups working on all kinds of value issues. we have n.g.o.'s working on humanitarian, disaster relief and other important matters. and we have these organizations directly funded by our government, which is kind of unique but fills a real place in our whole arsenal of what we can do when we interact with people. >> thank you very much. mr. cole. >> thank you, madam secretary -- excuse me -- madam chairman. i want to add my congratulations as well. i know how i got on this committee. madam secretary, thank you for your testimony, and i'd be remiss not to mention this. you won't recall but the first time i had an opportunity to meet you was during the oklahoma city bombing. i was secretary of state and was put in charge of liaison of the federal government. you and president clinton

performed so magnificently, not just at the moment, but for months and months afterwards as we continued to work through our issues. so thank you very, very much. thank you, as well, for the role i perceive you to have played in developing our current afghanistan policy. you know, that was a tough moment. you may not agree with the analogy, but it's like the surge moment for bush. when you do something that's not very popular and particularly within your own political ranks, perhaps. i think it was very much in the national interest. i appreciate the additional military commitment. i have been on the ground in afghanistan to see what your people in state is doing. it is night and day different than what it was in previous trips. thank you very much. i think it's making an enormous difference. i want to go back to libya for a minute and sort of draw comparison with egypt and get your thoughts. in egypt we have a longstanding relationship, we have a lot of contacts, we have an institution to work with in the army. i can sort of see a more hopeful scenario potentially

unfolding for us. libya is so much more challenging. you know, we have very little in the way of civil society, very little in the way of long-term relationships. we have a dictator who's got a back to the wall, no way out, sort of like saddam hussein, in a sense. he has reason to fight for the last bullet. he has a significant majority. we have very few ways to directly impact this situation. and i know you're getting a lot of competing advice about no-fly zone. i just want to know what your thinking is about how we should proceed, step by step, what kind of assets you think we have to deploy here and what you -- what you envision going forward. >> well, congressman, i think that's the question of the day because that's what we're really focused on, trying to figure out how to get through. thanks for your kind words in oklahoma city. i have a picture of that lone tree that survived, you know,

in my home. you're right. your analysis of libya is right. you know, we didn't have diplomatic relations with libya. we were able, thanks to a lot of good work that lasted over a number of years to get him to give up his nuclear weapons. i was involved upon becoming secretary of state to get like of the h.e.u. out of libya. imagine what we'd be dealing with if that not had been done. he still does have some remaining chemical weapons and some other nasty stuff that we're concerned about. so really we're working on three different levels simultaneously. first, we are working to create an international consensus because we think that is absolutely critical to anything that anybody, especially us, does. you could see that there's a lot of apple biff lens in the international community because

the reason that you pointed out. people don't know what the opposition represents. they don't know the most effective way to try to, you know, get rid of gadhafi. nato is working hard. we are internally in our own government looking at every option imaginable. at the same time we are pushing out on humanitarian assistance. we really believe that getting in as much help, particularly for those leaving libya but also increasingly if we can figure out how to do it safely, assisting those on the ground who are running short of medical supplies, who need doctors, who need in some instances clean water,est, that we'rible -- water, etc., that we're able to help them whenever we can do that. and we're trying to sanction access that he has to his accounts. we're trying to make it clear to the people around him that there will be accountability

through the international criminal port and other steps taken. i appreciate the tenure of your question. this isn't egypt where we had 30 years of relationship. it's much less easily understood situation, but we're making progress. we're talking to a lot of the opposition leaders. i will, as i said, will be meeting with them myself. we are suspending our relationship with the existing libyan embassy so we expect them to end operating as the embassy of libya. and we're looking to see whether there is any willingness in the international community to provide any authorization for further steps. i am one of those who believes that absent international authorization, the united

states acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable. and i know that's the way our military feels. it's easy for people to say do this, do that and they turn and say, ok, u.s., go do it. you use your assets, you use your, you know, men and women. you get out there and do it, and you take the consequences. if something bad happens -- and i want to remind people that we had a no-fly zone over iraq. it did not prevent saddam hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out of office. we had a no-fly zone and then we had 78 days of bombing in serbia. it did not get him out of office. it did not get him out of kosovo until we put troops on the ground with our allies. so i really want people to understand what we are looking at. and i will reiterate what the president has said and what our

administration has consistently said. we are considering everything, but we think it's important that the congress and the public understand as much as possible about what that actually means. and i can assure you that the president's not going to make any decision without a great deal of careful thought and deliberation. thank you. >> i appreciate the thoughtfulness and the caution. i really do. i'll reserve my questions, obviously. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. schiff. >> thank you, madam chairman and madam secretary. thank you for the absolutely extraordinary job you do. you have been fabulous. let me just pick up where my colleague left off. i concur completely with the idea that we need to do whatever we do with respect to libya in concert with the international community. what has made this revolution so powerful is they have been indigenous.

they have not been at the tip of the american spear or imposed from outside. all that being said, i hope that we can find success working with the international community to take aggressive and swift actions. it's just excrews ating to watch the libyan people attacked by their own golf with all the powerful machinery of the libyan military. it's hard to watch. i think this period is one of the most promising that we've seen in decades with the transition that's going on in the middle east and north africa. and what happens in the next couple years may -- maybe something as moment us as collapse of the soviet union and the legacy of this administration may have as much to do with it or more. so the success of what's begun in tunisia and egypt i think is

such an enormous priority in terms of undermining al qaeda narrative. what happens in those countries may eclipse the significance of what happened in iraq at much less cost of life and treasure. so i'm all in favor of whatever investment we can make in these people powered revolutions. i know when the collapse of the soviet union took place we were in economic recession. it didn't stop us helping eastern europe and these fledgling democracies and our current economic circumstances cannot cripple us from seeing the necessity of a vigorous effort now. a lot of these revolutions have been powered by economic factors, not just political ones, and their success may depend on economic factors. if egyptian people don't see any progress to the economy, we may trade one authoritarian

regime for another. so i wanted to ask you about that. there's been some reprogramming that you mentioned with respect to egypt. can we do some reprogramming to help the tunisian people? that is a great prospect for success in tunisia. a smaller, homogenous population. do we need to look at the calibration in egypt in a finite resourced world? i mean, obviously our relationship with the military is key. we don't want to do anything to undermine that. at the same time there is a tremendous civilian economic need. so how can we find the resources to help those countries economically stay on the path they're on? >> well, i think you're asking the right question because i believe that if people don't see some improvement in their economic circumstances they will become discouraged and

maybe even start to turn away from democracy. and we can't permit that to happen if we have any role to play, we need to play it. again, i mean, a lot of it comes down to the money that we already have that we're trying to reprogram. we're going to be -- i'll be working to get up to $20 million for tunisia to meet their knees. when i worked with the secretary of state in geneva a week and a half ago, he said we want american help. we remember america was with us when we became independent in the 1960's which goes back to kind of the feelings, the attitudes, the values that people have. so i think you're absolutely right. we need to have a very big commitment to tunisia that we can be ready to help them economically as well as with their democratic transformation. similarly, with egypt, they've asked us to look at a lot of different possibilities.

we are doing the best we can within the budget we have and that we can anticipate. but i underscore your point, congressman. this is an amazing opportunity. when i spoke with the egyptian officials over the last couple weeks, they kept mentioning central and eastern europe. they kept saying, that's how we want to turn out. we don't want to get derailed. we want to make this work. so we want to help make it work. i think it's going to require that we have budgetary assistance for them, that we have economic assistance going to small and medium-sized enterprises which could help stimulate the economy from the bottom up in egypt. we're looking at all of that. >> thank you very much. mr. delart. -- mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you, madam chairman and madam secretary. let me add words of gratitude

to your service for the united states of america. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, in october -- sorry, september of 2011 you made a really impacting statement. let me take a few seconds to quote what you said. you said, "rising debt levels pose a national security threat in two ways. it undermines our capacity to act in our own interests and it does constrain us where constraints may be undesirable. and it also sends a message of weakness internationally." i share your concerns about the threat of the debt poses to our national security. when you made that statement, the debt was $13.4 trillion. just last month, the president unveiled a budget that increases the debt by $13 trillion. would it be fair to say, madam secretary, that you have $13 trillion more reasons -- >> i don't think it increases it to $13 trillion. i think it goes to $14 trillion, i think. it's a big number, congressman. let me -- let me take your

question very seriously because obviously you quoted me and that's what i believe. if we're not strong at home we're not going to be strong abroad. and i know from my own experience both serving in this esteemed congress and in being first lady during the 1990's that there's going to have to be a deal. and the deal is going to have to put everything on the table. and a deal is going to have to include revenue and entitlements along with spending because i'm just looking at this budget. you cannot get to where you and i would like to see us headed by cutting nondefense discretionary spending. so that's number one. number two, i think it is important to consider what we do as part of the nation's defense. so if this body is going to cut defense or d.h.s. or veterans -- a smaller portion, and

they're going to cut us a much larger portion, that has implications for d.h.s. and d.o.d. because we're on the front line of border security. we are literally on the frontlines in afghanistan and pakistan, so we want to be treated the same way we treat defense and d.h.s. that would be the second point i'd make. and thirdly, i think that the budget that we proposed is a budget that, number one, puts everything into the budget because up until now we've been funding a lot out of supplementals. you know, both in defense and in usaid and in the department of state. you know, we kind of ride on the back of d.o.d. when they come in for these big supplementals. you know, maybe it was a political mistake but it was an honest effort to say, let's be transparent, let put everything in the budget.

little us tell you what our operations are, $47 billion, and let us tell you what our frontline contingencies are, $8.7 billion. what we're trying to do is make the case as this committee, which has such an important responsibility, works with the defense subcommittee, you got to cooperate the same way we're cooperating. i mean, i'm in touch with secretary gates and admiral mullen and general petraeus in afghanistan the general in iraq and the general in sitcom because we are literally joined at the -- centcom because we are literally joined at the hip. the state looks at the pentagon account and the usual treatment is the pentagon doesn't get whacked pretty hard and they make it up at the 150 account. those days are over, congressman. i'd make that strong case for your consideration.

>> thank you, madam secretary. i have very little time. so far the administration has talked about easing on sanctions in cuba twice. there have been increased oppression. you are aware of zapata and the hostages. is the administration willing to look at tightening of the regulations, a harder push for democracy assistance? at the very least, a state department travel warning again? what would be the consequences? by the way, if -- actually this american citizen has been now put to a kangaroo court. so, again, there have been two easing of sanctions, further oppression. will there be any consequences for that further oppression, for the death of a political prisoner in prison? my time has run out. >> congressman, very quickly.

i'll be happy to get you more for the record. we share your commitment for freedom and democracy for the cuban people. that's an absolute ironclad commitment. i had that commitment and this administration share it. we deplore the injustice toward allen gross. he needs to be home. he needs to be home with his family immediately the and we mourn the loss of mr. zapata, the mistreatment of his mother and all the other abuses by this cuban government. so we share the same goals and we share the same emotions. our decision to try to engage more with the cuban government only indirectly by helping the cuban people is intended to try to strengthen our direct engagement and provide more support for grassroots initiatives. so we can certainly disagree about the tactics, but i think we have total agreement about what we're attempting to achieve in terms of goals. >> thank you, madam secretary. just one comment before we go

to mr. rothman. as i said in my opening remarks, home run 1, we absolutely recognize that -- the part that this committee and this bill has in our national security. so putting that together, as i said, that would be the last place we would try to cut and recognize that, as you said, nondefense discretionary spending. mr. rothman. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam secretary, i could spend a few minutes in extolling your work as secretary of state. you bring incredible energy, intelligence, command of the issues. and if i may say so, your credibility as hillary rodham and as hillary rodham clinton, both. >> thank you. >> and the united states is much more secure and better off because of your service. god bless you and god speed in your work. i want to thank you for your leadership in the united states' veto of the security

council on that one-sided ridiculous resolution that was attempting to force an agreement on the two-state solution that israel so desperately wants but the palestinians are resisting. just to criticize israel. typically one-sided prejudical action. i'm so grateful for your leadership. i hope this now closes the book on the palestinians or anyone else who would try to use the u.n. as a substitute for direct negotiations between the israelis and palestinians. the israelis desperately want a two-state solution. have put everything on the table. i regret that the palestinians have not come to the table. i know you do too. i also want to thank you for your remarks at the human rights commission in geneva where you very candidly and forcefully questioned why there's a separate account, a

standing committee to criticize the state of israel with all of the slaughter and genocide and human trafficking and all the other horrific things going on in the world, they have a standing committee only to criticize the jewish state of israel. i want to thank you for your very candid and forceful remarks. iran. iran to me still remains the number one threat to the united states' national security. iran has power in north african and the gulf. bahrain is the gateway, perhaps, to saudi arabia. it's the banking center. our fifth fleet is there. and a lot of people are worried that iran is trying to use its influence to destabilize bahrain and take practical control of bahrain and move on to saudi arabia. do you share those concerns? do you see any iranian

involvement in the protests and demonstrations and uprising in bahrain? and how can we continue to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and destabilizing the regions for its own interests? >> thank you, congressman. i appreciate your raising the continuing threat we see from iran. while we are focused on the developments in north africa and the middle east, we have to continue to keep focused on iran and we certainly are. what we see happening right now, and i can only give you that snapshot because our assessment now is that the internal discord in bahrain is a domestic phenomenon that comes from the demands by the 70% shiia population for

greater political rights, greater economic opportunities, and it requires a domestic solution. so what we've been doing is working with bahrainis to work with themselves to come up with a way forward. now, there is -- you know, no doubt as we have publicly and privately expressed all people, according to our values, have a universal right to express them self, to associate, to assemble freely. so we have urged the government of bahrain to respect those rights. at the same time we have also credited what the government is trying to do through a national dialogue to come up with some agreed upon reforms that would be implemented. you know, bahrain is a friend. they're an ally. we deeply value their longtime

association with us. king hamid said that the king prince will go on with this dialogue. we know this can result in a genuine dialogue. >> we are keeping our eye on iran and their engaged attempts. >> we don't see it evidencing itself but we keep a close look on it because we think that iran will try to influence anybody anywhere against their own governments and against us. so that's a very big part of what we're doing. and the sooner that the people themselves in bahrain can move toward this national die lot the less concern we'll have about iran. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. mr. dent. >> thank you, madam secretary, for being here. i apologize for having to depart for part of this hearing. you said we need to demand that gaddafi must go now without

delay. i certainly agree. i certainly appreciate what the department and the administration is doing with respect to food, water, supplies, other humanitarian support for the libyan people. on a broader level, i'm a little bit concerned what i would call perhaps a lack of clarity in terms of administration policy with respect to the various uprisings we've seen throughout the middle east and north africa. i'm concerned about, you know, repetitions of what happened in hungary in the 1950's and the arab uprising in 1991 and the kurds after the 1991 gulf war. and i'm just very concerned that we're seeing a lack of clarity, maybe failure to see terrorists trying to suppress their people and auto kratts who use tear gas. i don't think we're sending the

right message to friend and foe alike. i wonder what your response is to that type of question. >> well, congressman, i don't agree with that. i do agree that these are very difficult situations, and i'm not sure that there is one response that adequately addresses the differences that exist. we were just talking about bahrain. bahrain is a very different challenge, in our view, than what we're seeing in libya, than what we see in egypt. in each of those, america's interests are uniform with respect that we support people's universal rights, their genuine aspirations. but our approach toward each is obviously guided by what we see on the ground and how we think we can influence. so take libya, for example. as i was speaking earlier with one of your colleagues, we have very few contacts that are long

standing and have a trusting relationship like we did in egypt. so we were able to have an almost daily dialogue with egyptian government officials and i think that the united states contributed to the decisions made about trying to have a peaceful resolution. we don't have that in libya. we are attempting and working overtime to figure out who are the people that are now claiming to be the opposition because we know that there are some with whom we want to be aligned and others with whom we would not. so it's a painstaking process and i think it's not a very saving one for any of us but it's one that we think we have to go through. >> might i suggest to you that there are some active libyan in my district related to people that are part of the protest movement. i urge you -- i can certainly give you their contacts. it would be help to your department. >> we will take onboard those names. >> and finally, this committee's appropriated several funds over the past few

years to build states global diplomatic staff. we've envisioned a five-year initiative to expand civil serviceperson ell by 25% and 13% respectively. the current fiscal reality let us examine whether we continue to build up is sustainable. i think in the usaid's leadership initiative, but today i'd like to work on the state's staffing plans. do you plan to build up for fiscal year 2011 and what are your plans for the 2012 budget? >> well, we started this in the bush administration. both president bush and secretary rice realized that we were just not equipped to do what we were expected to do, particularly in the frontline states. and one of the reasons that i've been able to more than triple the presence of civilians in afghanistan and accept the responsibility of what we're supposed to do in iraq is because of that increase. we've been able to, you know,

take our people and redeploy them and not leave out essential functions, processing visas in mexico or china, for example. so it's been a considered view, not only within two administrations, but outside experts from all sides of the political spectrum who said that state and a.i.d. had to increase their personnel in order to fulfill their mission. and, you know, obviously it's in accordance with what the congress decides we are going to continue to try to do that. >> thaw. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. austria. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being here. thank you for your commitment and your service to our country. we appreciate it very much. let me, if i could, go back to israel, for just a minute. it's an important issue to me. and looking at the advancements of the recent weeks, they've highlighted the unique role

that israel plays in the middle east, an ally that shares our values and our interests. we talked a little bit about iran, which is extremely important to me that with the drama of the events in egypt and libya and throughout the middle east that the overall unrest in the middle east, i'm concerned that the world's attention not be diverted and could be diverted from the dangers of iran's nuclear program. and i'm concerned that iran could use this time to speed up that nuclear -- that program and crack down on opposition of human rights activists. and i think it's critical that iran know that the world is watching, that we are watching them, and there will be consequences for continued disrespect for international policy. my question is -- first, the administration has yet to sanction any of the non-iranian banks despite reports that several turkish, south korean and chinese banks deal with

iranian institutions. and i'm very concerned about the lack of sanctions on companies that continue to invest in iran's energy sector, in violation of u.s. law. the state department -- i'm not aware of any sanctions on any nonforeign -- non-iranian foreign companies for its investments in iran's energy sector. and i wanted to ask you -- and i know there's legislation also pending that was signed, i believe, last july by the president which will require the state department to complete investigations within 180 days after receiving credible information of a violation. what is happening as far as sanctions towards companies that are dealing with iran, as far as the bank of iran and what is the state department doing to enforce this? >> well, thank you very much, congressman. you know, last summer we were pleased to work with the congress to pass the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and deinvestment

act. and last fall i became the first secretary of state ever to impose sanctions under the prior act, the iran sanctions act. and you're right, it was on a swift-based iranian-owned firm that was a major investor in oil and gas developments, but it became the first test case because up until then there had not been an agreement upon the criteria and the willingness to impose that sanction. on the human rights side, we have been designating iranians for human rights abuses and we will keep that going. i am very committed to that. we have also used the act to ask she will to wiffle draw from iran. we've also been opening up investigations, monitoring

sanctionable activities. we're going to pursue a lot of these leads that we have. some of this is in a classified format, but we'd be happy to give you and your staff a briefing so that you know what we're doing and how we're pursuing the leads that we get from our investigations. >> thank you. and let me just say, i want to thank you and your staff. we've had a situation in egypt. you talked about the wonderful job that is being done with staff. we had a situation where a student was over in egypt during the uncertainty over there with the government. and your office did an outstanding job of helping that student and other students who were at the american university over there to ensure their safety, to get back to the united states. so i want to thank you for your work on that and help on that. with that i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. thank you very much. we promised the secretary we'd be through at noon.

it's not noon. time goes fast. if we go down to three minutes each and we -- >> talk fast. >> so we will now go. i will ask a question. one very short question. it has to do with some concerns of coming to my office about the ambassadors fund for cultural preservation. and project, such as restoring mosques and other religious sites, has been the priority. the h.r. 1 prohibited those funds, but the administration has included $5.75 million in the f.y. 2012 request for the ambassadors fund. also usaid does similar -- fund similar programs. can you provide us with how much has been spent on cultural preservation at both state and usaid, and most importantly, why does the administration think we should continue to fund projects like this? is this a program you would be willing to give up for higher

national security priorities? >> well, madam chairwoman. over a 10-year period since 2001 the ambassadors cultural fund has provided money to 29 projects, mostly archaeological sites, including churches, mosques and sin godges. what we have -- sin gauges. what we have used that for, what ambassadors have used that for is our respect for their cultural. their history, their religion. we think it's been a good tool. obviously this is an area where we like to give some discretion to our ambassadors so they're able to do things that can make people feel good about america but we'd more than willing to talk to you about it. >> thank you. one other concern that came out in "the washington post," and that had to do with a criticism

of the u.s. civilian surge because in afghanistan the civilian surge is hunkered down in the capital, removed from the frontlines. >> it's really not fair. you know, our people are out there. that's why when our military leaders appear before you, like general petraeus will next week, he talks about having our civilians right there. they're embedded with them. they go out with them. they come in with them. we have staff in kabul because we work closely with the afghan government which is a very important priority. we also, you know, coordinate closely with general petraeus whose headquarters is also in kabul. don't hold me to it. i'll try to get the exact numbers. our percentage of people now out in the country not only has gone up dramatically in the last two years, but is more efficient in the way that we are partnering. so we can get you some

additional details about that. >> thank you very much. ms. lowey. >> thank you, again. we do want to get you out on time. two quick points. first off, our colleagues mentioned sanctions. i want to congratulate you and the administration for moving that agenda in the united nations and also through state and treasury. however, there was an expo zeh in december of -- expose in december of 2010 that listed many possible clues to companies that are getting around the sanctions. i want to emphasize again that this committee supports very strongly of tightening those sanctions. another issue that you have been dealing with, and i know having watched you talking to many governments about corruption, corruption, corruption, i've been very concerned as have you about the fact, and i quote, "fewer than three million pack stance, 175

million citizens pay any income taxes and the country tax to g.d.p. ratio is only 9%." this is one of the lowest tax to g.d.p. ratios in the world. and i know that you have spoken up about this. these countries have a very difficult time, and we know just recently they wanted to do something about it and there was an outburst from the elite. but if there's anything we can do working with you, we understand the importance of the relationship and the alliance, but the fact that we are spending billions of dollars in our tax dollars and they are not contributing with regard to taxes. so if you have a quick comment on that i'd be most appreciative. >> i have a quick comment to say thank you because this is a real pet peeve of mine. i am more than proud to have the united states help countries in need. but it is very hard to accept helping a country that won't help itself by taxing its

richest citizens, to start there, and we know because i spoke out about it when i was in pakistan the very first time that the tax system is woefully inequitable and does not in any way reflect the need that pakistan has. so i have been very outspoken about this. it's caused some criticism but i feel strongly about it. i feel strongly, frankly, about mexico. mexico's percentage of revenue to g.d.p. is not what it should be. so countries that we are helping have to face up to the tough political decisions. and there's many different ways to get the revenues you need, but i think we have to look at doing more to encourage them to step up and meet their own people's needs. >> and i appreciate that. and the one ming remaining, i know this committee, because of the tremendous budget

challenges, would be delighted to help you. the international monetary fund not too long ago, i believe in 2008, froze a $2.3 billion loan that was approved for pakistan until they ponied up and dealt with the tax issues. thank you for your leadership. we look forward to continuing to work with you. thank you for your leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. lewis. >> madam secretary, i won't ask my last question but rather say i look forward to having an opportunity to discuss the pakistan issue. >> thank you. i look forward to that. >> mr. rothman. >> thank you, madam chairman. i just want to make a comment about iraq which i think you have addressed in your remarks but i want -- it's very important. we have spent and will spend literally thousands of american

lives there, tens of thousands wounded of our brave young men and women. we have and will spend trillions of dollars on that war. heretofore and in the future for health care of those who came home. it would be a disaster if we did not do the follow-up after our troops were gone such that iraq became an unfriendly nation or god forbid became a satellite like lebanon of iran and iran, of course, as you well know, madam secretary, is interested in just that, and has invested in the iraqi elections and all other kinds of aspects of the iraqi economy, etc. and so your statement that you're interested in having conflict throughout iraq i think is brilliant as well as the work of the pentagon and their efforts. but since we're on this foreign operation subcommittee and,

madam chairman and i are also on the defense subcommittee, but -- as is mr. cole, i want to say that that is an investment we must continue to make. less we lose all -- throw away all of the sacrifices that this nation has put through. >> i agree, congressman. the things that keep me up at night which are many and growing. i think in five to 10 years see a situation that you're describing development where at least southern iran or maybe all the way up to kirkuk is largely under iranian influence and they have lost their chance to be an independent ash nationalistic arab nationalistic democracy people say, what were you all thinking? you have this incredible war, you put all this money in, you lost all these lives, you have

these veterans suffering, what were you thinking? i don't want to answer that question saying, well, we decided once the military left we left because i think that would be a really great tragedy and unfair to all the sacrifices this country and particularly our brave young men and women have made. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. mr. cole. >> thank you. just a little bit of a follow-up on mr. rothman. you are trying to manage a very difficult situation that really nobody anticipated. and we have adversaries who didn't anticipate it either but they are undoubtedly trying to exploit it. so could you sort of go through for the committee some of the challenges you see from al qaeda, the iranians and what they are doing in egypt, what are they doing in libya and these other places? >> that's another thing that keeps me up at night, congressman cole. neither iran nor al qaeda had anything to do with these uprisings. now, there are those who are of

conspiratorially minded approaches and they claim they did but there is no evidence of that, but there is no doubt that they're going to try to take advantage of everything that is happening everywhere. we know from our intelligence reporting, from anecdotal reporting, our embassies, our political officers that everywhere iran can take advantage they are going to, either directly oirn directly through proxies like hezbollah and hamas. there's no doubt that hezbollah, if you go back to the question of bahrain that congressman schiff asked, that hezbollah is going to try to influence the election in bahrain. they will say, look at where we are with such a major influence in the lebanese government. you got hamas right on the border of egypt. you have absolutely every reason to believe that with iran now supporting hamas that they're going to be in there trying to figure out what they can do to influence the outcome. we are in a competition for

influence all over the world right now. you know, we are the leading power. we have enormous assets, but in the asia-pacific we're competing with china and africa we're competing with china. in africa we're competing with iran. in latin america we're competing with china and increasingly iran. we are not in a static situation where we have a luxury to say, well, give us a few years and then we'll get back in the game. so i think your caution is a very strong one, and i would only add this point. al qaeda has a presence in what's called al qaeda in the islamic magra, which is north africa. they had a presence to some extent in libya. they were suppressed like everybody else when libya was suppressed. if they get an opportunity like they saw an opportunity in

yemen, they'll try to do to influence the outcome. the united states can stand on the sidelines and hope and pray for the best. we can get so involved that we are accused of interfering going after oil, you know, trying to occupy another islamic country or we can try to do what we are doing which is, you know, be smart about how we offer assistance, how we respond, how we bring the international community along and that's -- that's the toughest of the options but that's what we're trying to do. >> thank you, madam secretary. kapp kapp -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we'll leave at this point as we want to return to the house for our continued live coverage of the house. secretary of state clinton, though, announcing she's traveling to egypt next week in the wake of rebellions. she will also be meeting with members of libya's opposition

who are fighting to topple gaddafi. now to live coverage of the u.s. house. members returning from recess to debate the first of two bills this week. eliminating program to refinance home mortgages. live coverage now of the u.s. house. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by a guest chaplain, reverend raymond bolton, spruce street baptist church, nashville, tennessee. the chaplain: o oh, god of

freedom, referred to by many names, embraced in difference ways by the many different people who make up this great republic, as leaders and elected officials, center us on the awesome work of serving the people who have been identified as the citizenry of a free nation, the united states of america. grant us a powerful sense of your presence so that we are not confused about who really leads and aspires free people. help us to honor the aspirations of a free nation so our private ideologies do not distort public passions. may we in our own little ways provide a connected effort to represent well our unique, diverse, but united constituencies. enable us to see that our best expressions of leadership come not from bold assumptions but out of humble submissions, submit us, i pray, to the

lawfully aspirations that continue to give shape to our wonderful country. we thank you for give us another opportunity to make real life claims of god bless america, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stand as i proved. the pledge today will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to recognize the

reverend raymond bomen today who just gave the opening prayer. seldom has congress been more in need of prayer than we are today . mr. cooper: he was raised in chicago and came to nashville, tennessee, to attend american baptist college. he's the pastor of a church in nashville, tennessee, sometimes referred to as the mother of churches of african-american churches in our area. he and his wife, nancey, are here with us today and we'd like to welcome them to our nation's capitol. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to commend the efforts of representative jeb hensarling for introducing h.r. 36, the emergency homeowner relief program termination act. mr. wilson: this prevents $1

billion from being spent on this failed program. in the current administration's budget it's estimated that the program has a 98% subsidy rate. that means for every $1 spent, taxpayers lose 98 cents. this is bad for taxpayers and bad for american families. making this reform possible is the south carolina federation of republican women which has inspired the republican revolution in south carolina since 1961. this is the 50th anniversary of republican legislator in the 20th century, the late charlie boino. in 2010 the transformation was completed of all statewide elected officials being republicans for the first time since 1876. under the guidance of leaders such as our governor, mikey haily of lexington, with jessica, susan, carla, kim, betty, lisa, grace, katrina and edie, this organization will continue to make a difference, promoting women to government and expanded freedom.

in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from rhode island. >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, today we will consider proposals to cut foreclosure prevention programs during one of the worst housing downturns in our nation's history. a safe and affordable home is central to the american dream and central to a strong neighborhood and a thriving economy in rhode island that dream has been fading because our state has been extremely hard hit by the national foreclosure cry sills. last year alone there were more than 4,700 foreclosures in rhode island and according to housing works, one in every 10 mortgages homeowners are in foreclosure or serious delinquency by the end of this year. we still face a serious housing crisis all across this country and today my friends on the other side of the aisle will cut mortgage relief and refinance programs that help the very

homeowners who need them most. and that will leave homeowners with no other choice than to turn to those who created these unfair and predatory mortgages that got us into this mess in the first place. at a time when our economy is beginning to recover, we should not be cutting from these programs because the housing sector is key to our economic recovery. these programs deserve increased funding because a successful housing sector is one of the major factors that will pull us out of this recession. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of a true american hero, sergeant leonard bud low lomel. through his courageous actions on d-day as an army ranger, bud earned a distinguished service cross. bud's brave service was crucial to the success of d-day and left an impressive imprint on our

nation's history as he was documented two best-selling books, "the greatest generation" and "the victors: eisenhower and his boys "-- and the men of world war ii." sergeant lomel passed away on march 1, 2011 at the age of 91. mr. runyan: leaving his family and our country with a proud legacy of honor and service. i am proud and humbled to have been able to call this incredible american a constituent. i ask you today to please rise with me in honor of sergeant leonard budlo -- "bud" lomel. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, california was ground zero of the foreclosure crisis.

at 1.40% of all foreclosures nationwide were concentrated in the state of california. ms. bass: today in california, nearly one in eight homes is in fore: closure. by far the majority of my constituents who walk through the door have received foreclosure notices or are on the brink of foreclosure. they have been shund by the banks and have turned to my office and the federal government for help help. mr. speaker, the two programs on the republican shopping block this week haven't even been fully implemented. the emergency mortgage relief program and the f.h.a. refinance program. the emergency relief program provides no interest loans to those who lost their jobs which is the main reason homeowners fall behind in their mortgage payments. not only does this response from the majority ignore the basic economic principle that the housing sector is a key component to economic recovery, it also coming without any alternative to reduce foreclosures. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support struggling

homeowners and vote against h.r. 830 and h.r. 836. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. for what purpose does he seek recognition? mr. poe: permission to address the house for one minute. mr. speaker, on december 14, border patrol agent brian terry was murdered in arizona by bandits crogging into the united states. border agents approached the armed invaders and the armed invaders were carrying ak-47's. a shootout occurred where terry was shot and killed. now there is evidence that terry and possibly other agents fired first to defend themselves by firing bean bags at the outlaws before using live ammo. documents indicate that the agents were required to fire first with nonlethal bean bags before using live ammo. allegations also show the ak-47 used by the bandits to kiltery was a gun the a.t.f. had allowed a smuggler to buy in an apparent

sting operation and take into mexico. the idea that when armed bandits invade the united states our border agents must fire bean bags is nonsense and no way to protect them or the nation. you don't take bean bags to a gun fight. and if the guns the bandits use come from our government in some type of undercover sting operation, that is sickening and rerp henceble and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, last month our nation created 200,000 new jobs. mr. jackson: that's good news. but our country needs to create 335,000 new jobs perment to keep up with population growth and to reduce unemployment to what it was before the recession. in communities like mine, unemployment is at least 15% and the numbers do not include those who stop looking for jobs. in order to hear their stories of the unemployed americans i've asked them to send me their

resumes to resumesforamerica@mail.house.gov . i heard from peter, who said, i'm seconding out resumes every day, no response from any company out there, i think no company is hiring at all. no response, not even an email. mrs. christine of chicago said she's only had one phone interview after a year of looking and she can hardly believe it. why is it so hard to find work? maybe it's because the unemployed are not even being considered for many jobs. it's been reported that some companies will not even accept applications or grant interviews to those currently without a job. i hope unemployed americans are will send me their resumes and stories to resumesforamerica@mail.house can.gov to keep stories of the unemployed in front of our government, in front of democrats and in front of republicans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection. so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. that's a "dallas morning news" front page. you know what they're saying? gas prices are going up. for all drivers. and it's time for the gallon of gas to come down or stop. mr. johnson: it's raised nearly $1 since last september. that's why i'm calling on the i.r.s. to stand up for small business by increasing the gas mileage rate that they can deduct. the i.r.s. increased the optimal mileage rate during spiking gas prices in 2005 and after hurricane katrina in 2008. gas prices are going upward and there's no signs of pain at the pump will subside any time soon. taxpayers today, especially small businesses, struggling to stay afloat won't deserve rates that reflect the current cost of

travel. they need those deductions, we need to drill for oil. call the white house at 202-456-1414 and tell them about it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind the gentleman from texas that he needs to address his remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from illinois. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. schakowsky: ask americans if we should reduce government spending and most say yes. i agree. but let's dig a little deeper. let's make the kind of choices that families make. h.r. 1 that the republicans have offered in cuts will result in 218,000 fewer children getting the proven benefits of preschool program called head start. h.r. 1, at the same time, does nothing to cut the $4 billion that we are giving every year to the big oil companies.

if we want to talk about oil prices, we are -- we, our taxpayers, give $4 billion to the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world. we're cutting about $5.7 billion from pell grants in h.r. 1. i voted no. what are we doing about billionaires who are getting tax breaks to leave to their heirs, $11 billion a year for the wealthiest americans and their heirs. we have to make the kind of choices that help middle class americans. we can tighten our belt but we don't have to do it on the backs of the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker.

with a $14 trillion national debt, $1.65 trillion deficit this year alone, yesterday the united states senate voted to reject the house effort to fund the government for the rest of the year. the senate majority leader even took to the floor and called our $61 billion in savings mean-spirited. reckless and irresponsible. he even defended federal funding for the cowboy poetry festival. apparently in his own state. you know, i learned a long time ago out here in washington that sometimes things don't change in washington, d.c., until they have to. i think we have to pick a fight. . if house republicans want to win this battle, we need to take a stand for the budget cuts and policy changes in enshrined in h.r. 1. defunding obamacare and defunding planned parnehood of america. it's time to take a stand for fiscal responsibility and reform. we have to say this far and no farther. for the sake of our children and

grandchildren, we need to make a stand for the american people and make no mistake about it. if we make this fight, we can win this fight because the american people are on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. without objection, so ordered. mr. deutch: the party of no has officially become the party of no plan. every week under g.o.p. control has been another week with no plan to create jobs. this is not a game. in florida unemployment remains at 12%. people want to work. they want washington to lead with a jobs plan. with construction and housing so integral to florida's economy, stabilizing this sector is critical to our recovery. close to a million florida families and seniors have lost their homes since 2009. now, through no fault of their own, nearly half of all mortgages in florida are under water. but instead of creating jobs, republicans want to kick middle

class families while they are already down. rather than improve mortgage modification programs by working with democrats, my republican friends want to shut them down all together. so, the families and seniors across america who owe more of the banks than their homes are worth, what's the republican plan? what's the response? pay up. even if you have no jobs, no income, no health care under today's republican bills soon you and your family will have no home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, this week 13 coptic christians in egypt were killed in clashes with muslims. recently a church was burned to the ground leading many christians to flea -- flee the village. this comes only two months after 24 christians were killed in a church bombing. for thousands of years coptic christians have lived and worshiped in egypt, but some extremists want to use the chaos

in the country today to drive them out of their homes and places of worship. egypt is in the process of developing a democratic government, one in which all the egyptian people will have a say. these attacks undermine freedom and democracy. democracy without protection of minority rights is mob rule and not true freedom. i invite all my colleagues to join me on a letter of the chief of the egyptian armed forces calling on him to protect the egyptian citizens during this critical period in his nation. we are glad to see the egyptian people building a better government and we must remind them that fundamental respect for human rights must be protected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. without objection. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, middle class americans around the country are very concerned about what's going on in wisconsin. for two reasons. the first reason is that they fundamentally understand that while we all have to tighten our

belt, and they have seen workers do that in wisconsin to give up various rights under bargaining agreement, they understand fundamentally that we can't solve this problem by attacking the middle class. second, that they understand that the shenanigans that went on last night in wisconsin is an assault on some democratic principle that is we have long enjoyed. we have long enjoyed the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. it's right there in the grand old document that we took an oath to. and fumly this is a reduction -- fundamentally this is a reduction in the ability of americans to work together to speak with one voice to and with their government. this will not abide. we have to respect the middle class. we have to respect democracy. and move forward together as a country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. without objection. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, some new statistics that's just come

out on government wages and salaries in this country. government payouts including social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance make up more than 1/3 of total wages and salaries of the united states population. a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of baby boomers enter retirement. social welfare benefits make up 35% of wages and salaries this year. in the year 2000 that percent was 21%. in the year 1960, it was 10%. these are statistics that came from the bureau of economic analysis. recently it was quoted that the u.s. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus itself. so in this country we have a stark choice. we have to reduce government spending, otherwise not only do we go bankrupt but there will be a tipping point.

a tipping point where the government payout for wages and salaries will become 50% of all u.s. wages. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. without objection, so ordered. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, today i rise with my colleagues for one reason, to talk about jobs again. my constituents still need help. they want to work. but i don't hear any solutions. i have been here for over two months and i'm still waiting to hear republican plan for jobs. i came to washington to focus on jobs. when are we going to talk about jobs? i ask the same question two weeks ago. if i have to get up here every two weeks for the rest of my term and ask the same question, i will. when i go home this weekend, i will be asked, what are they doing in washington to help me find work? or provide jobs for others who want to work? i want to work to support my family.

i want to start a business. i have lost my home. lost my job. and the congress promised to help the economy so that i could find a job. my constituents will ask me, why did they cut job training? why are they cutting educational opportunities for young people? people are hurting and people are suffering. listen to the people. let's stop the partisan bickering and help the people find work. if not now, when? if not us, who? if not here, where? the people want to work. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. without objection, so ordered. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise today on the one-year anniversary of the passage of the affordable health care act to voice my disappointment with my republican colleagues' continued assault on the historic law that has already begun to provide aid and relief for countless americans.

one year ago my colleagues and i came together to enact a law because of the call to action from our constituents. we heard from seniors who could not afford their prescriptions and were in the medicaid doughnut hole. parents, whose children were being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. individuals who are being denied treatment due to lifetime limits. and taxpayers who are bearing the cost of uncompensated health care. we answered the clarion call from our constituents who asked us to protect them. yet the republican colleagues continue to assault the law. siding with the special interests, particularly the health care insurance companies that stand to lose from health care reform. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to assault our program. with that i say let's keep the law in force and let's move forward with progress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california.

without objection, so ordered. ms. lee: the american people want to know where are the jobs? after 10 weeks controlling the house, the republicans have no plan to create jobs, no plan to spur our economic growth. instead of listening to the american people and making jobs their number one priority, republicans passed a budget that will result in 700,000 new layoffs. what's the response? so be it. taking the food out of the mouth of hundredry children, cutting w.i.c.? so be it. dropping kids from the head start program? so be it. declaring war on women by eliminating family family services and punishing the 1.15 women across america who visit planned parenthood clinic? so be it. denying extension of unemployment benefits to those who have reached that 99-week limit and are struggling to make ends meet. so be it. now denying homeowners, homeowners to stay in their homes.

the help they need by eliminating programs to prevent foreclosures. so be it. the republicans, no jobs. the so be it agenda, it's a failure on all counts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the alabama seek recognition? mr. bachus: i ask unanimous consent that all members have legislative five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 830 and inserltstreered -- insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bachus: mr. chairman -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend for a moment. pursuant to house resolution 150 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 830. the new chair appoints the

gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, to reside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 830. the clerk: a bill to rescind the unobligated funding and terminate the program. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: mr. chairman, just this week the american people received some very sobering news. the budget deficit for the month of february alone is $223

billion. that is $ billion -- $8 billion every day. that is money that we are having to borrow from countries around the world. it wasn't long ago that our budget deficit for the entire year was only $220 billion. but thanks to a washington spending binge, that has occurred over the last four years, now our monthly budget deficit is larger than our annual deficit used to be. in fact, february's budget deficit was the largest monthly budget deficit in the history of the united states. larger in real dollars than we

were fighting for our existence during world war ii. higher than in the civil war. and that has happened even though government receipts posted an increase this february from last february. our national debt in the last four years has doubled. now, think of that. in the first 220 years of our existence we incurred a national debt which in the last four years we have doubled. by the end of this administration, unless we take action today, action the american people asked us to take last november, we will have tripled the deficit.

in seven years or a little less than seven years we will have tripled our deficit. that's why we are here on the floor today. because the american people have sent us a message. they have said, don't spend us into financial oblivion. we have to balance our own budgets at home. we expect the same from those that we send to washington to represent us. the bill that we are debating today is an example of two things, too many government programs, spending programs, and too many ineffective government programs. it is a poster child for both. it's also an example of a broken promise.

in 2008 during our financial meltdown, which has led to a recession and record unemployment, we promised the american people that those steps that were taken, that that money that was loaned would be paid back to the national treasury. . and i'm happy to say that today most of the money that was loaned to what some have called a wall street bailout, what the american people certainly call a bailout, but that it has been paid back with interest but it's not found its way into the national treasury. it's not been paid back despite promises to the american people on this very floor of this house a little less than three years

ago. instead that money has been diverted into all sorts and that's the tarp bailout money, it's been used for other social programs. just what many warned on the floor of this house would happen. it's turned into a slush fund and one of the programs that it has funded is a well-intentioned program in which $8 billion, that's $-- that's eight thousand million dollars has been designated for the f.h.a. refinance program. now, the f.h.a. program today, the reserves are low and that's a program that is not in the greatest of shape.

it's like most government programs. $8 billion for a program to allow homeowners who are under watt orn their mortgages -- under water on their mortgages to get a reduction in their mortgage. now, not all can take advantage of this program. there are what the american people have come to know as winners and losers, it seems that some benefit but 99% of americans don't benefit. and that's what's happened here. the administration said, we literally have hundreds of thousands of people that will line up for this program but because lenders and borrowers are getting together and working out or some homeowners are

deciding that they can't afford their mortgage and they're selling their houses, 42 american families have been assisted by this program. now, this is a program that authorizes $8 billion and $50 million is actually been set aside and dispersed. in fact, the budget that the president has submitted has a $auto million subtraction there for a program that's helped 42 families. $50 million, 42 families. but think about this, how many americans are under water, how many american families have a home where they owe more than the home is worth? 12 million, somewhere above 11 million. let's say 12 million. that means that even if this

program could have helped 100,000 that it would help one out of 120 american families, one out of 120 and, yes, some government employee sitting behind a desk would say, you're eligible, you can apply, you win. but what about -- and at the most all the programs we're going to consider this week and next week, which if we act will save the american taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars, all of them will benefit only an estimated 500,000 families and as the inspector general has said about 50% to 60% of those families, even if it goes to families, as

we found out yesterday in a hearing, a lot of it is going to nonprofit groups and las vegas alone, more went to -- los angeles alone, more went to a nonprofit group than went to the county government. but we're only helping one out of 22 families. what about those other 21 families? they're making it, they're making their mortgage payment and they're not asking the government for help. it seems that we're in a country where the majority of americans aren't under water. about 1/4 are. but out of all those, we're starting programs to help in this case 42 families, in another case 200,000 families, and we're asking every american family and we're asking their government to start programs

when we don't have enough money to finance the programs we have. but more than that i put a photograph up and this is the bottom line on this program. $50 million has been put into a fund and $8 billion has been authorized for this program. and it's money we don't have. and it's money we won't pay back . it's those children in that photograph, it's our constituents, children and grandchildren that will have to pay that back. our national debt is $12 trillion, $14 trillion. you memorize a number and in a few months it's irrelevant.

it's no longer the real number. and robert gates on january 6 in outlining the pentagon's budget said, this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to american influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the u.s. government gets its finances in order. well, who will get it in order? it has to be the president and this congress. that's his quote, january 6. the joint chiefs of staff says that our national debt is a national security problem. but the message just doesn't seem to get to this floor. because today people will come to this floor and say, oh, if we get rid of this problem everybody that can't pay their mortgage needs to call their congressman and say you need to

pay my mortgage or there needs to be a government program to pay my mortgage. well, let's not kid ourselves. those children, that's who we're obligating. last year we could stand on the floor and say that they each come into this world owing $35,000. today it's $45,000. today we're going to have to make some hard choices for them, for our children and our grandchildren. and oh, yeah, these programs do some good, although for most homeowners who can't pay their mortgages and they're given a reduction, it doesn't work, the default rate in most of these programs is over 50%. one of the programs we'll consider tomorrow, out of every $1 taxpayer money loaned, 98% is never repaid.

never repaid. how can a country continue to function like that? what kind of future do these children have? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first, for people trying to follow this, the gentleman from alabama has confused several programs in this conversation. most of which aren't up today. we're dealing about one at a time. he talked about money that went to los angeles and went to a group instead of the county. that has zero toad with -- to do with today's program. that has to do, in fact, it doesn't have to do with individual homeowners. it's a program that gives aid to municipalities which we'll be debating later, probably next week, to deal with property that they have been stuck with. so it has nothing to do with today. but the gentleman does make a good point about the deficit. unfortunately he does not put

his roach where his rhetoric is. the c.b.o. says that this program is going to cost not $8 billion but if it's fully operational over a two-year period, which is its lifespan, will cost $175 million. now that's money, but you know what it is? it's much less than the gentleman from alabama has voted during that same period to send to the cotton farmers of brazil. we do have a debate about the deficit here but it's not about whether to reduce it, it's how. the gentleman from alabama, along with maa majority of the republicans voting, defeated an amendment, some democrats, although the majority of us voted for the amendment, to stop sending american tax dollars to subsidize the cotton farmers of brazil. and in the two-year period during which we will be dealing with this program brazilian cotton farmers, $300 million, americans facing foreclosure, $175 million. the gentleman from alabama has a

very odd way of saving money on the deficit. and then he says, we have winners and losers. well, among the big winners under the republican budget and with the majority of their votes are farmers who receive more than $250,000 per year in subsidy. whatever happened to free enterprise? whatever happened to standing on your own? an amendment was offered to limit to a measly $250,000 the subsidy any one entity could get. the gentleman from alabama voted no, that was too harsh. the gentleman from alabama is for unlimited amounts of subsidies to a handful of farmers but we can't spare much less than that over a time period because in the time period of this bill that would have cost $200 million, $100 million a year. and then the gentleman quoted the secretary of defense, i wish he'd pay more attention to the secretary of defense, because he along with many republicans voted to force money on the secretary of defense he didn't want. voted to fund programs the secretary of defense doesn't want. he's trying to get some reprogramming now.

the republican appropriations committee wouldn't allow it. by the way, i don't agree with the secretary of defense fully on this either. i disagree with the gentleman from alabama and the secretary of defense because they don't want to spend $175 million in two years trying to deal with foreclosures in american cities. instead they want to send more than twice that amount to afghanistan for their infrastructure. and you talk about inefficiency. does anyone think that president karzai and his administration are going to spend the $400 million my friend from alabama has voted to send to afghanistan infrastructure projects better than we would spend it here? or $1 billion for the iraqi security forces at a time when american municipalities are having to lay off police officers and firefighters and other essential employees? the gentleman from alabama voted to send $1 billion to the iraqi security forces. does anyone here have a great deal of confidence in how efficiently they'll spend it? let me address a couple of the mistakes the gentleman makes specifically about this program. $50 million is not being spent on 40 people.

$50 million hasn't in fact been spent at all. not a penny has been spent. $50 million was reserved out of tarp money to cover losses if they occur. and c.b.o. does say yes, if this program is fully funded, if it gets the participation they expect, the total amount of losses will be $175 million. not $8 billion. the $8 billion was a resurrection of the tarp and c.b.o. says full scale this will cost $175 million. again, less than the gentleman from alabama wants to send during that period to brazilian cotton farmers. people would vote consistently, as some do, to cut money for afghan infrastructure or iraqi security forces or brazilian cotton farmers or american cotton farmers or other recipients of subsidy who then are opposed to this program, i honor their integrity. i disagree with them in some ways but i honor it but i cannot accept a lecture on fiscal responsibility from someone who votes to lavish money in wasteful ways on afghan cities

but begrudges it in american cities, who would send it for iraqi police officers but not american police officers. who would send to cotton farmers and other farmers in america but not for struggling homeowners. now this program has started slowly and by the way there's a great contradiction between saying it's only helped 40 people and it's going to cost $8 billion. if the pace doesn't increase it won't cost the $full $175. but there are negotiations going on now to allow the people the benefit of the refinancing. the gentleman says it's not going to take care of everybody. of course not. there's not one program that's fit for everybody. there are a serious of -- series of programs for people in different circumstances and this is one for people who could benefit from a lower interest rate and a refinancing but they're under water and can't do it. it induces the financial institutions to do it. it's voluntary. if a financial institution finds this is unreasonable they won't do it. there is an effort going on now

to achieve a negotiated settlement involving the services, the financial institutions, many of which are quite culpable and misbehaviored in this process, so these are not victims being shaken down. the attorney general of every state, republican and democrat, and the regulators to try and come up with a solution. and this is the other point that gets lost in the rhetoric when the gentleman who was so eager to send money to brazilian cotton farmers begrudges a smaller amount going to americans facing foreclosure, foreclosure crisis is not just a crisis of individual families. it's a national economic problem. it's a macroeconomic problem. and to the extent that we do not condition tent -- consent to retard the rate of foreclosure, then we make it hard to get out of the economic bind in which we have found ourselves. which as the gentleman correctly said started from the meltdown of 2008. . we have within getting out of that at too slow a pace. this program has not become fully operational, and it may

never be. but it is here to be used as a tool especially if we were every to get the agreement among the attorneys general from both parties, the regulators, and financial institutions. it is a responsible way to deal with this. it will cost less than many of the unnecessary agricultural subsidy programs. i will say, mr. chairman, i got to go reread. maybe i missed a footnote. i know there is great free market economic text talking about free enterprise and keep the government out of business and let the free market work. apparently there's a footnote that says except agriculture. because overwhelmingly my republican colleagues who preach this to working people, to people in urban areas, to people on the jobs, it doesn't apply to cotton farmers or wheat farmers or grain farmers. billions of dollars -- as the gentleman from alabama said with his vote, how dare you limit some farmer a mere $250,000 in

entitlement subsidy because agriculture is anonymity. they don't talk about that. they want to talk about social security for the elderly, but they don't want to talk about entitlements for agriculture. i do believe we need to cut the deficit. i think we can cut back substantially in what we are doing in afghanistan and iraq. we can cut back substantially in agriculture. we can put limits elsewhere. i will throw in i did not think it was a good idea to reduce the estate tax that the heirs of william gates and warren buffett have to pay. although to their credit they didn't think so, either. they weren't for substantially reducing the estate tax for people who will be inheriting tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. but to support all of that as my colleagues over there have done, and then say we cannot put a program out there that will help americans facing foreclosure, not simply to help them, but to help the cities and to help the whole economy, and there is a

great consensus among economists that dealing responsively with foreclosures is a way to deal with it. please don't believe in $8 billion. it's not there, c.b.o. says $175 million, it's considerable. but i will repeat it is less than my friends want to send to brazil. less than they want to send to build infrastructure in kabul and kandahar. less than they want to spend to police fallujah. if they thought that set of funds would be well used i might feel better. but we know how corrupt it is. it is a double standard. let me say finally, expenditures in the united states have a very, very strict accountability. but exopiniondy tures in iraq, afghanistan, and around the world we know how much more wastefully and corruptly spent they are. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. i claim such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: if i were ranking

member frank i would do exactly what he's doing. i wouldn't talk about the fact that there are only 42 people that have been served by this program. i wouldn't talk about the fact that only $50 million has been setaside. i wouldn't talk about the $8 billion that has been authorized . i wouldn't talk about the fact that the american people were told this money would be repaid into the national treasury. no, i would talk about the cotton subsidy. the deal with brazil. that deal sounds pretty bad. it really does. the ranking member agrees. he kept talking about this for the last month about don't shut down this ineffective program to help balance the budget because

some of us voted for the cotton deal with brazil. in fact, the majority of this congress, the overwhelming majority did. but let's talk about that deal. who made that deal? did the gentleman from alabama make that deal? did the gentleman from texas that's going to speak on our side, did he make the deal? did the gentleman from nevada make that deal? did mr. dole, did he make that deal, the gentleman from illinois? no. the obama administration made that deal. the u.s. trade representative, mr. kirk, made that deal. in an agreement with the brazilian government. not the republican colleagues. here's what he told us.

he said that $60 billion worth of trade depended on our ability to export into brazil without the tariffs they were going to impose on us. that's 420,000 u.s. jobs that were threatened. and he told us that if we didn't do that, they would impose, and i'm going to introduce this, this is $820 billion worth of countertear rivers on such products -- countertariffs on such products as pharmaceuticals, autos, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton, medical equipment. so we made a deal with them to make them certain payments. to compensate for that. now, i don't know if he misrepresented, i don't know -- i don't think that president

obama and his administration and his u.s. trade representative would have misrepresented this, but if that was a bad deal, then the ranking member ought to go over there and complain to the president who he defends because he -- both of them apparently want to spend money at every turn and every chance they get. now, at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. bachus: prior to that i would like to introduce into the record the announcement by the obama administration and secretary -- ambassador kirk obligating the american people for this amount that the ranking member complains so vociferously

about. the chair: that will be covered under general leave of the house. the gentleman from texas. >> i thank the gentleman from alabama. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here in support of the bill to terminate the f.h.a. refinance program. this bill is not about programs that work, it's not about programs that have continually helped create jobs and help faltering economy and our job growth. this bill is about a failed government program because the f.h.a. refinance program that went into effect in september of 2010 has failed to work properly. by the end of december of last year of 2010, a mere 22 mortgages had been refinanced through the program at a cost of $50 million.

that's an average of $2.3 million per mortgage. the conclusion is very, very clear, the program does not work. and it's wasteful. we are in an economic crisis. according to the congressional budget office, the federal government is set to run a deficit for fiscal year 2011 of $1.5 trillion, and if serious steps are not taken right now, we are set and ready to see in 2012 another trillion dollars added to our deficit. mr. canseco: this river of red inc. is -- red ink is not sustainable. americans are coming to grips with the fact that if nothing is done we'll be the first generation in american history to leave for our children a legacy of insurmountable debt and economic stagnation. and while there are a number of difficult decisions that we must

take in the months and years ahead, common sense dictates that we can begin to set our spending under control by cutting programs that simply don't work. no matter how large or how small they are, or no matter how good they sound, they just don't work. this one does not work. and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often think that we are just one government program away from solving our problems. but when you think that way, you end up piling one government program on top of another, wasting the taxpayers' money without even helping our fellow citizens who are struggling in this day and age. the last two years have proven that government programs and government spending do very little in the way of stimulating jobs and economic growth.

we in the congress of the united states have a duty to be the stewards of the people's money, the people's tax dollars. the least we can do is tell our constituents that we are doing our job by cutting the stuff that does not work. this does not work. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first you just heard a fantasy that $50 million has been spent for 42 homes. that's not even remotely close to being true. $50 million has been setaside in the reserve for defaults if and when they come. not a penny of it has been given to anybody. it's simply sitting in that account in case in the 42 homes have nothing to do with that. yes, the gentleman from alabama said didn't talk about it, i did talk about it. i corrected the misuse of the $50 million from last week. he didn't misuse it today. and i mentioned it started slow

and may not get beyond where it is now. i mentioned that it is in reserve to use it more. so, yes, we only got 42. i talked about that. the $8 billion is a fantasy. at best it will cost $175 million. the fascinating, planation by the gentleman from alabama as to why he and the majority of the republicans voted to send $150 million per year last year, this year, the next couple years to brazil. obama made him do it. listen carefully. the explanation for this expenditure to go to brazil that the poor gentleman from alabama had to vote for is, barack obama made him do it. the president is a very convenient place for them to hide. in fact, if he was asking me if i'm critical of the president in that, yes? i am critical of the president being times. i agree with him overall, but i do not agree with him that we should send a balance for iraq

security forces. i don't agree we should send $400 million for infrastructure. the gentleman seems to think it's a major debating point because the president takes a position i disagree. perhaps his view is you always agree with the president of your party. secondly, there was an alternate to sending $150 million to brazil. we could have sent $150 million less to americans. the finding was that we were putting brazilian cotton farmers at $150 million disadvantage per year because of the subsidy we gave to americans. we could have come in with legislation that would have reduced the american -- in fact i underestimated the waste of money that the gentleman from alabama is indulges because barack obama made him do it and he was powerless to resist because it's $300 million a year. we had two options. we could eep the level of subsidy for american cotton farmers and match that to the brazilians, or we could reduce it by $150 million in america and reduce it to brazil.

over a four-year period this would be in effect that's over $1 billion, a considerable amount of money. so, yes, it is true the president sometimes makes unwise recommendations in my judgment. but the argument the gentleman from alabama needs to be absolved from responsibility for his vote and the majority of republicans, majority of us on our side repudiate the president's position in this case, but the gentleman from alabama's claim, don't blame me, obama made me do it is no more credible than his invocation of fantasy figures. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: may i inquire of the speaker, the chair, how much time each side has remaining? the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. bachus: i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the chair: the gentleman from mahu