probably be posturing violence, and you would not seek growth of the extremist groups that grew from a repressive regimes in the arab world itself. yes, they are against us, but they're also against the repressive regimes they grew up under. there is a hope that we will get regimes that will not be hostile towards the united states. host: i'm going to try to squeeze in one more phone call. we have to make it quick. caller: there was a gentleman by the name of lindsey wil liams that i heard on radio show. he befriended at an oil executive. before he died, he told lindsey williams the middle east would explode and it would not be for more, but internal conflict. my question is, how did this man know this, and what other people do the same thing? it leads me to believe it was

premeditated by a group of people? . guest: i do not think premeditated. there were a lot of people who saw this explosion in the region because people had been repressed by regimes that had grown bitter in steel and were not responding to their basic needs. we saw -- once the fear was released and they saw they had nothing to fear in tunisia, the egyptians challenge the government and the government was not able to go after them. then we saw this revolution that has swept through the region. host: we want to bring it to the house floor now. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the distinguished career of a man who's been an institution within an institution. daniel director of our congressional research service, who will

retire next month after more than 17 years at the helm of s. -- c.r.s. to say that dan is an institution around here is an understatement. in many ways he's person find the growth of c.r.s., from a small division of the library of congress, into objective and authoritative research and analysis that it is today. dan joined then what was the legislative reference service in september of 1969. fresh out of his doctoral training at georgetown. at the time just two of the 435 members currently serving in this house had been elected to congress. as far as that's concerned, a fair number of serving here hadn't been born yet. for the next 25 years dan steadily acquired seniority and respect within the government division of c.r.s., excelling as both analyst and chief. when the library of congress, dr. james billington, conducted a review of the library's

priorities in the early 1990's, dan was tapped to help ensure that the library services were as relevant as possible to members, committees and staff. those that exist to serve. this assignment led him to assume the role of deputy library of congress. and when they found in search of new director dan was the fit. he continued to exemplified the analytical depth, that is at the core of its mission, and the strategic vision to bring c.r.s. into the 21st century. he expanded the services ability to bring scholarship to bear on complex issues of policy, recruiting scientists and engineers working alongside analysts and attorneys. developing a plan to make sure that c.r.s. will be able to recruit top-notch analyst. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. price: i yield. mr. dreier: i want to extend

our harty congratulations to daniel mulholland and the work he's done to make sure that the house democracy partnership has been able to succeed. i want to thank my friend for taking out this very important time. i thank him for yielding. mr. price: i thank my friend and colleague, mr. dreier, the chairman of the house democracy partnership. and what he says is very important. dan mulholland and the congressional research service has been a critical partner in our effort to work with parliaments around the world in developing democracies to increase their capacity. mr. dreier: we have four of them here in fact this week. mr. price: we have four parliaments from pakistan, indonesia, members from iraq and -- mr. dreier: lebanon. mr. price: far parliaments this -- four parliaments this week. and the c.r.s. put on workshops for these members that will

help them with their operations back home and these exchanges are very useful to us as well. mr. speaker, i'm going to need to submit the bulk of the statement for the record. it goes into some detail about mr. mulholland's background at c.r.s. as my colleague stressed, the reason the two of us are here to offer this tribute today is because of the support he's offered over the years. first the solomon task force in the early 1990's working in eastern and central europe, working on technical assistance at that point. and then the last several years the house democracy partnership. mr. dreier: i thank my friend. mr. price: we're happy to join today in thanking dan mulholland for all these years of work and particularly acknowledging the kind of support that he's offered our efforts. he knows a lot about congress as an institution.

he has profound respect for congress as an institution. so he's had a -- he's brought a particular sense of mission, i think, to the work of these commissions that has -- that has greatly assisted us, has really helped us. he recognizes as a political scientist how critical legislative research is to the growth of democracy, first in post-communist europe and now all kind of emerging democracies around the world. had the privilege of traveling with dan to warsaw last year to observe the 20th anniversary of that earlier task force work. and i can assure, colleagues, he received a hero's welcome. his work has not gone unnoticed. and it's not going to go unnoticed by us as well. we want to salute dan mulholland for his many, many years of distinguished service. we want to thank him for all that he's done and we want to wish him well in his retirement, offer him our

sincere gratitude and praise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter, for five minutes. mr. mccotter: i ask permission to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccotter: mr. speaker, today i rise to honor the extraordinary life of edgar and to mourn his passing at the age of 80. born on august 16, 1930. edgar dead cailted his life to -- edgar dedicated his life. he was an exemplary citizen with an incredible work ethic, who held an ancestral love for his armenia. after graduating in 1948, edgar studied at the university of michigan and valiantly served in the united states army during the korean war. after being honorably discharged on december 7, 1954, technical sergeant joined his father's business where he had frequently worked since

childhood. thus began a long and storied career, establishing himself not only as a successful entrepreneur but as an ardent advocate and activist for our community and armenian causes. edgar served on the board of directors of the armenian assembly of america, the board of governors of the michigan design center, the detroit chapter of the armenian benevolent union and the seeds of peace. he was an associate in the founders society of the detroit institute of arts and was involved with the armenian library. edgar also founded the detroit chapter of the armenian american business council. edgar was named man of the year by the canadian armenian business council in 1995. in 2002, he was inducted into the international institute heritage hall of fame, and edgar was awarded the 2005 ellis island medal of honor. this prestigious award was to

honor ancestral group who through struggle, sacrifice and success helped build this great nation. edgar deeply loved his community and his community loved him. always mindful of his humble roots, edgar always endeavored to better our world. he was a mentor to many and an avid patron of the arts, a philanthropist. he led companies to donate in excess of $70 million in goods and services to local charities. sadly on march 27, 2011, edgar passed from this earthly world to his eternal reward. he's survived by his beloved wife of 54 years, sarah, and his children. yet, edgar's legacy will continue in the lives of his grand sons. as he joins his brother, arthur, in eternity, edgar is also survived by sisters, mary and eileen, and his brother, steve. mr. speaker, edgar will be long remembered as a compassionate

father, dedicated husband, passionate champion of armenian causes, a philanthropist, a community leader and above all as a friend. edgar was a man who deeply treasured his family, friends, community and country. today as we bid him farewell, i ask my colleagues to join me in mourning his passing and honoring his unwavering patriotism and legendary service to our community and our country. i would also ask us to reflect on what is perhaps the most poignant part of edgar's legacy . we are not enriched by what we do for ourselves but what we do for others within the short span of time god grants. truly edgar used the time he was given to leave us all better off, and now in honor of him, let us return the favor to our fellow human beings. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, i rise today to address a grave threat to both our economy and our democracy, and that is the disappearing middle class. over the last 30 years there has been a dramatic and deliberate transfer of wealth from middle class to the very, very, very rich. income equality is now at the highest levels since 1928. wages have stagnated from middle and working class families despite enormous gains in productivity. where has the money gone? this chart shows the change in the average pretax household income from 1979 to 2005. the bottom 20%, that's that

number way down in the corner, the bottom 20% of households saw their income over those 30 years grow just $200. over the same period, the top 1.1%, .1% saw income growth of nearly $6 million each year. the top .1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. the average income for the bottom 90% of americans, $31,244. meanwhile, republicans, who squandered a budget surplus, created a huge deficit with unpaid for tax cuts that went mainly to the very rich, and whose policies allowed wall street recklessness to bring our economy near collapse are

now demanding that the middle class foot the bill. their solution to our fiscal mess is to gut vital programs like social security, medicare and medicaid and to make cuts in domestic spending that would cut an additional 700,000 middle-class americans to lose their jobs. in the next chart, you can see some of the enormous cuts that they are proposing. $1.3 billion from community health centers. the only source of medical care for many families. $5.7 billion from pell grants. reducing the size of the grant for 9.4 million students who want to go to college. and $1 billion in funding for high-speed rail. important infrastructure project that will create good jobs, thousands and thousands of good jobs. once again, they're showing their utter disregard for the shrinking middle class and those who aspire to it by cutting important jobs programs and assistance programs for

poor families. part two of the republican program for addressing our economic problem and every other problem is to cut taxes even more for the rich. enough is enough. it's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. this isn't about punishment and it isn't about revenge. it is about fairness. currently, the top tax brackets starts at $375,000. failing to distinguish between the well-off and billionaires. i have introduced the fairness in taxation act which would create new tax brackets beginning at 45% for income over $1 million rising to 49% for income of $1 billion a year or more. and, yes, there are people in our country who made $1 billion or more just last year. historically these rates are relatively modest. during most of the reagan administration the top tax rate was 50%. and in previous decades, the top tax rate was as high as

94%. my bill would also address a fundamental inequality in our current law by taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates in those brackets. rich hedge fund managers should not be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries because much of their income, the hedge fund managers, is capital gains and dividends. according to citizens for tax justice, the fairness in taxation act will raise more than $78.9 billion if enacted in 2011, allowing us to avoid the harsh cuts that will hurt the middle class. this is an idea that americans support. in a recent poll, 81% of respondents supported placing a surtax on federal income for those making more than $1 million per year in order to reduce the deficit. passing the fairness in taxation act will allow us to stop the war on the middle class, restore fiscal integrity and fairness and fund initiatives that reflect our

american values and goals. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate a constituent of my south florida community, gus muchato for receiving the ford motor company's president award. the president's award is a prestigious honor and is awarded to less than 10% of all dealers nationwide. it recognizes gus ford for exceeding customer expectations in every department. customer satisfaction is more important than ever during these tough economic times. and its loyal and supportive customer base has allowed them to prosper where others have seen their markets shrink. certainly in the past year and a half we have had sadly witnessed many dealers close up shop.

it has been a very difficult period for car dealers nationwide. but gus has not only survived but flourished. i applaud gus for making the interest of customers its number one priority. to further recognize his contribution to our south florida neighborhoods, two outstanding individuals will acknowledge the significant aid that gus has provided to others with a community event this sunday. gus may be best known for his outstanding company, but his hand in helping those less fortunate in our south florida area is admirable. in 1985, gus organized the first gulf shoot-out at the doral gulf resort. with all proceeds going to the american cancer society, the charity event was so successful that the shoot-out has become an annual event. along with his golf event, gus was also founder of two additional charity events. he's founder of the first p.g.a.

tour senior golf classic at miami and key biscayne widow nates to the american cancer society -- donates to the american cancer society and united way. he's also found irof the gus muchato classic charity golf tournament which has raised over half a million dollars for cancer research. in 2008 to better serve the community through his charitable contributions, he created the gus muchato family foundation. every year the foundation celebrates the back to school fair on the grounds of his car dealership. the event provides hundreds of children with backpacks full of school supplies along with a generation donation of school materials that the foundation supplies to our children. it also offers immunizations and i.d. cards for kids in conjunction with different state and local government agencies during the back-to-school community fair. as a contributor to over 30

charitable organizations, few in our community have impacted south florida as much as gus has. again, congratulations to gus for his recent commendation and for his leadership to our community. mr. speaker, i rise today to honorer ving haze on his well deserved retirement after 46 years of public service in the florida keys. irvin's long and distinguished career was marked by a solid 35 years as property appraiser of monroe county. in his service to the keys, irving has borne witness to the unique and profound changes that have taken place in our keys community. his commitment to excellence has truly allowed him to shape the lives of countless conks. it is sad to see such a fine and dedicated public servant retiring, but those who follow in his footsteps will truly have much to establish. there are few greater rewards than the satisfaction of serving one's community and i thank

irvin for so much for having embraced this -- most noble of endeavors with such high principles. congratulations to irvin on his retirement and i wish him all the best on this new chapter of his life. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. -- the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, a little over a week ago the executive branch launched military force against yet another middle eastern country, this time it is oil rich libya. u.s. naval and air forces attacked libyan military installations across that country, wiping out air defenses, intelligence systems, tanks, and also apparently is now targeting that nation's ground forces. under what policy is the executive branch operating

without a vote of congress and expending millions of defense dollars and state dollars on offensive action taken inside a nation that did nothing provocative toward the united states and in fact last year was even a recipient of u.s. foreign aid? the president's justification for this action was that it was not an act of war but rather humanitarian mission to prevent a catastrophe that would have result interested libya's military forces under the command of libyan president gaddafi from taking the civilian center. our president says he did not act alone. as french, british, canadian, and other western nato members participated in these attacks. the president informed congress that future operations will be handled by nato. who exactly decided all of this? not congress. if this is not an act of war, f-16's fly over and bomb and u.s. naval forces shell, what is it? the president has further said he authorizes military action to

enforce u.n. security resolution 1973, on that resolution many nations who normally are u.s. allies abstained from the vote. such as india and are zail and germany. the -- brazil and germany. the president said he sought the permission of the arab league before taking action but it was three days into the bombing when the press reported the arab league said it had no objection to the bombing. so where in these operations are the arab league planes and soldiers? where's the african union's engagement? why are they silent? it appears the administration consulted key allies from oil dependent europe, like the french who dropped the first bombs, and the british. but the president didn't bother to ask congress. we live in very strange and dangerous times. the administration says it made a couple of phone calls to members of congress serving in the leadership. who exactly were they? and then the administration set up an after-the-fact briefing for members of congress in the capitol visitors center. none of these gestures make

spirit or letter of the law under our constitution relating to military engagement abroad. yes, protest movements seem to be springing up across africa and the middle east, and we witnessed some libyan rebels though we really don't know exactly who they are or who is funding them. take to the streets to demand reform and an end to the gaddafi government's grip on power. we also see troops loyal to the gaddafi regime who are fighting to maintain that regime. why is america taking a military role in an internal civil conflict without a vote of congress? on behalf of the american people who is sons and daughters are engaged in these operations? should it not be clear who it is we are supporting and for how long and what legal means? i and the entire world watched with horror the news reports of gaddafi's troops attacking civilians, including shutting off food, water, and fuel, shelling cities and towns, and targeting innocent people. those responsible for these crimes must face justice for what they have done, please tell me, where across that region do

we not have dictators in charge of nations? is america to intervene everywhere there is an uprising? libya is certainly not the only african country facing a humanitarian crisis. we have all but ignored the situation in kwobubooir, would dwarf the violence in libya. what about congo or sudan? isn't america's new 21st century monroe doctrine to now intervene militarily under the guise of humanitarian aid wherever a president chooses? the crisis in libya was several weeks old when the president chose to take action. surely there was time to seek congressional approval. i'm highly concerned this military intervention took the familiar pat esh of launching attacks just when congress left town to go back to our districts for a week, thus silencing our voices in congress even more as this floor was shut down. how premeditated and how

irresponsible i believe the current course of events to be. i have sent an official letter to the obama administration asking under what u.s. legal authority, u.s. forces have been engaging in libya. as a member of the defense subcommittee, i fully expect a matter of this nature would have been brought up before us. it never was. what have the operations cost to date and from which accounts are funds being taken? the department of defense claims it can create a civil works employment program to employ our returning veterans when they come home here, yet it finds money for this excursion. mr. speaker, there should have been a vote on the use of force outside our borders, not a notice after the fact. anyone who is following the news has been -- seen the reports of protests and unrest in multiple nations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, on the operations in libya, there should have been a vote here. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much.

a couple weeks ago we had the opportunity to vote and bring our troops home from afghanistan . it was mr. kucinich's amendment resolution, excuse me, that many of us hoped that my party would have joined. we only had eight republicans to vote to bring our troops home this year from afghanistan. mr. speaker, what is so ironic, we sit on this floor and debate cutting the budget, doing this or that, yet we are supporting a corrupt leader named karzai in afghanistan. in fact, i want to share with the people that a former marine general is my confidential advisor, i don't have permission to use his name, but i could, i guess, but i don't have his permission. this is what he said in a recent email to me. what do we say to the mother, the father, wife, the last soldier or marine killed to support a corrupt leader and a corrupt government in a war that cannot be won? let me share with you, mr. speaker, a couple comments from

the leader of afghanistan, president karzai. on march 12, 2011, in "the new york times" he said, i request that nato and america should stop these operations on our soil. he said, this is -- this was not on our soil, these wars, because there is no terrorism here on our soil. he further stated on december 8, 2010, in a meeting with petraeus, karzai stated that he now has three main enemies -- the taliban, united states, and the international community. he said, if i had to choose sides today, i would choose the taliban. this is the leader of a country where our young men and women are going and getting killed and losing their legs and arms. it makes no sense, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, according to a "washington post" abc news poll on march 15 of this year, 73% of americans no longer think the war in afghanistan is worth

fighting. 73% of the american people say the war in afghanistan is not worth fighting. i was very disappointed when secretary gates spoke to the armed services committee which i serve on recently. i'd like to read his quote because we are going to be there until about 2014 or 2015 unless congress demands we bring our troops home. this is his quote, mr. speaker, that is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015 the u.s. can with minimal risk begin reducing army active duty end strength by 27,000 and the marine corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. these projections assume that the number of troops in afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the president's strategy. mr. speaker, we are going to be there until 2014 or maybe even 2015. i also would like to show this poster that was in the greensboro paper, called the news in the record, on the 27th

of 2011, there is a flag draped coffin coming off a plane, mr. speaker, and the paper, mr. howard coble's district, said, get out. get out of afghanistan before it's too late. and it's the black hole with no end to it. in closing, mr. speaker, i would like to read from a letter from a marine down in my district, camp lejeune, jacksonville, north carolina, he served 31 years, retired as a colonel in the united states marine corps, i urge you to make contact with 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 comments will assist you in this effort, you are welcomed to use them and my name. dennis g. adams, lieutenant kohl member, retired, united states marine corps. mr. speaker, before i close, yesterday was congresswoman sue myrick, i went to walter reed hospital to visit the young soldiers and marines who have lost their legs, arms, and two

of them that we saw, mr. speaker, have no body arts below their waist. no body parts. and here we are supporting a corrupt leader of a nation that quite frankly will never be a nation, it is a country. it's not a nation. it will never have a national government. why are we wasting $7 billion a month in afghanistan and our young men and women are coming back with broken bodies? mr. speaker, it is time to get out of afghanistan. i close by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who gave a child dying for freedom, i ask god to bless the house and senate we will do what's right in the eyes of god. and please bless the president that he will do what's right in the eyes of god. and i say three times, 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 gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to express my deep concern about the military campaign in libya, one that has been under way the last week and a half. first off is distressing to once again see that congress' power has been so casual loedis regarded in our role and responsibility regarding -- regarding war. there should have been a robust debate in this chamber about the action in libya. the american people deserve it. the constitution mandates it. the president gave a fine speech monday night, as he certainly does, but i found him more eloquent than persuasive. i'm not satisfied that he's made a thorough case for military action against libya. there are still too many

unanswered questions. what is our responsibility now? where does our commitment end? does the pottery barn rule apply in libya, if we break it do we own it? i don't like that nato is in charge of this mission because the fact is that the united states is the dominant force within nato. any nato-led operation is one in which we still bear an enormous responsibility. and then there's the cost. the pentagon has acknowledged that it's already spent $550 million on the libya operation. that's after 1 1/2 weeks, mr. speaker. the bills to the taxpayers could usually climb over $1 billion. and, mr. speaker, at a time when we're already spending close to $7 billion a month on a failed military occupation in

afghanistan, this at a time when my friends in the majority want to snap the purse shut on so many important programs the american people need. there is unquestionably, unquestionably humanitarian crisis in libya. i'm appalled as we all are about gaddafi's brutality against his own people. but i fear that this operation will set a dangerous precedent and will send us sliding down a slippery slope. we can't afford to head down a path of perpetual u.s. military engagement around the world. with developing situations in syria, the ivory coast, the congo, yemen, etc., etc., we can't be in favor of guns and

bombs everywhere there is violence and unrest. we're already fighting two wars in the middle east. is that not enough? have we learned nothing over the last decade? have we learned nothing about the danger of open-ended military conflicts where the exit strategy is unclear and victory is ill-defined? the war in afghanistan is zapping america of its strength in so many ways. it has cost us in precious taxpayer dollars and it's cost us more than 1,500 of our bravest people. and it is costing us credibility and moral authority in ways that can't even be measured yet or quantified every single day. the time is now, mr. speaker, for less war, not more. let's stop, let's turn and let's insist that we don't turn libya into another black hole.

let's bring our troops home from afghanistan, and let's give our children a future of peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to talk about a topic that affects every american. rising energy prices. i have spoken on this floor about it before and i will continue to do so until we increase our energy pro cux here in america -- production here in america and the plitcal earthquake zones of this nation is depleted. i returned home to my district last week and i heard from my constituents loud and clear, gas prices are too high, we need to do something about it. that's why i found it so outrageous and appalling when i heard our president last week offering assistance and encouraging energy production

not here in america but in brazil. no, that's not the right direction. we need to encourage energy production right hear at home, not brazil. we need to develop our offshore energy resources so that jobs can be created here in america, not brazil. and we need to encourage energy independence so that we return to more reasonable energy costs, not in brazil, but right here in america. mr. speaker, the time is now to confront this issue and encourage energy exploration and production right here at home. the time is now to create our independence from foreign energy sources and secure our present and future. as good stewards of our god-given resources and the blessings of liberty. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hire oweno, for five minutes -- ms. hirono, for five minutes.

ms. hirono: mr. speaker, today a united hawaii delegation will be introducing the native hawaiian government re-organization act in both chambers of congress. long deny the recognition and rights accorded to america's other indigenous people, this bill will finally enable native hawaiians to embark on their long-awaited process of achieving self-determination. on the house side, congressman -- congresswoman hanabusa and i had the great pleasure of being joined by dongman -- congressman done young, congresswoman madeleine bordallo and tom cole, all, long-standing friends of native hawaiians. it reflects our values and who we are as a country. clearly there is much in the history of our interactions of the native people of what is now the united states that makes us less than proud.

the american indians, alaskan natives and native hawaiians, all suffered at the -- by the hands of our government. our atributes have been able to learn from our history and when possible make amends. the bill we are introducing today has been more than 10 years in the making. it has been a deliberative and open legislative process. there have been 12 congressional hearings on native hawaiian recognition. five of which were held in hawaii. these bills have been marked up by committees in both chambers. the house has passed native hawaiian recognition bills three times. first in 2000, again in 2007 and most recently just last year. the goals and purposes of a native hawaiian government re-organization act are consistent with the history of the native hawaiian people and the united states involvement in hawaii.

the bill is also consistent with over 188 existing federal laws that promote the welfare of native hawaiian people. i know there are members that question these authorized programs simply because native hawaiians is in the title which is exactly why we need this bill. it will formalize the very special political and legal relationship between the united states and the native hawaiians by providing a process through which the native hawaiian community can re-organize its governing entity within this relationship. this is how we treat alaskan natives and american indians and this is how we should treat native hawaiians. the kingdom of hawaii was overthrown in 1893. hawaii's last monarch, the queen, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters who were american by birth or heritage with the

support abetted by u.s. troops, the queen relink wished her thrown to avoid bloodshed. she believed the united states with which hawaii had diplomatic relations was -- would restore her to the thrown. there may be new members to this body who have not had occasion to learn the history of hawaii and i extend an open invitation to those members to share this history with you. the state of hawaii motto, which is also the motto of the kingdom of hawaii which is the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness. native hawaiians, like american indians and alaskan natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous aboriginal people. i ask for your support of the native hawaiian re-organization

act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, my dear sweet sister-in-law -- my dear sweet sister-in-law carl ann beaver went to be with her lord -- carroll ann beaver went to be with her lord on saturday, march 26, 2011. she passed -- passed away in her home near lockhart, texas, following a long and valiant battle with cancer. she's the first of four daughters of james brasher and betty hodges.

she was born on december 19, 1955, in pasadena, texas. in addition to her parents, she is survived by her loving husband of seven years, jeff beaver, three sons, michael, duston and lleyton, lleyton's wife, holly, three grandchildren. three sisters, vicky, barbara and my wife, terri. she is also survived by numerous aunts, uncles, nieces, cousins, her stepfather, steven hodges, two brother-in-laws, two step daughters and, of course, her husband's family. she began her business career in houston, texas, as a bookkeeper for bryan ad company that was owned by her late stepfather, james jackson. while with the company she gained an early knowledge of computerized accounting systems when she worked closely with the programmer to convert a

handwritten system into a computerized one. she moved to lockhart, texas, in congressman lloyd doggett's district, in caldwell county in 1988. she worked as a secretary and bookkeeper as a local law office. she returned to the accounting field first working with lifeway and then columbia health care and went to work for austin's municipal transit system capital metro system. she retired from cap metro when she -- when she came down with cancer as the payroll manager for the entire system. carol was a very loving, carol woman. she had a ready smile a twinkle in her eye. she treasured her husband, her family and many, many friends. when i first started dating her baby sister, terri, she was as she should be very skeptical of who she called congressman joe. she wasn't sure that her baby sister should be associated

with anybody that was a member of congress. i would have to say, though, that when i invited carol and her mother and two sisters and terri to the local dairy queen in lockhart, texas, i was able to at least neutralize their opposition with some ice corrine sum days and with some -- with ice cream sundaes and some barton backer t-shirts. she came to not only respect me but also this institution. she is goes to be missed. she was the absolute most courageous, dedicated human being in fighting her long battle with cancer. she never complained. she never -- she never gumbeled or whined about why me, lord. she took her battle with cancer in stride. she is now with her lord in a better place. we will miss her very much but we will know one day we will see her again. her funeral will be tomorrow in

lockhart, texas, at 1:00. visitation is this evening from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the mckerty funeral home in lockhart, texas. sweet, sweet carol -- we miss you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, for five minutes. . mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i rise to remember the late geraldine ferraro, there will be services held for her tomorrow in new york, which many of us will be attending. it was the night of july 19, 1984, in san francisco, that geraldine ferraro changed the game, changed the rules, and changed history when she accepted the democratic party's nomination as vice president of

the united states of america. i was there on the floor that night as a young delegate, and when she walked out on that stage, it was electrifying and inspiring beyond words. what her nomination meant to me and to millions of women everywhere, what she accomplished in that moment, and what she said that night, was all so important that her words still ring in my ear as if it were yesterday. she said, by choosing a woman to run for our nation's second highest office, you send a powerful signal to all americans there are no doors we cannot unlock, we will place no limits on achievement, if we can do this, we can do anything. that moment served as a hammer blow to the glass ceiling and a clarion call for a greater gender equality in our country.

i remember reading "time" magazine and "time" magazine heralded her selection as a historic choice, but even more than that, it was a life changing event. it changed the course of women's lives for the better. i know beyond question that it changed mine. because even in that not-too-distant era, it had been all too commonplace for those in power to believe that she simply cannot do that. she's a woman. it didn't matter if you had the talents, the education, the abilities, and the drive to be the best one to get the job done, if it was a job that many believed women simply could not do it. that was the kind of thinking that was all too often applied to roles in politics, to career choices, and to sports. and geraldine ferraro changed all of that. when she gained admission to fordham law school, an admission

officer said to her, you're taking a man's place, you know, you really should not go to law school. geraldine ferraro knew a woman's place was in the house, the senate, or any job she wanted to take. when she first ran for congress in 1978, all the political experts said she could not win in her home district in queens. she not only won, she went on to become a leader here in congress and she went on to become a friend, a mentor, and a role model. and that is one of the reasons that to honor her i have redoubled my efforts to pass the equal rights amendment and to add to our constitution the simple words, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states on or by any state on account of sex. those words embodied the principles that geraldine ferraro lived by and the equality of opportunity she sought. you saw her several weeks ago.

she was full of energy and plans and had some constituent issues she wanted me to take care of. she never gave up. she never gave in. towards the end geraldine ferraro fought her own battle against cancer with the same dignity, courage, tenacity, and grace that she brought to all of her fights. whether it was battling for equal rights or for human rights for women and men alike, it can truly be said of geraldine ferraro, this role model for the ages what was once said for the great heroes of old, she was, as tennyson wrote, one equal temper of heroic hearts made week by time and fate but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. geraldine ferraro, we shall never forget her, and i remember one of her greatation was, every time a woman runs, women win.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, for five minutes. mr. pence: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. abortion on demand is an american tragedy. but public funding for abortion and abortion providers is an american disgrace. fortunately we've never been closer to denying public funding to abortion providers in america than we are today. on february 18, 2011, with bipartisan support, the house of representatives passed h.r. 1, which included the pence amendment ending taxpayer funding for planned parenthood,

the largest abortion provider in america. despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screening or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women. if the amendment becomes law, thousands of women's health centers, clinics, and hospitals would still provide assistance to low-income families and women. the pence amendment would simply deny all federal funding to planned parenthood of america. over the past several weeks, planned parenthood has used its vast resources to launch slick, madison avenue television ads pore trage the -- portraying the nation's largest abortion provider as an organization that 3r0e vidse health care services to the poor with only an incidental interest in the abortion industry. the truth is far afield from the image. the truth is that a major source of planned parenthood's clinic income comes from the abortion business. despite attempts by advocates for the abortion industry and

ideologues on the left to portray efforts to defund planned parenthood as a war on women, the issue here is big business. and that business is abortion. this legislative battle over the pence amendment is about big abortion versus american taxpayers and american women specifically. as abby johnson, a former planned parenthood director, recrbtly said, quote, planned parenthood's mission on paper is to give quality and affordable health care and to protect women's rights, but in reality, she said, their mission is to increase their abortion numbers and to turn their increase into revenue. close quote. there is no doubt that planned parenthood's focus is on making big abortion even bigger. in 2009, the group made only 977 adoption referrals. cared for 7,021 prenatal clients, but they performed an unprecedented, 332,278

abortions. in fact, in 2009, a pregnant woman entering a planned parenthood clinic was 42 times more likely to have an abortion than to receive either prenatal care or be referred to an adoption service. according to their most recent annual report, the organization raked in $1.1 billion in total revenue. of that amount $$363.2 million came from taxpayers in the form of government grants and contracts. this is about big business and that business is abortion of the for all the talk about how poor women would be harmed if taxpayers stopped subsidizing, it's telling to see how they spent their money. according to a june, 2008 story in the "wall street journal," planned parenthood was flush with cash and using its profits to rebrand itself to appeal to more affluent women. it was designed to increasingly target wealthy consumers to

compliment their existing targeting of poor women. while taxpayers underwrite their operation, planned parenthood is building large luxury health centers in shopping centers and malls designed by marketing experts with touches like hardwood floors, muted lighting, large waiting rooms, and the like. big abortion routinely puts profits over women's health and safety. when women testify on behalf of improved safety standards at abortion clinics, planned parenthood opposes them and fights them every step of the way. and despite the fact that 88% of americans favor informed consent laws that provide information about the risks and alternatives to abortion for women, planned parenthood opposes these efforts and works to keep women in the dark in jurisdictions across the contry. the -- contry. the reality is -- across the country. the reality is abortion on demand is an american tragedy. but public funding of abortion providers is an american

disgrace. the time has come to deny any and all funding to planned parenthood of america, and this week as house republicans reaffirm our commitment to h.r. 1, reaffirm our commitment to make a down payment on fiscal responsibility and reform, let us also seize this moment to reaffirm our commitment to defend the broad mainstream values of the american people in the way we spend the people's money. i urge continued support by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of the pence amendment denying public funding planned parenthood of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, for five minutes. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. i very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time. i've come to the floor to let the world know that during the time i have been in the congress

from my view one of my dearest friends has just passed away. geraldine ferraro and i came to the congress together as classmates some three decades ago. thee was more than just a friend -- she was more than just a friend, she managed to have me serve on the same committee with her the first term. from the public works committee it wasn't very long before she convinced a cross section of us to travel with her to new york to attempt to have us better understand the difficulty new york has in delivering potable water to the people of the great city of new york. geraldine was a really, really tough lady, according to some. i knew her as a wonderful friend. she was a woman who cared about her constituency, fought very hard to represent their

interests, and indeed the initial role of any member of congress is to represent or try to represent their people well. and gerry and i learned together what that was all about. so over these years as i look back on this service, the opportunity to serve with the woman who became the first major party woman as a vice presidential nominee, it was always my privilege to say that gerry ferraro most importantly was my friend. so with that in memory of gerry's service here in the congress, i watched her grow as a human being and a public servant and i'm very proud of the fact that she is my friend. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess unti

a authorizing a d.c. school voucher and scholarship program. live coverage when the house gavels back in here on c-span. off the floor this afternoon members will hear from defense secretary gates, secretary of state clinton, and others in a classified briefing on libya. until the house comes back in, we'll take you over to the rayburn house office building where house armed services committee is hearing from three top military commanders about their program requests in the president's 2012 budgets. buck mckeon of california chairs the committee. it got under way about an hour ago. live coverage here on c-span. >> $28 trillion to $30 trillion which is roughly half of the global g.d.p. the point is we are lucky that our close allies in europe live in prosperous societies who can contribute to defense. now, the bad news is that many of our allies are not meeting

the nato standard of spending at least 2% of their g.d.p. on defense. and so some are, the united kingdom and france and turkey and greece, a handful are, but the majority are not. so i am worried. i believe that we here in the united states, because we pay a much higher percentage of our g.d.p. for our defense, need to be emphatic with our european allies that they should spend at least the minimum nato 2%. at a military to military level, i carry that message often, emphatically, and very directly. frankly not only to military counterparts but also to political act years in each of the nation's in the alliance. >> is there a concern as well that the plate is getting too full as well for nato? >> i think that is a concern everywhere today. and again in my view a minimum spending goal of 2% is very reasonable.

and one that broadly speaking the alliance should be able to support. so i will continue to press that emphatically. secretary gates pushes that very emphatically. secretary clinton pushes that. and we are all leaning forward to make sure our allies do the right thing in this regard. >> thank you. could you turn for a second to the potential cooperation between the u.s. and russia and any changes that you're seeing in terms of their military modernization efforts and how that is affecting the ucom environment at the a.r.? >> i can. in terms of where we are cooperating with russia, there is actually a wide spectrum of activities, some of which you may not generally be aware of. one is piracy. russia's operating ships off the coast of africa working very closely with nato and european union ships along with those of other nations. .

another area is courpt terrorism. we are cooperating with them in that regard. courpt narcotics, russia has a very bad problem with opium and heroin. >> i guess go on to the bad news? >> yes. there will be areas where we don't agree with russia. the situation in georgia is will be of those, for example, where we stand for the territorial integrity of georgia. but i think on balance overall certainly compeard to the cold war, and i -- compeard to the cold war and i would say compared to three, four years ago, these zones are in place and expanding. the one we're looking to is messle defense.

it's out -- missile defense. >> thank you very much. if i could very quickly, admiral, on the merida initiative, which is imminent in f.y. 2010, we now have another security systems program beyond that, how important is that assistance? s to leadership about key figures and events that sheaped the era during the 150th anniversary of the self-war. visit college classrooms across the world during "lectures in history." join curators behind the scenes at historic sites on "american artifacts" and "the presidency," as told through historic speeches from administration officials and experts. "american hevert tv" on c-span3 all weekend every weekend. get our complete schedule online and sign them to have them emailed to you using our c-span alert.

>> according to a roar by the natural resources defense council, 42 disease clusters have occurred in 13 states since 1976. a study has being called for t i would also like to thank all of the senators on the environment and publi which is a very helpful step. but helping our mexican partners with equipment is one of the things we would like to do with them including sharing our experience over the last few years, things that we learned, but the equipment is certainly important. particularly, mobility, helicopters, night vision goggles is priceless to help our partners with that kind of support. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your leadership and for your service. i appreciate your being before us today discussing these very important issues. i want to echo what mr. will sop has said and our -- mr. wilson has said and our chairman about the operation in libya. it is a mission that i am concerned as to whether or not its goals are clear. and also i am a little concerned and believe it's unclear of who we are supporting in this conflict. i know, as mr. wilson said, the subject matter of this hearing and we are going to continue to pursue this issue later today. but i do think it does need to be acknowledge as the concerns of this committee as we go forward. i'd like to talk in the issue

of the drug trade, the effects of the problems in russia. i appreciate you and i last month had an opportunity to meet during my trip to nato and in brussels. i appreciate your discussions there about it. 40% of the taliban's funding comes from the drug trade. so intuitively we believe you can reduce the drug trade we can reduce the money that buys weapons and explosives that fund the insurgencency. however, the to do list extends well beyond the department of defense. with your prior experience i'd like to know, how do you believe we're doing in going after this problem? and are we hampered by the department of defense or nato limitations in counternarcotic missions and, also, general frazier, there are different

viewpoints if the counterdrug strategy in the region has been successful, as touted. from your perspective, what are the successes, challenges of the regional counternarcotics efforts, admiral? >> thank you for your work with the parliamentary assembly. i would start by saying -- by putting some numbers on this. afghanistan today produces about 80% to 90% of the world's poppy, which is then turned into opium and then ultimately into heroin which is highly addicted. in russia, 30,000 people between 16 and 25 died of heroin overdoses. there is a significant heroin problem throughout many nations in europe and it flows across to the united states. so there is a human cost to this. secondly, as you alluded to, sir, taliban financing comes out of this.

probably $100 million to $2 hubbed million. so that -- $200 million. so that directly contributes to our losses in afghanistan. and then thirdly, all along that route there is corruption and there's crime as drugs move from afghanistan through central asia, through the balkans and into the user patterns both in europe, russia and ultimately in the united states. it's what i learned about cocaine in the americas. this, of course, is harper. what we're doing about -- this, of course, is heroin. what we're doing about it is establish a countertrafficking effort that is multi-agency, if you will, and really is there to support the d.e.a. as they take the lead on this. but our ability to bring surveillance, to bring connectivity, to develop analysis, all of that muss

clarity -- muscularity we are trying to do in u.s.-european demand so we can reduce the drug flow. it's a significant challenge but we're starting to see some impact. in fact, in afghanistan where we start the supply chain and we see afghans in the lead but nato supporting we have seen a reduction in the production of poppy and, therefore, of opium and heroin by about 20% over the last two years. so we're starting down the path. in the end in any problem like this you have to attack the demapped sides as well as the supply -- demand side as well as the supply side and the transit zone. there is no silver bullet. we're attacking all three in an interagency way. >> my discussion is very

similar as you look at latin america and the effort we had in going over a number of years to address the counterdrug issue. we've kind of grown that into a courpt illicit activity issue -- counterillicit activity issue. it's financed bulked cash. all of that back and forth. we focus very significantly on colombia because there was a terrorist there issue with the farc and it's now become a narco terrorist issue as they've now used narcoterrorism or narcocapability to finance their capacity. but if you look at colombia today where colombia was 10 years ago largely on the shoulders of the colombians, there's been significant progress there. homicides is down almost 50%. kidnappings are down almost 90%. they're largely controlling as their entire country their

pockets where there was not before. the aviation capacity that used to go from colombia into the united states has been removed. they shifted to other faces. and if you look at the effort combined with working in the francity zones along with our law enforcement partners who work with law enforcement throughout the region, the impact in the united states over the last 10 years is the price of cocaine has gone up 75%, the purity has gone down 30%. there is still a big demand problem in the united states and it kills 38,000 people a year. it's an issue that we need to address. what have we not done? >> if you have more would you please get it to him? >> yes, sir. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first for admiral winefeld, go

north a little bit. last year the olympics was held in vancouver and north com was active in security issues. what operational lessons have they taken from that and how do you continue to support these northern border enforcement activities and i know that 22% of the available resources is devoted to the northern border. can you talk about quickly -- i got a few other questions about those lessons. and then within the restrictions, how are you maintaining support of the northern border enforcement? >> your first question as far as the olympics. i think we took a lot of good solid less obs and i'd be happy to provide that for the record. i think it was the close cooperation we had between u.s. northern command and canada command. my partner up there and i are very close.

we have a canadian-u.s. civil nabs plan where u.s. military is able to support can nadeyab military and vice versa -- canadian military and vice versa. so that -- that was a very good news story and it's really brought out lessons that we can potentially use in a future disaster either in support of canada or the u.s. it's very positive. in terms of the northern border, 4,000 miles, very difficult territory. since 2008 we provided about two events per year that are about 30 days per event. i think we spend around $.8 million or $1.4 million on that. i candidly tell you that during that time we apprehended 18 pounds of maumpling which -- 18 1 pounds of marijuana. they've done exceptional job on the northern border in a

two-month period from november through january they assisted around 17,000 pounds of marijuana and assisted in the apprehension of those that killed agent terry on our side of the border. we have to consider this as an investment strategy. we continue to support our interagency partners around the northern border with sensors and radar and that sort of thing. >> and i ubs the balance -- understand the balance that you have to meet. it is much more difficult but we look -- we live where we live and want to it be to support that cooperation. i appreciate it. but your testimony cover the arctic. i am curious what would you do differently than u.s. coast guard and what would you share with u.s. coast guard? also note in your testimony

that it is is done, it sounds like, for the arctic. can you tell us about that one? >> we are working hard on the commander's estimate. i really benefit by having 125 can nadians there with an sbe -- canadians there with intergraded staff. it gives me true transparency with my partners in canada. we are making great progress on that. we pretty much settled on the primary themes being defense, security and safety with international cooperation to peacefully open the arctic, to assist in that as best we can without militaryizing it. i have one that has a vested interest in the arctic going well as well. one of the interesting things that we will be approaching within our own process is the

notion of working cooperatively with canada so we can ensure that the capabilities that we may invest in as the arctic open up are done in a complementary fashion rather than a redundant fashion. it would be very helpful. in terls of our own internal u.s. -- in terms of our own internal u.s. military things, we work closely with the coast guard and particularly the navy who has had good progress and effort to understand what the future needs are for the navy in the arctic. i think we have work ahead of us, frankly. what kind of capabilities we need. we understand the gaps and capability which will become apparent as the arctic opens. >> i think coast guard does as well covers the gap and we are not being reduppedant within our own services -- mock our own services but rather investing together. i think it will be better for

the taxpayers. thanks. >> thank you. mr. franks.

i guess i just want to make sure that we know that you have enough funds to successfully implement an effective g.m.b. that will not fail when the rubber hits the road. >> thank you, sir, for that question. it's -- first of all, the funds, of course, go to the missile defense agency and i'm the operator of that system, the trigger puller, if you will. i pay close attention to the health and future of the ballistic missile defense system that we have. regarding the budget, i would say that my very good partner, general o'riley at the missile defense agency, i believe he would say that most of those funding reductions are based on

his staff trying to squeeze as much as -- >> i just met with him. that's why -- part of the reason for the question. >> i would say that the 12 budget is going to do some very important things for me. one, it's going to procure some additional radars that will give us more situational i wareness forward. it will provide east coast communications which will increase the accuracy of our missiles and it's going to keep the g.b.i. line open which is very important to me because it gives us more options for the future. i would also add it's a very -- there's a good, robust, intellectual effort going on within the office of the secretary of defense led by the under of secretary of defense for policy in case the threat starts to accelerate a little bit and we are very aware of the potential of that happening. i'm pleased with what i've seen in that effort.

but i'm comfortable in helping the country. i would echo your comments on the c.r.a. that has some definite potential for slowing things down for general o'riley to include delays in component testing, delays in navy ballistic missile defense ship modernization. it would delay the construction of missile field two and so on down the line. so if we can get a -- get beyond the c.r.'s i would be with you in that regard. >> general frazier, forgive me. i want to skip over you and talk to admiral stavridis, if i will. the regime released a video that they may escalate hostilities in an effort to fulfill this prophecy.

and it includes destroying israel, conquering jerusalem. i understand the system there in israel is obviously interconnected with our u.s. theater missile defenses and we have fire control. but i'm concerned that the budget constraints will prevent these systems from effectively mitigating an iranian threat to the region. my question to you, how confident are you that our system in the region can effectively mitigate an iranian defense that increasing or escalating and what do you believe needs to be done to protect key u.s. interests, including the state of israel, from such a threat? >> sir, i do believe that as we look at the emerging ballistic missile threat from iran and from other actors, both in that region and around the world, it's a threat from which we need to be very mindful. the cooperation we have with israel in that regard is strong

and i believe it will continue. i had a chance to go see missile defense exercise a year ago. i'm going to another one this summer. it's a capability we work very closely on. the good news is we're now bringing online, as you know, european faith adaptive approach and i'll send you some material for the record that will cover my part of that answer. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. ms. has buicea. >> thank you, mr. -- >> thank you. ms. hanabusa. >> thank you. i was taken by the reference of the national guard and in our readiness subcommittee we talked about the national guard sort of enhancing the forces. you specifically mentioned that you have 40 as part of your organization -- north comm.

given the fact we have issues of article 10 and title 32, how is it that you're able to do that? they appear to be utilizing for things regarding our old defense. and there is, of course, through the constitution and various other laws there is restrictions on what the military can do. if you'll explain to me, because this is something i've been curious about, how can we get the national guard working with the military? it's also interesting because you're navey. of course, you don't have any of that. they're under the control of the governors and not the congress or the military. if you could educate me on that i'd appreciate it. >> first, i want to stress that i'm very, very pleased with the relationship i have with the national guard. both personally with my counterpart and the general of the 54 states and territories and washington, d.c.

they're good friends. we are very close partners. i think it's a very good news steer. i'm very pleased and proud with the dependents i have on the national guard for things that may surprise you. my trigger pullers are from colorado or alaska. tremendous capability in the air sovereignty with the air national guard. we can proper understand our relationship with the guard and don't go outside the lines. and the guards in my headquarters tend to be on title 10, that sort of thing. so we obviously have a raft of lawyers to make -- wrath of lawyers to make sure we are doing this properly and they are associated in general with national guard-related issues which is where the legality comes in. on any given day temporarily

coming to the headquarters to do work or that sort of thing i may have upwards of 00. i am proud of that fact. it -- i may have upwards of 100. i am very proud of that fact. and also working through fema. i think it's a very good news story. >> as an attorney i haven't heard -- >> we have 10,000 of them in the department of defense. >> along the same lines, admiral, you also mentioned the concept of transnational criminal organizations as a may yor focus. i guess that also triggers the interest in the national guard component as well because, you know, we don't usually traditionally view the military as somebody engaging in transnational activity. can you explain to me how that's interfacing with the national guard if it does at all because that seems to be more of a local state issue than a military one.

>> sure. that's a very good question. in general, first of i would say anything we do regarding transnational criminal organizations, whether it be domestically or in support of our mexican partners is always in support of civilian agencies and in particular law enforcement. we don't take on any of those roles ourselves. on the u.s. side of the border we give considerable support on the active duty side, two of our law enforcement sides. custom and border protection and i.c.e. when it comes to the national guard and the recent deployment of the national guard to the border that's completely outside of my responsibility in the sense they're brought into title 32 active status. they work for the state governors in that status. by virtue of the fact they are in title 32 they can be law enforcement operations although i don't believe they are. they are typically doing interidentification team support to border patrol and

that sort of thing. i don't have command, control or authority over the national guardsmen who have been sent to the border. i watch it, of course, i keep it in touch with my guard partners in how it's going. >> but they are an integral part of your t.c.o. operations? >>le national guardsmen really work for the state governors and in turn work with the customs and border protection team. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. coffman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank all three of you for your service to our country. admiral stavridis, if i'm saying it right, the governor -- the government accountability office criticized ucomm and u.s. army europe for the cost assessments regarding options containing four brigade combat teams in europe saying the analysis were

quote-unquote poorly documented, limited in scope and based on questionable assumptions, unquote. what have you done to correct this problem? do you agree with the g.a.o.? will retention of three or four brigade combat teams in europe add to the savings and what are the cost implications? >> well, this is an area where there has been great deal of analysis going both ways. i'd say first of all i'll provide you because it's detailed and technical, i'd like to come back to you on the record and provide that in some measured way to you. as a general proposition, i think over the last year we have become much closer in the way we viewed this as between department of army, ucomm, g.a.o. and o.s.d. because o.s.d. has stepped up and led

the study that the chairman asked me about earlier. as a result of that study coming out i think you'll have an opportunity to see we have brought this analysis that is accessible. the root of the question is, do you save money or do we spend more money? do you deploy troops from a forward european command. so it's going to be some back and forth between the entities, as you mentioned, congressman, in everything you mentioned from pork to for the and fork to pork forward. i think we've brought that analysis together and it's reflected in the report and we'll give you a more technical

detail. >> and bases in europe are not committed to combat operations in afghanistan and iraq. in your opinion how many brigade combat teams should be forward based in europe? >> well, i think it's difficult to answer that question. i'll point here to the libya operation in the sense we never know what's going to pop up. that's very clear. however, it's indicative of a potential for emergence of new tasking. so the analysis that we have provided to the department of defense reflects the potential for change in the world and the change can be good as we transition in afghanistan and reduce and the change can potentially be bad if we ean emergent mission somewhere. >> do you believe that the operation right now in libya has the appropriate force mix between u.s. and coalition

forces? >> i do. and i would say that we today in nato took over the mission and we are reducing the u.s. component of it measurablely and i think you'll see our allies increasingly engaged and that's appropriate. and the mix of forces are sea and air forces since we're not going to use ground troops there. and certainly that's good in the sense that it's different than the forces that we need in afghanistan, a land lock country. i believe we're adequately resourced at the moment at nato and i believe that the balance between u.s. and coalition is appropriate. >> let me just say one word for the record that the president said in his speech i think on monday night that it took eight years to do regime change in iraq. actually, it took three weeks to do regime in iraq. it took eight years in the aftermath of that regime change given the fact that there was

then humanitarian catastrophe and sectarian warfare that dragged the u.s. into it for eight years. general frazier, could you speak a little bit about china and its growing influence in latin america? >> thank you, congressman. today i see it primarily in the diplomatic and the commercial realm. really in a two-way street, if you will. many of the countries and nations between latin america and the caribbean are reaching out to china as this see that as an economic opportunity for them as well as china coming in and working within latin america. outside of asia, latin america is the second destination for chinese investment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. ms. bordallo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question for admiral

winnefeld. i would actually make a statement and i thank my colleague from hawaii for bringing up the national guard. we're indeed very proud of our national guard in guam. i think if my statistics are right that per capita we have the largest until of national guardsmen in the united states. is that correct? >> that's a very good question because guam lies outside of my responsibility i have. i have not paid attention. i will certainly look into that. >> congressman wilson was with me when we heard those statistics. also, having just returned from a codel with congressman wilson and other members of the armed services committee, we were shocked during a country briefing to hear that over one million people are addicted to drugs in afghanistan. is that a figure you've heard? >> i can take that question. yes, ma'am. that's accurate. i'll give you another one. in russia today there are 1.5

million people addicted to heroin. so this is part of this supply chain of poppy to opium to heroin that is moving largely from afghanistan through the region and contributing to dill tare yuss effects in corruption and human cost, as you allude to, a very grave challenge. >> well, we were truly shocked at some of the numbers that we heard. also, admiral, i'd like to ask you, you've often discussed the most effective method to national security is a whole government approach. you mentioned your efforts in great detail in your posture statement. would you please describe to us what you learned from this approach and if you still believe that this is the best path forward? >> i do believe in this very turbulent 21st century that we need to bring all elements of national capability together to

solve security challenges because so many of them are transnational, nontraditional problems that direct military activity will not solve. we have to have department of state, a.i.d. and defense, the so-called three d's, working together, defense, diplomacy and development. i think it's actually much larger than those three agencies. we talked a lot today about many other government agencies from the drug enforcement administration to the f.a.a. to the department of justice, department of transportation, department of homeland security, obviously. we have to bring all of these elements and capability together to bear against the challenges that we've all talked about today because they go across borders, they're nontraditional and i believe that is a very important aspect of our security going forward. >> well, i think my colleagues would agree with me during our recent codel we did find that working together, all of these

agencies, were very important to our success. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much and i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. west. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, gentlemen, it really is an honor to have you all here today. and to admiral a.t.f. staph, understanding that we have transitioned the combat theater of operations to nato control right now. my question is this and having been on some nato missions, i know lots of times that the combined joint manning document lots of times has to be picked up ad hoc to be filled. soify question is, what percentage of the cjmd are we finding that the united states will have to fill with the nato c-2? >> couple of answers to that and first, congressman, thank you for your service. >> not a problem. >> and obviously spent some time in nato. i would say that let's start with the command structure itself. today the command elements are

in italian kay ock commanded by an italian one star. there's a three-star italian admiral who is in charge of the arms embargo at maritime component command naples in turkey. the air component command center headed by three-star american with a three-star french deputy. and that flows up to the three-star canadian general who is heading up the joint task force embedded in joint forces command naples. of that command structure to pick one number, for example, but it's an important one, would be flag of general officers. in all of those entities there's about 40 admirals and generals. five will be from the united states. the others will be alliance officers. i think the balance will be somewhere around 50/50 as we move forward. over the last week or so taking

strikes, as an example, they've been balanced 50/50 between the alliance and the united states. and finally to take a third example, i think that we will see over the next couple of weeks as we move into this we'll see the strike part of this and the aviation combat air patrol will be filled largely by the allies and the united states will shift to enablers, things like intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, refueling, combat, search and rescue. i think the balance feels about right in terms of alliance and i'm confident that we will be able to fill the cjmd appropriately as we go forward. >> have you found yourself having to switch hats back and forth to task yourself as a ucomm commander? >> it's actually no because the big change over the last five years was the standup of

u.s.-africa command. as you very well recall, u.s. and africa used to be one part of u.s. combatant command and i think the department very wisely with the support of congress stood up africa command so it really has been a transition from a u.s. commander, general carter hamm, over to me as nato commander and that's in progress today. >> very well. to general fraser and admiral winnefeld, thanks and it's good to see you again. joe fraser, it's great that your staff hosted me down there at your headquarters, very pristine headquarters and very functional headquarters. one of the concerns i have, as we discussed before, with the t.c.o.'s, we do have a radical islamic threat that we are starting to see central america, latin america and even crossing over to mexico, we're seeing many of these submersibles. it can be used for drugs but what could it possibly be used

for in the future? when i go to the border patrol website i see this category called o.t.m. which is other than mexicans, which we know fits in that category. are we seeing the age old maxim of the enemy of the enemy is my friend. is there an alliance somewhat growing in your two perspective a.o.i.'s of some of these radical islamic nonstate belligerents and how do we track it? >> there is a lot of complexity to the relations of the t.c.o.'s within the renal. nd even though extremist organizations are involved in illicit activity, i have not seen a connection between those two groups as they conduct their own illicit activities. the one connection that we see growing is the area we term special interest, aliens, and those are individuals coming from other parts outside of

latin america who have and use the illicit trafficking routes within latin america for entry into the united states. we're just seeing connections there. that's not necessarily connected to extremist organizations but we continue to watch. >> thank you. >> if you could give it to him for the record it would be appreciated. mr. thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ed a mir health savings account, i want to -- admiral health savings account, i want to talk about -- admiral stavridis, i want to talk about here at home question why do we have so many military folks still in europe? and you touched briefly on the cost aspect of this. but can you discuss a little bit the operational advantages to having forces deployed in

europe, should they be needed in a libya-like situation or elsewhere in the middle east or north africa, how big a deal is that to have those forces that far in advance? >> sir, i think it's a very important advantage having our forces afforded in europe. as i mentioned, we've come down a long way from the cold war from 400,000 down to 80,000 today. those 80,000 contribute in at least three very distinct way. you touched on one, geography. i think as we look forward in this turbulent 21st century i think the possibility of continuing u.s. engagement forward in the region in which we're involved today is fairly high. and as a result, having forces that are forward gives us geographic immediacy in terms of response. and with libya, for example,

the u.s. air force, which is still very strong in europe, had helicopters, refuelers, all based there that can immediately be chopped to africa command and in station. the second one is that interaction of our troops with all of the european partners where we learn from each other. and i think that's an advantage that we tend to overlook at times. but being able to operate so frequently together in so many different places in and around europe, including our crown jewel training range in germany as well as the new bases in the east is a second real advantage of that kind of continuous engagement. and then thirdly, the presence of the united states there is what encourages our allies to come forward and operate with

us because we operate with them, we live with them. it creates an environment in which we can generate 45,000 non-u.s. troops for afghanistan. we can generate today, for example, off of libya, there are 40 ships operating. only about 12 from the united states. the rest from our european allies. why is that? because we are embedded with them and operate with them. i would say geography, mutual training and the benefits of that and finally the ability to leverage these forces forward are three very strong advantages. >> let me ask you about one other thing. you mentioned today nato takes over the libyan operation. are the rules of engagement clear? i think we all assume that if an airplane gets up in the sky, a libyan airplane, if will be shot down. if a tank moves, it seems like the tank is taken out. but it's not clear to me if there are a group of libyan

government soldiers massing together what our reaction to that. so i guess my question is, are the rules of engagement clear? what can you tell us about them? and in a nato context, are they determined by the least common denominator or who sets them? >> terrific question. i think we should probably not discuss specifics of rules of engagement because of classification. i will provide you the actual rules of engagement. you'll be struck as you see them how similar they are to u.s. normal unilateral rules of engagement in format, in style and in fact in intent and use of terminology everywhere from hostile act to hostile intent to penetration of technical area, etc., etc., etc. and this goes back to your freff question of advantage. we worked together so long with these allies that we are fairly

close in our tactics, techniques, procedures and, yes, our rules of engagement. in terms of how they're generated, they come up from the operators, the first set of rules of engagement were generated from the operational commander who was heading this operation down in naples. they come in to my headquarters. they're very carefully vetted by our international nato team and they go up to the north atlantic council and approved there. all of that flowed very smoothly in that process. >> thank you. mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the distinguished panelists for being here and also for your leadership for our service men and women. i guess first a comment. and it's conveyed with the deepest and most profound respect for my colleagues and the panelists.

you know, on the issue of presence and some of the virtues that have been put forward today, i guess it would be precisely my point and i'm concerned about us being forever or aggressively being involved in operations overseas. i proposed the actions in libya. i think -- i opposed the actions in libya. i think we need to bring closure to iraq and afghanistan. we're certainly involved in a global challenge from extremist networks that are designed to protect our cherished way of life. as we bring those operations in iraq and afghanistan to a closure and look to perfect and to neutralize -- perfect our counterterrorist operations and neutralize the extremist threats and learn from the past, i don't want to see us get involved, as much as i'm empathetic to those that want to live free.

i guess i would respectful loedis agree that -- when we ask that these are worthy goals, reassurance, training, engaging in operations, i'm not convinced that that must be so with forward presence. i think you can also do these things using exercise, joint exercises going forward. i just want to make that comment. the question i have is for admiral winnefeld. i must say right upfront i'm critical of some of these expansions in our federal government over the last decade as it relates to protecting our way of life. i just want to aupfront because i want to ask you the whole of government, department of defense, northern command, and department of homeland security, can you perhaps provide some clarity on unity of effort, who is in charge in terms of border security, counterterrorism operations here, cyberdefense and response to natural disaster, who's in

charge? >> thank you for your question, sir. first, i would say that we have a very good whole of government relationship with our various partners within the federal government, within the department of homeland security and also inside d.o.d. unless i'm pulling the trigger for a ballistic missile defense or some sort of air breathing threat to north america that most of what i do is in support of my partners. so in the event of a disaster, for example, there are capabilities that the department of defense can bring to bear that we would use other places as well potentially overseas in a contingency that is specific capabilities that are in short supplies of our partners or just sheer numbers of people who are well-trained, disciplined, as your experience in the military would probably inform you where we can assist our partners. and we have carefully drawn

rules and limitations and processes and procedures by which we provide that support. so my very good partner in the federal emergency management agency, craig, is in the lead. and the federal response to a disaster in support of the various states. if he needs my support, there's a process in place, the stafford act, economy act and where he can provide a mission assignment to me and we will respond according to the secretary of defense's willingness to do that. so that's just one small example. regarding the cyber piece, i'd defer to strategic command and u.s. ag command but they struck a relationship with the department of defense. supporting this country in terms of a cyberattack. i would assure you that we do have minimal redundancies that we have appropriate procedures and rules in place where we can work closely together as a whole of government.

>> and i appreciate the comments and know that every day you're giving me everything you have to protect us and we're just incredibly proud. i would just say that i think there were other ways that we could have aligned our organizations that i think would have been more effective. but for now i'll just yield back. thanks. >> thank you. mr. connolly. >> mr. chairman, thank you. general fraser, you mention -- mr. conaway. >> mr. chairman, thank you. general facer, in regards to china's activities in venezuela. the numbers have shown it's commercial. in your statement you talked about military armed sales to venspla. russian -- sales to venezuela. russian weapons, automatic weapons, the ak-47 deal they made with chavez, and also i guess sales to bolivia. can you talk to us somewhat of our visibility as to what

chavez is doing with respect to those relationships, folded into that the iranian work and russian work with chavez in terms of at least talking about nuclear power fram within venezuela and how -- program within venezuela and how that will morph into something else other than his bluster? a comment the other day reduce their caloric intake. give us the military aspects of what china and russia are doing in south america in general. >> thank you for the question, comment, congressman. as i look across the region and look at china it's very much focused on commercial and diplomatic efforts. they do have military programs, not just with venezuela but with many of the countries in the region where they're

inviting individuals to come attend courses in china. they're also looking to establish closer military-to-military relationships with partners in the region. and they are beginning to sell more weapons. the k-8. it's a light attack aircraft and a trainer that they're selling to venezuela and that bolivia is also looking at right now. i still see us very much in the commercial and diplomatic in the business aspect. russia, i still see again very much focused in arms and also working to address both commercial and diplomatic efforts. do we have a lot of visibility? i don't have a lot of visibility into what all those agreements are. i see a number of agreements made. those agreements tend to take a long time to come to fruition, specifically to your question on iran and the issue with

nuclear power. there was an agreement that venezuela and iran signed, but subsequent to the concerns in japan over the fukushima reactor site, at least the statements from president chavez is he's put a hold on any future development of nuclear power. >> we had a change in presidency in colombia. you mentioned the great work the colombians did led by their courageous president uribe. you see any changes in their focus on what successes colombia has and our involvement with the new santos-led government? >> i see president santos continuing the great work that president uribe did in expanding it. he's re-established diplomatic relations with ecuador. and there are' growing commercial and other relationships as well. across his borders, he's

working to expand that. as you look within colombia, beyond plan colombia, it's now a consolidation plan. he's looking to put in place a $240 billion over four years to expand the colombian government's presence throughout the region. in addition to that, he's reaching out beyond colombia. he's helping support mexican military with training some helicopters. and pilots. he's involved in central america. he's looking to see where they can provide their lessons to other partners and share their experiences. so it's a very positive effort. >> the requirements -- on page 22 of your statement you talk about the needs, you have specific needs, including manned and unmanned vehicles, technology, variety a things. does the 2012 budget request support acquisition of these capabilities for southern command? >> these are capabilities that are existing broadly across the

department of defense, so they are continuing to progress and provide those capabilities. nd then we will work on a year-to-year basis on where the concerns and where the priorities are within the department to -- >> 2012 budget request gives you access -- i mean, these aren't new but they give you the proper access to deploy these things in your a.o.r. adequately? >> as we look across the globe and you look at all the concerns that we have around the globe, within the priorities and within the concerns that we have, i have adequate access to those types of capabilities. is there opportunity for more? yes, sir. if we put it in context, i'm comfortable with where we are. >> ok. thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much. admiral stavridis, general fraser, admiral winnefeld, thank you, each of you for the job you're doing. please convey our thanks as

members of the armed services committee, all of us i'm sure would ask you to convey our thanks to those that you command for the great job that they're doing and thank you for your time here today. this committee will now be adjourned. >> thank you, chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> just a note on this hearing. admiral james stavridis is also the head of nato. he's taking charge of the military operations as the commanding general there. commanding admiral, i should say. and he was also yesterday up on the hill testifying before the senate armed services committee. you'll find awful that hearing online at -- you'll find all of that hearing online at c-span.org. we'll tell you about the house momentarily. we'll tell you tonight is the 67th annual congressional correspondents dinner. radio and television correspondents dinner. larry willmore will provide the entertainment and we'll show you live coverage beginning at 8:45 eastern and that will be on c-span3. we mentioned the u.s. house coming back in shortly for couple of bills. they gavel in at noon eastern. one is sponsored by house speaker john boehner. it re-authorizes washington, d.c.'s school voucher program. the final vote is expected this

afternoon. also today, a measure that prohibits the e.p.a. from requiring a permit for the use of registered pesticided in navigatable waters. and yesterday the house by voice vote approved the short-term f.a.a. re-authorization. the longer-term bill coming up on thursday. and then on friday, what's being termed as symbolic, "the hill" reports it this morning, house republicans, they write, will take another symbolic shot of forcing the senate's hand in the budget battle by passing a bill friday that they characterize is another attempt to avert another government shutdown. majority leader eric cantor says republicans will pass it friday by the april 8 deadline. the bill would become the law of the land. look for that on friday on the house floor. now we're going to take you live to the house floor as

members gavel in momentarily.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: we pray. those who put their trust in you, lord god, like the mountains that cannot be shaken. they seem to absorb all the turmoil and controversy. they stand tall and strong forever. just as the mountains as well as the depths of the seacoast

surround this nation, so, lord, your love holds your people now and forever. you will not allow the power of lives and half truths to dominate the air breathed in by the just. nor will your love fear to paralyze their hands when it comes to defending what is right. do good, lord, for those who seek the common good and are open-hearted. drive away those who are so deceived they create only indecision and dissension among the virtueous. give us peace, lord, now and forever. 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 stands approved. the -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? mrs. miller: mr. speaker,

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i ask for agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: those indicate by saying aye. the speaker: those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, on that i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from rhode island, congressman cicilline. mr. cicilline: 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: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker, and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. greens: mr. speaker, members, ignoring the facts, experts, political reality and the best interest of the american people, the republican leadership continues to embrace a spending plan already rejected by the senate that would destroy 700,000 jobs and derail the economic recovery. the republicans' spending plan is misplaced priority. they want to cut teachers, slash pell grants, reduce head start, among other shortsighted and harmful cuts. income to consumer increased in february. the total number of people receiving benefits fell to the lowest level in three years due to the increased in hirpge. the february jobs report shows a gain of 192,000 jobs, it marks the 12th straight month of private sector growth and a drop in the unemployment rate

to 8.9%, the lowest level in almost two years. let's not hurt our fragile recovery by the republican majority shutting down the government. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: we are in the midst of a foreign policy and constitutional crisis. the administration has committed our nation to a war against libya in violation of the constitution of the united states. the administration has said they do not have full information about the rebels they are assisting, but it is clear that for the last 30 years u.s. intelligence has had a relationship with prominent elements within the libyan opposition. further, "the new york times" today says that elements of the opposition may be linked to al qaeda and that we are considering arming them. when it comes to the war in libya, the administration has

subverted congress and the administration constitution. tomorrow, i will present to congress a definitive one-hour response to the administration's libyan war in the form of facts and questions. congress must commal violations of our constitutional -- congress must challenge violations of our constitution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cisliensy: madam speaker, i rise to -- mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i rise to honor the heroic men and women who serve in our armed forces. the providence medical center provides outpatient and inpatient health care to our veterans. recently, the providence v.a. received the national center for patients safety 2010 cornerstone recognition program

bronze award for successfully provided high-quality health care services to our veterans. the men and women who serve in the armed forces put their lives on the line every day to protect the freedoms that we enjoy here at home. we owe our troops, veterans and families the utmost gratitude and respect. and also for the great sacrifices on our behalf. i commend the providence v.a. center for their excellent services to our veterans. thank you for helping rhode island veterans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? ms. tsongas: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tsongas: i heard from one man who put his life savings into a home. after he was forced to modify his mortgage, his servicer stopped returning his phone calls, lost his documents and refused to provide him with any information to help him modify his loan.

he wrote to me saying, quote, my bank told me that they had not received the application documents i had sent at the beginning of the modification process. it was ridiculous. as i have the original documents on file with the fax receipt. nonetheless, i faxed everything again. over the course of an entire year he called and re-sent his documents, speaking with multiple people, none of whom could give him an answer or showing that he had a modification in place. this is one of many that i heard from constituents. we should be doing far more to ensure that these lenders are playing by the rules. instead, my republican colleagues have sought to terminate every step taken by the federal government to help homeowners like my constituent leading -- leaving them at the mercy of people like these. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> we have seen the devastating images of the massive earthquake and tsunami in japan. as someone who lived in japan, it's hard to believe entire towns and cities in this beautiful country have been destroyed. and i'm heart sick for the more than 9,800 lives that have been lost. i can only imagine the grief and shock felt by the families and friends of the victims in my -- and my heart goes out to them. i'm grateful that we have helped with the relief efforts. with more than 17,500 people still missing and more than 245,000 people in evacuation centers daunting challenges lie ahead. madam speaker, i urge this body to stand in solidarity with the japanese people and reassure our ally that america is ready and committed to giving our partner the support needed to

cope with this horrible disaster. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: madam speaker, america's broken immigration system continues to wreak havoc in communities across the country. real families with real children live in fear that someone they love may be torn away from them. no child deserves to grow up without love of their parents. we must bring an end to the separation of families. we must all remember that immigrants are not our enemies. they are our neighbors, our classmate, our fellow churchgoers. they are part of the american fabric. over the coming months, i look forward to working with c.h.c. and advocates across the nation to speak on the human impact, i state, on the human impact of

our broken immigration system. immigration is not just a latino issue. it's an american issue that impacts all of us. let's work together to stop this hateful rhetoric and pass real immigration reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: madam speaker, i rise today to promote early childhood programs which are investments not only in our children but in our country's future. in 1990, the childcare and development block grant was created for low-income parents who were either working or in school. if the proposed cuts to childcare and development block grants are signed into law, 150,000 families nationwide will lose childcare subsidies. in my home state, the annual cost for an infant can be nearly $12,000 a year.

and for a toddler can be as much as $9,000. head start is another vital service that has provided educational, health and nutritional services for 3 and 4-year-olds since 1965. if the cuts proposed in h.r. 1 become reality, 218,000 children nationwide will lose access to head start and approximately 50,000 employees will lose their jobs. 3,719 children in new jersey will be left without access to head start, and we already have 9,500 children on the waiting list. i ask congress to continue debate and support -- in support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. fudge: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: madam speaker, i rise to talk about the loss of jobs and services in america.

so far this republican-controlled congress has had nearly 100 hearings but not a single one has addressed the real issue in this country which is jobs. republican attempts to cut more than 50%, 50% of funding for head start which will affect more than 200,000 children. and a proposal to cut 62% from community development block grants have hurt our communities. they are deriving hardworking americans of services they need. according to the latest bloomberg national poll, when given five choices, the most -- of the most important issues facing this nation, 43% of all of americans -- of all americans pick unemployment and jobs as number one. reducing the deficit and spending came in a distant second at 29%. madam speaker, the american people want leadership that will create jobs and jump-start

our nation's economy. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the members for improving the lives of women in our community. this is the final week of women's history month and it's fitting we recognize an organization that is helping the next generation of women to succeed and make history. they recently held a conference for the seventh year in a row to help young women gain self-confidence and develop important life skills. mr. mcnerney: it included speakers that promote leadership and help participants to pursue their life's goals. the institution, which is one of many chapters throughout the

world, also issues awards to girls that provide grants to women so they can participate in job training and education programs. they have made a difference for many in our community. i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the members of this organization for their hard work to improve the lives of women. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker -- mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. by increasing that number of statues to include more notable women, minorities and other ethnic groups that contributed significantly to our history. currently there are 100 statues on display given by the states and only 16 are women or minority groups. 10 are women and three are native american.

three statues of native american males two, are hispanic and someone a pacific islander. although there have been many others in our history, no state has submit a statue honoring one of them. this disparity must be rectified. if you looked at the statues, you'd thought all the heroes and liters were granite white men. this bill is to express equal representation of all americans as essential in our historical perspectives in the educational value the capitol offers its thousands of visitors. i ask my colleagues to look at the bill, support it and have more diverse representation among the statuary in the united states capitol. thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time -- yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the gentleman is -- the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. i ask the american people to wake up in the malaise of this debate about the deficit and raising the debt ceiling, you have lost your way. let me just ask you to raise

your voices against the issue of a broken government and the potential of a shutdown on the question of what do you want for your children. as we go back to our districts and our school districts and our state, parents are standing in lines at school board meetings crying about 60-seat schools, a classroom, teachers being laid off. don't you understand that it starts right here in washington? you need to be speaking to our friends on the other side of the aisle. it's time to invest and grow the economy. it's time to recognize that consumer spending has increased, that jobs have been created and that it's important to invest in this economy. if you don't get in the way and get in the mix, i can tell that you the rise that we have of 192,000 jobs being created, the unemployment going down, economists saying we should invest now, you're going to lose it. tied up with those who have views that are only self-centered. our friends that are in the tea party. it's time for people to put

education first and realize that if you let us fall on the spear here in washington, on the grounds of mislabeled politics and not worry about your children, you're going to lose. wake up, america. it's time to get in the fight. fight for your children, it's best and grow the economy now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hirono: last week when most of us were in our respective districts, representatives from community health centers around the country came to capitol hill to remind us of the essential role they play in our communities. i hope that the staff of members who voted for h.r. 1 which drastically cuts funding for these very health centers listen to the stories they heard last week. i long supported community health centers because in my district, spread over seven inhabited islands, access to care is a challenge. although the principle focus has been to provide health care for

the underserved, these centers serve people at all income levels. hawaii's network of community health centers serve nearly 127,000 patients and only 1/3 of them are medicaid eligible. on the island, 40% of the residents receive care through their community health center. this population, 25% of which are over 65 years of age, can't afford to fly to another island for care. funding for community health centers is an investment because prevention is more cost effective than treatment. i urge my colleagues to reject cuts to community health centers. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. wakeup calls. are we listening? mr. tonko: can we hear them? this majority in the house has not heeded that wakeup call that ignores the investments that we need in the clean energy

economy. to grow jobs. what are those wakeup calls? well, there's first the hard-earned american energy consumer dollars. $400 billion plus that go to unfriendly nations that will take those dollars and invest in fighting the american troops. while they supply us fossil-based fuels. then there's the oil spill in the gulf that damaged our ecosystem and wrecked the regional economy. then there was the sticker shock at the pump, at the gas pump, that is driving down the american economy. and no one is listening. now maybe we'll pay attention to the sad announcement today. last year we dropped to number three in clean energy investment after china and germany. when will we wake up? i say today the president talks to us about the energy security in our economy, that we need to reduce oil imports and innovate into a clean energy future. we need to heed that clarian call. t.s.a. wakeup call necessary. the america -- it is a wakeup call that's necessary.

the america i know is number one. it should never be three. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, california's governor will soon declare an end to the drought that's devastated the san joaquin valley. it's clear that the drought is over. somehow, though, washington hasn't gotten the news. with unemployment still in double digits in seven counties in the valley, and unemployment continuing to be very problematic, the folks in washington think that communities can recover from the great recession with just over half the water our farmers need. mr. costa: they don't understand the valley, they don't understand us. do you hear me, commerce department? water is the life blood of the san joaquin valley, it puts food on our tables, sustains our economy and creates good jobs.

and that's why i'm introducing legislation that would allow the needed flexibility for california water policy. as we work to find short-term and long-term solutions to california's broken water system, passing commonsense legislation will bring over a half a million acre feet of water to the valley. it's time to put aside our political differences, it's time to reach a compromise and end this regulatory drought. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, a few hours ago fiscal and public health safety and sanity prevailed when the food and drug administration clarified an order approving a drug which is a injectble medication for women at risk of preterm birth, one of the biggest health care challenges that our country faces. mr. courtney: there are a half a million premature births in this country, they cost the health care system $29 billion, the

leading cause of infant mortality. this new medication which the f.d.a. approved is promising but it costs $1,500 per injection, $30,000 per pregnancy. at the same time ob-gyn's in this country have been prescribing a compound alternative that costs only $20 per treatment, per medication, and yet the order on february 3 indicated that there would only be exclusive treatments under the $1,500 medication. the order this morning clarifies that there will be no ex cluesificity, that ob-gyn's will be able to prescribe the cheaper alternative, but f.d.a. retains its power to still require ex cluesist. for the -- for the sake of taxpayers and patients, congress must take a closer eye on the f.d.a. to not take away this option from ob-gyn's all across america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 21, house resolution 186, resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 471, to re-authorize the d.c. opportunity scholarship program and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment recommended by the committee on oversight and government reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. two, the further amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by delegate norton of the district of columbia or her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and, three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: madam speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only and i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five

legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 471, the scholarship for opportunity and result act, sometimes called the sore act. with one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the oversight and government reform committee. further, this proposed rule will make in order all the amendments filed in the rules committee for h.r. 471. it was only one amendment but it is made in order and it is offered by mrs. holmes norton of the district of columbia. it's an amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21 vote but which will be reoffered here today. in short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get. madam speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule, and

i am pleased to stand before the house in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, h.r. 471. i commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner, who has previously served as chairman of the education work force committee and he understands education issues very, very well. madam speaker, when the cubs in the 1960's hired their manager, he was hired two years after they had finished the season 49 games out of first place. and in his short period of time there, he would take them to the top in which case in 1969, a year that still hurts, the cubs were atop the national league for 155 days. unfortunately seven of those days they were not on the top, included the last day of the season. but the manager always said for his team, that i make a great effort to argue for the issues that there are two things that are working against me. the umpires and the rules. there will be a lot of people,

some people, who will speak against this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against them. one is the unique constitutional relationship between congress and the district of columbia that is not there vis-a-vis the states and number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this underlying bill. if i was to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, i would predict four theems will be apeering time after time after time. one will be the concept of the constitutional mandate for this year. when this republic was established, the constitution gave unique jurisdictional responsibilities to congress over the district of columbia. that is not going to be a violation of their home rule concept but it is a responsibility of congress. and there is great precedent for this particular kind of provision. in 1996 it's congress that insisted on a charged school program in the district of columbia. you'll hear from both sides of

the aisle, recognition of the great value that program has and jfblely so. there is a waiting list in the district of columbia for those charter schools. this underlying bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the district. 2003, an opportunity scholarship was instituted at the insistence of congress. again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity, disadvantaged kids that wanted this scholarship afforded them. in the appropriation bill for 2010, unfortunately congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out this opportunity scholarship program. there were a lot of upset students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics got in the way of their son's or daughters' dreams and was snatched from the very hands, the opportunity for better educational choices basically taken away from them. h.r. 471 remedies this

inequity. there were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the action of that particular appropriation bill. those 216 kids by this particular legislation will be given priority and once again being able to apply for this opportunity scholarship. second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals with the efficacy of these programs. there will be conflicting data that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness, but i think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is the 91% of the kids enrolled in this opportunity scholarship complete their course work. that is 21% higher than a controlled group of kids who are interested but were not allowed the opportunity of completing this particular program. and that completion rate is almost 32% higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public education system in washington, d.c. to quote dr. patrick wolf who was the lead investigator of

the evaluation mandated by congress. he concluded by stating, the research evidence and the testimonials of the parents confirmed that the district of columbia is a better place because of the opportunity scholarship program. third effort, third issue you'll be hearing deals with the support of this particular program. there will be dueling statistics that will be coming at you during the course of the debate. those in favor of the bill will give you lists of groups who are in favor of this particular program. those against the bill will give lists of groups in unions who are opposed to it. each side will give a list of political leaders both within washington, d.c., and outside who are in favor and those opposed will give lists of political leaders who do not support this program. there will be poll results that will be given from both sides. most recent of which will be given by advocates. a lesser and associate poll which says that 74% of the d.c.

residents polled supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all d.c. students. for all their abilities to participate. you will hear polling data to the contrary. you will hear anecdotal stories to the ocontrary. perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents and the kids in washington, d.c., who lined up for this program, who went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this program, who cried and pled with congress' past when this program was eliminated. they clearly do not want this program to totally be destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option, their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational opportunities. this program probably has a philosophical basis, kinship, if you would, with the pell grant, g.i. bill of rights and which once again government tried to empower with choices,

with few strings attached individual results or parents which could choose their own educational future. that's what this bill still tries to do. the final concept that will probably be debated on the bill deals with the concept of liberty. we have a statue of liberty in new york harbor. the revolutionary war was supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty. i have to admit, though, as i was teaching school that it was difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. it was an abstract noun, to say the least. the founders clearly understood what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far, far away from them and in the declaration of independence were willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people indeed that they had waged war against them.

those of us live -- who live in the west today have the department of interior to remind us of those same circumstances, but the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to have liberty. until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choice, options, opportunity without the heavy hand of a government official defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be, the entrepreneurial world gets it. they realize if they want to market share they have to give people choices in their lives. so if i want a mobile phone there are all sorts of plans from which i may choose. even in the smallest corner market in d.c., there is a whole row of breakfast cereals i can choose. they give me 16 varieties. if indeed omaha steak sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with one of their products and i will choose this week to order one that fits for me.

only in washington in this government do you still have people that truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of henry ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face look at a consumer and say you can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black. unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government today, indeed, some of the programs in government today were born in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened office would decide what i wanted and what was indeed best for me. that's liberty. the icons who face us in this chamber, all of them were related in some way of moving the concept of law forward which led to the concept of liberty. this bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity and options for people. it deserves our support because

it is an opportunity. call it an education app for people living in the district of columbia, that the most needy and deserving can actually have their choice of how they want their education to take place and it's done under the fear of responsibility given to congress by the constitution. this bill is worthy of our heritage. it is a symbol of our legacy. one can only assume that the founders and indeed the icons that are looking down from the perch above us are smiling now saying congress doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got it right. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i'm very pleased today to rise in strong opposition to h.r. 471, the scholarships for

opportunity and results act, also known as the sora act. i am very pleased that my friend from utah has granted time to our side. this legislation revises the district of columbia school voucher program, a program that was allowed to expire after five years of failing to improve student achievement. my colleagues said there will be statistics on both sides. that is true. i also have great respect that the presenter of the rule today is a school teacher. at least if somebody is going to meddle in somebody else's business they ought to at least know a little bit of what they are talking about. too many times in too many in our states, too many times in this place many of us who are

not educators nor have we been involved are making decisions about the education of folks, children, when we should be a lot more careful. let me, for example, my colleague who knows his state well, as i know mine, and we know ours, all of us in this institution, i'm sure that he's mindful that in the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed. and interestingly enough, two times in utah, i would urge my good friend. as late as 2007 utah voted 62% to 38% not to have vouchers, and before that, 89% of the people in a referendum in the district of columbia in 1981 voted against vouchers.

but in 1988 utah, 67%. it didn't change very much from that time to 2007 which is not far from now. so how dare we come here to tell these people that we are now going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single bit of consultation with a single member of the public officials in this community being consulted? some may ask why we are debating a misguided bill when we are at war, our own nation's economy is kind of puttering along. i suppose when it is one of the leadership of the republican party's petty issues, the

people's work can always be put on hold. this matter is nothing more than a shallow attempt to once again appease the right wing of the republican party. well, mr. speaker, madam speaker, congress's oversight of the district is not an excuse for political pandering to the republicans' special interest of the day. my colleague used leo derosa. he played with and against yogi berra and yogi berra reminds me if i were to use an analogy, this is deja vu all over again. he and leo will be proud that we are talking about him, mr. bishop. whether it's gun rights or women's right to choose or education policy, the district is not and should not be the dumping ground for republicans' ideological whims. my colleagues have already stripped the district of its limited vote in congress. the least they could do is a--

allow them to control their education system just as every other jurisdiction in this country is allowed to do. the people of the district of columbia did not ask for or want this program, nor were they, as i have pointed out, or their elected officials consulted. if they had been i'm sure the committee would have been told what many of us already know, this program is simply a waste of money. according to legislatively mandated evaluations, the d.c. voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on student achievement. this is in contrast to reading and math scores across the district which did improve over the same period. but my colleagues claim that this program serves students who would otherwise be stuck in failing schools without the resources to adequately meet their needs. only about a quarter of the students using vouchers came from schools in need of

improvement. additionally, the department of education found that students participating in the d.c. voucher program were significantly less likely to attend the school with the special needs programs, counselors. further, private schools are not required to hold the same level of transparency or accountability as public schools. rather than directing these funds toward improving all of the district's public and charter schools as delegate eleanor holmes norton has proposed, this program only serves 1.3% of the 70,000 students enrolled in the d.c. public schools. though my colleagues may claim to have a new found commitment to education, my friend from the rules committee being an

exception, albie it only for a few -- albiet only for a few exceptions, some in this body and most in the republican party were content to cut, and my friend just used the kinship of pell grants with this proposal. they propose to cut federal funding for 9.4 million students, eliminate over 200,000 head start placements, do away with supplemental -- for over 100,000 underserved students. my constituency were talking about how drastic this is going to affect the constituency in that area of underprivileged students and who they are seeing and what the juvenile justice system is now reaping from this ill harvest that we

thrust upon these people. reduce or get rid of, they say, after-school programs for 139,000 students across this nation. on the one hand, republicans go about the need for fiscal discipline. they refuse to negotiate on legislation to keep the government operating and propose billions of dollars in cuts to our nation's students, yet they are perfectly willing to throw millions of dollars at a program that has proven year after year to be unpopular, inefficient and downright ineffective. if my colleagues truly wanted to improve the district's schools, along with the schools across the nation, they will be bringing forth a measure seriously to reform the no child left behind provision. but instead we're debating a measure that has no hope of becoming law, simply to appease the political whim of a few in the republican party.

the american people in my view are tired of the majority using this institution to do nothing but spew ideological rhetoric. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 639, the currency reform for fair trade act, and i'm mindful that there will be speakers regarding that. the amendment will provide our government the tools to rein in unfair currency policies by the chinese. i'm going to at this time reserve any further comments that i have after the following statement. it has been 13 weeks and still no jobs bill. and no substantive plan to improve our nation's economy.

when my friends on the majority are ready to get down to the serious business of improving the lives of all american people , we'll be waiting. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i appreciate the opportunity of being here and i also appreciate being on here with my good friend from florida, mr. hastings. who is one of the true delights with who i have the opportunity to work here in washington. i guess if he is saying that we have the group de jure from whom we are presenting bills today, that would be those who are financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for education, as i said, there would be four issues that would be discussed, we can check off three of the four already, only the concept of liberty has yet to be addressed here. some of them may be nonsequencered but they were still there nonetheless. the last statistic that can be

put out there as to whether that this program works or not dealing with the parents who when the free market of ideas was opened up to them, they chose this program, they wanted this program. they wanted to maintain this program and they will go back to. it since mr. hastings also used a baseball reference to tie me, i have to one up him one more time. in the words of page who was talking to a pitcher, he said, throw the pitch. just throw strikes. home plate don't move. this program is one of those strikes. all we need to do is throw it. home plate don't move. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm going to one up his one upper. he also said, don't look back. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from the rules committee from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. this bill, the sore act,

re-establishes a program to send d.c. students to private, elementary and secondary schools. the main issue that i struggle with that this body needs to struggle with with regard to this measure is the justification for pushing federal will onto washington, d.c., which is counter to local control over education, a concept that has broad bipartisan support. one of my top priorities in this body is to improve our education system, ensure that every child has an effective teacher in the classroom, improve accountability for all schools and to provide a pathway to college and career for life-long success. and to be clear, the overall state of the schools in washington, d.c., is a disgrace. a recent education week study showed a 48.8% on happen time graduation rate -- on-time graduation rate. we should be ashamed. we need to do better. the americans who live here in washington, d.c., and yet it's

absurd, madam speaker, that we as elected officials from 50 states are executing a right to determine how schools are funded in a jurisdiction that doesn't even have a vote in this body. i'm a representative of part of one state, colorado. and yet here i am in a position to making school funding decisions on behalf of washington, d.c., students. we wouldn't do this to colorado or ohio or virginia or any other state. a district near mine in the state of colorado, douglas county school district, recently enacted a districtwide voucher program. the residents of d.c. are no less american than the residents of douglas county. and yet in douglas county, colorado, there will be candidates who run for school board for the programs, candidates that run for school board against the program, and the future of whether or not vouchers continue in douglas county, colorado, will be decided where it should be, by the residents of douglas county, colorado. this vote underscores the need

for washington, d.c., to control its own public school system as a state does. in fact, mr. speaker, i think that washington, d.c., should be a state. until that day, congress should respect the wishes of d.c. elected officials with the regard to the charge of their education system. there is a federal interest with regard to what the state does and what washington, d.c., does with regard to education. states and the district of columbia should have the discretion to make the changes they need to improve education but not the discretion to stand back and do nothing. in fact, i worried considerably about an announcement that they would fund capital for charter schools, only $2,800 as opposed to the $5,800 that the regular public schools get. i ask for an additional 45 seconds. an additional 45 seconds. mr. hastings: yes, i yield the gentleman. mr. polis: i thank the

gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 40 seconds. poll follow if the elected officials and people of washington, d.c., wanted a system of school vouchers, they would have created it and not relied on the federal government. the important measure tal -- im pertive -- the important measure of education reform is with or without vouchers. i think it's critical to give education reform who are hard at work here in the district of columbia a chance to succeed on the route they have laid out which apparently does not include vouchers at this time. i will continue to push for d.c. statehood and for a federal role that encourages transparency and accountability, improves and builds upon our successes in public education and make sure that we change what doesn't work. with the tools and discretion at the local level to make those tough decisions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: again, madam speaker, i am pleased to be here and also be joined by my good

friend from colorado, whom i should probably publicly apologize for saying disparaging things last night when i screwed up and i apologize for that. however, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here. on who gets to decide on what will or will not be allowed. whatever we do in this unique situation, a decision will be made. if we pass the underlying bill we empower parents in washington, d.c., to make a choice. if we don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in washington, d.c., from making that kind of choice. and once again when they were allowed to make that choice they had a waiting list for those wishing to participate. it's a conundrum. whatever we do, yes, or no, it makes a decision on behalf of the people of washington, d.c. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would you be so kind as to imform us as to the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 16

3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased at this time to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the district of columbia, my good friend, ms. holmes norton, who knows more about this issue than all of us combined. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from d.c. is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank you very much. i certainly thank my good friend from florida for his work on not only this bill, h.r. 471, but for his strong respect for the district of columbia and its residents and his support for our rights of self-government as american citizens. i oppose this rule, i oppose this bill and at the appropriate time i will have a substitute to redirect the funds in this bill in accordance with the home rule wishes of the district of columbia. may i say i appreciate the words

of my good friend from utah, but i do resent the use of the word liberty. at a time when this bill would deprive the residents of the district of columbia of the liberty every other district has in deciding local education decisions for itself, they have it in utah, we will never be satisfied as long as we do not have each and everything you have in utah. now, the majority ought to approach this rule with caution. many in the house ran on the promise to reduce the power of the federal government and to reduce the budget. now we are three months into the new congress and if they vote for this rule they will be breaking their promises.

they will be voting for an unprecedented expansion of the federal government's power in the quintessential local decision of elementary and secondary education. they will be voting for this rule against the will of the jurisdiction, the only jurisdiction to which it applies, the district of columbia. they will be voting for this rule with no consultation with any elected officials in the local jurisdiction involved. they will be voting to authorize the federal government to mandate that a local government offer a program for students to attend private schools at public ex pension, federal expense,

that is -- expense, federal expense, that is. they will be voting to increase the deficit by $300 million with no offset whatsoever for these funds because this is a new program and their own protocols demand an offset for new programs. they will be voting, if they vote for this rule, the first test of their own legislative protocols of cut-go -- mr. hastings: to complete her thought, i yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. hastings: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. ms. norton: in the first test of their legislative cut-go protocol they will be voting to violate it.

they will be voting to do so $300 million added to the deficit at a time when they are cutting $11.6 million -- billion, with a billion, -- with a b, from education throughout the united states of america. we are american citizens and i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. again, i appreciate the opportunity of discussing this particular issue. there is one affect where the delegate from the clict of columbia does have something in common with the state of utah. over 70% of my land is owned by the federal government in utah and it's one of those facts that are inhibits our ability to fund our educational system in the state of utah. the district of columbia has that same initiative problem, with so much of the land owned by the federal government. the difference, though, is that this program is giving federal money to theis