of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i rise in strong opposition to my friend's amendment and this amendment would impose new legislative requirements on the f.a.a.'s ability to propose or issue regulations. mr. costello: many of the proposed requirements are redundant and are already required by existing law in executive orders. for example, the f.a.a.'s already required to consider the cost and benefits of regulations and to base its regulation on scientific and technical information. other requirements such as forcing the f.a.a. to tailor regulations for each industry segment could seriously undermine efforts to achieve one level of safety in aviation and delay important safety improvements. . there were numerous hearings stemming from the february, 2009, flight 3407 tragedy.

they did not reveal a pattern of draconian rules imposed by the f.a.a. on the aviation industry but a pattern of industry's resistance to proposed safety regulations, many of which resulted from accident investigations and which nonetheless languished for years. flight 3407 families who lost their loved ones two years ago in buffalo, new york, were instrumental in the adoption of 5900 and monitor the implementation of this important law holding the industry's feet to the fire. they are opposed to this amendment because they are concerned about the adverse impact it would have on the current f.a.a. rule making on pilot fatigue. captain sullen berger who safely landed in the hudson river two years ago after a flock of geese damaged his plane's engines was

disturbed. this amendment is not needed and purports to fix a system that is not broken and at worse will delay necessary rule makings including those on 84 open ntsb recommendations to the detriment of the flying public. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. petri: this amendment has stirred a certain amount of controversy. i worked with mr. costello on the underlying bill that seeks to improve safety and deal with the tragedy that caused the crash. we have been talking to the f.a.a.. and so there is disagreement about the impact of this amendment, frankly, because they

indicate this is more or less in line with their understanding of the underlying law and the procedures they intend follow going forward and merely clarifies it. and if that's the gentleman's intent, it seems reasonable that one takes into account different circumstances to maximize safety under changing conditions in different segments of the aviation industry. i certainly do not favor weakening safety but do favor strengthening it in relation to differing circumstances that exist, whether if it's emergency aviation or military aviation or commuter aviation or general aviation, there are some factors that may be reasonable to take into account to maximize safety. i understand or believe that's the author's intention, although

others differ with me at this point. mr. shuster: i appreciate the gentleman's comments and that's my intent. the executive order which does have some of this already in it. the executive order is ksh cannot have judicial review so this will strengthen the position who have judicial review to be able to enforce it. the executive order does president have it in it currently so this is going to strengthen it. i want safety. the f.a.a. administrator and former president of the airline pilots association said one size doesn't fit all. so again, i think this is going to strengthen the position as we move forward with these rulings. and so i would urge the gentleman to -- if there is something we can do to clear this up a little bit, i'm happy to listen to him. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ? mr. shuster: yes. mr. costello: mr. chairman,

there is no question at least from legal counsel that we have talked to that it would absolutely affect current regulations and those that are pending right now under consideration. so i would ask the gentleman, i believe i understand his intent. if he would consider withdrawing the amendment, working with the chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee, myself and mr. rahall as we go into conference. i yield to the gentleman for an answer. mr. shuster: i appreciate the gentleman. that is my intent is to strengthen this again. this does strengthen the law because it will give it judicial review. at this point i'm not willing to withdraw the amendment. mr. costello: you are not willing --? mr. shuster: not willing to withdraw. mr. costello: i thank the gentleman and we continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: --

the chair: gentleman has 15 seconds remaining. mr. shuster: i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and will make the skies safe in aviation travel even than it is today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: we strongly oppose the amendment and it will add additional red tape and there is no evidence at all that the f.a.a. regulations are history. in fact, favor anyone other than there has been a reluctance on the part of the industry to comply with regulations and this will drag it out even further and have a negative effect on those pending regulations as well as the existing ones. so we continue to oppose. and i will be happy to work with the gentleman to try to improve -- i know he has good intentions and be happy to work with him but continue to oppose and urge

a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 12112-46. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in the house report number 112-46 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 189 the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment is fairly straightforward. we all understand that small businesses are critical to the economic vitality of our communities and the nation. many small businesses face obstacles in trying to win federal contracts particularly for transportation and infrastructure projects. for certain small businesses, those led by minorities, women, the barriers to compete for federal contracts is even steeper. and for many years now, federal transportation legislation has included language to help these businesses even get into the door, much less compete for these contracts. i would submit to you this is a

very noncontroversial -- there are no quotas, no spending. it -- i'll yield. mr. petri: i thank my colleague from wisconsin for yielding and if i might take this occasion to be one of the first to wish her a happy birthday, a big milestone is coming up very shortly and i congratulate you on reaching it. and i also -- we have reviewed your amendment on this side of the aisle and we agree with you, feel it is an important amendment and support it. ms. moore: well, i thank you the gentleman from wisconsin. this bill will authorize $47.5 billion over the next four years to improve our nation's aviation system and we want small businesses to be able to fairly compete for that piece of the pie because we know they can. i would like to yield time to the ranking member.

mr. rahall: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time and i commend her for her diligent work for her amendment and bringing it to the floor of the house. and i rise in support as well. ms. moore: thank you. i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. any member seek time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. graves: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. graves of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i rise in support of an amendment and this amendment requires the f.a.a. to preserve original aircraft engineering data in the agency's possession. if you think of this blueprints of our nation's very earliest aircraft and extends from 1927 to 1939, 1927 being the first severity that was issued by the f.a.a. it is currently authorized to destroy that data this destruction represents detailed and documented -- documentation surrounding the golden age of aviation. this data is converted to a cd and what happens is that the f.a.a. policy then requires the

agency to destroy the original documents. in a world of aviation to those who are very close to aviation, this would be comparable to making a copy of the declaration of independence and then destroying the original. it is unclear how much of this data exists, which is the reason why we need to preserve it to find out how much is there. what my amendment does i it requires the f.a.a. to require data in the agency's position from 1927 to 1939 and requires the f.a.a. to revise the order which provides them authority to destroy this data and revision would prohibit such destruction and makes the documentation to be preserved under this act available to the public upon a freedom of information request. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. mr. petri: would the gentleman yield? we have reviewed the amendment and are supportive of it.

it will -- people are concerned about vintage airplanes. i know i represent one of the largest association of general aviation enthusiasts feels this is very important. we would like to work with you to perfect the amendment. but my understanding is that the f.a.a. and others also support its intent. mr. mica: will the gentleman yield? mr. graves: i yield. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i will only agree to this amendment if mr. graves agrees that this is his last amendment on this legislation. i know he is the chairman of the small business committee and i know is an active member on the committee and a pilot but no one should be allowed as many amendments as he has and unless he agrees this is his last amendment, i would have to oppose it. mr. graves: reclaiming my time,

in response to that, i can guarantee you this is my last amendment for this particular bill at least. mr. rahall: the chairman and i finally agree on something. mr. graves: i would close with that, mr. chairman. and yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. pearce: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report number

112-46 offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce and a member opposed, each will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. mr. pearce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pearce: this amendment is at the request of the local county in new mexico. they have land which alternates with a private investor and simply asking that 7.35 acres be given to them and they would give up 8.41 acres to this private company. and then the private company would also give a road to the airport that they are desiring. this land swap is by mutual agreement of all parties concerned. the f.a.a. has no objections to the transaction. the appraised value is somewhat different, but the developing

group is offering to pay for a road in an equal amount to where the two amounts would be equal so there is no effective difference. and i would confirm to the chairman of the committee that this is my last amendment also, if that's what it takes to get people to agree to it. and with that, i -- i would yield. mr. petri: we reviewed your amendment and feel that it is a reasonable and important amendment and support it and urge a yes vote on your mr. pearce: mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, -- mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, first i want to

read through the rules of the house and what i understand is a congressional earmark. under clause 9 of rule 21, a congressional earmark is defined as a provision included at the of request of a member, authorizing or recommending spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific locality or congressional district. the amendment before us qualifies as a congressional earmark. the gentleman from new mexico is specifically requesting the provision. in addition the amendment authorizes spending authority for counties in new mexico, subsection b-2 states, any amount of money received by the county for conveyance which clearly contemplates a county receive funding pursuant to this provision. therefore the amendment qualifies as a congressional earmark under clause 9 of rule

21. moreover, under clause 17 of rule 22, the rules of the house regarding members' code of conduct, a member who requested congressional earmark, must provide a written statement to the chair and ranking member certifying that not as a member nor spouse has a financial interest in the earmark. i don't question that at all here. but i'm just saying what the rules are. mr. chairman, i understand that the rule weighs all points of order against the amendment, however is there any way to ensure that the jump in new mexico files the appropriate financial disclosure certification with the committee on t.n.i. required under clause 17 of rule 22? these disclosure requirements were included in the house rules under the democratic majority, they've served the house well and i'd like to share -- ensure merely what i'm trying to do here is ensure that the sunshine provisions continue to be the standard of the house. i'd yield. mr. pearce: yes, sir. actually since there's no money actually changing hands there's not any value changing hands.

it appears that the rule that the gentleman refers to is not invoked. i am reading clause 9, section e which says for purposes of this clause, the term congressional earmark means a provision report language included primary to the request of a member providing authorizing, recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority which this does not do, credit authority which this does not do or other spending authority which this does not do for a contract which this does not do, a loan which this does not do, loan guarantee which this does not do, grants which this does not do, loan authority which this does not do, expenditure with no rift to an entity or targeted to a specific state, locality or district. mr. rahall: reclaiming my time. the gentleman's last sentence of his amendment says, any amount received by the county for the conveyance shall be used by the county for the development,

improvement, operation or maintenance of the airport. so it does seem there's some transfer of value here or some monetary, if not monetary, there's some value of some sort that's being con vade to the county. mr. pearce: if i could yield myself time or claim time. mr. rahall: i would yield back on my time. mr. pearce: the amounts that are involved are equivalent. there is no difference. so i think that's just clearing language in the bill. it's not like anything -- any value is moving either direction or the owe other. that has been ascertained by the appraisals and there is an equivalent difference in land within the company who is giving up land at the request of the local county, has agreed to pave the road on the airport for the counties that would make up the difference and that value has been ascertained also to be in the amount of about $143,830 to

make the two transactions. mr. rahall: reclaiming my time. what's the value the federal government is getting here? mr. pearce: in our view there is no value lost or gained either direction. mr. rahall: except toward the county. mr. pearce: no. there is no loss to the county, no loss, no gain to the county. there are seven acres that are up against the county. they're not able to do anything with the airport on that side, they're simply asking that these triangular shapes be exchanged out so that there is a strip of land that they can develop. there is no difference in value to either the county or to the company. mr. rahall: reclaiming my time. i raise these questions, mr. chairman, because, you know, what looks like an earmark, walks like an emark, smells like an emark must be an earmark. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: thank you. i appreciate the points that the ranking member has brought up. and of course i share his concern and deep disregard for earmarks. we would never do anything which either compromised his values concerning earmarks nor mine. we feel like that the entire transaction is transparent, it's one which was requested by the local county at the expense of the local community or at the local company and so to me the rules committee has said that this amendment would be made in order, that it did not offend any provision of the rules of this house nor did it offend any of the germane regarding the underlying bill. so we gladly pursue this and would request a yes vote for

amendment number 13 to h.r. 658. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: the yeas and nays have been requested. do you request a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 112-46. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in house report 112-46.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the amendment that i'm offering along with my southern california colleagues, mr. sherman and mr. berman. this amendment would allow airports that need specific -- meet specific requirements, airports that already have at least a partial cur knew effect before the 1990 noise and control act, to implement mandatory nighttime curfews. the amendment defines a nighttime curfew as between 10:00 prime minister and 7:00 a.m. and affects only two small airports that have partial curfew -- curfew before the passage of anca.

it does not open the doors to any further exemptions from enca. it intended for the statute to permit airports to obtain noise restrictions if they met certain requirements. at the time congress exempted several airports for the law's requirement of new noise rules if they had pre-existing noise rules in effect to duress -- address local noise problems. both airports in southern california that would be affected by this amendment have a long history of curfews and were unfortunately left out of the grandfather provision of ancaa. our amendment would correct this inequity and put those airports on the same footing as owes airports who had curfews before anca's passage. one of the airports affected, bob hope airport, was one of the first airports in the country to impose a curfew. the van eyes airport halls a partial curfew. the amendment therefore corrects the omission of not providing curfewing to these airports since they already had a full or partial curfew in effect before

1990. this was supported by the local airports themselves and has the full support of the local congressional delegation. opponents of the amendment contend there's already an established process to consider a community's request for a curfew. however, the process was designed to be so difficult that in the decades since it was established by the f.a.a., only one airport in the nation has successfully completed an application. bob hope airport, and then it was summarily turned down. after spending $7 million and nine years of effort, the f.a.a. rejected bob hope's request contending that the small number of flights impacted by the curfew would impose too great a strain on the country's aviation system and too great a cost on users. in reality the f.a.a. approached this process in reverse, beginning with a conclusion which to reach and working backwards to try and justify its result. it's also important to note that my colleagues understand this

amendment will have -- understand the impact this amendment will have on aviation in southern california. there will be no impact on commercial flights, commercial airlines do not operate out of vaneyes and they already occur. about nine flights each night are expected to be affected. because of the f.a.a.'s dismissive attitude toward legitimate local concerns, it is clear to us that the only way to provide relief to the residents in our community is through legislative action. for this reason, mr. chairman, i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it will correct an omission in the airport noise control act, local problems require local solutions, not solutions imposed by a federal agency with a predetermined agenda and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. mica: i've done my best to meet with some of the affected parties here and i have the greatest respect for those who have brought this proposal forward, talked to mr. schiff, mr. berman and others. they have a good intention, they want to protect the airports, the constituents that they represent. however what they propose is -- and again i had to look at this very carefully to see the consequences of what they proposed and how it would affect all of us. prior to 1990, i think that's where he wants to take us back to, we didn't have a regulation,

the standard airport noise control federal law. congress enacted a law and they did this because we get into the situation any airport could impose various site restrictions and what do you is start closing down the national system because again you have no consistent regulation and we set up a procedure in that law. now, it is true that bob hope was -- had applied, spent money and then was denied, vaneyes has never applied and bob hope can go back and apply. if we open this up and start taking airport by airport and granting certain levels of activity in time, we start destroying a national aviation system. so that's why we put the act in

place, it has a manner in which to proceed. now, maybe -- and i'm glad this came up because maybe it is an act that we need to look at -- i don't want communities to have to spend a great deal of money to go through this process or spend a great deal of time. maybe we need to look at amending the airport noise control act of 1990 to be fair to communities. but i'm telling you, if we open this door then we have a problem. . so to come to congress and ask for this exemption at this point on behalf of the entire aviation system and my responsibility to, again, everyone who contributes to our national aviation system,

i can't concur -- and i have to oppose this amendment at this time. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the chairman and appreciate the time he spent to discuss this with us. i would make a couple of points before i yield to my colleague. this will only restore an inequity. had there had been an exemption each of the airports that had a curfew we wouldn't have a problem. it doesn't create a precedent that will destroy the system. what it will say that all airports should be treated the same way. and further illustration of the minimal impact it will have, both airports support this and lax also supports this, so the

other major airport that would be impacted supports this as well. there is uniformity within the airports in our region and i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my colleague, mr. sherman. the chair: gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. engel: i represent both airports in question. this is a principled amendment that deals with all airports that had curfews in effect in 1990. to say that burbank should appeal having spent $90 million is not a sufficient answer and to say van nys has spent on a process is not an answer. the answer is that it doesn't cost the federal government a penny and allows the l.a. area to do what every stake holder in the area wants to do. the harsh hand of the federal

government should not prevent local control in this area. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: how much time is remaining? the chair: gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. mica: i yield myself the balance of the time. again, i try to work with members that have problems. unfortunately, again and analyzing this, the idea of stewardship of the country at stake and our national aviation system and this amendment would set precedent that would encourage other localities to seek congressional intervention to override f.a.a.'s decisions or avoid the process all together. we could be here all the time doing this. this would be a patchwork quilt of local regulations that would work against the maintenance of a national air transportation

system. we can start taking it apart piece by piece and that was exactly the concerns that led to the passage of the law. now if it needs amending, i'll work with them. i understand their concerns and others that might have a similar problem. and it is educational to learn of this $9 million they had to spend to go through this process and then have it denied. but i can't in good faith and the nation and the aviation system, support this amendment at this time. and have to oppose it because the patchwork and the quilt work we would get in our committee. again, having concerns, but i still remain in opposition and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to it. mr. engel: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman request a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 30. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. matheson of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. chairman. i offer this bipartisan amendment offered by myself and mr. pearce of new mexico. over history, at times, the

federal government has given land to various airport authorities. it could be a city, county or state with a reverter clause if the land is no longer used for the purpose it was given or sold to that airport. i'm not suggesting we ignore that clause, but there are circumstances that there are other uses. so our amendment says as long as this land is continued to be used for airport purposes, the reverter clause -- that the f.a.a. has the ability to ignore the reverter clause or adjust the reverter clause to allow this land to be covented to be used in a different manner than was used before. it exists in different parts of the country and was hanging out for a few years in our congressional districts and we found a way to address this where i believe these

noncontroversial issues changing it bo into a different type of use. the land can be given to a state, community. that is the substance and i urge my colleagues to vote. mr. petri: would the gentleman yield? we reviewed this amendment. we support the goal that he is attempting to work with him and the f.a.a. has raised some concerns, mainly that it would capture all airports and have an overly broad effect. i understand the difficulty that created that. a so we are trying to figure out if there is some way we can achieve an objective that is a

perfectly, reasonable objective within the rules of the house and without causing problems -- in other places that are unintended. with those, we support the amendment and look forward to work with you as we go forward. mr. matheson: i appreciate the comments. and i commit to work with you to make it it in the best possible form. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? mr. pearce: would the gentleman yield? >> i yield to you. mr. pearce: i was going to claim time in opposition and speak in favor and get this wrapped up a lot quicker if we do it this way. i'm co-sponsoring this amendment. in the west, we have -- the problem is greater and more extensive than the rest of the country, but we have small parcels of land that are owned

by the government and this is a commonsense measurement that would distribute those parcels of land and it is that the value be accorded to the government whatever agency it is. you have to receive fair market value for it and gets it into the hands of an entity that will develop the land or hold it. it is a commonsense amendment that makes for smoother operations downstream and would gladly support the amendment and urge a yes vote. mr. matheson: if no one claims time in opposition, i'm happy to close. i appreciate mr. pearce's work on this and mr. petri's ongoing discussions. it has been a good bipartisan effort and i encourage my colleagues to support it. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment

is goode to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in house report 112-46. -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> as the designee of the the gentlewoman from california, representative waters. the clerk: amendment number 31, printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. petri: would the gentleman yield? mr. schiff: i would be happy to yield. mr. petri: earlier this afternoon, we discussed this amendment with the principal author, your colleague, ms. waters. we're prepared to accept the amendment. we know it was offered in good faith and is a more restrictive amendment than an earlier one we

discussed. so i would urge a yes vote on her amendment. mr. schiff: mr. chairman, i thank you for that. and i know my colleague, representative waters, thanks for that. and let me state for a couple of points that my colleague would like me to make and this amendment states that it's the sense of congress that the los angeles world airports, the operator of l.a.x. should consult with representatives of the community regarding airport operations in plans to expand, modify or realign. l.a.x. is located in representative waters' congressional district. according to the web site, it is the sixth busiest airport in the world and ranks 13th in the world for air cargo. there were 656,000 takeoffs and landings in 2006. unfortunately they make noise. it is currently in the process

of realigning the runways on the north side of the airport. this realignment could have a tremendous impact on our local community. residents adjacent to the airways are opposed to move the runways north which could force families to lose their homes. some families, east of the l.a.x. underneath the flight path of the planes are concerned that reconfiguration will result in increase in airport noise. some of the people most impacted do not even benefit from the services that l.a.x. is intended to provide. many of the people who are closest to the airport are low income who can't afford the benefits of air travel. in communities like los angeles where airports are located near residents who can't afford to use them, it is important that operators listen to the concerns of those residents.

this is a simple nonbinding amendment that will not affect other airports and i thank the chairman for his support and i urge my colleagues to support this as well. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member seek time in opposition. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report number 112-46 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will be recognized for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: this amendment

encourages the development of zones. let me start out by congratulating and thanking the committee for including the amendment in the underlying bill that would direct the f.a.a. to adopt policies that encourage the development of airtropolis zones. no airports exists in isolation. there are targeted in the transportation system and the system would significantly benefit the airport and make it more profitable. and all other users would be -- we need to think about how to do that in the future and make these airports the hub of these activities. i so appreciate mr. cohen's leadership on this and recognize the value of his new way of looking at our nation's airports and the value that that brings to us.

my amendment goes one step further, by giving the administration explicit authority to participate in helping to fund aerotropolis projects that would benefit the participating airport. it builds on mr. cohen's airports by making it clear that the administrator can authorize demonstration projects, but only if an airport authority makes a convincing case that it has a project that will result in clear benefits to the airport. now a little birdie told me that there will be some objection to this proposal based on the supposition that i'm arguing for a sudden shift in airport funding to be used for other transportation modes and no, no, no, that's not what i'm trying to do. i recognize that airports have a unique need and deserve a sustainable and dedicated stream

of funding. but what i'm saying is that that same funding stream -- that when there are times that air modal transportation will benefit at an airport, maybe bring it back to life, increase profits for it, we should look at it. i wish my colleague from memphis, tennessee were here. . our airport is only 90 miles from o'hare, a global network. the deepest part of lake michigan, our port, is in milwaukee, wisconsin. we have lots of parcels of land available for trucking and storage. our governor, our very popular governor, scott walker, who just turned down $810 million for high speed rail, now wants $150

million to improve the one through chicago and milwaukee. we're only 90 miles from o'hare which is overcrowded and so i think the aerotropolis concept could improve the profitability of that airport. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i rise in opposition and claim time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: while i do rise in opposition to the amendment, i do want to first of all thank the gentlelady from wisconsin for bringing this amendment forward. our committee did have an amendment which we included a provision for the gentleman from tennessee who she's been working with, mr. cohen. i think they have an excellent proposal for looking at a broader scope of how aviation

should work as an intermodele entity and on a larger basis and i do have concerns about the way the language is directing certain demonstration projects and f.a.a. funding. so we are willing to work with, again, the gentlelady who brings this amendment forward with mr. cohen, the gentleman from tennessee. we did put place holder provision in and supportive language of again this type of proposal. but again i would have to reluctantly oppose it, but i after to -- offer to support, if the gentlelady's willing to withdraw the amendment, she would have that commitment from me. ms. moore: i would like to yield some time to my good friend, the ranking member, mr. rahall. mr. rahall: i do rise in support of her amendment which would

allow the f.a.a. to conduct demonstration projects in support of aerotropolis zones around airports. these zones would encourage compatible land uses around airports, they would also facilitate transportation projects that would improve airport access and reduce congestion. these projects would not be required but this amendment would give the f.a.a. plecksability -- flexibility to encourage the development around our nation's airports to the benefit of flying public and local economies and i commend the gentlelady on her amendment. ms. moore: thank you. reclaiming my time, i would just say, i really appreciate the generous offer of the gentleman, the chair of the subcommittee, to work with me on it. i think that we can demonstrate, i think a demonstration project would have accordinged us an opportunity to -- accorded us an opportunity to show you this. but i'm sure that this is so profitable that many places like in milwaukee will continue to

work on this. so i would be willing to withdraw this amendment at this time. if you would be willing to work with me toward improving the language and profit through which this could be realized. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: again, yielding myself time, well, i wish openly and very actively pursue the goal that the gentlelady has set here and also the gentleman from tennessee who provided the underlying provision that we have and the bill that will be passed and i know that her goal is development to provide efficient, cost effective and sustainable intermow dal connectivity to a defined region and i share that goal. so i will work with her.

also, in closing, since this is the last amendment, i think, that mr. crowley does not intend to appear, i do want to thank the gentlelady, awant to thank the ranking member -- i want to thank the ranking member, mr. rahall, i don't see mr. costello, thank chairman petri and the staff who have worked through this. there are some disagreements on some of these issues but we have members that are willing to again come forward, state their position, the gentlelady from wisconsin has done that and advocated her particular provision and amendment but i think that in all it's been a good healthy debate and exchange , an opportunity to hear many, many amendments throughout the day and i would encourage it, again, working with those who have had proposals that may not have gotten in the bill but we would work on in conference and again while we do have some

disagreements i think we've done probably as good a job as we can. i'd like to yield a moment to, if i may, to mr. rahall, my ranking member, democrat leader of the committee. mr. rahall: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to second the comments he's made about the fairness on both sides of the aisle and i think the chairman has been particularly fair. i also commend the staffs on both sides for their hard work, mr. petri, i commend his leadership and mr. costello as well on my side of the aisle. and let's all hope this is the last time we go through this this year on this bill. mr. mica: again i thank the gentleman and the gentlelady and i yield back the balance of my time and both on this amendment and hopefully on the bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: i yield back, thank you. the chair: does the gentlewoman seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment? ms. moore: yes, i seek unanimous

consent to withdraw the amendment. thank you. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee on the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 658 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee

has had under consideration h.r. 658 and has come to no resolution thereon. on behalf of the majority and minority leadership, the chair announces that the official jecktures for the private calendar for the 112th congress are as follows. the clerk: for the majority, mr. smith of texas, mr. sense brenner of wisconsin, and mr. poe of texas. for the minority, mr. serrano of new york, mr. nadler of new york and ms. edwards of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: there being no further business before the house, at this time, mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the virginias -- ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> the measure authorizes funding through 2014 and terminates the essential air service. there were over 30 amendments offered to the bill and we should see more votes on those as well as a final passage vote tomorrow. members plan to work on legislation related to 2012 spending. follow the house live when members return tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> republicans and democrats were negotiating about the best way to fund the government for the rest of the year. we will hear from john baner

and the white house next on c-span. dennis kucinich talked about cutting off military funding for military action in libya. >> throughout the month of april we will feature the top winners from the student competition. 1,500 students submitted documentaries on the theme washington, d.c. through my lens. watch at 6:50 a.m. eastern. just before "washington journal." meet the student it is who created them. stream all of the winning videos any time online at studentcam.org. >> the house passed a bill with

cuts last year but that fail to pass the senate. >> i was interested yesterday to hear the president talk about this issue, but i think he left me with more questions than he did answers. why days after vowing to buy more oil from brazil would the president urge a reduction in oil imports? and why would he be so enthusiastic about brazil exploring their natural resources while the administration does everything in its power to block energy production here at home. here in the house we have a clear plan to develop home grown energy and stop the policies that are driving up gas prices. it is called the american energy initiative. this week the committee put forward three strong proposals

to expand energy production. the energy and commerce committee passed a bill to prevent from imposing a backdoor energy tax and the majority leader said it would come up for a vote soon. when we are talking about energy, we are not just talking about high gas prices, we are also talking about american jobs. by expanding american energy productions we can create more jobs, lower costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. just as our work on energy is about jobs, so is our effort to end the spending binge here in washington. excessive government spending is creating uncertainty for small businesses, reducing the confidence and crowding out of private investment needed to create jobs in the country. now it has been 40 days since hr-1 was passed cutting spending for the rest of the

fiscal year. 40 years and senate democrats still haven't passed a bill or come up with a incredible plan to reduce spending. i think it is important for the american people to know how we got here. last spring the democrat majority failed to pass the budget in the house for the senate. they thought they could leave spending on autopilot. we made it clear that we would listen to the american people and cut spending, democrats started their negotiations with no, no spending cuts at all. still democrats did nothing. then we passed $10 billion worth of spending cuts over the last five weeks. still no plan for the senate and no bill. only rhetoric portraying the american people as extreme. here is the bottom line.

democrats are rooting for a government shutdown. we are listening to the people that sent us here to cut spending so that we can grow the economy. our goal is to cut spending and not shutdown the government. you heard a lot of talk over the last 24 hours. there is no agreement on numbers and nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. we control one-half of the government here but we will fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get and keep the government open to fund it through the balance of this fiscal year. >> what is the argument you will be making? >> we are go to fight for hr-1. if the only bill to fund the government that passed either house. we are go to fight for everything that is in it.

>> mr. speaker, tea partiers are forming a rally. they are saying no compromise. many of them, at least some are unhappy with some of the action you have taken. saying you are moving too far off of the number they want and some suggest that there be a primary challenge to you next year? >> i am glad they are here and i am glad they are engaged in the process. i said that over a year ago we should talk with the tea party folks, listen to them and we should walk amongst them. i don't feel any differently about it today. any time americans want to engage in their government, and today i believe we have more americans engaged in the government than at any time in the history, we should relish that. >> democrats put out a statement this morning saying you agreed on cuts worth $73 billion. you are saying there is no agreement.

where is the disconnect? >> there is no agreement on a set of numbers. nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. that is the fact. >> is a level of spending cuts tied to -- >> i am not go to get into the negotiations here. the house passed hr-1. we put our spending limitations on the table. the senate democrats have not. they have no position. we will fight for what we passed in the house. >> do you think that there will be a deal? you are not getting into negotiations but can you characterize how the negotiations are going between the house and the senate right now? >> do you think there will be a deal before april 8th, before the funding expires? >> i hope so. the sooner that we get it finished, the sooner we get on

to deal width really big issues that face our country. we have very big challenges. i think it is time to move to a budget. i am trying to get an agreement on a budget that will really transform the entitlement programs that are continuing to drive the budget deficit into the range that we are in today. >> have you talked to vice president biden since he made a statement last night? that he essentially said there was a deal? >> i haven't talked to him since last night. >> do you think that there is anything that the republicans could abide anything less than hr-1? they are asking for more. we promised the american people we would fight to cut spending. >> only hr-1.

seems you can't move on. >> we will fight all of the spending cuts that we can get. >> hr-1 already failed in the senate. so whatever you are negotiating, even though you say it is not a number, that could be as much as $30 billion less than hr-1. what do you say to the tea party activists that are very unhappy? >> we control one-half of one third of the government here in washington. we can't impose our will on another body and impose our will on the senate. all we can do is to fight for all of the spending cuts we can get an agreement to and the spending limitations as well. >> not very interested.

>> now we will hear the white house's perspective with the press secretary on budget negotiations with congressional republicans. the current spending measure expires april 8th. here is part of that news briefing. >> that was the number as if it is a done deal. >> no. >> is there a way to put the speaker on the record to say no deal? >> no. if you look at what the vice president said, which the speaker echoed, is that we agreed on a target number. and nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon. i think they both used that phrase, probably. and i think that the vice president was simply

demonstrating that progress is being made. that a lot of work needs to be done. but that the american people should take heart in the fact that people are rolling up their sleeves trying to get it done. you know, we understand that there are issues that need to be resolved. and that there is not a lot of time here to waste. >> the speaker said there is no agreement? >> no. the vice president also said there is no agreement until everything is agreed upon. but there is a target number. >> i think that the speaker echoed what the vice president said. and neither the vice president -- i don't speak for the vice president. i know the vice president would not disagree with the idea and did not last night but that there are hurdles to clear from here until we get to a deal. and there is progress being made.

the number is significant. but it is not a matter of sole significance. there is the content of how you get to that number. it is very important. it obviously needs to be fully negotiated. >> with speaker saying there is no agreement on a number. and the vice president said there is a agreement on a number. >> the vice president said there is a target number. that is not how i read what he said. >> there is no agreement on numbers. >> i don't want to interpret what the speaker said. i agree the vice president made clear and we made clear that obviously we don't have a deal. but there is a target number from which the details can be worked out. and look, let's just say that is the target number.

it represents quite substantial movement by the president and the democratic party. and we believe, also, necessary movement by the republicans. because the -- i am not going to negotiate the final deal here. it is obviously possible like i said a deal will not be made. but what is clear is that the issues remaining to be debated -- we have a very large budget. i don't think the american people will be very satisfied with their representatives in washington if they can't reach an agreement in a budget our size, the size of the united states' budget over a few billion. the number shouldn't be the source of a problem here. obviously how you get to that number is important and that is what needs to be worked out.

>> what is the biggest obstacle? >> i am not going to negotiate the individual items of the budget. but there is progress that has been made. we have a team of highly skilled negotiaters, and that includes jack lou, been around this track before. james, another veteran of an era when republicans and democrats came together to reach an agreement that eventually led to the only budget surpluses we have seen in this country in a long time. obviously the vice president is very engaged. the president is engaged. serve a player. we all serve the president. >> how can there be progress when speaker is saying that he thinks democrats want a government shutdown rather than

giving on budget cuts? >> we don't believe any of the leaders in congress, democratic side or the republican side want a shut down. we believe the folks we have been talking to know that a shutdown would effect our ability to create jobs and might upset the recovery we have been experiencing. it is not viable. senate democrats put forth a bill that didn't pass. it is not viable. we are now finding common ground. that is the goal of these negotiations.

>> the senate minority leader said other than spending and debt, the single biggest issue in the u.s. announcing all 47 republican senators co-sponsored a consensus budget amendment to the u.s. constitution acquiring a balanced federal budget. >> i am not sure this is working. is it working? good afternoon everyone.

i think that we all know, other than joblessness, the single biggest issue in the country these days is spending and debt. and all 47 republican senators have come together behind a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget to give us the fiscal discipline to do the same job that we need to do, the same job every family in america does to make sure that we do not live beyond our means. the number of senators taking the lead on this issue, the person who sort of has been out there on this issue for years and was our leader to when we came within one vote of passing this was senator hatch. i want to call on him first. and he will then bring to the podium after him those that have been the leaders on this issue. actually everybody played a role in this.

>> back in 1997 when we brought up the balanced budget amendment at that time, our deficit was $100 billion. today it is 16 times that. our total national debt was around $5 trillion. today it is over $14 trillion, headed towards $20 trillion. the spending was reasonable era of spending against the g.d.p. today we will hit probably 90% of g.d.p., making us similar to greece. that is if the president's budget sticks right. we simply can't live with that. now, can you imagine had we

passed amendment and lacked one vote, i thought we had 67 at that time. and one person did leave at that very morning. we lost by one vote. had we passed that we would not be in terrible fiscal distress that we are in today and we would have to make terrible tough choices every family has to make by living within their means. most of us would agree that this government is incapable of living within its means and we have to go to this extent in order to get it done. so, we are following this balanced budget amendment all 47 republicans are on board. we would work with our colleagues on the other side to see what we can do to get them on board and hopefully get our country into a fiscal situation that really works. there is a lot more i can say but i will stop with that and i

will call on senator lee. >> this is an issue neither democratic or republican. this issue, a mounting debt potentially threatens every federal program known to man. by the end of the decade if we spend at our current rate it is likely we will be spending a trillion a year on interest on the national debt. regardless of whether you are most concerned about our ability to defend ourselves against foreign aggressors or

on the other hand you are most concerned about protecting entitlement spending, you should be concerned about reckless, runaway spending. that is what this amendment would put an end to once and for all, protecting all of those programs. programs that are important both to liberals and conservatives alike. this is a time we have to address the difficult question arising from the question that perpetual spending brings about taxation without representation. one group of elected legislators spends money and people who are not yet born or of voting age some day have to pay off the debt left by that group of legislators. we fought a war over that and we won that war. we have to abandon this practice once and for all. i am very grateful to my colleagues, senator hatch and senator kyle and others who

have helped us with this. and to our minority leader who showed so much leadership. >> they are sit and tired of the reckless spending and the debt. they want us to act together on a bipartisan basis to address that problem. and we can do it. and this constitutional amendment is one way to do that. in 1997 senator hatch said when they came to within one vote there were 11 democrats that joined republicans then. and i hope now that we have gotten an amendment that 47 of us agree to we will be reaching out to our democratic

colleagues to see if they got the message that we got loud and clear on november 2nd. i think we are all accountable. we are responsible to the american people for what we do. we usually have those determinations whether we have been good stewards and whether we have done what they expect of us. we find out. i think that this is a great opportunity to work together. i hope both sides will come together, pass the attempt and the states would have to ratify it. within five years this balanced budget amendment would be implemented. >> i would like to say a quick thank you. these two groups and pairings of senators produced very thoughtful alternative ideas on how we might reach a balanced budget amendment and through a

lot of hard work we all came to an agreement on a consensus product that i think is a great product and personal has the universal support of the republican conference. i want to thank leader mccolonel to have the wisdom to seize the opportunity to unite this congress. it is important for many reasons. i am absolutely convinced, as i think economists are that we can't have the recovery we need and the job growth that we badly need as long as we have this fiscal deficit looming over our economy. getting our fiscal house in order and a balanced budget is a necessary precondition for job growth and creation that we were sent here to accomplish. so, share the hope that some of my colleagues alluded to, the hope that there will be a large number of democratic clothes

who will join with us and join with every republican and pass an amendment to the constitution we badly need that will provide the fiss cam straitjacket we need to get our fiscal house in order. >> thanks. while i was a freshman congressman back in 1997 when the thing failed by one vote. i can't help but think how much better the country would be if we enacted a balanced budget back then. since that time we have seen dramatic growth in government, spending and debt. today it threatens the country on a level we have never seen before. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs calls the national debt the greatest threat to america's national security. i think that speaks volumes and

why this exercise is so important. we work together to come up with a proposal we would like to put before the senate and the american people and hopefully rally them around and get democrats on board with this. it is high time washington did what so many did, balance the budget. south dakota was the first state in the union to balance the budget. they cut $127 million, which in south dakota is a lot of money. they did it the hard way. they made the hard decisions. because we got a balanced budget amendment they are required to do it. we do it every year. lots of states do it every year. high time the federal government did it and it is long overdue if we get this country back on the right track, dealing with this massive problem of spending and debt.

>> i think it will do the job that we hope it can do. we have demonstrated that it seems that congress is unable to live within their means. in 1997 when had the amendment failed by one vote, that was one of the first key votes i cast as a new senator. people were saying we were getting our house in order and maybe we did not need a balanced budget amendment. now we have deficits going to 10 times that great. it threatens our financial future. it threatens our jobs. the co-chairman of president obama's budget debt commission signed a joint statement before the budget committee saying this is the most predictable

economic crisis the nation ever faced. the debt growing out of control. so, i would say that the greatest thing to do for our economy and the greatest thing we can do to put this country on a path to final success and growth in vigorous strength in the future is to get our financial house in order. this will do it. i thank those who worked for it so much and i do believe that it is not a hopeless task. one vote short in 1997. i believe we can pass it this time. thank all of you who worked so hard. >> like my colleagues, i want to thank senator hatch for his leadership and everybody else for their leadership. this is a team effort. all 47. i know that you all like to write about the times we had 45 . this is all 47 signed up for this on this amendment. i think that is one thing to consider.

second thing, i know that some of the people in the guru department say this is not going to work. everybody talks about a state budget. you know, you have to have -- they don't have the printing press. they have to be balanced. they don't have the protection in regards to the national security. in a declared war, which might be helpful this time around, you can overcome that with 51 votes. national security is protected. the other thing that i would say is that some people critical of this is my goodness, how long will it take with 38 states to ratify it. i think that is the proper number. well, i want to tell you something. you talk to any state legislator or any governor today and say is there some way you can bring in federal spending in part that goes with the funding of all of this regulation and mandates they

will say i think it will be the fastest radification you can see in a long time. long-term. long-term. that is exactly what we are after here. while we may not be successful, i don't want to put a wet blanket on here. i haven't seen much leadership from the white house. we can't kick this down the roaded to 2013 and bump it up against economic chaos. none of us know when the tip of the spear will hit. thank you. >> if anyone questions the need

for a balanced budget amendment all we have to do is look at the current debate on funding the government for this year. at a time the whole world recognizes that america is on an economic cliff, the democratic party yet to agree to cut this year what we borrow every week. they are not going to join us. they won't show the leadership until the constitution requires that we do it. that is why this balanced budget is so important. and that is why we need to have a vote on this balanced budget amendment before there is any debate or vote on the debt ceiling. >> if america as we know it today will be saved, it is imperative that this balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution pass. this institution is not capable of living within their means. this is not a partisan issue, it is an american issue and it

is imperative we do to the federal government what every state has, and that is a requirement that they balance their budget. it works very well in the states. we need it at the federal level. >> we have come to believe without a balanced budget amendment to the constitution it probably won't happen. what it would mean when political rhetoric gives way to a constitutional mandate. i have come to believe since being here since 1995 all of the rhetoric in the world will never lead to balancing the budget, unless something changes pretty soon. a balanced budget amendment would make us do here what everybody has to do at home. you can't leave town until you get the budget balanced. you have to say no to people

that may be your friends, you have to make people mad ask deal with entitles. s and look at revenue. people things in the real world do every day. i hope and pray we get momentum to one day have a constitution balanced budget amendment that will change the way things work not just now but forever. it is sad to say, but i think that is needed. >> thank you senator hatch. before being elected to the senate last year i had the distinction of being the longest serving governor in the united states. served asa i governor for 10 years for the state of north dakota. one thing we had to do every year is balance our budget. families have to balance their budget. businesses have to balance their budget. cities have to balance their budgets. states have to balance their budgets. our country needs to balance its budget. now, i am pleased that all 47 republican senators are

together. it provides the right kind of safeguards. it provides safeguards in time of war. it provides trancition to get to the balanced budget so we address social security, medicare. i am hopeful with all of the republicans on this balanced budget amendment we can join with our counterparts across the aisle and get it passed. we picked up 13 democrat votes. if you do the math we are getting close. and i am hopeful now that we can get enough votes to pass this balanced budget amendments. i want to thank senator hatch, lee and our leader for their leadership on this incredibly important issue for our country.

>> one of the things that y'all haven't seen happening, but it has been happening every week, most of the time two times a week is republicans have been gathering in this room and in another room to talk through those things that we need to do over the long haul to make sure our country becomes fiscaly sound. . . we have had financial analysts talk about the the fact that something has to occur right now. the third piece is to make sure that over time, after the focus on financial discipline goes away, we have something to

anchor it in, and that is the constitution. we have had people working on all three phases. we were pulled together around this concept. it is the number one issue in america. i want us to solve the problem and always want to work together to see that happen. i appreciate the way the leadership of our party has brought us together to do that and we are reaching out to the other side to make sure this happens. thank you. >> thank you for a leadership. in gathering of 47 republicans which is important. the number one problem we face is our debt. we will never balance our budget until we amend our

constitution. it is the single most important vote will cast. republicans need this as well as democrats. we need a rule that we must obey. this is a single -- the single most important vote we will cast thethis year and i hope the other side will embrace the idea of fiscal sanity again. thank you. >> i get home every weekend and we sit around and discuss things. i sat with a group of people and said, who believes they have a better life right now than their parents had and every hand goes up? i ask the question, how many of you believe your kids will have a better life than you do now and the hands come down. we're talking about why that is and the reason is the debt. the debt is the threat to our future. i sat the in the senate for five years. we had a balanced budget amendment. we have to balance the budget in wyoming. our families and businesses need

to do it. if we're going to have a secure future, the one we know we need, there is only one way to do it. that is by making sure by constitutional amendment we balance the budget every year in this country. that is why i am glad that 47 of us have come together and signed on to this approach for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. thank you. >> last but not least. >> thank you for your tremendous leadership. it says so much that we are together in a single most important piece of legislation we can pass. this is what i heard from new hampshire voters as i campaigned up and down our state. what can you live within your means? -- why can you live within your means in congress? congress has not been able to live within its means and

this is why this is the single most important legislation. it is about our children. i have two small children at home and we owe it to our children to make sure they can live their lives free from being indebted to china. we're not passing on to them our failure to make the tough decisions today. i am proud to join with my colleagues to make sure that we pass a balanced budget amendment. i am -- hope and look forward to working with my colleague so we can pass this and make sure we live within our means and address our fiscal crisis in this country. thank you. >> i want to pay personal tribute to senator mcconnell and senator kyl. their tremendous leaders and they have -- they are tremendous leaders. i would be happy to: anybody. -- call on anybody.

>> [inaudible] >> spending is at 25.3%. we have not had the much spending since world war ii. we are off the charts from that standpoint. 18% is the revenue we have had over 50 years and we decided that is an appropriate figure to shoot for. that is why the 18%. >> as recently as 2007, total federal spending was barely over 19% of gdp. that was at a time when i would argue congress was not trying to exercise any fiscal discipline and virtually by accident, here they were barely over 19%. it would not take a big lift to

go from that level down to 18. >> [inaudible] >> we will have a vote on this. if we are smart, we will do that. we voted for the balanced budget in 1997 and i suspect he would vote for this one if he was here. i think he would vote for a. he has not talked to me. we chatted carefully the last time. he has a different constituency now, i suppose. >> m. e. add one more to the

point of context. under article 5 of the constitution, there are two ways to amend the constitution. one is by joint resolution and the second is by constitutional convention. we were within two states of triggering a constitutional convention responsibility by congress. i will tell you this is such -- have such power across the country. people do not understand the profligate ways of congress and why we cannot do what states and families and businesses do. i would suggest significant pressure from the state's that we do this as well. i think that is an important part of this context. we need to do it anyway. that is an important additional pressure. preference is we would

pass this. that is in article 5 of the constitution. that would be an alternative if we do not do our job. i hope we do our job. that would move the point. >> there are cigar provisions in this balanced budget amendment you should take a look at and they address things like time of war and other issues. we do provide safeguards in this package. are familiar withar with -->> u [inaudible] you are getting democratic support [inaudible] put it this way.

this is -- we had everybody last night. i believe this is step one. the house will pass this version. we will have to see how close the come to ours. we will work out. i would prefer this version. let's hope we can get this through. >> [inaudible] >> we are dedicated to this amendment and we will have democratic support. time will tell. >> [inaudible] >> i expect a number of

democrats to vote for this. if they do not there will have to face their citizens and that is not going to be easy. everybody knows we are in trouble. everybody knows we are -- we may lose the greatest country in the world. and so we're going to do everything to get the democrats on board and i hope we can. >> i do think it is imperative for anyone of either house or political party who stands for fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint to vote for this. and for those who voted for the processor version of it years ago. it would be difficult to articulate an adequate justification why they voted against this. this has safeguards to make sure they're not circumvented. if you are for balancing the budget, there's no reason you

should not be in support of this. anytime you are talking about passing an act of congress, there is a reason why people describe something they want to characterize as a herculean effort, like getting an act of congress. when you are getting an amendment passed, it is difficult. i will not stand here and tell you i am certain we will have two-thirds of both houses locked up by tomorrow. i am telling you the mood in the country is right and it is sufficient so people are listening to their constituents. there will vote for it by the requisite margin. -- they will vote for by the requisite sgt. >> [inaudible] we have been working on getting republicans on board and establishing republican unanimity.

we will take that out to the democrats. sorry? >> [inaudible] >> i doubt it is the inclination of my colleagues to signal what would and what would not be on the table. we believe it should pass and anyone who believes in the idea should get behind this. if they have some rational persuasive explanation as to why they should not, we will talk. i do not see any reason to make changes. >> [inaudible] >> one of the aspects of this amendment as we provide after ratification, we have to balance it within five years.

will have to see. i think republicans are committed to passing this amendment in the senate. and i believe we have republicans and democrats committed in the house. to pass their amendment which will marry this to a degree. >> [inaudible] >> over time, we have to be. we cannot live the way we are now. no question. thanks so much. great to be with you. >> good job. eat achievement. >> will get an update on budget negotiations tomorrow. congressman ron woodall joins us. we have seen the population of

detroit decrease. the mayor will join us. each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later on c-span3, a look at the latest unemployment figures -- employment figures. that is live at 9:30 a.m. eastern. earlier, dennis kucinich says he wants to offer an amendment to ban u.s. funding for military operations in libya. from the house floor, this is 40 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, se recognition? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one hour. the speaker pro tempore: does

the gentleman request a point of personal privilege? mr. kucinich: i request a point of personal privilege to address the house for one hour. the speaker pro tempore: t chair has been made aware of a valid basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege. the gentleman from ohio is now recognized for one hour. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, thank you very much. the critical issue before this nation today is not libyan democracy, it is american democracy. in the next hour i will describe the dangers facing our own democracy. the principles of democracy across the globe are embodied in the u.n. charter, conceived to end the scourge of war for all time. the hope that nations could turn their swords reflects the

timeless impulse of america for enduring peace and with it an enhanced opportunity to pursue happiness. we are not naive about the existence of forces in the world which work against peace and against human security. but it is our fervent wish that we shall never become like those whom we condemn as lawless and without scruples. for it is our duty as members of a democratic society to provide leadership by example, to not only articulate the highest standards but to walk down the path to pea and justice with those standards as our constant companions. our moral leadership in the world depend chiefly upon the

might and light of truth and not shock and awe and a ghastly glow of our 2,000-pound bombs. mr. speaker, our dear nation stands at a crossroads. the direction we take will determine not what kind of nation we are but what kind of nation will we become. ll we become a nation which plots in secret to wage war? will we become a nation which observes our constitutn only in matters of convenience?

will we become a nation which desoys the unity of the world community? which has been pain stakingly -- painstakingly pieced together from the wounds of world war ii. a war which itself followed a war to end all wars. now once again we stand poised at a precipice, forced to the edge by an administration which has thrown ction to the winds and our constitution to the ground. it is abundantly clear from a careful reading of our declaration of independence that

our nation was born from nothing less than the rebellion of the human spirit againsthe arrogance of power. more tn 200 years ago it was the awareness of the uhecked arrogance of george iii that led our founders to carefully and deliberately balance our constitution, articulating the rights of congress in article 1 as the primary check by our citizens against the dangers they foresaw for our republic. our constitution was derived from the human and political experience of our founders who were aware of what happens when one person took it upon himself

to assume rights and privileges which placed him above everyone else. but where, asked tom payne, in his mous tract, "common ense," where's the king of america? i'll tell you, friend, he iranians above and does not make -- he reigns above and does not make havoc like the rol of britain. so long as we approve of monarchy that in america the law is king. for as an absolute government, the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king. and there ought to be no other. said thomas payne. in "common sense."

the power to declare war is firmly and explicitly vested in he congress of the united states under article 1, section 8 of the constitution. that is the law, the law is king. let us make no mistake about it. dropping 2,000-pound bombs and unleashing the massive fire power of our air force on the capital of a sovereign state is in fact an act of war and no amount of legal acrobatics can make it otherwise. . it is the arrogance of power which former senator from arkansas, jay william fulbright, saw shrouded in the deceit which carried us into the abyss of another war in vietnam.

my generation was dermined that we would never see another vietnam. it was the awareness of the checked power d arrogance of the executive which led congress to pass the war powers act. congress through the war powers act provided the executive with an excepon to unilaterally respond only when the nation was in actual or imminent danger to repel sudden attacks. mr. speaker, today we are in a constitutional crisis because we have an administration that has assumed for itself powers to

wage war which are neither expressly defined nor implicit in the constitution nor permitted under the war powers act. this is a challenge not just to the administration but to this congress itself. a president has no right to rest that fundamental pow -- wrt that fundamental power from the congress and we have no right to cede it. we, members of congress, can no more absolve a president of his responsibility to obey this profound constitutional mandate than we can absolve ourselves of our failure to rise to the instant challenge to our

constitution that is before us today. we violate our sacred trust to the citizens of the united states and our oath to uphold the constitution if we surrender this great responsibility, and through our inaction acquiesce in another terrible war. we must courageously defend the oath we took to defend the constitution of the united states, or we forfeit our right to participate in representative government. how can we pretend to hold other off rens to fundamental legal principles -- off rens to

fundamental legal principles if we do not old our own president to fundamental legal prciples here at home. we are staring not only into the maelstrom of warin libya, the code of behavior we are establishing sets a precedent for the potential of ever more violent conflicts in syria, iran , d the specter of the horrifying chaos of generalized war throughout the middle east. our continued occupation of iraq and afghanistan makes us more vulnerable not less vulnerable.

to being engulfed in this generalized war. in two years we have moved from president bush's doctrine of preventive war to president obama's assertion of the right to go to war without even a pretext of a threat to the nation. this administration is now asserting the right to go to war because a nation may threaten, threaten force against those who have internally taken up arms against it. keep in mind our bombs began dropping even before the united nations international commission of inquiry could verify allegations of murder of noncombatant civilians by the gaddafi regime.

the administration deliberately avoided coming to congress and furthermore rejects the principle that congrs has any le in this matter. yesterday learned that the administration would forge ahead with military action even if congress passed a resolution constraining the mission. this is a clear and arrogant violation of our constitution. even a war launched ostensibly for humatarian reasons is

still a war. and only congress can declare war. mr. speaker, we saw in the president's address to the nation on march 28 how mismatched elements are being hastily stitched together io a new war doctrine. let's review them. number one, an executive privilege toage war. number two, war based on verbal threatses. number three, humanitarian war. number four, preemptive war. number five, unilateral war. number six, war for regime change. number seven, war against a nation whose government this

administration determines to be legitimate. number eight, war authorized through the u.n. security council. number nine, war authorized through nato and the arab league. and finally, war authorized by a rebel group against its dess penny-wise and pound-foolished government. -- against its despised government. but not a word about coming to the representatives of the people in this, the united states congress, to make this decision. mr. speaker, at this very moment thousands of sailors and marines

are headed to a position off the coast of libya. the sons and daughters of our constituents willingly put their lives on the line for this country. we owe it to them to challenge a misguided and illegal doctrine which could put their lives in great danger. for we have an obligation to protect our men and women in uniform as they pledge to defend our nation. this administration's new war doctrine will not lead to peace but to more war, and it will stretch even thinner our

military. in 2007 the center for american progress rleased a report on the effects of war in iraq and afghanistan and the multiple deployments of our armed forces. the report cited a lack of military reaness. it cited high levels of posttraumatic stress and suicide . the report was released just before president bush's surge in iraq. just one year after the surge in afghanistan, and after eight years of war in iraq, the president mmits an all volunteer army to another war of choice. if the criteria for military intervention in another country

is government sponsored violence and instability over commitment of our military will be virtually inevitable. and a result, our national security will be underned. it is clear that the administration planned a war against libya at least a month in advance. but why? the president cannot say that libya is an imminent or actual threat to our nation. he cannot say that war against libya is in our vital interest. he cannot say that libya had the intention or capability of attacking the united states of america.

he has not claimed that libya had a weapons of mass destruction. to be used against us. we are told that our nation's role is limited. yet at the same time it is being expanded. we have been told that the administration does not favor military regime change, but then they tell us the war cannot end until gaddafi is noonger the leader. further, two weeks earlier the president signed a secret order

for the c.i.a. to assist the rebels who are trying to out of gaddafi. -- to oust gaddafi. we are told that the burdens of war in libya would be shared by a coalition, but the united states is providing the bulk of the money, the armaments, and the organizational leadership. we know that the war has already crossed our nation -- cost our nation upwards of $600 million and we are told that the long-term expenses could go much , much further. we are looking at spending addition billions of dollars in libya at a time when we can't

even take care of our people here at home. we are told that the president has legal authority for this war under united nations security council resolution 1973. but this resolution specifically does not authorize any ground elements. furthermore, the administration exceeded the mandate ofhe resolution by providing the rebels with air cover, thus the war against libya violed our constitution and has even violated the very authority which the administration claimed was sufficient to take our country to war.

we are told that the gaddafi regime has been illegitimate for four decades, but we are not told that in 2003 the u.s. dropped sanctions against libya. we are not told that gaddafi in an effort to engrasheate himself with the west in general and with america specifically accepted a market based economic program led by the very harsh structural adjustment remedies of the i.m.f. and the world bank. . this led to the wholesale privatization of estate

enterprises, contributing to unemployment in libya rising to over 20%. cnn reported on december 19, 2003, that libya acknowledged having a nuclear program, pledged to destroy weapons of mass destruction and pledged to allow international inspections. this was a decision which president george w. bush has praised saying, gaddafi's actions, quote, made our country and our world safer. unquote. we're told that gaddafi is in breach of the u.n. security council resolutions but now our

own secretary of state is reportedly considering arming the rebels. an act which would be a breach of the united nations security council resolution which established an arms embargo. we are told we went to war as the request of and with the support of the arab league. but the secretary general of the arab league gam began asking questions -- began asking questions immediately after the imposition of the no-fly zone stating that what was happening in libya, and i quote, differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, what want is the protectioof civilians and not the shelling of civilians.

unquote. ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary general, has also expressed concern over the protection of civilians even as allied bombing continued during the international conference on libya in england this week. stating that the u.n., and this is a quote, continues to receive deeply disturbing reports about the lack of protection of civilians, including various abuses of human rights by the parties to the conflict. he was alluding to possible human rights abuses by libyan bel forces. even the secretary general of nato, an organization ich the united states founded and generally controls, expressed

concern. saying, quote, we're not in little bitia to arm people but to protect people, unquote. so i ask, is this truly a humanitarian intervention? what is humanitarian about providing to one side of the conflict the ability to wage war against the other side of a conflict which will inevitably trigger a civil war making all of libya a grave yard? e administration has told us incredibly they don't really know who the rebels are, but

they're consering arming them nonetheless. the fact that they're even thinking about arming these rebels makes one think the administration knows exactly who the rebels are. while a variety of individuals and institutions may comprise the so-called opposition in libya, in fac one of the most significant organizations is the national front for the salvation of libya, along with its military arm, the libyan national army. it was the national front's call for opposition to the gaddafi regime in february which was a catalyst of the conflict. which precipitated the

humanitarian crisis which is now used to justify armed intervention. but, mr. speaker, how spontaneous was this rebellion? the congressional research service in 1987 analyzed the libyan opposition. here's what the congression research service wrote, and i quote, over 20 opposition groups exist outside libya. the most important in 1987 was the national front, formed in october, 1981. this national front claimed responsibility for a daring attack on gaddafi's headquarters on may 8, 1984. although the coop failed and gaddafi escaped unphased, dissident groups claimed that

some 80 libyans and east germans perished, unquote. significantly the c.r.s. cited various sources as early as 1984 which claimed, and i quote, the united states' central intelligence agency trained and supported the national front before anafter the may 8 operation. now, by october 31, 1996, according to a bbc translation of an arabic journal in london, a colonel who is leader of this libyan national liberation army, the armed wing of the national fron he was quoted as saying, force is the only effective method for dealing with gaddafi. now follow me to march 26, 2011.

a newspaper reported, and i quote, the new leader of libya's opposition military left for libya two weeks ago, unquote. apparently around the same time the president signed the covert operation's order. and i'm making an observation. the new leader spent the past two decades of his life in libya ? no. in suburban virginia where he had no visible means of support. his name, lonel kalifa

hiftar. now, one wonders when he planned his trip and who is his travel agency? coress needs to determine whether the united states througprevious covert support ofhe armed instruction -- insurex-driven by the american-created national front, potentially helped create the humanitarian crisis. that was used to justify military intervention. we need to ask the question. if we really want to understand how our constitutional prerogative for determining war and peace has been preempted by this administration, it is important that congress fully considered relevant events which may relate directly to the

attack on libya. consider this, mr. speaker. on november 2, 2011, france and great britain signed a mutual defense treaty which included joint participation in a series of war games outlined in the bilateral agreement and surprisingly documented on a joint military website established by france and great britain. it involved a long range conventional aair attack called -- air attack called southern storm against a dictatorship in a fictitious southern country called sohland. in response to a pretend attack. the joint military air strike was authoriz by a pretend united nations security council resolution. the composite air operations

were planned, and this is the war games, for the period of march 21 through march 25, 2011. on march 20, 2011, the united states jointed -- joined france and great britain in an air attack against libya, pursuant to u.n. security council resolution 1973. so the questions arise, mr. speaker, have the scheduled war games simply been postponed or are they actually under way after months and months of planning under the name of operation odyssey dawn? were opposition forcesn libya informed by the u.s., the u.k. or france about the existence of these war games which may have encouraged them to actions leading to greater represon and a humanitarian crisis? in short, was this war against gaddafi's libya planned?

or was it a spontaneous response to the great suffering which gaddafi was visiting upon his opposition? congress hasn't even considered this possibility. nato, which has now taken over enforcement of the no-fly zone, has more from an organization which pledged mutual support to defend north atlantic states from aggression, they've moved from that to military operations reaching from libya to the chine border in afghanistan. north atlantic treaty organization. we need to know and we need to ask what role french air force general and current supreme allied commander of nato for transportation may have played in the development of operation

southern storm and in discussions with the u.s. and the expansion of the u.n. mandate into a nato operation. what has been the role of the u.s. african command and central command in discussions leading up to this conflict? what did the administration know and when did they know it? the united nations security council process is at risk. when its members are not full informed of all the facts, when they authorize a military operation. it is at risk from nato which is usurping its mandate, the u.n. mandate, without the specific authorization of u.n. security council resolution 1973. now the united states pays 25% of the military expense of nato and nato may be participating in the expansion in exceeding the

u.n. mandate. the united nations relies not only on moral authority but on the moral cooperation of its member nations. if america exceeds its legal authority and determines to redefine international law, we journey away from an international moral order and into the amorality of power politics where the rule of force trumps the rule of law. what are the fundamental principles at stake in america today? first and foremost is our system of checks and balances built into the constitution to ensure that important decisions of state are developed through mutual respect and shared

responsibility in order to ensure that collective knowledge, indeed the collective wisdom of the people, is brought bear. two former secretaries of state, james baker and warren christopher, have spoken jointly to the, quote, importance of meaningful consultation between the president and congress before the nation is committed to r, unquote. our nation has an inherent right to defend itself and a solemn obligation to defend the constitution from the golf and vietnam to the -- gulf and vietnam to the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in iraq, we've learned from bitter experience that the determination to go to war must be based on verifiable facts carefully considered. finally, civilian deaths are always to be regretted but we

must understand from our own civil war, more than 150 years ago, that nations must resolve their own conflicts and shape their own destiny intnally. however horrible these internal conflicts may be, these local conflicts can become even more dreadful if armed intervention in a civil war results in the internationalization of that conflict. the belief that war is inevitable makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. the unit states in this new and complex world racked with great movements of masses to transform their own government

must itself be open to transformation. away from intervention, away from trying to determine the leadership of other nations, away from covert operations to manipulate events and towards a rendezvous with those great principles of self-determination which gave birth to our nation. in wld which is interconnected and interdependent, in a world which cries out for human unity, we must call upon the wisdom of our namesake, our founder, george washington, to guide us in the days ahead.

he said, the constitution vets declaring war in congress. therefore, no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such measure, unquote. washington. washington. whose portrait faces us every day as we deliberate. also had a wish for the future america. he said, my wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.

>> defense secretary robert gates told house lawmakers earlier that the u.s. will put no american based on the ground in libya. joining secretary gates is admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. tout -- california republican but mckeon chairs the house or services committee. -- house armed services committee.

>> please remove them. the meeting will come to order. we will give them one more chance. if there are any disruptions, you'll be removed. please respect that. good morning. the house armed services committee meets today to hear testimony on the president's decision to commit armed forces to protect libya's civilian population. i commend are fighting forces and i honor them greatly. but i have concerns about our objective in libya. our contributions to meeting those goals and the league of america pottery commitment to what could be a long process. when asked if the u.s. had vital interest in libya, secretary gates said we did not, but we

had interest in the region. i am curious what the criteria are for military intervention. history has demonstrated that an entrenched enemy like the libyan regime can be dealt with by air power. if gaddafi does not face an imminent military defeat or refuses to abdicate, it seems that nato could be expected to support the decade-long no-fly zone like the one over iraq in the '80s. with afghanistan operating -- using a significant share of american resources, i hope this is not the start of a third and long dated conflict. -- and long dated -- enlongated conflict. i would like an explanation of the nature of this threat and hal american interests will be

advanced to the use of military power. we have two witnesses that i hope will bring clarity to this ambiguity. defense secretary robert gates and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral michael mullen. thank you for taking the time to attend this session today. mr. secretary, i understand how busy you have been. i know you travel a lot. i know you have tremendous burdens on you and also on you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being with us today. that is very important. but a final note, i would like to remind -- i would like to remind members of the public that i will not tolerate any disruptions in this meeting. this is a serious matter. the american public deserves to hear what these witnesses have to say. i will ask capitol police to remove anyone who makes a disturbance. thank you.

ranking member smith. >> ranking member smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary gates, chairman mullen, thank you for being here today. the most important thing is to answer questions where we go from here with the situation on the ground in libya is and what you see the level of u.s. involvement from this point forward. it's obviously a very uncertainly situation and there will be no guarantees, no set timetables. but as members in congress, the more information we get on your best estimate of what our commitment is going to be, for how long and what's going to be involved and what our goals are the better off we're going to be able to explain it to our constituents. i also think it's important in the hearing today to flesh out the criteria for our intervention. many have asked why libya and not so in the other places that have civil war. i think i have some of the answers for that, but i hi it's important to explain to the american people this is not an open-ended commitment from the

united states that we will dive in and get involved in any civil war anytime. i do believe there were a unique set of circumstances in libya that warranted this action, but i think it's incredibly important we explain what that unique set of circumstances was and to let the american people know this is not something we're going to be doing in a great number of places. i think here we had a clear situation where our unique assets and ability to at least in the short term stop a humanitarian disaster. colonel gadhafi was rolling back the rebellion in killing many civilians and there was every reason to believe he would continue to do that and they were unable to defend themselves. we had a unique situation also in that the international community came together in support of action against colonel gadhafi. the arab league, anywnato, we h broad base of support. i think that's important not just because it gives us that support, gives us cover, if you will, for our actions but it's important because it also made it more likely we could succeed in those actions and that's one of the most important criteria i

don't think has been talked about enough. you can look at situations in the past like in rwanda or in syria, bahrain, yemen, and see a humanitarian crisis developing but that doesn't mean we have the military ability to go in there and succeed in making things better instead of worse. in libya i think we did have that opportunity because of the international support, because of the assets that we could bring to bear and because of the fact we had clear targets in libya to stop colonel gadhafi from throwing back the rebellion at least temporarily and to have that opportunity was one we should have taken. i think everyone should be mindful of the fact if we had not acted not only would this have happened, not only would thousands of civilians in libya been killed, but the united states of america in the eyes of much of the world would have been blamed for that because they would have seen clearly that we had the chance to stop it and chose not to. as someone who has worked extensively on counterterrorism policy and dealing with al qaeda, that would have been a crushing blow to us to once

again make it look like the united states did not care about protecting those in the muslim world who face the violence of des rats. we have to factor that in as well. going forward we need to know what comes next because for the fact that we had the ability to act a week ago doesn't mean we will be successful. we want to know what the commitment is going to be. i share the chairman's concerns given our commitments in afghanistan and iraq. how long can we sustain this and where is this going? we look forward to your comments. we look forward to further ex langss and i thank the chairman for the time. >> it will be just a couple of things, mr. secretary, if you could hold until we have the cameras, give them an opportunity to leave.

now the secretary has a hard end time today at 12:30, so i will really push to keep us in the five minutes. if you have -- excuse me, 11 thirt. what time did i say? no, 11:30. excuse me. and i will hold five minutes. if you want to take five minutes to answer your question, they will answer it in the record. mr. secretary? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for the ability to speak to the military operations in libya. i start by providing context how we got to this point at least from my perspective. in the space of about two months the world has watched an extraordinary story unfold in the middle east. the turbulence being experienced by virtually every country in the region presents both perils and promise for the united states as stability and progress in this part of the world is of

vital national interest. this administration's approach has been guided by a core set of principles president obama articulated in february violence, standing for universal values, and speaking out for political change and reform. at the same time we have recognized that each country in the region face as unique set of circumstances and that many of the countries affected are critical security partners in the face of common challenges like al qaeda and iran. in the case of libya, our government, our allies, and our partners in the region watched with alarm as the regime of moammar gadhafi responded to legitimate protests with brutal suppression and a military campaign against his own people. with colonel gadhafi's forces on the verge of taking benghazi we faced the very real prospect of significant civilian casualties on hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to egypt.

potentially destabilizing that k country even as it undergoes its own difficult transition. once the arab league and gulf cooperation council called on gadhafi to cease his attacks and our european allies expressed a willingness to commit real military resources, it became apparent that the time and conditions were right for military action. the goal of operation odyssey dawn launched on march 19th was limited in scope and scale. the coalition quickly achieved its first military objective by effectively grounding colonel gadhafi's air force and neutralizing his air defenses. during this first phase the u.s. military provided the preponderance of military assets and firepower as well as logistical support and overall command and control. responsibility for leading and conduct i conducting this mission now called operation unified protector has shifted to an integrated nato command going forward the u.s. military will provide the capabilities that

others cannot provide either in kind or in scale such as electronic attack, aerial refueling, lift, search and rescue, intelligence and reconnaissance support. accordingly we will in coming days significantly ramp down our commitment of other military capabilities and resources in had this operation. the anywnato-led mission like i predecessor is a limited one. it it will maintain pressure on forces to prevent attacks on civilians, enforce the no-fly zone and arms embargo and provide humanitarian relief. there will be no american boots on the ground in libya. opposing the gadhafi regime, as welcome as that eventuality would seem, is not part of the military commission. in my view the removal of gadhafi will likely be achieved over time through political and economic measures and by his own people. however, this anywnato-led opern

can degrade gadhafi's military to the capacity where he and those around him will be forced into a very different set of choices and behaviors in the future. in closing, as i've said many times before, the security and prosperity of the united states is linked to the prosperity of the broader middle east. i believe it was in america's national interests as part of the multilateral coalition with broad international support it to prevent a humanitarian crisis in eastern libya that could have destabilized the entire region at a delicate time. and it continues to be in our national interests to prevent gadhafi from visiting further deprivations on his own people, destabilizing his neighbors and setting back pro degrees the people of the middle east have made in recent weeks. mr. chairman, i though you and your colleagues have many questions so i will now ask admiral mull en to comment. as always, my thanks to this committee for all the support you have provided to our military over the years.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, distinguished members of this committee. i share the secretary's gratitude for the opportunity to talk to you about coalition operations in support of the libyan people. let me start with a brief assessment of where we are today and then leave you with some impression. as of early this morning nato assumed command of the entire military mission over libya. there are more than 20 nations contributing to this operation in all man earp of ways, some public, some not so public. contributions range across the board from active participation in strike operations to financial aid and assistance for humanitarian efforts. we are joined by several arab countries who have, despite domestic challenges of their own, chosen to come to the aid of the libyan people. i hope they do so knowing that the united states and the international community remain grateful for their experience and leadership but also knowing that no one military, no one nati

nation, can or should take on a mission of this nature alone. this coalition we have forged in record time, mind you, is not only a coalition of the willing. it is a coalition of the able. with each nation bringing to the effort what they can in terms of knowledge and skill to tackle a very fast moving complex humanitarian crisis. 25 warships patrol off the coast of libya today including two allied aircraft carriers, france's charles de gaulle and italy's each with combat aircraft embarked. also in those waters are destroyers and frigates, submarines and even a u.s. amphibious ready group. on these ships and at european bases ashore the nato commander from canada lieutenant general charles bouchard has at his disposal more than 220 aircraft of just about every size and stripe imaginable. with these pilots and these

planes, he may operate freely throughout the libyan airspace around the clock, gaining intelligence of ground force movement and intentions, striking targets of opportunity on little or no notice and preventing gadhafi from using his own air force to attack his own people. i would note among these coalition aircraft are more than a dozen from qatar and the united arab emirates. fighter pie lats from qatar have flown more than 30 sorties in support of the no-fly zone mission. indeed in just the last 24 hours u.s., nato and coalition aircraft flew some 204 sorties, 110 of which were strike related. hitting fixed and mobile targets in tripoli, misrata, with such freedom of movement because we moved quickly in the early hours of the operation to render an effective regime air defense and command and control. the first struck late saturday night, the 19th, tripoli time.

the no-fly zone was essentially in place. we have tipped to strike where and when needed and it's my expectation that under anywnato leadership that level of effort and focus will not diminish. what will diminish are operations as we turn our attention to providing unique enabling capabilities. i've been involved with operations for much of the last decade. from the balkans to iraq and afghanistan. so many forces so fast. the enemy wasn't just gadhafi's military it was also the clock as he marched on benghazi intent on brutalizing the people there. but we were ready. there were pilots and sailors moving into position ready to act.

we were able to do that because we, the collective we, not just the united states, have invested in close relationships with one another facilitated and improved over time through annual exercises, personnel exchanges, actual combat experience and mutual dialogue. nobody is underestimating the scope before us. gadhafi has military capability to those of the forces who raid against him. he shows every desire of retaking lost ground and, in fact, did so yesterday. he still wants benghazi back and adjibaya. he threatens them on the streets of misrata and he has made no secret of the fact that he will kill as many of them as he must

to rush the rebellion. your men and women will execute that mission now in support of nato with the same professionalism with which they have led that mission until today. again, thank you for allowing me to be here and thank you for your long standing support of our men and women and their families. >> thank you very much. i was pleased the president addressed the nation on monday to explain. he made his rationale quite clear. utilizing u.s. warriors to protect civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause. but the president's strategy seems to consist of two mutually exclusive parts. the first is to protect libya's civilians which is now the responsibility of nato forces. this is a political consideration and not part of the military mission. i'm concerned that such a mismatch is a strategy for

stalemate. moreover, the president went on to aeb until gadhafi steps down from power, libya will remain dangerous. that sounds like foreshadowing for a mission to protect the civilian population. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how long do you anticipate our military mission will last? under what circumstances is it permissible for gadhafi to remain in power? if he does, will it be necessary for u.s. forces to remain engaged in libya to protect civilians? if it is not permissible for gadhafi to remain in power, why has the military mission been limited to? first, you have characterize it had it correctly in the sense the military mission does not include regime change. personally i felt strongly about that. we tried regime change before

and sometimes it's worked and sometimes it's taken ten years. and it does, as has been the case in iraq, sometimes involves both enormous human and fiscal cost. so the idea here was basically to establish the no-fly zone and protect the libyan people. i believe one of the characteristics of protecting the libyan people has, in fact, been our effort to degrade the libyan military. this is something that after the initial gulf war we actually did not do in iraq even though we had a no-fly zone. we didn't keep attacking saddam's military capabilities as we are doing in libya. as both the chairman and i have indicated our role already has

begun to recede to the support roles that i indicated. we will not be taking an active part in the strike activities and we believe our allies can sustain this for some period of time. i think the one thing that may make a difference in terms of how long it takes for this regime to change is the fact that we continue to degrade his military capabilities, and i think that may contribute to some cracking of the unity of his own military. but the bottom line is no one can predict for you how long it will take for that to happen. but i can tell you that the military mission and our now support role will remain limited as i have described it. >> i would only add, mr. chairman, echoing what the secretary said about being able

to predict how long, i just don't think that that can be done right now. we have actually fairly seriously degraded his military capabilities, his air defense capabilities, his command and control capabilities. his overall forces at about 20% to 25% level. that doesn't mean that he's about to break from a military standpoint because that's just not the case. however, i do have great confidence in nato's ability now in command with the resources it has available to be able to continue to trim that capability and continue in the support role that the united states will to support that attrition. and then i think for the long term it is obviously as others have said there are lots of tools in the kit and to bring that kind of pressure on him which gets to the eventual

overall policy objective of his leaving. >> thank you very much. ranking member smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to agree with both your remarks on that. i think regime change by military force by a foreign military force comes with a very high cost and a lot of unpredictability and is perfectly consistent to say we want gadhafi to leave but the cost of doing it with u.s. or nato boots on the ground is entire entirely too high. we have to put pressure on him in other ways to drive him out. i think that is something there has been confusion about in the public. i think it's a fairly consistent position and certainly it does sometimes work as we saw in the case of yugoslavia. it did drive him out rather quickly. if we can degrade the support for gadhafi, degrade his military and the, that has a better chance of succeeding in a clearer long-term path than any sort of military invasion. the question i want to ask is

the authority for doing this. i think there's considerable consternation about that amongst my fellow members of congress. what is the legal constitutional authority for the president and the military to have acted without prior congressional authorization? i think there was a lot of misunderstanding about the history of that within congress and within the media for that matter. this is not unprecedented. there has been a bipartisan feeling amongst both democrat and republican presidents that article 2 gives them the authority to act militarily. it happened in kosovo as i referenced but also in panama and granada. we have the war powers act out there. as i understand it, it's been the position of every executive that is an unconstitutional infringement upon their article 2 rights and therefore they have not felt like they have to follow it. certainly it wasn't followed again in the instances i just

mentioned. if you could walk through your viewpoint on the authority, i think that would be very important for members of congress. i don't think that was adequately explained at the briefing yesterday and i think that leaves a lot of members of congress feeling like they've been completely left out and that the law has not been followed and i think that's a critical piece in building broader public and congressional support for any action going forward. so if you could talk a little bit about that, i think that would be helpful for us. >> first of all, this is not exactly my area of expertise, constitutional law. but i will say that i -- >> but if i could -- >> i understand. >> you've been there a long time. been through a lot of these decisions. >> okay. >> you have something to say about it. >> i was actually in the white house on the staff when the war powers act was passed. and in the mid-1970s, and i think it is fair to say there has been disagreement between the congress and the president

ever since then on what is required of him under the war powers act. president obama is the eighth president i've worked for. seven operated under the war powers act and i would say that his compliance in terms of consultation and notification of the congress has been consistent with the actions taken by all of his predecessors both republicans and democrats since the war powers act was passed. there was a consultation with the congressional leadership before the military operations started. on friday before saturday night, about half were present in the situation room. about half were on a telephone conference call. the written formal notification of the congress took place. so this has been an area of contention between the executive and the legislative branches for better than 35 years now. but i think that the president's

actions are completely consistent with those of his predecessors and with the executive branch's interpretation of the war powers act. >> thank you. the only thing i would add to that because i do think, and this is not for your benefit but more for the white house. yes, the friday before we launched the attack we did have that consultation. i think in the future, in the days and even weeks as we built up to this it would have been better for the white house to have began discussions with key republican and democratic leaders as we built up to this decision. i don't think that was done sufficiently and i think that would have helped members of congress be more supportive of the action once it eventually took place. understanding that was not your decision. i just think that would have been a critical issue. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> let me add one sentence and that is the president actually did not make his final decision on what to do until thursday night and so having the congress, having the leadership

of the congress the very next day to me was pretty prompt. >> i get that. what i was saying was we do not feel that it should wait until the final decision is made. there were a lot of things being discussed in the weeks leading up to this. we had gone to the u.n. in part to ask for the resolution that came down on thursday. we knew it was coming. even before the white house knows what it's going to do there is benefit to bringing leadership in congress into the discussion in terms of building support. and i think that would have helped build more support in congress if we felt we knew the thinking process leading up to that decision. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and, again, one of the problems of consulting congress before a decision is made versus just telling us what is going to happen is probably, i think, what the ranking member is referring to and probably one of the things that would help with the support of congress.

mr. barton? >> thank you. mr. secretary, i would like you to take my first question, if you would, tofor the record because i know others will be needed to formulate an answer. under what circumstances would the president discuss with congress forces in libya and second, sir, if not for libya under what circumstances would the president request authorization from congress to use military force in general? do you see the use of cia and u.s. special forces in libya as following the blueprint we used in afghanistan? >> first of all, we -- i can't speak to any cia activities but i will tell you the president has been quite clear in terms of the united states military there will be no boots on the ground. >> in afghanistan we went into

assist a well-organized group. we took sides in a civil war and joined the side that was going to win anyhow. in libya the only opposition group in recent history is the lifg, the libyan islamic fighting group, a radical faction that has been waging jihad against the gadhafi regime following the 9/11 attacks against the united states it was banned worldwide by u.n. resolution 1267. it it is my understanding the lifg is aligned with aigm. in a call earlier this month "the new york times" noted libya is not a nation. there isn't any loyalty to libya. it is a collection of 140 different tribes. much more like iraq. sir, are we now aiding and abetting the same organizations that we are fighting in afghanistan and iraq? >> to be honest, other than

relevant handful of leaders, we don't have much visibility and to those who have risen against gadhafi but i think that in a way speaking of the quote/unquote opposition is a misnomer because it is disparate and very scattered. each of these towns that rose up in the west and where resistance has been quelled basically did so on their own and you didn't see people going from one town to the next to share in the fight and, frankly, that's one of the problems that those who have rebelled against gadhafi are facing, the lack of command and control and lack of organization. i would say there are multiple agendas, very disparate elements across the country engaged in this. at this point we don't have a lot of visibility into those.

>> what visibility do we have? lifg is a major component of the opposition? >> i'm just not aware of. i just don't know. >> i know the premise is debatable but many people feel that this is an unconstitutional and illegal war, but i think almost everybody agrees that the cost shouldn't be borne by taxpayers by increasing our $14 trillion debt or by raising taxes. and they shouldn't come out of the hide of the dod. that hide is pretty thin now, sir. that's why i introduced a bill i know you're aware of that would make dod fy-11 accounts to have a list of specific recommendations of nonsecurity discretionary appropriations rescissions for fy-11 by july 2. this bill exempts fy-11 spending for dod as well as the departments of homeland security and veterans affairs.

mr. secretary, the legislation requires that you report to the president no later than june 1 with estimates for total expenses in libya based upon expenses incurred through may 15th, 2001. is this a reasonable time frame for you to assist congress in our effort to ensure the capability of our armed forces fighting in afghanistan and iraq are not degraded by the president's unconstitutional and illegal war? >> first of all, i can tell that you our costs as of last monday were about $550 million. and in the new support role that we assumed today we expect the run rate, we estimate, that the run rate will be about $40 million a month. so i can give you that information now. >> is this a reasonable time for you to tell us what it will cost so that we can find -- the president can find the rescissions? >> i would have to consult with the white house on that. >> would you do that for the record, sir? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

>> thank you. mr. reyes? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary and admiral, thank you for being here. we know you're working under very difficult circumstances. my question deals along the same lines as mr. bartlett's. we know it's been difficult to continue to operate with the budget process tied up in the continued resolution. so one of the concerns -- well, two questions. one concern is we probably are going to get a request for supplemental which will include libya and, if so, will that also include afghanistan and iraq for that? and the second