is allowed to reach an accommodation with its neighbors hos. host: adam boulton, political editor for "sky news." thank you for your time and in state. appreciate your calls. we start every day at 7:00 eastern time. we will be back to mark for more of your calls. a reminder the house budget committee markup on the resolution put out by paul ryan at 10:30 eastern time on c- span3. we take you now to the floor of the house of representatives for morning our speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 6, 2011.

i hereby appoint the honorable renee ellmers to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. good morning. and i rise today to recognize an extraordinary young man from my congressional district, mr. joshua williams, on the fifth anniversary of his outstanding organization called joshua's

heart foundation. at the age of 5 while watching "feed the children" one evening a question arose in joshua's head, what else can i do to help? in the weeks following, joshua would create the basis to what has now become a great charity in our community. today, joshua's heart foundation has grown from feeding a handful of families to over 1,000 throughout south florida in just a few years. later this month, madam speaker, on april 30, from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. at palm island park in miami beach in my congressional district, joshua's heart foundation will be holding a celebration of their five-year anniversary and, yes, they will be feeding the hungry. i encourage all in south florida to join joshua at this amazing event and again congratulate him on his many years of service to our

community even at such a young age. and with that, madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4, an act to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to speak about an abomination, and i vow to speak about it every week until this congress and this administration does something more than offer lip service. read my lips, the military must end rape in this country.

and those who commit such crimes must be brought to justice. the fact that women in the military are being raped and our government is turning a blind eye is disserving enough. even worse it is not our enemies abroad who are committing these horrific crimes. it's american soldiers abusing many of our own. often with nothing more than a slap on the wrist and sometimes with an unbelievable promotion. we have a military culture that condones and in some cases rewards this type of abuses and violent behavior against female soldiers who are now more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than killed by enemy fire. this is a national disgrace and the longer it goes unaddressed congress becomes an police in these crimes. you -- an accomplice in these crimes. you know, we in congress do

something really well. we hold hearings and then we do nothing. congress has held 18 hearings in the last 16 years on this issue and nothing has changed. the department of defense estimates that over 19,000 service members were raped or sexual assaulted in 2010. but due to fear of retribution and fail to prosecute these crimes only 14.5% were reported. these are department of defense figures. 19,000 soldiers raped in the military every year. so beginning today i'm going to tell these women stories on the house floor and i'm going to keep telling them and keep telling them until something is done about it. earlier this year 17 service members, 15 of them women, filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing the pentagon of ignoring their own cases of sexual assault. today, i want to tell you about one of those technical sergeant

mary gallagher. she deployed to iraq in 2009 as a member of the air national guard. her allegations are as follows -- now, i'm warning you. some of the language is graphic. on november 5, 2009, while she was deployed in iraq a co-worker offered her a ride home to her living quarters. when she accepted instead of driving her home he drove her to a remote area and tried to kiss her. technical sergeant gallagher threatened to report him. he became angry and verbally assaulted her. she reported the incident to command but claim they could do nothing about it. on november 7 the co-worker tried to break into her room claiming she didn't know what she was missing. he telephoned her repeatedly. she again reported her co-workers' actions to command. they said it was a he said she said situation. five days later on november 12, the co-worker sexual assaulted her in the restroom. he pushed her up against the

left side of the wall, took his right hand and pulled her pants and underwear down and used his hand to rub her vagina. he simultaneously grind his penis against her and talked how much he was enjoying the assault. technical sergeant gallagher described the incident this way to nbc. i thought he was going to kill me that night. i felt completely isolated and alone and really scared. here i was in the middle of a foreign country in the middle of a war. sergeant gallagher did not report the violent assault immediately because command had advised her nothing could be done after she reported the co-worker's threatening behavior before. two weeks later when she was asked for more details of the events on november 5 and 7 at that point she reported the violent assault. command's only response was to reassign the assailant and ordered him to refrain from any contact with her. she was lectured by the base

chaplain said that 90% of assaults occur when drinking is involved. technical sergeant gallagher had not been drinking during any of the assaults. this is a harrowing story and is one of 19,000 that must be heard. technical sergeant gallagher fought for us. it's now time for us to fight for her. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the remainder of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. heinrich, for five minutes. mr. heinrich: thank you, madam speaker. 14 weeks have gone by and the republican majority has still not offered a single jobs package. instead, we continue to see radical attacks on everything from medicare to vital clean air protections. the dirty air act that we're

considering today destroys the e.p.a.'s ability to limit air pollution under the clean air act, and unpress -- an unprecedented move that moves scientific consensus and public health. instead of creating jobs, the republicans are asking us to pass legislation that would put our nation's health and safety at risk. this radical bill also halts a measure that would save american families thousands of dollars a year in fuel costs and make america more energy independent. we must make our policy decisions based on science, not on politics. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this dirty air act today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the remainder of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, for five minutes. mr. altmire: madam speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to support a legislative effort

to modernize the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. i've joined with congressman steve king to introduce the batfe reform act which will safeguard american citizens' second amendment right by bringing commonsense reform to the batfe so they can do a better job of punishing law breakers and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals without placing undue restrictions on local businesses in this difficult economy. our proposed legislation would make sure that federally licensed firearms dealers are not subject to poorly formulated and unnecessary regulations by updating the rules and potential penalties governing individuals and businesses that hold a federal firearms will so they are clear and fair. our -- license so they are clear and fair. it is which firearms dealers with minor paperwork errors are no longer threatened with the loss of their livelihoods. defining a willful violation is

an important step in clarifying the way federal firearms license holders are punished by the batfe. certainly, the bureau is limited in most cases to either giving a warning or totally revoking a license no matter how minor or severe the violation. that's the current law. but i believe that these small business owners and law-abiding citizens should not be so harshly punished for small or even insignificant bookkeeping errors. our legislation would create a new system of penalties for federal firearms license holders who commit minor violations and prevent the bureau from revoking federal firearms licenses for minor technical violations such as improperly using abreeveiations or filing records in the wrong order -- abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order. this could still be an option to punish willful violation of the law but it would not be the only option. the batfe reform act would also make commonsense reforms to

help small businesses that sell firearms. for example, it would provide a federal firearms license holder with the time to lick -- liquid ate their inventory if they're going out of business. and it would allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business in which they can correct previous record keeping errors and make necessary updates to the license application procedures. our bill would permanently ban the creation of a centralized electronic index of dealers' records to protect gun owners' privacy and ensure that law-abiding gun owners will not unknowingly end up in a gun database. congress has included this in the annual appropriations bill banning the creation of an index for more than a decade. this time we want to give it the weight of law so welcome give gun owners certainty -- so we can give gun owners certainty and make this part of existing law.

the n.r.a. has endorsed this legislation and i would ask my fellow representatives to show this support for this second amendment and small businesses nationwide by co-sponsor the batfe reform act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise to honor the memory today of the victims of the april 10, 2010, plane crash in russia that one year ago killed much of the nation of poland's national leadership. last year the house and senate overwhelmingly passed resolutions to express america's unwavering support for the people in government of poland and to offer our heart felt sympathies for the families and loved ones of those who perished. april 10 had long been a day of memory for the polish people and those of polish descent because on that day 71 years ago the soviets carried out a

horrific act against the polish people. i'm talking about the forest massacre. last year polish president was leading a polish delegation to russia for the 70th commemoration of that massacre. this was to be an historic event because it was also to be the first time that a russian leader was to attend the commemoration. the truth of the katyn forest massacre was hidden and lied about for decades. the entire world knows that in 1940 the soviet secret police was ordered by joseph stalin to systematically round up and murder all of polish -- all of poland's officers, selectuals, national leaders, teachers, university presidents. as many as 22,000 people were killed in that heinous crime. for decades, the soviets tried to cover up their guilt by blaming this atrocity on the nazis. there's plenty to blame for them but also the truth of it

was never told. i'm proud that this country and this house have long demanded that the truth about the katyn massacre be exposed. in 1951 it was this house of representatives that established a select committee to conduct the facts, evidence of the katyn forest massacre. one year later the committee unanimously concluded that the soviets had been responsible. unconscionably the soviets denied their actions until mikheil gorbachev made a speech. we knew this would be historic but the world was further shocked that this tragic day was to witness yet another obliteration of the leaders of the polish nations. last april 10, the president's airliner that had been recently overhauled in russia crashed as it was landing. everyone on board, all 96

people were killed, including the poland's president, its first lady, the director of national intelligence, dozens of members of parliament, the chiefs of staff of the army and navy along with the president of the polish bank. also onboard, the plane was the former dockworker whose firing in 1980 sparked poland's solidarity strike that. and one who served as poland's final president in exile before the country's return to democracy was killed as well as a chicago artist whose father was killed in katyn. i want to honor their memory today and the memory of all those killed. and i want to express our support for the polish people and the polish government as it seeks full answers surrounding the plane crash, particularly access to the black boxes that were taken by russia, and government -- and the government's other physical materials held related to this tragedy.

poland is a strong u.s. ally. polish leaders helped fight for our country's freedom when the republic was founded over 200 years ago, and america stood with poland's solidarity movement as it fought against the oppression of the communists. in the face of these dual tragedies, on april 10 and katyn in 1940, america stands with the liberty-loving people of poland. madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, for five minutes. . mr. mi shoe -- mr. michaud: i rise today to express my concern about the decline in u.s. manufacturing and china's currency manipulation. it is time our government responded to these issues by developing a national manufacturing strategy and bringing to the floor immediately h.r. 639, the

currency reform for fair trade act. this chart here shows a significant drop in manufacturing employment in the united states. we have lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone. at our current rate, it will take us 24 years to get back the u.s. manufacturing jobs that we have lost between the year 20000 and 2010. in just last month, a report revealed united states manufacturing is now in second place behind china. making things here at home is critical for our economic deverse it, our national security -- diversity, our national security, and just makes common sense. china's enormous growth in manufacturing has come at america's expense and it is bad for american businesses and american jobs. there are many reasons for our

manufacturing sector's decline. i want to highlight two that the obama administration and congress can act upon today. first, we need to develop, adopt, and adhere to a comprehensive national manufacturing strategic -- strategy. second, we need to address china's currency manipulation and stop giving our manufacturing jobs to beijing. a national manufacturing strategy makes sense. many developed economies in many of our competitors, including china, have them. in china, if china is going to implement nationwide policies designed to boost specific sectors, so should we. our strategy should not involve illegal trade practices like china, but it should involve clear objectives. we should ask ourselves the questions, what should the american manufacturing look like?

i believe a diverse, robust manufacturing sector is key to a strong american economy and critical to our national security. the strategy should also evaluate what policy changes are needed to promote more domestic production. we should seek the input from companies that currently choose to make their product in the u.s. and we should also consider ways to incentivize u.s. production throughout tax structure. and finally, the manufacturing strategy should establish clear metrics for success over the short, medium, and long term. our manufacturing sector has declined over the last several decades. it won't be rebuilt overnight. but if we are going to reclaim our spot as the leader in manufacturing, we are going to have to have our own road map for the united states manufacturing industry.

the second thing we should do to help u.s. manufacturing is address china's currency manipulation, the devaluing of the yuan. this is unfair and it creates an unlevel playing field that forces u.s. businesses to close their doors here in the united states. we cannot wait any longer to take action. diplomacy has not worked. so we must seek legislative action. congress must pass the currency reform for fair trade act immediately, and president obama must sign it. in addition, the united states should bring a w.t.o. case against china for undervaluing its currency. we have to fight this plateant violation of trade law -- blatant violation of trade law, take every step available to do that. china's currency manipulations

puts americans out of work and forces american businesses to close their door. we must act with urgency to stop that. i urge my colleagues to support a national manufacturing strategy and urge the house leadership to bring h.r. 639 to the floor to a vote immediately. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, budgets are not simply about dollars and cents. they are about values and priorities. and the debate over spending has revealed the republican priorities, in my opinion, the worst possible light. first, republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple america's ability to

outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild its competitors. that spending plan would cut billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, take 200,000 children out of head start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 states. infrastructure projects would provide american jobs. a consensus of nop partisan economists has found the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. and mark zandi, who advised john mccain when he was running for president on economics, moody analytics chief economist and advisor to senator mccain said it would cost almost 7 00,000 jobs. in addition to these skewed priorities, republicans are

insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include controversial social policy provisions that have little if anything to do with the deficit. even though in their own pledge to america promised, and i quote, to end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation. bills that should pass on their merits not as related to some extraneous issue. rather than compromise with president obama and the democrats in the senate and house, republicans are threatening once again to shut down government. as they did in 1995. now they tell us that they'll back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, one-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government opened. in other words, this bill

contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week to week bill did. it also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget. frankly, madam speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility. especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the secretary of defense himself has called the pentagon's culture of endless money. this partisan patch contradicts republicans' own promises to put everything on the table. defense spending included. listen to their own words as reported by the associated press on january 23, quote, the house's new majority leader, representative carke cantor of virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. but of course they haven't done that. "new york times" january 27 representative chris gibson, a

tea party endorsed freshman republican and retired army colonel said, made it clear, that no part of the pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in iraq and afghanistan was immune. he said this, this deficit that we have threatened our very way of life and everything needs to be on the table. however they have notdown that. congressman mike pence on january 7 said this, quote, if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense. we need a strong defense, i'm a supporter of a strong defense, but to take those dollars off the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our republican friends have made. those words are sounding very hollow, however, today while republicans breaking their word, madam speaker, because in my opinion they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending

left untouched. and a divisive social policy provision as well. which is what they said they would not do. what we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours now the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise, that's our job. my way or the high way is never going to get it done. finally, republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year, we'll have a lot to say about that in the days ahead. their budget ends medicare as we know it. seniors thought that they were going to protect medicare. well, their way of protecting it is ending it. it dismantles medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. we'll talk a while about that in the coming days. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes.

mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, the republicans ran on a jobs agenda but so far the congress they have not done one thing to help americans find jobs. for 14 weeks they have been running the house with not one mention of jobs. the republicans have put their budget proposal out now and now we have the real agenda. a radically ideological plan to protect give aways to corporations and to attack the elderly, the poor, women, and children of the country. reagan overwhelmics -- reaganomics drove this country to bankruptcy, and drove the in the bush years, and now

republicans are trying for a third time to impose their intolerance and everyone for themselves economics on the american people. we need to be fiscally responsible. i think there are things moderate republicans and democrats can agree on, but the republican plan is to dismantle the social safety net of this country. this is a debate we should have. republicans often chuckle that winning in politics is worth the cost to their conscience of being straight with the public. i think we need to let citizens come to their own conclusions by giving them some facts and here are some indisputable facts about the republican budget plan. first, the republican budget has mostly fictitious numbers. the media's picked up on the republican number of $6 trillion in savings. like catnip. but the republicans made up most of the numbers of the plan to get there. to create this big number, the

republicans ignored the congressional budget office, that's quite a strategy, if the nonpartisan budget scorekeepers don't say what the republicans want, the republicans just ignore it and make up their own numbers. secondly, the republicans' answer to the people is the need to dismantle medicaid and leave health care for the poor to the states. the republicans will drop millions of low-income people, children, seniors, disabled, and pregnant women off their rolls, not only that, those patients that are left on the rolls will get a different kind of care from state to state and some of that care is very bare-bones. you shouldn't have to care about where you live if you're poor, elderly, or a child in this country. some states you don't want to live in. . third, the republican plan does not one thing about the hundreds of millions of dollars

of the tax breaks given to corporations every single year. the republican plan even cuts more for the superrich in this country. republicans say they don't like to pick winners and losers but they pick winners and losers all the time when they give money to oil companies and wall street and then push the disabled, people living in poverty off the medicare insurance and the republican party does nothing, not one thing about the defense budget. iraq is winding down, afghanistan is winding down, libya will be over shortly, but they don't take one thin dime out of the defense budget. they can't find anything to save anyplace. now,, the american people need to know the facts. the fact is that if we restored the fair clinton era tax reats, what we had in effect before 2000, and kept all other spending at the same point, our

deficit drops by 2/3. that's where we are today. in 10 years it drops by 2/3. that's a simple plan that is very doable without destroying the safety net in this country, without going after all the poor and the dess pit in this country. we need to lower the deficit even more. we need the right priorities and the right priorities should be figuring out ways to save on health care spending. we spend too much for too little results. if we don't deal with health care costs this deficit will be very tough to deal with. but the republican plan is to demonize poor people and union workers. take a look at wisconsin. you think all the problem in wisconsin was because of school teachers. now, blaming everyone else for the economic disaster is simply to avoid the mission of what they've done.

the republicans take zero responsibility for their disastrous policies. and then say the decision -- situation they created is the reason why we need to implement every form of radcally failed -- radically failed philosophy. it's the republican strategy. consider what they're doing to seniors. they're saying to seniors, now you have a set of guaranteed benefits, we're going to take it away and give you a voacher. go look for some health insurance and good luck. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle released their budget blueprint for 2012 yesterday. let's leave aside for the moment that they're prepared to shut down the government rather than fund it at acceptable levels for the rest of fiscal

year 2011. if you thought h.r. 1 was bad, wait until you see what they have in store for 2012 and the decade to come. it's an appalling, radical, reckless proposal. they want to shred the social safety net and decimate the programs for the most vulnerable programs, the programs they depend on to get through day-to-day life. they demand sacrifice from working families in the middle class but none, no sacrifice from special interests and big oil companies. i saw a lot of words in their budget proposal, but one that i don't believe was mentioned a single time is afghanistan, the war in afghanistan and in addition to having cost more than 1,500 american lives, is costing the taxpayers nearly $7 billion a month and is proving

to be a crashing failure. this war is in its 10th year and we still haven't vanc wished the taliban. we still haven't brought a stable democracy to afghanistan, and we still haven't trained the afghans to take responsibility for their own security. the republicans want to cut wasteful, ineffective government programs. well, if that's true i suggest the majority start with afghanistan before going after american seniors, schoolchildren and working people. my republican colleagues believe in limited government as long as the things they're limited are taxes paid by special interests and investments in people who need a helping hand. when it comes to foreign invasions and decade-long military occupations, republicans are the biggest spenders of all. with these priorities, not only

have they lost their moral compass, they've lost the american people as well. recent polling shows that overwhelming majority want to see spending on medicare, medicaid and education increased or stayed the same. by contrast, nearly 2/3 of americans are fed up with the war in afghanistan and don't think it's worth fighting. it's impossible, madam speaker, to take seriously any budget proposal that doesn't even mention afghanistan or iraq. and doesn't cut billions and billions in wasteful war spending from the budget. it's time to bring our troops home. it's the right thing to do. it's what the people want. it's a sensible, humane, compassionate path to fiscal responsibility. i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, for five minutes. mr. frank: madam speaker, earlier this year an irresponsible bigot burned a koran in florida. that was a despicable act. but unfortunately a number of far worse acts eventuated. that is the murder, calculated, deliberate murder of a number of innocent people in afghanistan by people pour porting to be defending their religion against a burning of a book in florida by massacring innocent civilians in afghanistan, and i am pleased that people, including general petraeus, and others, condemned the burning of the koran.

but there needs to be greater condemnation of the notion that it in any way justifies murder. that includes a condemnation of the president in afghanistan, our ally, mr. karzai, who i believe added to the fuel there by insisting that the man who burned the koran should have been prosecuted. well, under american law he should not be prosecuted. it is part of the first amendment. but what is most appalling is that people purported in the name of religion, then, not to do anything against that individual and that would have been unjustified. i'm not suggesting there is any justification for any violence against him. but violence against people in afghanistan employs the united nations there for humanitarian reasons other citizens of western countries, for them to have been assaulted and

murdered by people purporting to be acting in the name of religion, that is the true outrage. and i hope people will resist any temptation even to equate the two. an act of stupid and offensive bigotry against a book should be criticized. murder of innocent people in the name of a religion and it's particularly ironic that the people who committed these murders claim to be vindicating their religion. no denegation of a religion can be -- if i were to be asked, what did i think more detracted from the image of islam, this irresponsible publicity seeker in florida burning the koran or people in the name of religion murdering innocent people, going to afghanistan clearly to help, is clearly the latter. so, madam speaker, let's be very clear. that nothing in what happened with the burning of a koran

comes close to justifying the outrageous, murderous behavior of people in afghanistan. and i am pleased that there is attention given to them, but the condemnation should be of this kind of attack on innocent citizens and we ought to keep this into perspective. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the remainder of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: well, yesterday paul ryan of wisconsin, the republican chair of the budget committee, revealed his projected future for seniors in america and their health insurance coverage. it's very interesting. what he says is starting with people who are age 55 and

younger there would be no traditional medicare. that's a pretty radical departure. but he says, don't worry. what we will do, in the republican vision what we will do is the government will take money and it will give it to private health insurance companies, seniors would be forced to go to those private health insurance companies and buy a policy from them and it would be offset by the amount of money that the federal government gave to the private health insurance industry and market discipline would prevail in the paul ryan view of the world. isn't that a wonderful thing? well, guess what, we got that today. we have an unregulated health insurance industry in this country exempt from antitrust law unlike any other business in america and over the last 10 years premiums for people who buy health insurance have doubled in my state, pretty much the same all around the country. some places more than doubled.

other places a little bit less. but that's over 10 years. but in paul ryan's view of the world that's a success. why is it a success? well, because insurance company profits are up very dramatically. so what if people are paying twice every year? there is no problem with his proposal but this is not a private industry. they are allowed to collude red line people. they are allowed to collude and drive up prices. they are allowed to get together and say which states to get out of and help their brothers and sister companies. that system would continue. then, there's the little problem of he would repeal so-called obamacare. well, one of the things i think most americans liked about that legislation was it prohibits insurance companies from refusing to sell you a policy because you were sick once.

that's called pre-existing condition. it also prohibits insurance companies from taking away your policy the day you get sick, something called rescission. in paul ryan's world, those things are back. pre-existing condition exclusions, guess what, aging is a pre-existing condition. go out today if you're 55 years old and you've been sick once in your life and try and buy at any reasonable price a private health insurance policy. in paul ryan's world, market discipline will take care of that. no. what he's doing is a massive shifting of costs onto seniors, the kind of thing that drove seniors into bankruptcy back in the 1950's and 1960's and had the poverty rate at 20%. that's why we adopted medicare in this country so seniors wouldn't be driven out of their homes and into bankruptcy in their later years when most people require more health care. in paul ryan's world, to heck with that. in fact, the congressional budget office, which some days he likes when they give him

answers he likes. but it's an impartial group, bipartisan group and at this point controlled by the rpts, has said under paul ryan -- republicans, has said under paul ryan's world, seniors instead of paying 25% of their income will pay 68% of the cost of their health care. now, how many people -- how many seniors in this country other than the people he walks around with on wall street and at the country club, but other than them, how many of them can afford 68% of their health care costs? what middle-class american can afford that in retirement no matter how prudent they've been in their whole life, no matter how much money they saved in their whole life? very, very, very few. we have a plan to enrich the private health insurance industry, allow them to return to all their ways, recisions,

pre-existing conclusions -- inclusions, all that so the government can give them money and he says this will save the money -- government a lot of money. well, it might, but it's going to kill a lot of seniors or drive them into bankruptcy just like the days before we had medicare. if one looks at the other republican creation of the last decade, medicare part d, you know that thing where we helped seniors with their pharmaceutical costs, with the drug prescription, that wasn't done through medicare. it was done through the private insurance industry. it cost three quarters of a trillion dollars, $650 billion, $650,000,000,000 over 10 years borrowed money. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: that's paul ryan's world, give all the money to the insurance companies. good work, paul. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes.

ms. chu: yesterday, paul ryan introduced the 2012 road to ruin budget. we have been back to work in the house for 14 weeks, and for 14 straight weeks, the republican majority has done nothing to create jobs. they haven't even put a single jobs bill on the house floor. in fact, their proposed spending bill for 2011 actually costs america 700,000 jobs. now congressman ryan and the republican leadership want to extend their job-killing policies and permanently eliminate the middle class. the republicans' road to ruin is nothing short of an attack on working families, seniors, students, and children. it attacks america's seniors by ending the medicare guarantee and putting your fate in the hands of private insurance companies. it attacks america's workers by not doing anything to create jobs and by gutting job training. it attacks america's students by cutting education and

raising college costs for nearly 10 million students. no matter what side of the aisle we are on, we can all agree that deficit reduction is important. but the question is how do we do it? what we can't do is balance the budget on the backs of america's middle class, our seniors, students, and our children. but i do know some things we can't afford. at a time when middle class families can't pay their bills, we can't afford to keep spending billions in subsidies for big oil and give aways for special interests. at a time when our senior population is growing, we can't afford to slash funding for nursing homes and put health insurance companies back in control of health care. at a time when our economy needs an infusion of the best and brightest workers, we can't afford to cut public education while protecting tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and spending billions of dollars in tax breaks on

people already making upward of half a million dollars. a budget isn't just about dollars and cents, it's about priorities and values. and as representatives of the american people, our priorities and values should reflect their values. jobs, security retirement, the promise of educational opportunity. and the certainty that if your child is sick then you will be able to afford to see the doctor. if you vote for this bill, who amongst us could go home and look senior citizens in the eye knowing we ended medicare as we know it? who could look an unemployed worker in the eye knowing we didn't do anything to create jobs? who could look a student in the eye knowing we took away their opportunity to succeed with a quality education? i want to reduce our deficit. i know it's vital for our fiscal future, but i also want

to look my constituents in the eye and tell them i stood up for their priorities and not those of big oil, international corporations, and special interests. and the truth is, we can do both, we can get our deficit under control, and we can do it without cuts that hurt hardworking families. thank you. i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remader of her time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon >> right now we join a house hearing on the transportation security administration's passenger screening behavior

detection program. testimony from government accountability office members and homeland security officials. also scientists and law enforcement. this actually got under way at 10:00 this morning. live coverage here on c-span. >> these studies don't show any evidence that stress and anxiety appear as the stakes increase. let me turn to the issue of detecting a section from facial cues to emotion. this is based on the idea that liars experience emotion or fear detection and serving these facial cues can help you detect lies. i don't have time to go into details about the theoretical problems with that assumption, but in brief it invites both misses and false alarms. it may miss travelers with hostile intentions who don't experience these emotions. or who successfully conceals them. and it may generate false alarm

for travelers who don't have hostile intention but experience these feelings for other reasons. most people are quite surprised to hear that there is very little evidence on the issue of these so-called microexpressions. brief displays of an underlying emotion that are revealed automatically. i'm aware of only one study published in the peer review literature conducted by steve porter and they examined the prevalence of microexpressions and falsified and genuine displace of emotion. they found no complete microexpression in any of the 697 facial expresses they analyzed. they found 14 partial microexpressions occurring either in the lower or upper half of the face. bus these expresses occurred with similar frequency in true and falsified expressions.

so this study shows that microexpressions will occur very rarely, to the extent they do occur they occur in genuine displace as well. the authors to this paper conclude the occurrence of microexpresses -- expressions make them questionable. they also state the current trade promotioning that relies heavily on the identification of full face microexpressions may be misleading. finally, i would like to address a point of view expressed by dr. exman in a recent article in nature on the program. he stated he no longer publishes all the details of his work in the peer review literature because those papers are closely followed by scientists in countries such as syria, iran, and china which the united states views as potential threat. i object to deliberate strategy not to publish research for three reasons, first, the enemy,

whoever they are, potential terrorists or criminals, may be aware of results from research applies to all the research. so if we took this argument seriously, we shouldn't publish any lie detection research because it may ultimately help the enemy. and second, it's my understanding of the theory of my expression these are automatically, involuntary displays, if that's the case i fail to see how knowledge about these behaviors or the research on these behaviors could help a person. and third and most importantly, these claims of microexpressions, or the cues included in the spot program, they are empirical questions that should be addressed with data subjected to scientific peer revue. given the amount of resources that have already been spent on this program, i think such validation is absolutely necessary.

so in summary by view is that the spot program is out of step with the scientific research. it relies on an outdated view of deception and there is very little support in the peer reviewed literature. if hi more time i would say a few words about what i think may be a more productive approach to assessing credibility, but i believe i'm out of time. >> thank you. you want to add some suggestions we'll be glad to enter those into the record and hopefully we can get those to you. i would like to recognize our final witness and that's dr. philip ruben, chief executive officer of the has conditions laboratories. you have five minutes. >> chairman broun, ranking member edwards, and distinguished can members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. my name is philip rubin, i am

here as a private citizen. i have served or currently search in a number of roles both inside and out of government that might be relevant. in addition to the activities previously mentioned, i'm also a member of the technical advisory committee that was formed to provide critical input related to analyses and methodologies used in the spot program. i was invited here to describe the current state of research and science in the behavioral sciences related to laboratory studies and field evaluation of various tools, techniques, and technologies used in security and the detection of deception. my written testimony provides some brief historical background on selected activities in the behavioral sciences. this mentions a variety of documents and reports, some of which i have here, include many produced by the national academies, national research council, such as consensus reports and other documents, but the written testimony focuses on two i was involved with the workshop on field evaluation and

the intelligence and counterintelligence context, and a short set of papers on threatening communications and behavior. because of time limitations, i'm not able to describe these in detail and refer you to my written testimony. regarding the field evaluation workshop summary, however, a number of the participants spoke about various obstacles to field evaluation. obstacles they believe must be overcome if field evaluation of techniques and devices derive from the behavioral sciences is to become more common and accepted. perhaps the most basic obstacle is simply a lack of appreciation among many for the value of objective field evaluations and how inaccurate, informal, lessons learned approaches can be to field evaluation. a number of people throughout the process of developing this summary spoke about the pressures to use new devices and techniques once they become available because lives are at

stake. this sense of urgency can lead to pressure to use available tools before they are evaluated. and it can evenly ignore the results of evaluations if they disagree with the user's convictions that the tools are useful. as indicated earlier on the member of the technical advisory committee for spot, as the g.a.o. report indicates, the committee -- technical advisory committee's role is extremely limited. focusing on determining whether or not the research program successfully accomplished the goal of evaluating whether spot can identify high-risk travelers, define its individuals for knowingly, intentionally attempting to defeat the airport security process. the advisory committee has not been asked to evaluate the overall spot program, nor has it been asked to evaluate the indicators used in the program. not asked to evaluate consistency, field conditions, training issues, scientific

foundations to the program, and/or behaviorle methodologies, etc. in order to aappropriately scientifically evaluate a program like spot, all of these and more would be needed. to summarize my written testimony, let me mention a few points as highlights. these are some recommendations of how to move forward. so just going to hit some bull its. first, create a lee liability research base of studies examining many of the issues related to security and detection of deception of the meer review where and when possible -- peer review where and when possible. shining a light on methodologies to be open as possible is necessary for determining if these technologies and devices are performing in a known and reliable manner. incorporate knowledge on the idiosyncrasies of human behavior. understand the interplay and indifferences between stress and other factors.

make sure that we are not distracted or misled by the tools that fascinate us. pay serious attention to the ethical issues and regulations related to human subjects research, including 46 rule, where applicable and rellvabt emerging areas, including privacy kenches, neuroethics, and ethical implications of attempt of autonomies agents and devices. reduce conflicts of interest to the extent possible including financial. understanding how urgeycy organizational structure and i.n.s. tugal bayiers can shape development and assessment. and support the importance of the need for independent evaluation of new and controversial projects and issues with appropriate scientific, technical, statistical, and meth logical expertise. thank you. >> thank you, dr. rubin. i want to express my

appreciation for your being here. i know you have had some recent challenges and greatly appreciate you being here in spite of those. thank you so much. i want to thank all the panel for your testimony. i remind members that the committee rules limit questioning to the five minutes. the chair at this point will open the questions and the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. willis, when can we expect the spot validation report? . the report was delivered to me and being submitted through d.h.s. as distribution process. i'm not exactly sure what that time is or when it is ultimately disseminated. i can certainly get that information for you, sir. >> well, we appreciate you getting that report to us as quickly as possible. >> yes, sir. >> what additional steps have to be taken before you get the

report? >> i don't know what the distribution process entails. i know that i'll be submitting it this morning following my participation here. >> any problems in the release of the preliminary reports? >> i don't know what d.h.s.'s policy is on that but i'm happy to provide whatever is consistent with d.h.s.'s absentee policy on relief. >> i understand that the results -- i assume -- are still preliminary. there appears to be a discrepancy in the response success rate. he said, "a high risk traveler is nine times more likely to be identified using operational spy screening." . when you met with the subcommittee on march 3, you said that the spot program was 50 times more effective than random screening.

one of our other witnesses made a similar testimony saying, "malfeasance, smugglers, etc., identified 50 times than those spotted." can you explain the discrepancy. >> well, spot -- the first one was possession of illegal or prohibited items. the second one was possession of fraudulent items. the third was law enforcement arrest and the fourth was a combination thereof. the legal arrest has the higher number that you referred to in your question, sir. >> 50 times? >> yes, sir. >> the possession of prohibited items and fraudulent documents is approximately 4 1/2 times, and if one combines all of them

it's nine times. >> of those that were identified, how many of those were actually convicted? >> sir, i don't know. our effort stops at whether a decision is recorded as being arrested or not and that's the information that's available to the spot database. it doesn't go beyond that. >> do you have any data about false negatives? i mean, false positives. on the people that have been identified 50 times or nine times or 4 1/2 times? >> are you talking about the false positives associated with arrests? >> no. with -- with arrested or -- yes, sir, with arrests and with prosecution, the ultimate

prosecution, etc.? >> yes, sir. we do have information available on that. so, for example, if one looks at the false positive index which is for every person that you correctly classify as a high-risk traveler -- excuse me -- what is the number of travelers you misclassify? we have that information on any of the four metrics that we discussed. so, for example, combined outcome for every person that you correctly identify using operational spot, 86 were misidentified. for the base rate or random study, for every person that you correctly identify, 794 were misidentified. >> wow. spot was initially developed -- was intended to stop terrorism. that's the whole point of it. now we see that the program has expanded to include criminal activity.

>> you're asking a question about the mission. i'm from science and technology, sir. i'm unable to answer that. i'll refer you to t.s.a. >> that's the reason that t.s.a. should be here. we are extreme loedis appointed they are not here. >> i can tell you why we use metrics that deal with criminals -- that -- >> you have a few seconds. my time's up. >> the reason we use those metrics that we just listed, sir, was because they were available to us through the data and sufficient numbers to analyze even though they themselves are low base rate or extremely rare and data directly dealing with terrorism is unavailable and can't use as a metric. >> ok. my time's up. ms. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and as i mentioned earlier, i am disappointed that t.s.a. isn't here because i think there are a number of questions that actually go to things like training -- training protocols and other aspects of the spot program that they would have, you know, really useful information to share, and so i look forward to working with the chairman and the committee. this question about who needs to appear not is not a decision, really, for the administration, congress determines under its constitutional authority who appears before the committees and what the jurisdiction is. so i do share that concern. i want to go to this question, though, of profiling. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i appreciate your comment. you've took up about almost a minute with that and i'd like to give you an extra minute on top of that so -- i don't want to charge you. >> i appreciate that.

>> i give you an extra minute. gentleman, start the clock again, please. >> thank you. thank you, again, mr. chairman. i have a question, really, that goes to this issue of profiling. i mean, as an african-american woman who sometimes because i have short hair and i get cold i wear a scarf on my head and it's true in the airports, especially, i had the experience of bling pulled over, questioned. it hasn't just happened once, twice, it's happened multiple times. and i -- you know, i don't want to make any speculation about that, but it does raise the question of who's identifying and how and what i'm sending off. i'm also reminded in dr. hartwick's testimony, i remember when i broke a lamp and i tried to glue it together and my mother said, what did you do? i suspect part of the reason she said that -- and i proceeded to tell her a lie -- but i suspect part of the reason that she knew i was lying is because she knew me and because she had experience

with me and because she read my both verbal and nonverbal could yous many times over which gave -- co-2s many times over which gave her -- cues many times over which gave her an indication. we don't have that experience in our airports. so i have a question for lieutenant of whether it's possible to train officers of all kinds not to engage in profiling? and i've done police training, law enforcement training as well, and i think it's tough to train out culture. culture in the sense of a police culture and law enforcement culture where you have to train against type when it comes to these issues. and so i'm curious, lieutenant, if you have some -- if you can share with us -- whether or not it's possible to train officers in profiling? >> i believe so. i've been training in profiling for over a decade now.

principally with the state on racial profiling, biased policing. make snap decisions on people based on things. we have this hardware, survival instinct. we are automatically packing an opinion about them and a lot of it will has to do with our background and cultural influences and a lot of those are negative. this is about survival and it wants to understand what's going on very quickly and it actually gets a jump on the conscious awareness. so right away when i walked in here and i saw you and you saw me we made a decision about each other even before we were consciously aware of who we are and what we are. this goes on all the time and this is the source of bias. now, knowing that, i can't stop my feelings about someone based on how they look. that initial survival reaction about what the person might be dangerous or not. but i can take a few seconds, maybe minutes, to think about

what's going on, what do i know objectively and maybe even do some race transpositions -- if this person were another race how would i feel about the situation and then i can make a decision. it takes self-awareness, it takes change, it takes monitoring yourself and it can be done. one of the behavior assessment training i've done, and what i initial gave the t.s.a. for the spot program, you have to address bias and racial profiling. to me it was an antidote -- >> mr. didomenica, i just have a minute and a half left, i wanted to get to dr. -- get to the doctor because i'm sure we have been reading those cues. i want to know whether you can train what could be negative instinct in one context and train them to be positive

factors and recognizing behavior. >> yes, thanks for the opportunity to respond to that. i want to quickly put in that we did research years ago that showed better you know someone -- if they are your friend, your spouse, etc., you don't want to discover that. strangers do better than close people. the issue is monitoring, building in to the spot program some monitoring to discover the actual incidents of racial profiling. and my bet is that some people show a lot more of it than others. not everyone can learn everything. not everybody can unlearn everything. what we want are the people who have the flexibility of mind to benefit from that training and not doing it, how can we find

out? it's not rocket science. it's having observing people and finding out whether there are some people who are repeatedly showing racial profiling. you either re-educate or you reassign them to a different job. >> thank you, dr. ekman, and thanks for your indulgence, mr. chairman. >> you and i will always be friends and i will give you some variance on the time so i am not going to be worried about that at all. you are up for your question. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the panel as well for being here.

it's our job here to try to spend the money of the taxpayers the most efficacious way. and listening to the testimony here, it's really difficult for me to determine whether this spot process is accurate. i'd like to address mr. diodominica a little bit more. from your comments today it seems as there's some -- i mean, after the m.d.o. sees some behavior, what's the process after that if there's someone there it sounds as if you have some doubt as to the next step as to what's happening, the next screening step. are those people not trained in the same thing? i hate somebody getting missed. i'd like to know more about the exact process from the moment the person is taken out of the cue, is that effective? i mean, is it -- are we doing any good, are we missing

people? this is the kind of thing i think you brought up in your testimony. >> i think it's a perspective. i think we are missing people but i think it can be improved. the process actually starts with an observation that may indicate a person with -- that's high risk. that maybe you should not get on that airplane or get onto that train or into that government building. whatever the critical infrastructure is. and based on the evaluation, this spot scoring which i really can't go into because that's sensitive information, but there are two levels and one is more screening and one is the law enforcement response. the people deemed to be most high risk, the protocol is to invite or call a law enforcement officer to do a follow-up interview. now, this follow-up interview is the opportunity to address the false positives because a lot of people that exhibit the behaviors that may indicate possible terrorist intent or criminal intent are just people that are upset or distracted or late for work or going to a funeral, whatever it is, there may be a lot of people that

just get on the radar and this interview, which really only takes a couple minutes to do, is the opportunity to resolve that so you're not creating the false positives. that's also an opportunity to determine if you got the real thing. that this person is high risk. and so that's another skill. i mean, that's the interview skill which is another part of this process. >> are there people skilled enough in those person? >> when you say skilled people? >> the secondary people, are there enough of those people? >> the responsibility ultimately falls on police officers when there's a high-risk person. i think they're capable. every day they're making decisions around this country whether to arrest somebody, whether or not to arrest people, deny people their freedoms, use force. i don't think it's too much to ask them is this person a high-risk person and do we need to slow down the process to figure out what's going on? i think they're capable of doing it. whether this program gets funded or not, cops are he

making these decisions every day. i'd like to see them get more training and more support to make them better at what they do. and this program has that potential. >> i'll yield back the remainder of my time, if any. >> thank you, doctor. i just want to say your questioning just shows further why t.s.a. should be here so we could answer those questions because if they were then you could direct it to the t.s.a. individuals and it would be very instructive to the whole committee, democrats and republicans alike, and help us to go forward. the next person on the agenda is my friend, mr. mcnerney. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i yield to you five minutes. >> mr. mcnerney, i thank you for calling this hearing. i had -- i find it -- it's compelling but not too scientific, in my opinion, but i think it's good for us to examine this issue and sue how

much utility can be from it and how much money should be expended to find that utility. dr. hartwig, i think you heard me say, and i you can correct me if i'm wrong, that you failed to see how knowledge of the indicators could be useful. >> well, i think that is, again, an imperical question. there is not enough research -- well, there's a lot of research on demeanor cues but as far as i know there's no study whether knowledge, for example, my expressions, for example, helps people not display them but that would be an effectively step. it would be a good first step to establish that these expressions occur reliably. countermeasures come second.

>> ok. dr. hartwick -- i was going to follow-up, dr. ekman, would you agree that knowledge of those independent cadors would be useful to potential wrongdoers? >> we don't know. we are using the question in polygraphs, could you develop countermeasures? a proposal i put to the government to find out -- i mean, i had reason to believe that the chinese know the answer because they were sending me questions that you would want to prepare on if you were going to do a training study to see whether you could fool the people from showing, not just micro expressions, but there are dozen of items on that checklist. the -- our government has not decided that it's worth finding out whether you can beat the system. other governments are finding out and may be selecting people who can and training them so they can. we just don't know. we know about the polygraph.

we know countermeasures are quite successful. we know about some verbal means. we know they're quite successful. if i could have a moment more, sir. you've heard some complete contradictions between dr. hartwig and myself. i think if you look carefully at the literature you would find that it comes out supporting me. but how can you know? i think you need to do when you get a disagreement among scientists is you need to establish an advisory panel of experts who have no vested interest and no connections to hear for the people to disagree and look at the literature and resolve it because you're really being given in this testimony advice that is 180 degrees opposite in terms of is there a scientific basis of what's being done.

but you could argue, and i don't know if mr. willis, dr. willis would, that if this validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny, to everyone that's looked at it, to this committee, is it as successful as the report is, you got to be doing something right to get that kind of success. so maybe it's a scientific interest. >> thank you, dr. ekman. mr. lure, he's chomping to the bit here. >> i want to respond to dr. ekman's point. that was the conclusion of the may, 2010, report was to have a study of this a.i.r. validation effort. we think it's very important for a panel to be established that has no ties to the current program, that's not an advocate of the current program, to help weigh in on this very issue. i think that's very issue that the panel today shows a lack of

consensus which was the basic point i made to my earlier statement. there is no scientific -- >> well, a subject like this you expect to be a broad range of disagreements. has the panel like what you're recommending been suggested in one of the budgets or lined out somewhere or is this something -- >> agreed to review the methodology of this so-called a.i.r. report but it's mr. willis that indicated the final results of this final validation effort has only recently been submitted, i believe he said, as of last night. >> i think i ran out of time so i'm going to yield back. >> thank you all for being here. i share the frustration with some of the others that t.s.a. is not here today. i'm a new member here of congress. along with quite a few others. and so i've been traveling much more in the last three months than i ever traveled in my

life. in monday the trip out here i had my first experience of the full treatment by t.s.a. out of o'hare and it was interesting. didn't realize that it involved turning your head and coughing but i now know it is what it is. it's important for us to have these discussions, again, to protect our liberty and freedom while at the same time to make sure we have security. i do thank you for your role. i think what i'm learning is that we have a lot more work to do and a lot more discussion that needs to take place. i just have a couple of questions. dr. rubin, if i could direct my question to you, if that would be all right. much research has been made behind the ability of a person to detect a motion, to see an intent in another individual based on a combination of verbal and nonverbal and microfacial expressions. i wondered, speaking broadly and keeping it as simple as you can for us laymen, can you tell

us the state of the science of the intent of bambl cue -- bambl cu -- behaviorial cues? >> yes. i guess i would agree with dr. ekman in the sense that we are at the point where there's two things going on. most of the studies, if you look at something like voice stress analysis and look at the -- there was an analysis done coming out of the defense department, what you basically show in most of these studies is no more than chance, and agreeing with both of dr. hartwig and ekman, there's a lot of controversial here and very little science and validation. it's not just about field evaluation when you can do it. again, there has been a committee established on the spot regarding the report. i'm on that committee. and we have not been asked to do any scientific validation of the overall program, just to

look at one pick thing is, are the results different than chance? i'm agreeing here is what's really needed on these issues before we continue to invest more money is to really establish without, you know, putting any information at risk and stuff like that, establish a baseline about what's doable, what's not doable, what's known and what's not. so this is the classic issue, do you test first and field it or field it and test? consider the investment, considering the intrusion on people's privacy, i think it's absolutely time to be testing, validating and scientifically exploring these items now before we continue to do significant investment. i'm not saying we shouldn't continue this program. i think it's important. but right now we need to establish on some of the known kind of things that we're doing without giving anything away. is there good science behind it? otherwise we're throwing money down the drain.

>> one of the concerns that operators have is behavioral science is not dismissed because there are issues dealing with the validation of specific cues. speaking in counterterrorism context and what its limitations are and what its strengths are as far as our work for counterterrorism. >> well, we're changing the topic a little bit because we're moving to counterterrorism. i think that the behavioral work is broad in counterterrorism. the -- i think it's extremely important, again, when we get to counterterrorism we're broadening the argument out because you get to analysts. there's been an excellent report on the committee chaired by if a rules committee. there's a lot known -- chaired by farooq. there's a lot known. you start to get into behavioral issues of attitude, of biasies, you know, stemming from the original intelligence

work of richard hoyer on targeted bias. there's a lot that we know. the issue because structural and organizational. given what we know -- two things, what do we know and what don't we know? the stuff that we know, how do we make sure that it's being most effectively used by the intelligence community and by whoever else needs to use it? on those issues where we're not entirely clear, where something is uncertain or controversial, how do we move ahead? and there's emerging technologies that we are going to be using. we see them in the devices like x-ray, neuro imaging, assessing of other things. that's where i was speaking at the seduction of technology. i support that greatly but we need to make sure that is new and emerging get a handle on it. so i think the behavioral stuff is growing rapidly, extremely important, but i think that we're not doing a comprehensive

approach to essentially deploying it in the field before it's being publicly evaluated. >> my time is up. i do want to thank you all for being here. i do feel this is a start of a discussion we need to continue. i appreciate you so much for being here. i would also ask for any advice, any microfacial expressions i might have so i won't go through that again, pass that along. thank you. >> thank you, mr. hultgren. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, be allowed to sit on the dieas for the committee and participate in the hearing. hearing none, so ordered. mr. mica, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. first of all, thank you, mr. chairman, mr. boren, and ranking member edwards and other members of the panel. i have great interest in this subject that you have before

you. i was involved in the creation of the t.s.a. when i chaired the aviation subcommittee in 2001, of course, some six years after that, and watched its evolution. first, i might say that i'm absolutely distraught that your subcommittee would be denied by t.s.a. the opportunity for them to be here and possibly learn something or participate. i don't want you to feel like they're ignoring you. they've ignored our committee and others. they have a history of this. we'll work with you and others. in fact, i think we need to convene a panel of chairs of various committees and somehow

rein this agency in. it has an important mission. i'm just stunned, again, that they would not have someone at least to hear from the excellent panel of witnesses you've had here today. particularly when they come and ask for more money. let me just tell you my involvement with the spot program. again, as chair of the committee that created it, i followed t.s.a. and its successes and failures. we've deployed a lot of expensive technology out there and unfortunately the technology does not do a very good job and the personnel failure, performance rate is just off the charts. if you haven't had the classified briefing on the latest the technology which is the back scanner and the wave

energy, i urge you to do that. it was in december of last year. and the patdown, which is their backup new procedure which they put in place the end of last year and then i had that reviewed by g.a.o. in january. but that failure rate is totally unacceptable. the way we got started on spot is i found the technology lacking and reports of performance both by screeners and the equipment they used as leaving us vulnerable, particularly after the chechen bombers and i think we bought some puffer machines at the time. i remember going up having those tested. they didn't work but they promised me they would. they deployed them and they didn't work. so we needed something in place. we encouraged looking at the israeli model and you can't really adopt the israeli model

because they have a much smaller amount of traffic. we have three -- 2/3 to 3/4 of all passenger traffic in the world, and it's part of america. you know, you get on a plane, you go where you want. people just have a magic carpet through aviation in this country. so that's how we started this. i observed their operations, and i can't evaluate them. we had g.a.o. evaluate them, and you have some representatives here to tell you that the failure is -- rate is unacceptable. it's almost a total failure. if it wasn't money and personnel, maybe it wouldn't matter, but they got 3,300 spot officers, i believe, in the program. got a quarter of a billion dollars in expenditures and

asking for more. what i heard today is that, again, it doesn't work. i didn't actually get to hear the suggestions. and i would look for -- i had to leave before i heard all of it, some of the suggestions on the all the of time to do a verbal interview would improve it but maybe finding some way to get us to a number that we could have some exchange. ms. edwards made an excellent -- some excellent points in her comments, opening comments, too, that we got to have some way to improve this. unless there is some verbal exchange, i think that we're at this standoff observation, we're wasting time, money and resource. i don't have a specific recommendation for the replacement.

i do know what's in place does not work. but i can't tell you how much i appreciate your subcommittee taking time to review this matter and try to seek better approach, better science and better application of something that's so important because we are at risk. these people are determined to take us out. just came from another meeting, folks that developed both back scanner and millimeter wave which is two technologies we're using. the scary thing there is we had -- we had witnesses in one of the other hearings that said that both of those technologies will not -- will not be able to detect either body cavity or surgical implants, and we already see that these guys are going -- they're always going one step ahead of whatever we put in place. so we got a failed system,

we're spending a lot of money on it, it's supposed to provide us with a backup. information we have in the review of the o.p.m. shows that it's -- review of the performance shows that it needs to be dramatically revised. and keeping us from this next set of threats. those are my comments. i would ask that if you have suggestions we do have an f.a.a. bill which we can include some positive suggestions. we couldn't do that on the house side because of jurisdiction, but we can do it in conference. and the door's already been opened by the senate. i would love to hear recommendations from you and from those who participated today how we can do it better. so thank you for allowing me to participate. >> well, thank you, chairman mica.

i appreciate your being here and appreciate your comments. i can speak for ms. edwards, we are both very concerned about national security. we both are concerned about civil liberties. we're both concerned about -- that we make sure that the flying public are safe and appreciate her input. i hope that she'll find some way that maybe we'll have those subjects -- so that maybe some kind of behavioral study -- science can be done to identify those folks. we have a next round of questions. we are talking about very low base rates. mr. -- lieutenant didomenica states in his testimony that the base rate of counterterrorism is .00000 -- i

think one more zero, six. i hope i didn't leave out one. can any of the panelists help put that in perspective, anybody? >> that implies that acts of terrorism is a very rare event. that makes it difficult to test the efficacy of the program. as we put in our report, a better metric system to allow you to judge if the program works -- we don't think that should deter you from trying to craft what we would call proxy measures. other measures that helped you get at this -- at least indirectly, and we made that very important recommendation and t.s.a. and d.h.s. agreed to try to get -- develop these indicators. one step we think they could take and make this exercise a lot more useful is that they

use a very long list of behaviors in their list. the fact number and the characteristics are considered sensitive security information but we posed the question -- how do you know this is the right number? and they also assigned point scores to each of these behaviors. again, the details are sensitive security information. that would be one way we think would make the program more useful in identifying potential acts of terrorism, validate the point system, scrub the list of behaviors, try to come up with something that's more related to an eventual arrest or hostile act and there's ways to do that statistically. >> thank you, mr. lord. anybody else? mr. benishek. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first off, proxy measures are a

standard part of research, especially in the area of terrorism because, again, there are no direct measures and sufficient quantities, typically, to use for terrorism. criminal activity is often used as a proxy measure as an acceptable practice mainly because when one is looking for terrorism or acts of terrorism in a lot of transit areas you're looking for somebody who's coming in to try to use false identityification or you're looking for somebody -- false identification or you're looking for somebody who's smuggling. this is represented in heightened numbers even though they're low base rate numbers in criminal activity. that's why that's typically used and used by other organizations as proxy measures. so i want to make sure that we're comfortable using forethought to that and use what is a best measure for proxy -- best practice for

proxy measures, sir. >> i work with airport security . i've seen the videos of the bombers. i worked in israel where they do a lot of, of course, security. even in our own government, the different parts of d.o.d. that deal with counterterrorism in the attempts to identify terrorists infield, military situations, there's no sharing of information. there's a lot of information out there that hasn't been brought together. it's sensitive but it needs to be brought together and then with that database take a look at what's on the spot list. i haven't seen what's on the spot list for four years. i don't know how it's changed and i don't know how it's been

informed by research findings from our group and other groups and from observations by special forces, by our counter intelligence, by nypd counterintelligence. there's a lot in this country that is in separate little pockets that haven't been brought together. >> thank you. my time's expired. for my question. i now recognize the ranking member, ms. edwards, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go to a question that was raised by mr. mica's comments when he was here. i just want to be clear that from the perspective of g.a.o. and the report and analysis that you've done, mr. lord, we don't yet know if the spot program is quote-unquote a fiasco. isn't that correct? >> yeah, that's absolutely correct. those were his words. that's not in our vocabulary. thank you.

>> and just to be clear, again, what metrics, again, would you use to determine the success or failure as an operational program? >> well, one metric besides scrubbing the current list of behaviors or indicators that they have, they're honing in on as well as the associated point scores, we recommended since there are -- we've identified several instances of terrorists transiting through the u.s. system studied the videotapes of their movement. are they in fact exhibiting signs of stress, or are they, they don't show much because they feel like they're going on a different state. we don't find discernable stress or fear. but there's video that would allow you to get at that. we feel that's valuable in fine tuning the program. >> i highlighted that in your testimony because there are a number of examples that we have , and i wonder, mr. willis, has

d.h.s. made an attempt to pull together not just video evidence here in the united states but with our international partners to do some kind of an assessment stacked up against the screening techniques that have been identified to see whether we're on target? it's an awful lot of money to spend without, you know, putting it up against real-time data. >> thank you. again, i represent d.h.s. science and technology, not the operational community. >> this is a science question. >> from a science and technology perspective, we are attempting to locate video of terrorist threats in other countries as well as within the u.s. and it is very difficult to try to get access to that information or to successfully get access to that video. and so --

>> well, part of the reason that we pulled d.h.s. together is because it was, you know, because it's a, you know, collection of all our, you know, sort of security and investigative interests under one house to work with our international partners. and so it's a little staggering to me to know that you not have a capacity and now -- in now a decade to look at video for a -- and use it to make an analysis about whether the techniques that you seem to be employing are -- would be successful. i mean, that seems to me kind of a basic scientific question that d.h.s. should be in a position with our partners internationally and here in the united states to get that video and, you know, conduct some real scientific analysis of that. so i would urge d.h.s. to consider that. i want to go to dr. hartwig for a moment because in your

testimony you indicated that there are some other recommendations that you might make, and i wonder if you could just describe very briefly those to us because i don't think you had an opportunity here in your testimony? >> right. i think it's roughly captured what mr. mica said before you left that it's important to engage a person in conversation to illouisity cues to deception. after all, the research shows that statements carries some cues to deception. and also there's emerging wave of research that focuses on how to create cues to deception, how to elicit cues to deception because there's such an abundance of research showing that people don't just automatically leak. so my basic answer is that some form of questioning protocol, some sort of brief interview

protocol based on the scientific research on how to elicit cues to deception, how to ask questions so that liars and truth tellers respond differently, i think that would be worthwhile enterprise. >> so you're not really saying -- and this is a yes or no -- scrap the program, but there are areas where we need to significantly improve, the techniques that we're using to take us down a track of really being able to identify poy tension -- potential terrorists? >> yes, i think if efforts would be spend on the questioning part of the program, that would put it much more in line with the scientific research. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. edwards. we've been joined by congressman from -- congresswoman from florida, mrs. adams, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. earlier you said there have been 71,000 referrals and you

made a distinction that the behavior leading to arrests. how much of those were arrested? >> of the 71,000? >> yes. >> that's the random selection method. >> correct. >> that's 71,000 were referred in the random selection, nine arrests were made. >> nine? >> yes. >> and in the other method? >> using spot, 23,000 and a little bit were referred and 151 were arrested. >> and the type of arrested? >> i don't have the nature of the arrests in the data that we looked at, ma'am. >> so it could have been belligerencey or anything of that matter. >> some might have been prohibited items at that time. others could have been through outstanding warrant or something of that name, ma'am. >> do you think that i have an appearance or would i be a target for spot? i mean, every time i go to the airport i get pulled aside and

searched and the reason i can that because being a law enforcement officer and trained, i have some concerns about the way you're identifying and pulling people aside. the -- dr. hartwig, you said you wanted -- you thought the program would work if more tools were available. would it be better to use a validated system as opposed to one that's untested and validated? >> first of all, i didn't say that that the program would work. i talked about where i think more emphasis should be spent. or put. >> so even with the more emphasis, do you believe that it would work? >> i don't know. i think we would need a properly conducted study to find that out, and i think it would be important to go beyond examining the arrest rates and to look at what are the actual behaviors that are displayed by these people who are arrested and to compare those behaviors

with those that are in the list of cues. i don't know what those cues are because they aren't available. to look at, are the spot criteria actual indicators? so i think that -- it's definitely -- we feed to know whether it works or not. >> mr. didomenica, you're a law enforcement officer. i'm a past law enforcement officer. do you believe that the t.s.a. employees have enough training and the skillset based on the training they're receiving to implore -- to provide this type of screening at this level? >> i think with a proper follow-up by trained law enforcement that they do, but if we don't have the proper follow-up by the police officers to figure out what's going on because this is just

like an alarm. it's like going through the magnetomoter and it beeps. what does it mean? they come down and pat you down. the cops go, why did this beep? if you have the good follow-up by trained law enforcement, i'm confident. if they are not trained with that follow-up, i'm not comfortable. >> would it be your opinion there needs to be more training? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mrs. adams. mr. willis, i got another question for you. does t.s.a. plan to use r&d to improve the spot program or does it believe the program cannot be improved upon? >> we -- we do have some ongoing research with them, and if i may say, this is -- is one

of the beginning research elements that we have with t.s.a., sir. and in fact it was started in 2007 prior to g.a.o.'s interests. its focus is specific, not to evaluate absolutely everything going on with spot. that's a huge tasking of which we are not asked or resourced to do. the existing checklist. the first question that needs to be asked from a scientific perspective is -- does the checklist, as it's currently put together and as it's currently deployed, accomplish its mission? you need to compare that against random and against something else that seems to be shown out there invalid. the fact is there's not another behavioral-based screening out there deployed by any other group that we're aware of, either in the u.s. or abroad, that has been statistically validated. so we've not been able to

address that. so we compare this against random which is the first scientific basis. >> so t.s.a. is doing research? >> we are doing research that supports t.s.a. >> ms. sdwads, do you have another question -- ms. edwards, do you have another question? >> i want to follow-up with you, mr. willis, because i'm confused. you say that you shared with our staff that there is a pool of video available of suicide bombers and the like that could be used to study. i mean, i would expect that if t.s.a. were operating the right kind of way that would also be used for training. and so i'm a little confused by your answer. and i just want to be clear. do we have video, both from ourselves and perhaps from our

international partners, that we could use to assess the techniques that have been developed and the questions that the assessment questions that have been developed so we can make sure that we have a program that is working as effectively as we know it can work? >> we don't presently have a sufficient number of videos to conduct scientific analysis on. attempting to work with our partners internationally to gather these. but being a research organization we don't have the ability to compel operational organizations, much less international ones, to provide us with that video. what we are doing is attempting to collect that as best we can as well as to conduct other kinds of supporting things such as interviews of direct eyewitnesses to suicide bombings, international subject matter experts in the area to

go beyond what the current validation study was of the existing indicators to try to establish from a scientific perspective what is being used operationally abroad and in fact what is being witnessed by, again, eyewitnesses and subject matter experts so we may be able to then bring that information back and test it. >> is s.n.t. doing that or t.s.a.? >> that's s.n.t. -- s.&t. >> wouldn't it be good to have a real data pool to have a research protocol enable to stack our assessment tools against that? my question, though, for mr. willis is whether or not what agency do you think would be the responsible one to get this

pool together? is it d.h.s., is it t.s.a.? mr. lord? >> one of the recommendations was to use study available, video recording to help refine the spot program and their formal agency comments the department indicated they agreed and they took steps to do that. i think the department is already on record to do that and agreed. they bought into this idea. the extent to actually implement it we have to follow-up and see the extent they've addressed it. just to clarify, d.h.s. has bought into this idea. they've already agreed to do it. >> thank you. and then finally, mr. lord, since you already have the microphone, d.h.s. hasn't done a cost benefit analysis on the program or risk assessment, and it's my understanding that they

don't do a great job actually, and i apologize for the critique, having cost benefit analyses or risk management for the program. how do we even know we need the program? >> we would look at the cost benefit analysis or risk analysis to -- for example, you would need a risk assessment to show where you needed to deploy the program. it's at 161 airports. so our question was, how did you establish this snm? did you have a risk assessment? and the answer was no. they're in the process of ramping up the program now. every year, you know, funding is increased. we assume that would be justified by a cost benefit analysis. they don't have one yet. although to their credit they've agreed to complete both risk assessment and a cost benefit analysis. that digsly, we would look at

early -- traditionally, we would look at early program and assessment. >> well, thank you all for your testimony. mr. chairman, i would just say for the record it would be good to get a cost benefit analysis and risk assessment before we spend another, you know, $20 million, $20 or $2 on the program. thank you very much. >> i agree with you, ms. edwards. mrs. adams, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. the program, mr. willis, has been ongoing since 2007, is that what i heard? >> the validation research study has been ongoing since 2007. >> validation research study since 2007, and i heard you say there was no system out there that you could use that was valid ated or available, is that correct? -- validated or available, is that correct? >> we are not aware of a behavioral screening program that's been used that has been

rigorously validated, yes. >> what about israel's program? >> we have not located any study that rigorously tests that. >> do they study it? >> we're not provided any information. >> did you ask? >> yes. >> and they have said they would not provide it? >> we've not been -- they didn't say they wouldn't provide it. >> so it's maybe the way you were asked or the way you asked for it, maybe. i'm trying to determine, since 2007 you've been doing the study. we don't have anything validated. you can't give us a cost benefit analysis. we're four years out. and when you say there is no other programs out there, there are some out there, i believe, mr. didomenica, is there programs out there? >> there are similar programs. excuse me. there are similar programs for behavioral assessment.

personally for law enforcement -- i've been teaching bass. there's a d.h.s. program called -- it's called patriot. i have another training course called hos ildetection program. maybe a few days' training and people go off and do their thing. there's no follow-up. i think it gives them good ideas and good techniques but it's not done in a way where it can be measured and followedup on and i think that needs to be done. >> and these programs are all from d.h.s. also? >> i know it's approved, it's approved for funding. but they're not d.h.s. programs. >> ok. so they're funded but they're trained and then they're kind of sent out and there's no true follow-up, is that what you're saying? >> there's no collection of data about success or failure or effectiveness. it's law enforcement training.

and you're probably aware of this. you go for a class, you sit there for a week, you get a certificate, you walk out the door and that's the end of it. i think unfortunately that falls in line with a lot of the training that's done. i think with this program, what's at stake -- for what's at stake we need to be better for how we follow-up on. >> i know for our certificate we had to go for training ever so often or we lost that certificate. i understand how to keep your training and your skills honed. i appreciate that. no more questions, mr. chair. >> thank you, mrs. adams. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. i appreciate y'alls testimony and i appreciate the members, all the questions that we've had. this is a very interesting topic. again, very disappointed that t.s.a. has refused to come because there are a lot of questions that -- i know ms. edwards and i would have liked

to asked. t.s.a. has not graced us with their presence. hope knee we don't need to go down the road for requiring them to be here in the future. we'll look into that and i hope they'll be here voluntarily and maybe you can pass that on to the folks who are in position to make that decision. members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask that y'all will respond to those in writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments by members. witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> as this hearing wraps up, the u.s. house is returning for work on a measure to repeal the authority of the environmental protection agency over regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. sources that includes power plants and refineries. and now live to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, bishop henry fernandez of the faith center, sunrise, florida. the chaplain: heavenly father, we thank you for this day, for truly this is the day that the lord has made and we will rejoice and be glad in it. i pray that our government will seek your divine will in the affairs of this great nation, the united states of america. i ask for your lead in everything this 112th congress will work on, give them wisdom to make the right decisions that will cause all of us to be progressive and successful.

may each member of this house remember the words spoken by paul, let no one seek his own good but the good of his neighbor. bless them and their families with good health and long life. and let your peace rest upon them and this great nation as we continue to live out the words written over the chair of the speaker of the house, in god we trust, in je us is name, amen. the speaker: amen. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: those in favor say

aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. mr. poe: i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be lead by the gentlelady. >> i indivisible, with liberty and justice for all pledge -- i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side. without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings is recognized for one minute. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. it's with great privilege i welcome my dear friend bishop henry fernandez as our guest chaplain for today's opening prayer. he's an anointed speaker,

educator, accomplished author and entrepreneur. henry fernandez answered the call of god on his life in 1985. he became an ordained minister in 1988. in 1991, he gap to demonstrate his faith in god and a commitment to walk by faith in every area of life when, along with his wife carol, he founded the plantation worship center in the cafeteria of a local elementary school in south florida with only 11 members. now known as the faith center ministries, the church makes its home in the former sunrise center, where its more than 8,000 members embrace the mission of reaching the world for jesus. he's an amazing speaker and businessperson whose work

continues to manifest the freedom of worship enjoyed across our nation. through his work, he encouraged us all to have faith and life victorious you. he and his wife have two sons, and i'm truly honored to welcome my friend and inspirational bishop, henry fernandez. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches from each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the yealt is recognized. >> i rise on maff of men and women in uniform who won't get paid if senator harry reid continues to refuse to pass the continuing resolution and shuts down the government late they are week. they deserve better. we have warriors fighting on our behalf in two theaters,

bravely standing strong for our ideals of freedom and liberty. mrs. hartzler: meanwhile, at home, their families are sacrificing too. thousands are bravely running the household and being both mom and dad for their children. while they are fighting for us, the senate and president are awol, doing nothing to make sure our soldiers are getting paid, even as the president takes us into a third war. in fact, they're actively promoting a shutdown because they believe it will ben fete -- benefit them politically. i say shame on them. the house has proposed a c.r. which funds the defense department for the rest of the year, ensuring our men and women in uniform and their families receive their well-deserved paychecks and our country is defended. we need to pass this bill and move forward and stop playing politics. our military deserves nothing less. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> we are one day closer to a republican shutdown and the republican leadership continues their crusade against everyday americans. if their insistence on draconian cuts and rush to a government shutdown weren't bad enough, their budget cuts cut programs most needed by the american people. mr. mcgovern: americans from all walks of life are saying enough. over 23,000 people, mes of churches, mosques, synagogues, clergy and lay people are fasting in opposition to the budget cuts. democrats stand with those fasting in opposition to the cuts to programs that make up the circle of protection. the programs that protect the hungry and the most vulnerable both here at home and around the world. we can and should and we must

do better. i urge my republican colleagues, stop your assault on the floor -- on the poor, top your assault against the poor. you can read more at www.hungerfast.org. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: the united states is engaged in a new concept of war. no longer will the united states go to war only when it's in our national security interest. the oba -- obama doctrine is war in the name of humanity. secretary gates said military intervention in libya is not necessary for our national interests so now we drop bombs in countries when we self-righteously decide the ruler is mean to his people. is this a lawful reason, a legal reason for war in libya? my concern is that the constitution does not give the president unilateral authority to commit our military to foreign entanglements in the vague philosophy of humanity.

there's been no prior consulting and consent of congress. the war powers act only gives the president authority to enter into war without consulting congress when a national emergency is created by an attack on the united states, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. there is no such national emergency. so what is the legal authority for military intervention in libya? we need some answers. are you in, mr. president? that's just the way it is. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> we stand on the verge of a government shutdown. without quick action, we will leave our seniorors, our veterans and vulnerable americans everywhere in the cold. instead of working on a compromise, i state republicans have introduced a budget that will devastate seniors while who tecting tax breakers in

richest. mr. baca: under the republican budget, seniors in my district would lose their guaranteed benefit under medicare and face devastating cuts to medicaid benefits for nursing home care which now pays over 48 million elderly andties abled americans. seniors live on a fixed income. i state, seniors live on a fixed income. they cannot afford to pay more for health care or see their cuts in social security or privatize their medicare. we must not cut their benefits in order to protect, i state, in order to protect and enlarge tax breakers in rich and for companies that ship jobs overseas or for the oil industry. we must control our deficit. it is wrong to balance the budget on the backs of american seniors. this is not about power, it's -- it's about what's gooed for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of improving our nation's schools. i recently visited the sonoma valley high school and heard from many students on this issue. i told the students then and there i'd bring their message back to washington, d.c. and share it in our nation's capital. today's young people face an increasingly competitive world and their education is the foundation of our country's economic success. the students at that high school shared with me the importance of high quality education and teaching young people not only how to take a test but also how to apply their skills in real life situations. mr. mcnerney: the students also canned that when congress makes decisions about the federal budget, that funding for schools and education should be a top priority.

after all, investing in the education of our young people is an investment in our future. i urge my colleagues to listen to the thoughts and ideas of the students and the young people throughout our country. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: my republican colleagues put forth what they promise are savings, but it just shifts costs onto seniors and children. i have heard from hundreds of constituents urging opposition because, to quote a constituent from my hometown, the impact would be devastating. this dangerous game has already cost private sector jobs in my district. contractors wait for congress to pass a long-term budget. many in this body have proven willing to compromise to solve our debt crisis. we have already enacted $10

billion in spending cuts as a show of good faith but house republicans continue to insist upon ideological policy changes that even some senate republicans say, quote, go to foor. it is time for this body to listen to the american public and reject ideological policies that would destroy medicare as we know it, eliminate women's health services like breast and cervical cancer screening, make it easier for polluters to contaminate our drinking water. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to honor three brave men from my state who recently lost their lives in afghanistan. p.f.c. norfolk was killed by an i.e.d. sergeant davis was killed by an

i.e.d. on march 12. sergeant frank munaskey was killed on his 26th birthday on march 29. these men made the ultimate sacrifice and these three losses other 30 days is a big price to pay for a small state like connecticut. mr. murphy: but these brave soldiers volunteered to put themselves in harm's way and i join my friends and neighbors in connecticut in mourning the loss of these three men and wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and sympathy to the families in this difficult time. the speaker pro tempore: for >> i rye today to express the great concern many of us have over the potential impact and government shtdown will have on our men and women serving overseas. recent department of defense memos have stated in the event of a shutdown our troops will be required to continue to serve our country, but they and their families will receive no compensation.

mr. speaker, mrs. speaker, the house has passed h.r. 1 which would protect these military families and keep the government operating while making reductions in spending. as we wait for action on that legislation from the senate, our troops and their families hang in the balance. we cannot allow this washington process to threaten the operational readiness of our military and dishonor the service of our soldiers. our men and women in uniform are bravely putting themselves in harm's way in service to our country. we cannot let them down. we owe this to our troops. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. both sides here have agreed to serious budget cuts. mr. carnahan: it will cost jobs and hurt seniors. because democrats are fighting to stop the republican extreme cuts, republicans are threatening to shut the

government down. their proposal cuts investment in projects like high-speed rail by $1.5 billion which would have a serious impact on jobs in the single region i represent. and the proposal lacks the common sense and courage to end taxpayer give aways to big oil, millionaires, and companies sending jobs overseas. but most shockingly, the "wall street journal" has noted, the proposed budget would drastically cut medicare and medicaid throwing our seniors into crisis. the aarp said the proposal would deny seniors access to long-term care and force deep cuts in quality and safety in nursing homes leaving more seniors at risk. the republican extreme cuts are not the solution. i urge my republican colleagues to get serious. it's time to roll our sleeves up to work together to solve the nation's problems not create more problems to shut the government down. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: request permission to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: here's a formula for the collapse of both our economy and our democracy. increase spending for the pentagon by $7 billion and ensure its budget for the rest of the fiscal year, everything else gets cut $13 billion and get the budget for just one week. money for war in iraq, war in afghanistan, war over pakistan, war in libya. so many wars going on at the same time, you could rename our town, warshington. money for missiles not new moms. money for jet fighters, no money for crime fighters. money for an empire that is as broad as our fears. no money for an america that's as large as our hopes. just money for unnecessary wars. we don't want an apocalypse now. we want peace now. we want jobs now. we want prosperity now.

and we want the leadership to provide it. now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: madam speaker, today i stand with the polish people as they commemorate two horrific events on this saturday, april 10. first, the 71 stth anniversary of the massacre and the second the first anniversary of the tragic airplane crash that killed 96 people, including polish president and top polish officials. the kaytn massacre occurred in a war in april and may of 1940 while poland was fighting a war on two fronts. the soviet secret police killed poles. tragically last year as a

delegation of polish officials who were en route there, their plane unexpectedly crashed in western russia killing all aboard. it was with great sadness that i heard the news of -- after having had the great honor of meeting the polish president in the past. his devotion to the polish nation and people were immeasurable. madam speaker, the polish people over the past year have been unwavering in their patriotism in the face of adversity. it is inspiring. on this day we stand in solidarity as they commemorate two occasions of great loss. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> madam speaker, request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: madam speaker, you can tell a lot about a person by how they treat our

seniors and how they treat our children. according to the 2012 budget, house republicans don't value our seniors nor our children. they want to privatize medicare and undo medicaid. they will burden already crash strapped states and place it in the hands of governors. under their plan governors will decide whether or not you'll receive health care. they are telling 50 million seniors to cough up the money or get off the health care rolls. they are telling the 1.5 million medicare and medicaid recipients in louisiana that they are on their own. according to the nonbart zahn congressional budget office most beneficiaries would spend more for health care under the new proposal and could get reduced quality care under our g.o.p. proposal we are fighting here today. grandparents and their grandchildren will have less access to doctors when they are sick. through this budget we see the republican future and it ain't a pretty one. to use my grandmother's words,

madam speaker, republicans, you should be ashamed of yourself for picking on our seniors and children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: madam speaker, i speak today to honor one of vermont's outstanding civic and corporate leaders. bob young is retiring as president of central vermont public service company, one of vermont's largest and most respected companies. when bob young became president, that utility faced many challenges. he faced them directly. rising costs, transmission system upgrades, a customer base that wanted reliable power but green power. bob young succeeded in making cvps an award winning company. he focused on customer service, environmental concern, and stewardship proving that green power could be reliable and affordable. it was a team effort. his valued employees, his diligent board of directors,

and his shareholders all were part of it. but the best part was his wife, vicky, who was not only at his side but oftentimes a step ahead. you served vermont well and on behalf of a grateful vermont, bob and vicky, thank you for your service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, our soldiers on the frontlines all over this world understand what a fight is about. if you've every visited them in iraq and afghanistan, they have values. they know about their grandmothers and grandfathers, they know about their families back home with their children. they know what they are fighting for. they will understand that we are here fighting for values. this government shut down is not the blame or fault of the president of the united states or the democrats in this house. or in the senate. there has been an offer of $73 billion. it is a question of whether or not you want to solve this problem on the backs of

grandmothers and granddads, backs of the families of the military persons on the frontlines in iraq and afghanistan, do you want to throw college students right out on their rear that are right in the middle of their school term by canceling their pell grants? do you want to tell mothers taking their children to the clinic there is no more medicaid for them? do you want to turn the lights out and close the door and say america, we don't have anymore values. don't shut this government down. you are not going to shut it down on my watch. but i'm going to stand and fight for values and we are going to pull together and we'll stand and survive. let them shut the government down. shut it down. shut it down. we are going to stand for the values of protecting the most vulnerable in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: there is no question, the policy statement of any legislative body, including ours, is the budget. and what are we saying?

i can tell you what the republicans are saying. the republicans are saying they haven't learned what caused the crash in 2008. they haven't learned because they still want to continue to give the tax breaks to the superwealthy and they still refuse to address the cost of the wars and what the defense budget is all about. instead, the republicans want to balance this budget on the backs of our elderly, and they want to take away from those who receive medicaid. those who need the help of government. you know, this is not, this is not how a great nation should act. this is not what the united states of america stands for. all i can say is, we should be shamed because we are better and we are not sending the right message. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today

because in a few short days this body will consider an extreme and devastating anti-choice bill. mr. quigley: h.r. 3 attempted to redefine rape, aims to ban private insurance coverage of reproductive health care, and imposes tax penalties on plans that include care. these unprecedented provisions have been widely debated and it's my hope that the american people will realize the severity of this bill and that their representatives will stop it. but my fear is throughout this debate a dangerous provision of h.r. 3 has been overlooked. making permanent the medicaid abortion ban or the hyde amendment. dangerous because it's the extreme provisions are stripped out as compromise we are left with a ban that permanently bars women from accessing care we have still lost. let's call the abortion ban what it is, a ban on actually protected health care that poor women cannot afford. i encourage my colleagues to stand with poor women struggling to make ends meet around the nation. in staunch opposition to any medicaid abortion ban and h.r.

3. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: madam chairman, what we do is to balance priorities. and the most important are the priorities within the budget process. the republican budget proposal introduced today is really un-american because it cuts hundreds of thousands of jobs. it weakens our economy and it punishes poor people. that's not what we are about. today the wealthiest americans in this country have 40% of our nation's wealth and are bringing down more than a quarter of our income. but this budget will cut their top tax rate by 15%. in other words, if you are making $1 million, you will get a tax break of $150,000. if you are making $1 billion a year, which more than two dozen of the hedge fund managers in this country do make, you'll get $150 million tax break per

year. that's not what we are about. let's look at the misplaced priorities of the continuing resolution in front of us. the cost of cutting education, health care, environmental regulation, childcare, cancer, alzheimer's research, it is equal to the cost of giving those top tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. those are not the priorities of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: we can do better. let's do better. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jackson: madam speaker, yesterday my republican colleagues introduced a continuing resolution that would increase the defense budget for the entire year while funding the rest of the government for just one week and drastically cutting just about every other vital program. that's no compromise. for months the republicans have said as we reduce spending everyone has to take a haircut, including the defense department. now the republicans propose increasing military spending.

the republicans claim they want to fund the government for the rest of the year but this bill is for one week with drastic cuts to programs that serve our most vulnerable. madam speaker, if you say one thing and then you do another, that's not negotiating in good faith. that's not a real compromise. in fact, "the washington post" reported that the republican caucus this week, the possibility of the government shut down was greeted with cheers and applause. they want a shut down. over 13 million americans are unemployed. they don't have time for this and they don't have anymore time to waste. and we shouldn't be wasting the time and the resources they gave us. so if the republicans won't compromise at the negotiating table, maybe we should get everyone down here to the floor to discuss this. to discuss the condition of the unemployed and to discuss why a government of, for, and by the people should remain open. madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman makes a motion to adjourn and the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor significant nigh by saying aye. opposed, no. the noes have t the noes have it. the motion fails. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. jackson: i request the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 36. the nays are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 36. the nays are 367. the motion is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: by direction of committee on rules i call up house resolution 203 and call for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 26. house resolution 203. resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to

clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 910. to amend the clean air act to prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating any regulation concerning taking action relating to or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the

bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on

any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. session: during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 203 provides for a structured rule designated by the rules

committee for consideration of h.r. 910. this rule allows for 12 amendments, that is 12 amendments, madam speaker, submitted to the rules committee to be made in order. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not just in the rules committee, but also on the floor where members will be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments as opposed to a closed rule with no amendments. this legislation introduced by the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman, mr. upton from michigan, has gone through regular order. there were hearings held on this issue, h.r. 910 was marked up in the energy and commerce committee. and the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman, mr. dreier, provided for a structured amendment process for 12 additional democrat amendments to be considered. the bill we are discussing today, the energy tax prevention act, would stop the

environmental protection agency, also known as e.p.a., from imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission regulations. today i will explain what the underlying bill does and i will discuss the e.p.a.'s agenda, what this agenda would do to the nation's job market and economy, and the need for stronger energy policy from not just our president but also from the administration, and also as the guide post that begins with this legislation today from the united states congress on behalf of the american people. h.r. 910 prohibits the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gases under the clean air act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to begin this process. in this bill we onlyfo