>> coming up later, agriculture secretary tom vilsack will give a speech on global food security expected to touch on scientific innovation, growing global come, climate change. live coverage starts at 1:00 eastern here on c-span. both chambers in session this week. the house convening at 2:00 p.m. to work on 2012 spending for military construction and the veterans affairs department. will call votes on the minutes after 6:30. the house is like. the house is live here on c- span. tomorrow, the senate will consider judicial nominations for federal court in new jersey. they will then begin work on a bill with an amendment to repeal several ethanol-related tax

provisions. follow the senate live on c- span2. [applause] last night, the house foreign affairs chaired told the republican jewish coalition in los angeles that the obama administration was not preventing iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. she also discussed policies for israel, syria, and other middle east nations. it will be former by -- followed by comments from newt gingrich at the same event. >> thank you so much. thank you to each and everyone of you. thank you for inviting me to share this special night with you. i am always very pleased to be before a crowd of the republican jewish coalition. i love to see the sign over there. it makes me happy. i am particularly pleased to do

so as chair of the house foreign affairs committee. [applause] go, the gop. go, heat. this crowd gets it. you get it. you share and embrace some of my top priorities in congress, advancing america's vital interests, keeping america and israel secure from violent radical islamic elements and their estate sponsors. that is what we need to do. [applause] your hard work and electing republicans to congress and helping us, taking the lead, and advocating a pro-israel foreign- policy without any reservation and making sure that we do so

for peace through strength. [applause] i know they live and breed these issues. let me get right to the point. -- i know that you live and breathe these issues. let me get right to the point. the arab spring could lead to an iranian winter, as prime minister netanyahu points out. it is an existential threat to israel's security -- that is a nuclear iran. this issue has to weigh most heavily on our minds. it is the growing threat of a nuclear iran. it is still there. do not be fooled by the shiny keys everyone wants you to look at. previous administrations have offered a lot of heart but not enough fight on iran. obama took a step further.

he does not even bother to provide the bark. while the iranian centrifuges have been spinning, we have wasted months trying to cajole, negotiate with an iranian regime who wanted nothing but these new positions. in fact, they have been laughing at our weakness. we passed legislation in the u.s. congress. i want to thank all of my colleagues who are here. thank you for helping us do that. [applause] the u.n. sanctions are lower

than we needed, sinking to the lowest common denominator. with the administration is doing on iran falls dangerously short of what is necessary. that is about as diplomatic as i can be. tehran ares posed by ira a critical level. we're running out of time to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power. only by undermining the basic foundations of the regime can we compel them to abandon their deadly ambitions. the will is there if the courage and leadership is there. i believe we can succeed. for this reason, i have introduced the iranian threat reduction act. i want help from the republican

jewish and coalition to help us get more sponsors. it is a comprehensive, far reaching legislation that seeks to put pressure on this regime to close the loopholes so that the threatening iranian policies that seek nothing less or more than the destruction of our ally, israel. this legislation mandates of sanctions. it closes loopholes. more importantly, these sanctions are not subject to a presidential waiver. we know what president obama would be doing with a presidential waiver if offered to him. it closes those loopholes on the energy sector, the financial sector. we have all little over 100 co- sponsored.

i know if your coalition will ge us to 200. that is your assignment. we do not have a minute to waste. in the last six months, iran has enriched 970 kilos of uranium to reactor-grade levels. time is running short. the iranian threat is magnified by its collaboration with other rogue regimes, mostly syria and north korea. what a trio. iran, syria, and north korea. i have introduced another piece of legislation will help me get sponsors for. this one has a melodic name. the non-proliferation reform and modernization act. you will remember that.

help me get some sponsors. we are looking at syria as seriously as we should have looked at iran. syria is following in iran's footsteps. the threat posed by damascus requires special attention. thank goodness for what israel did in 2007. they took out the underground reactor that syria built when syria said they had nothing there to see. israel's intelligence was so good that they took it out. this was a reactor built with the help of north korea and with financing from iran. all but israel gets internationally is condemnation for the action it takes. but behind the scenes, the leaders of those countries are

saying thank goodness we of israel. we cannot have a policy that lets israel take care of the problem. that is not a foreign policy. four years after israel took care of our problems in syria, syria has been busy. they continue to obstruct investigations into its own nuclear activities syria continues to be one of the biggest -- have one of the biggest stockpiles of ballistic missiles in the middle east. they continue to pursue the chemical and biological program. syria has been very busy. sponsor violent haun extremists. it continues to work with iran and hezbollah to undermine the sovereignty of lebanon.

he continues to release a press its own people. just a few days ago, we saw what syria did with israel to distract attention from its own dismal human rights record. syria again decided -- incited extremists to breach the border. we can expect damascus to do more of this. it knows vodka, rum? i thought we had a deal. water. [laughter] i have a bill to address the serious threat. we could not come up with a long remain, but we are working on it. that is the third bill that we want the help of the republican jewish coalition to help us with. let me briefly address what israel is confronted with. in addition to the iranian threat and the serious threat,

the friends of israel have reason to be concerned about how this administration is managing the relationship. for tv viewers this administration has tried and failed to achieve middle east peace because they have based on pressuring israel to make concessions. that is a failed policy. [applause] they have pressured israel to negotiate from a starting point of the 1967 lines. those lines were never agreed borders. they could not be and can not be the sensible by israel. the president's comments sent the wrong message to our allies

about our willingness to stand by our friends. other countries are saying if the united states says israel is their allies and the united states abandons israel, where do we stand with the united states? [applause] it granted a major concession without receiving anything in return from the palestinians. the palestinian leadership has never been held accountable. to the contrary, their behavior has been rewarded and reinforced by the hundreds of millions of dollars of your money going to the palestinian authority. what have we gotten in return? a palestinian leadership that refuses to directly negotiate with israel. of 40 incitesan and 4

violence instead of stopping it. it has now raised hamas, a terrorist organization, calling them their brothers. it will include them in the new hybrid unity government without hamas having to recognize the right of israel to exist, without hamas having to abide by previous agreements, without hamas having to renounce violent extremism. instead of doubling down on a failed policy, i say it is time for the united states to change course. not one red cent to the palestinian leadership with hamas in power. [applause] i would like to wrap up by saying thank you for your leadership, tireless work, all

that you do each and every day in your neighborhoods, communities, the organizations you belong to, and especially in the republican jewish coalition in building the ties between the republican party in the jewish community and in supporting the u.s.-israel alliance in building strong bond of friendship that will get ever stronger. we talk a lot about how israel needs the united states. my friends, we know that the united states needs israel. [applause] so thank you for all you have done and will do. the u.s. and israel will continue to be safe, strong, prosperous, and free for generations to come.

thank you for your hard work. [applause] [applause] >> thank you for that very warm welcome. i am honored to be here with a number of my very close friends. the chairwoman just gave a terrific talker. she is providing great leadership in the u.s. house. i am always delighted to be anywhere with kevin mccarthy,

one of the great rising stars of the republican party. [applause] it is a great opportunity to be here this evening and be among many close friends i have had for many years. i have known shelton and miriam for a very long time. i hope all of you will join me in sending our best wishes to him. i treasure my friendship with both of them. i salute both of you for your well-deserved award and recognition for all of the hard- working do to keep america safe, free, and prosperous. [applause] i also salute the work of the republican jewish coalition.

the work you do as a force for good in the world is more vital than ever. america is in an economic crisis. more americans are without jobs and for longer periods of time than in any time in our history since the great depression. i am running for president to lead a movement of americans who will insist on changing washington so that we can renew america. to do this, we must insist on dramatic and bold changes in washington. we must repeal policies killing jobs and stifling growth. we must enact policies that will create jobs and bring back prosperity. there is no more important task for the next president.

as someone who has been in public life for nearly 40 years, i know full well the rigors of campaigning for public office. in fact, i have had some recent reminders. [laughter] if i could paraphrase fa ulker's nobel prize speech, i will enter the challenges, and will carry the message of american renewal to every part of this great land, no matter what it takes. with the help of every american who wants to change washington, we will prevail. [applause] is vitally important part of american renewal is renewing american leadership as a force

for a lasting peace, especially in the middle east. this is why i was so happy to receive your invitation to be here tonight. earlier this week, the jewish people all over the world celebrated the feast commemorating the revelation of the 10 commandments on mount sinai. today is actually pentecost sunday in the christian tradition. 44 years ago in june of 1967, just six days after the old city of jerusalem had been reunited in the six-day war, for the first time in almost 2000 years, the jewish people were again able to visit the wailing wall and walk the streets of the old city as citizens of the sovereign jewish nation.

[applause] before dawn monday, thousands of jews gathered at the design on date to await entry to the city. -- zion gates to a week into the city. it was the first time jews had been allowed to carry out a pilgrimage to the wall since the pilgrimage to the temple 2000 years earlier. as the sun rose over the old city, more than 200,000 jews made their way to a site that remains the heart of the people, the religion, and the nation. [applause] each year, the festival is

celebrated in a similar fashion by a pedestrian pilgrimage through the streets of jerusalem to the western wall. it is a pilgrimage of which generations of jews could only dream. it signifies the unbroken connection between the identity of the jewish people and the land of israel that has existed for thousands of years. during this last week, today's generation of jews release similar pilgrimage to the streets of jerusalem knowing that the freedom that allows them to visit their holiest sites is more in danger at this moment in history than any time since that morning 4.5 decades ago. both israel and america are at a dangerous crossroads in which the survival of israel and the

safety of the united states both hang in the balance. the united states and our allies have won important victories in the war on terrorism. it is impossible to look at the totality of the world 10 years after 9/11 and conclude that we are on a winning path or that the world is a safer place. year after year, the forces of terrorism become stronger and the claims of terrorists become more acceptable to our european allies and for powerful in the united nations. year after year, the iranian dictatorship with its openly stated desire to annihilate israel and defeat the united states moves closer to having the nuclear means to do so. year after year, hamas and has blogger a stronger. -- year after year, hamas and

hezbollah grow stronger and stronger. the greatest obstacle to peace is not the strength of the enemy but an inability on the part of the obama administration and certain other world leaders to tell the truth about terrorism, to be honest about the publicly stated goals of our common enemies, and to devise policies appropriate to an honest accounting of reality. [applause] recall that during congressional testimony last year, attorney general holders was repeatedly asked and it could not bring himself to say that the etiology of radical islam plays a role in motivating islamic terrorists to carry out their attacks. the report issued in the aftermath of the attack of the

man who carried around business cards the said warrior of allah, that report did not once mention radical islam. in a similar incident at the frankfurt airport earlier this year, a terrorist opened fire killing two people. the state department spokesperson when asked if it was a terrorist attack responded by asking whether the shooting of congresswoman gabrielle -- giffords was a terrorist attack. the ministries that cannot tell the difference of a homegrown madman and terrorist activities is the luster to of of this the

ministrations inability to use common sense. [applause] the obama administration policies bon israel have been a victim of this same confusion. in his recent state department speech, president obama correctly stated that israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization that denies its right to exist. but he then went on in the same speech to pressure israel to duke's record that. president obama wants israel to enter negotiations with the palestinian authority that is now in league with the terrorist organization hamas. the president said applying this pressure on israel was not the political savvy thing for him to do. he is essentially telling us he is doing the brave thing by

pressuring israel to negotiate with terrorists: to destroy it. president obama and his state department should recall some basic facts. hamas was founded as a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of israel. the charter openly calls for the destruction of israel. it instructs its followers to kill jews wherever they find them. consider the recent statements from the head of the hamas administration in the gaza strip commenting on may 2, 2011. "the jews of the most contemptible nation to call upon the face of your." two days later, hamas' for liaison chief said "i think we're entering a phase of the

liberation of palestine. we're talking about the return of the refugees to their homeland and the return of the israelis to the countries from which became." on may 11, the hamas claire said that in just a few years, all the zionists and settlers will realize that their arrival in palestine was for the purpose of the great massacre, by means of which allah wants to relieve them of their evil. that was said just one month ago. hamas goes well beyond words in its efforts to destroy israel. in 2010, over 200 missiles were fired into israel from gaza. no country can be expected to conduct peace negotiations with

the terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction or with a palestinian government authority the joins forces with such a terrorist organization. [applause] hamas has not changed. israeli peace with hamas is impossible. 20 years of hopes -- [applause] 20 years of hopes for the so- called peace process cannot change the fundamental reality. it also means entering into pieces stations -- peacenik associations with any organization that includes hamas is something that no friend of israel should never ask israel to do. [applause] let me add that i certainly hope

this administration does not resort to the meaningless exercise of trying to artificially distinguish between the military and political wing of hamas as a way of justifying pressure on israel to negotiate with them. [applause] we understand full well that money is fungible. etiology is constant. hamas remains unequivocal in its aim to destroy israel. it makes no such distinction. the approach plays a dangerous game with the survival of israel. in recent speeches, president obama also called for israel to accept the 1967 lines as the beginning of peace negotiations. he went to great lengths to have us believe that what he said at the state department and later apac is no different what other

american presidents have declared as official policy. unfortunately, that is just not true. president obama has called for a remarkable shift in u.s. policy regarding the peace process. he wants israel to accept the lines of 1967 as a starting point for. except in such a proposal would be a suicidal step for israel. -- accepting such a proposal would be a suicidal step for israel. [applause] fortunately for israel, the president's plan for it to accept the 1967 lines is an absolute non-starter with the american people. [applause] like israel, we are committed to seeing a peace agreement that protects jerusalem as the undivided capital of the jewish

state. [applause] after all, it has only been under jewish authority the religious freedom, including access to holy sites for people of faith, has been protected. [applause] meanwhile, we must readily see the president's policies for what they are -- the dangers accommodation of middle east dictators and terrorist groups like kenny whose ideologies vehemently opposes freedom, compromise, and peace and in view such accommodations as a weakening of u.s. resolve and commitment to israel's security. president obama's policies represent a sharp break from the post-ww ii american consensus of

providing an waiving support to israel at the risk of israel's destruction in increasing danger to the united states. the decision to adopt a policy of accommodation with terrorists using the political objectives and code words of those who wish to draw israel into the sea of firms the administration's radicalism in its headlong flight from past presidents and is leading israel and western democracies towards ever-increasing danger. nowhere will the danger be shown more clearly than this coming september at the united nations general assembly. the palestinians have said they will request you in recognition of palestinian statehood based upon the 1967 borders. this action would violate every

standing agreement the palestinians have with israel, including the accords to negotiate a final border agreement. [applause] such a recognition would take place totally apart from any negotiation with israel and without the palestinians renouncing violence or embellishing israel's statehood. some nations are sending the signal that they may vote for it. a vote by the general assembly to unilaterally recognize a palestinian state which strengthens terrorists belief that their commitment to violence and their unwavering rejection of israel's right to exist has begun to produce the desired goals.

president obama and the state department must be clear in their discussions with our western allies, to remember the mistakes of his trip, and reject the unilateral action that would reward terrorist groups who refuse to abide by the basic principles of human dignity and freedom. [applause] steven harper, the prime minister of canada, had it right when he said when israel is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, i believe we are morally obligated to take the stand. [applause] president obama is focus on israel as the obstacle to peace

is particularly disturbing considering the existence of a true threat to the peace of the world. that is the threat from iran. iranian dictatorship is steadily and methodically developing nuclear weapons. out of all the world's diplomatic meetings and four rounds of u.s. sanctions have not slowed down the development i one day. president ahmadinejad has been explicit about his desire to wipe israel off the mat. only three iranian nuclear weapons used against israel would bring about an equivalent of the second holocaust. you have to take his words seriously. ahmadinejad has also threatened the united states. his call for "a world without america" is a goal that he says is attainable.

mark bowman described the legal seizure of the u.s. embassy and hostage taking is the first shots in iran as the war against america. for decades, american israel had shared a common enemy. is that same ideologies that murdered israeli athletes in 1972. it took americans hostage in iran for 444 days. it murder marines in their barracks in 1983. it bombed the world trade center in 1993, riyadh in 1995, the u.s. embassies in 1998. many of the terrorist groups that carried out these and other attacks have been supported directly by the nation of iran. today, iran is watching whether the united states keeps its promises with its ally israel

and how we deal with hamas and hezbollah. the iranian regime will also be watching how america and our allies treat israel and the u.n. general assembly in september. earlier this week, the nuclear chief iran announced their intention to triple their production of highly enriched uranium and to continue to install more advanced subterfuges for that purpose. there also experimented with nuclear triggers that have only one purpose -- to detonate a nuclear bomb. what should the united states do in the face of these facts? we first need to acknowledge 20 years of trying to negotiate peace with evil regimes and organizations dedicated to the destruction of israel and our own has been a failure. [applause]

the time has come to clearly and decisively take the offensive against evil regimes and organizations. this begins with a firm and consistent commitment by the united states in the tradition of speaking plainly and truthfully about the nature of our enemies. next, our policies must reflect the fact that there is no moral equivalency between terrorist regimes and in legitimate self- governing country that abides by the rule of law. [applause] a foreign policy based upon this moral distinction is increasingly critical during a moment many have turned the arab spring. the uprisings in egypt, tunisia, and libya are evidence that

there are millions of peace- loving arabs resent the brutal dictatorships and long for a future of freedom and peace. the uprisings are tremendous opportunities for the advancement of freedom and democracy in the middle east. at the same time, these developments are fraught with danger and bring the possibility that radical islamist factions will capitalize on the upheaval and take control. our commitment to condemning and confronting terrorism must be matched by an equal commitment to affirm the efforts of oppressed arab citizens who are taking extraordinary risks to seek true peace, freedom, and democracy. in the cases of the uprisings, the obama administration is glaring silence has undermined the strength of our commitment to freedom and solidarity with those people yearning to breathe free. every terrorist group takes note

of that silence. there are nine specific policy proposals i would like to leave with you tonight. first, as a demonstration of this new resolve, united states should move the american embassy in israel to jerusalem. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] israel has every right as a sovereign, a free nation to

choose its own capital. we should respect that choice. [applause] as president, on my first day in office, i will issue an executive order directing the u.s. embassy in israel to be moved to jerusalem as provided for -- [applause] you have to let me finish. [laughter] to be moved to jerusalem as provided for in the legislation i introduced in congress in 1995. [applause] second, the united states must refuse to participate in any talks involving terrorist organizations and cut off all direct and indirect aid to terrorists and their front groups. [applause]

this must include the palestinian authority so long as it includes hamas and continues to create propaganda promoting the destruction of israel. [applause] we should also call on other nations who are ostensibly committed to peace to do the same. 3, the united states should explicitly reject the concept of a right in return for palestinian refugees. [cheers and applause] the so-called right of return is an historical impossible demand that would be the demographic disaster and mean the end of the state of israel. there is a right to freedom, the rule of law, private property.

who must be totally opposed to the right of return. -- we must be totally opposed to the right of return. this means the palestinian refugee problem must be resolved outside the borders of israel by the palestinian authority. [applause] fourth, the united nations camp system must be replaced with a system of earned income and property rights to restore dignity and hope to every palestinian. the current field camp system of socialism and unearned charity has been a disaster. it has led to poverty, unemployment, bitterness, and a society that produces entrepreneurial terrorism rather than on tours -- on to paris -- entrepreneurs of finance.

a new approach will bring a better standard of living and allter thand freedom than terrorist dictatorships have been able to achieve for decades. [applause] fifth, we must also reestablished united states information agency as a robustly funded worldwide, anti- terrorism, pro-freedom communications and advocacy system. they fought for our side in the war of ideas during the cold war. in 1999, the agency was dismantled because they thought the war of ideas was over. we discovered on 9/11 that it was not. israel is reminded of this on almost a daily basis. earlier this year, terrorists broken to the west bank homeof the fogels.

stab a husband and wife to death and murder through the children. not even the youngest child was scared. throat.t the baby's in gaza, the cross handed out candy to celebrate. the sickening display of jubilation at the gruesome murder of a three-month old child is the result of decades of brainwashing palestinian children. it is an example of the kind of barbaric acts of terror that must be rejected by all palestinians in any peace in positions with israel. -- in any peace negotiations with israel. [applause] usia helped american to win the cold war.

it can help us to win the war against evil terrorist organizations and dictatorships. to do this, we must ensure that the u.s. information agency began as an independent board of governors reporting to the president and coordinating with the state department but not controlled by the diplomats. [applause] never again should the 3-month- old baby killed without the entire world being repulsed and joining together to condemn such terrorists and their supporters. [applause] sixth, we must aggressively confront a nuclear iran. pursuing nuclear weapons and financing terrorism is a primary

threat to the security of united states, israel, and our allies in the world. the united states must lead the world in an effort to replace iranian dictatorship using the diplomatic, political, and covert tools that president ronald reagan used to defeat and dismantle the soviet empire. [applause] seventh, the united states must establish an aggressive new strategy of taking back united nations from the forces of terrorism and dictatorship. [applause] totally discrediting and if possible stopping the durbin three conference on racism later this year the previous two sessions have been used as a vehicle for anti-semitism. that should be an early goal of

this new world wide campaign. furthermore, the united states must be prepared to suspend all funding to the united nations if the general assembly -- [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] let me repeat this and know this. this was secretary of state jim baker's advice to george bush in 1989 in a similar situation. the united states must be prepared to suspend all funding to the united nations if the

general assembly moved to recognize the palestinian state and the control of hamas. -- under the control of hamas. eighth, all of this will require a restructured state department, a new level of training and management for a embassadors, a new promotion system, and a profound shift in the culture of the foreign service. [applause] the quickest way to change the culture at the state department is to inject new blood into the system. we must engage in fundamental reform of the overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system to raise the level of applicants for the foreign service. change on the scale will be the true fought by the old guard of the state and media allies. it will require a strong comic operas, and knowledgeable secretary of state and the

deeply committed team around them. my campaign website contains a detailed document outlining the other changes that will be necessary to transform the state department's historic aversion to moral clarity about the difference between terrorism and civilization it is weakened both the united states and israel. [applause] ninth and finally, the united states must establish an american energy policy designed to strengthen our national economy and weaken our opponents in the middle east. [applause] we should keep in the nine states the hundreds of billions of dollars we now spend in foreign oil supplies. [applause] we must dramatically increase

american energy supplies so that we can lower the cost of energy worldwide. nothing will do more to alter the strategic balance of power away from dictatorships and the state sponsors of terrorism than a successful american energy policy. [applause] in closing, if it were possible to say a word directly to the israeli people, i would say this. we believe that together with you, peace is possible and ultimately will come to israel. the never-ending tendency to bring israel first is just another variation of blame america first. it springs from the same weakness. it is far easier to ignore an unpleasant reality and try to impose your will on someone you think you can control rather

than deal with the unpleasant reality that you are too timid to confront. if israel disarmed today, there would be no israel tomorrow. iran, hamas, hezbollah, and other terrorist groups disarm today, and tomorrow we would have peace in the middle east. [cheers and applause] our challenge today will likely not meet with some simple solution. our commitment to israel's protection remains as staunch as it has been from the moment of israel's birth. i would also say this to the brave people of israel. never, ever underestimate the hold that israel has on the american heart.

the american people have always believed in israel. we believe in israel still. together we will renew our mutual agreement to freedom and justice. we will work to achieve a peace where war and bloodshed are no longer common features of life for you and your children. in 1936, the emperor appealed to the league of nations for assistance. he said it is us today. it will be tomorrow. -- it will be you tomorrow. we know if the forces of terrorism eliminate israel today, the return to america tomorrow. -- they would turn toward america tomorrow. we must reverse the obama administration's dangerous policies of in coherence and accommodation.

instead, we must implement a foreign policy that is clear about the evil that we face and committed to the actions necessary to overcome it. america is still the last, best hope of mankind. [applause] i believe, as president ronald reagan did, that the goal of u.s. foreign policy must be the promotion of peace. it must be real peace where freedom can flourish and justice can prevail, not a false peace the emboldens terrorists and tyrants to extend their evil throughout the world. it is towards this possibility of real peace that america must commit itself. no other nation in the history of the world has been so inexorably tied to the fate of freedom throughout the world. the time has come to reaffirm

america's commitment to freedom and the rule of law, to stand firmly and courageously against terrorism and evil organizations and dictatorships. it is time to stand firmly with our friends. together, those of us who believe in freedom will defeat tierney for the fourth time in a century. the tyranny for the fourth time this century. we will have for our children and grandchildren a safer world. this is our duty. this is our generation's rendezvous with destiny. thank you and god bless you. [cheers and applause]

thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up, we will go live to the national press club in washington for remarks from the agricultural secretary. he will be speaking about global food security. the agriculture meeting is taking place in paris. it is expected to dig under way at 1:00 eastern. -- it is expected to get underway at 1:00 eastern. the house is convening at 2:00 this afternoon. they will be working on 2012 spending for military construction and the veteran affairs department. there'll be roll-call votes on amendments after 6:30. you can see live on c-span. the senate will be dabbling in at 2:00 -- gavelling in at 2:00.

senators will work on a bill, a procedural vote to repeal several ethanol-related tax provisions is set for tomorrow. you can follow the senate live on c-span2. we will be going live to the national press club for marks from secretary vilsack. a number of the republican presidential candidates are gathered for debate in new hampshire. we get a preview during this morning's "washington journal." there. tonight there are seven contenders in the republican field and the president of the united states will meet them for a debate. here to talk about it is james of "politico." you may have seen the papers already, but "usa today" says that mitt romney has the edge. would you conclude the same?

caller: absolutely. great to be with you. mitt romney is the front runner. he might be nominally strong, but this is the opportunity for him tonight to cement its status as the gop front runner. there are three big headlines that can come out of the debate. the people on stage dog pile on him, steer clear from attacking camper, -- from attacking him, and everyone will be watching how he behaves. for him in 2007, during the last campaign, he was really a big punching bag. this will confirm his status as

a front runner and test his skills as a communicator read if he is attacked tonight, we are watching carefully to see how he responds. we wrote a piece today looking at that run the specifically saying that there is a fine line between being confident or arrogant and disengage. d. disengage host: who is the candidate that is likely to taken to task? caller: yesterday to tim pawlenty linked the mitt romney health care law with the obama health care law. tim pawlenty needs a breakthrough moment and it is likely he built it from me on the health care -- he will hit mitt romney on the health-care

issue. having just announced his it is with -- it is possible that but santorum will be willing to throw punches. e could bean throwing some punches. newt gingrich needs to get attention, but his challenge is that he wants to look serious and not make it look like he is desperate to survive. this might give him cause to pull back a little bit. host: as far as mr. romney is concerned, you talked about the status of his campaign going in. what does he have to solidify the night?

caller: that he is not just a well-funded juggernaut. the message is the economy. he is rolling out an advertisement today criticizing the president for calling the economic recovery setbacks, high employment, a speed bump. he needs to identify himself as closely as possible with that message. that he is the candidate to fix the weak economy and continued to come back to that. host: what is his ground game in new hampshire compared to the other candidates? caller: he invested heavily in 2008 -- they have been living there for a couple of years now.

leading have a leak in the polls in new hampshire compared to the early primary states. he sought to have the favor of john sununu, chairman of the state gop and campaign leadership. this is a state that fits him pretty well politically and he has been signing a lot of the big names. host: before we leave you, having laid out some teams, what is the other story that you are looking for that would not be as obvious to the people watching? caller: absolutely. can michele bachman look presidential? many people say that she could win the iowa caucuses. she is popular with the tea party and very good at serving

red meat to the tea party -- to the republican base. the one thing we do not know is how she comes off to the general public. remember her awkward state of the union response? she will have to prove that she is substantive. not just running to >> we will have that debate for tonight on cspan radio starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern. we are now live at the national press club this afternoon, awaiting remarks from agriculture secretary tom vilsack, giving a speech on global food security. >> the usda monitors the safety

of parts of our food supply along with food and drug administration. they rolled out the new my place icon for healthy eating this month. he said he was surprised of the usda and how unappreciative they are. expanding broadbent access and rural america and edit night flying aircraft to the u.s. forest service's fire fighting began increasing the number of at all bombs at gas stations are all items on his plate. secretary of bills that must also based -- the international focus. he will travel to paris next %gco@ç@ç;gse

taxpayers. and with all due respect to my colleague on the other side who

is opposed to this amendment, i think that when it's all said and done, the bottom line is, these projects, labor agreements, and this executive order while not requiring the use of project labor agreements, will give an added tool in our arsenal to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks to enhance what we do for our country, for our citizens, we put to work, to make sure that conditions and terms of their employment and work they do are done within appropriate standards. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from ohio for introducing the amendment. once again on an important issue. although i brings up the fact this has been decided in the chamber twice already on other

similar circumstances, it's not really the same. because last friday, of course, we found out that our unemployment rate is rising in the country. it's now 9.1% again. we only created 54,000 jobs, not the 200,000 jobs we hoped we would create. and certainly way less than the 150,000 jobs we need to create in order to get back to full employment. that's how many we need to create every month. what this amendment does very simply, is it means that we are going to have to spend 10% to 20% more on every single project that ends up in a project labor agreement, and more projects will. if more projects wouldn't, then

on price and quality and value whether or not to make that deal, not whether someone is a member of a union or hires union laborers. that's what a project labor agreement does. so let's talk about jobs a little bit. what is our important role here in congress? our role in congress is to try to get our employment rate up. if we save 10% to 20% on every job, we can certainly do more construction projects. i just met over lanche with people in my district who is an electrical contractor, and he's not unionized. and he asked me to come down here and said, please, go to the floor today and ask so that those 80%,p f 70% of us who are

contractors who are not unionized can get a piece of that pie so we don't have to fire our employees. mr. harris: mr. chairman, it's simple f we can save 10% to 20% on every project. we can hire more people to do more projects. and again, the sad fact is our unemployment rate is 9.1%. it's going up not down. the number of new jobs created last month, 54,000 going down, not up. we have got to reverse that and we have to do it by being efficient and smart with our dollars. one way is to not require project labor agreements. finally, let me address the issue of local citizens. i want these contracts to go into the first congress a -- congressional district of maryland. i don't have a lot of union contractors in my district. there are a lot of districts that don't have a lot f we want local contractors to be employed, if we want local citizens to get jobs, local unemployment rates to go down, mr. chairman, i would suggest

we defeat this amendment which will frequently require in order to qualify for a contract you have to hire out of district. you may have to go to another state. the gentleman

says, if there was evidence, congress would not approve of project labor agreements. i again rise in strong support of the latourette amendment and urge it to be adopted. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i'm here in opposition to this amendment and i heard a lot of the compelling arguments here today as to why this amendment should be adopted. let me remind the members that the appropriations committee passed the language that's in this bill right now that restricts funding from going to

projects that require -- project labor agreements. that's all this does. i think we should all be for free markets. we should all be for capitalism for the best contractor beating the best contractor and competing for the price. there were reports cited in "the wall street journal." mr. graves: "the wall street journal" did a study that was commissioned by the department of veterans affairs that said in the study the obama project labor agreements would likely raise the v.a. costs by 3% to 5%. there is a study from an independent organization saying that costs can go up. can we not accept that as evidence enough that we do not need project labor agreements to receive the funding for projects throughout this nation? we live in a day and time that the debt and deficit is out of

control. that is what we seem to spend our arguments about, spending. that's an important topic. the most important is the economy and the job loss. mr. hare is was so eloquent as he was talking about unemployment. 9.1%. we all know that. we were here on the celebration of the one year since the summer of recovery and yet we don't see any recovery. these project labor agreement requirements by the executive order were placed in effect in 2009. as mr. bishop referenced, you know, this was good for jobs, good for creating local jobs. where are the jobs? they do not exist. in essence we had two years of a failed experiment, mr. chairman, and i think it's time to say the experiment didn't work. put it up on the shelf and let's try something new. let's do something that does work, empowering the private sector, empowering the free market, allow costs to come down and the quality of goods to go up.

i have to tell you, mr. chairman, when i go home it pains me to see the new fore sale -- new for sale signs that are up, the new for rent signs that are up. four, five years ago you might see a vacancy in a shop because they had moved out because they had expanded their operations and they were moving up, but now it's just the opposite. we know that businesses are not moving out and exp: mr. chairma

that i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 60, line 22. spending reduction account. section 416. the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee exceeds the amount of proposed new budget authority is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. meeks of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes.

mr. meeks: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the amendment i have regarding the sale of v.a. hospitals in new york. first of all, this is clearly a bipartisan bill. i have the support of my good friends, peter king and michael grimm of new york to stop the enhanced lease process for the v.a. in my district. and this -- there's really a time you have an issue where everybody has come together, and clearly here's an issue where members of the community and the veterans have spoken with one voice, to say that what is being proposed there is against the best wishes of the veterans and the needs of the veterans and against the wishes of the community basically changing the whole complexity of the community so that the people that lives there would have a terrible injustice and disservice. now, i know that the process works in certain areas because part of it is supposed to be where the eeul works with the community and veterans and everybody agreeing and working together. that is not the case in this scenario.

and this scenario, we have veterans, you know, from all over. in fact, we have the kings county council of v.f.w.'s, we have the vietnam vets of america, we have the queens council of -- department of new york 1 v.f.w., united council for v.a. rights, all who are supportive of this amendment saying that this is not in the best interest of rirns. veterans, you know, the v.a. has come up with the idea of putting together a facility that doesn't even include a full service hospital, and it's not based on the number of vets coming back from afghanistan and iraq. now, they've put everything on the line for them, and here we have the opportunity to make sure that we do the very best that we can for our veterans. and here's the whole community saying, we want what the vicious want. we want to stand behind them 100% lockstep. it seems to some at the v.a.

there's a deaf ear in regard to that. so we're going to continue to fight and what this bill says is we'll stop the e.u.l. process in new york at the facility because it is not what is needed, it is not what the vets want. it is also, you know, it just seems to me that instead of working with the community, the v.a. has chosen to go out and do a high density residential areas, residential buildings in this facility. it is not even just for veterans. it will have a devastating impact on the local community. and so we are' saying, no, that shouldn't -- and so we're saying no, that shouldn't happen. you can't destroy the very fabric of a community, and you can't produce something that does not benefit the very vets that we are supposed to be here to help. so, mr. speaker, so i urge

support of this amendment regarding the v.a. hospital, i urge we support our veterans who are absolutely united on this matter and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment and we will -- the chair: the gentleman then strikes the last word. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman, and rise in support of the amendment and we'll accept mr. meeks' amendment because it's vitally important that all federal agencies, the v.a. included, understand that the member of congress representing that district, he's their voice. i have an obligation to look after the entire nation, but first and foremost i'm a representative of the people of district 7 in houston, texas, as mr. meeks is the representative of his

constituents in new york. i think it's vital to understand that they need to work with and earn the support of the representative of that district before they move forward with a major project of any kind. as mr. meeks said, the community is opposed to the direction they have v. samplet taking. i would join with my friend, mr. bishop, we strongly support the v.a. looking to the private sector to partner with the private sector to find innovative, cost-effective ways of providing better services to our veterans by partnering with the private sector and certainly the committee does not want to discourage in any way the v.a.'s expansion of private partnerships to give better service to veterans. we encourage it. we want the v.a. to look for ways to save money, to provide better service to our veteran, to use the expertise of the hospitals like the texas medical center which i

represent, the work mr. bishop is doing with fort benning and the v. namplet his district created a marvelous partnership with private physicians to give better service. we want them to continue that effort. but it is essential the v.a. understand they have to earn the support and approval of the community, that means they have to earn the support and approval of the representative of that district and in this instance, i hope the v.a. is tuned in and listening, the v.a. needs to earn the support and approval of congressman meeks before they move forward with this effort and so for that reason, we will accept the amendment and i want to know that the v.a. is not only returning mr. meeks' phone call bus they are listening to, responding to, and satisfying the needs of the community, the needs of his constituents, the needs of the veterans he represents and that the v.a. has -- once they earned the support of the community, they'll have the support of mr. meeks.

when mr. meeks comes to the subcommittee and says the v.a. earned his support, the comment has earned his support, then the -- the community has earned his support, then we'll be ready to move forward and accept their work at st. albans. for that reason, we support the amendment and we look forward to the day mr. meeks tells me they've earned the support of his office and community. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of the meeks amendment that affects his district and several districts around his district in support of veterans and fighting men and women who have returned from wars overseas, some of them severely injured and in need of our care. mr. ackerman: for several years, the department of veterans afairs has pursued a

stubbornly wrong headed plan for the st.al bans community. i'm -- st. albans community. for 4 years, property has been dead cailted for veterans, what are veterans supposed to do without this facility when there's a rising demand among veterans for this service. the justification stems from an absurd, outdated report that relied on data from 2003, eight years ago, when we're only at the beginning of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we have unfortunately seen tremendous increases in veterans' homelessness, foreclosures, ptsd's, and suicides. yet the v.a. reports from all those years ago projected at that time, almost a decade ago that mental health services for

our veterans was going to decrease over the next 20 years. it's been eight years since that report and what are we seeing in the eight years alone? and there's 2 more to go. we're seeing increases in these problems among our veterans yet they cling stubbornly to the data in that report thinking these things will go down among our veterans and everyone knows this is certainly not going to be the case. evidence suggests that returning veterans require a greater significant increase, especially in v.a. mental health services. a rand center report alone found that already 18.5% of all u.s. service members who have returned already from afghanistan and iraq currently suffer from ptsd or depression and 19.5% suffer from traumatic brain injury. where is the veterans administration, where is the administration's common sense to give away this property

which is intended and secured right now for our veterans is a huge mistake based on a report that is already discredited by the facts. this is something that we can't allow to continue. these are veterans who have sacrificed so much. we have to stand here today on the floor and i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, colleagues in the majority especially for seeing through the politics of the and understanding that these are our veterans we are fighting for, that we as members of congress understand our constituencies and their needs. i want to personally think representatives grimm and king who are among our delegation as well, as the rest of the democratic members of the dell dwation in our region and thank representative meeks for his dynamic and great leadership in bringing this to our attention so we could stand together and fight for the needs of our veterans. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. do any other members seek

recognition on the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman -- the clerk will designate. the chair: the gentleman's amendments are four and five in the congressional record, which does he wish to take up? >> number four. the clerk: amendment number four offered by mr. walz of

michigan. >> to the mr. amash: even as they bargain for a wage below the set rate. we block military construction and veterans' affairs appropriation bill. there are two main reasons the house should block davis-bacon. first it wastes taxpayer dollars. a recent study showed that on average nationwide the government's set rate is 22% higher than the true market rate. for example, sheet metal workers in long island, new york, are paid $28.79 per hour while the government set rate for that area is $45.40.

factors in -- factoring in costs of materials and supplies, it is estimated they overpaid by 10% to 15%. davis-bacon gives an unfair advantage to union employees. small businessesmark of which are nonunion, lower their prices competing against larger union firms. the tradeoff for nonunion employees is a lower wage rate but more work which should not disadvantage those who are willing to perform more work for less money. by eliminating government mandated wages, we can better allocate resources and put more americans back on the job. construction projects in the proippingses bill include v.a. facilities, family housing, schools, infrastructure for our national guard troops stationed on the border. we owe it to our constituents to spend wisely.

blocking military construction will honor our commitment to fiscal responsibility and our veterans. let's let competition determine wages, not the federal government. please support davis-bacon. i yield as much time heas may consume to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from texas he has two and a half minutes remaining on his time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for bringing this important amendment. i strongly support this amendment and urge the house to adopt the gentleman's amendment because it will save our children and grandchildren a significant amount of money. we're in an area of austerity unlike anything america has ever experienced. mr. culberson: we are living on borrowed money. every dollar they bring in,

social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans' benefits consume 104% therefore all the money we appropriate for the entire year for military construction, v.a., for transportation, homeland security, for the defense department, all of it is borrowed. therefore we need to give him everything we can to save money, fraud, waste, and abuse and to avoid spending more money than we should. here, very straightforward, the gentleman's amendment would save american taxpayers significant amount of money. it depends on what study you're looking at but my capable staff has looked at this, analyzed a variety of studies that indicate there's a whole range of wages, for example in a free market environment like texas,

we don't pay prevailing wage. we on a highway project pay the competitive free market wage. why would we discourage competition? why would in this terrible economy would we prevent contractors, businesses, from coming in and competing for a job. as our last amendment mr. latourette's amendment which i hope the house the feets, we need to defeat it so we can encourage companies to compete for federal contracts. this amendment needs to be adopted to encourage them to compete for federal contracts. this would expand the universe of those who can compete and apply for work, as in texas, for example, on a highway project, we pay the competitive best price for bids and in the chamber of commerce's opinion if we eliminate the davis-bacon prevailing wage, it would save

15% on average on project construction. the cato institute a 10% savings. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. culberson: i strike the last word. mr. cull behrson: if i could point out that the harris foundation estimates there will be 22% savings to taxpayers by eliminating the davis-bacon requirement, the beacon hill institute estimates a 0% savings, the -- a 10% savings this whole variety of savings if you line them up, we'll say for the sake of argument that there was about a 10% savings in construction costs. we as a nation, living on borrowed money should not

voluntarily, willingly pay 10% more. so the amendment is extraordinarily important. it will save taxpayers significant amount of money on every construction project on average, saving ant 10%. 10% goes a long way on these massive construction projects. the gentleman's teament is vitally important, the adoption of the amendment will increets the number of jobs available, the gentleman's amendment will crees ajobs, save money for taxpayers in an era deficit and record burden we simply cannot pass on to our kids, it's vitally important that the house approve the gentleman's amendment and i urge its adoption.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition? >> opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the davis-bacon act is a simple concept and it's a fair concept. what it does is protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages for government contracts. i noticed that the previous speaker was really concerned about the possibility that davis-bacon would raise the cost of the performance of these contractors, but it only requires that prevailing wages in the area where the contract is going to be performed is maintained. for example, if in some of our

urban areas where labor costs are very, very high and the prevailing wages are there, the standard of living and the wage payment for that area would be consistent. if it was in a lower wage area, then davis-bacon wages would be the wages that were paid in that market. so basically just allows the workers to be paid at a rate consistent with where the project is being conducted. the act requires that every construction contract with the federal government participates in with in excess of $2,000 has to have this provision defining the minimum wage. now, it was taken up by this house just a few days ago, and, of course, three times this house has defeated attempts to repeal this davis-bacon

requirement. it would appear to me that this house has exercised great wisdom three times in this session in preserving the right of workers to earn the wages that are paid in the area where the project is being constructed. that just makes sense. we want our workers to be paid fairly. we don't want the government to overpay, so we won't pay higher wages in an area where prevailing wages are lower. we won't pay lower wages in an area where the prevailing wages are higher, the cost of doing business would be higher, the cost of doing the construction would be higher. we want the government to get the best bang for the buck. and these amendments are probably very well-intentioned. we want to save the taxpayers dollars, but we cannot and we

should not be penny wise and pound foolish. the repeal of davis-bacon i think and i think this house has stated on at least three occasions on this floor during this session of congress would be pound foolish. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. sherman: i associate myself with his remarks. the federal government is at a different position from a private company having construction done for two reasons. first, one of the things we face is eroding wages of middle-class families. we see that even in times when there are sufficient jobs the average american doesn't make any more on an inflated

adjusted bay basis. we shouldn't push people out of the middle class. we have a associate responsibility to return to the norm and that is that each generation does better than the last. the second, even from a propie tear -- proprietary position, it is in a different position from a private owner. i remember the last time i was attempted to fix my home, maybe i should go with the slip shod cheapskate company. after all, i am only going to live there a few more years. even the private owners, they are only going to own the building a few years. so many in our daily lives use

government constructed project from the 1930's. when the government builds something it's going to be owned and operated by the government and used by our citizens for many, many decades. why do we want slip shod construction? why do we want those who are not looking to have skilled craftsmen and craftswomen but rather put it up there in a cheap possible way? those buildings need to be built with those of proper construction skills. it's not just hiring as many hands as cheaply as possible. i support the gentleman from georgia in his comments, and i urge the defeat of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and strike the

requisite number of words. the chair: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. some in the minority try to repeal davis-bacon. two weeks ago the full committee voted to strip the anti--davis-bacon provision that was added by the chairman -- anti-davis-bacon provision that was added by the chairman of the subcommittee. the f.y. 2012 homeland security appropriations bill, it failed on a vote of 183-234. i have been a longtime supporter of davis-bacon, prevage wage requirements. it helps ensure local project that provide local jobs with affordable middle-class wages. the law prohibits people by bidding too low to attract competent workers.

i strongly oppose this amendment. i point out if there is a problem here it's because we do not do the wage surveys on a continuing and consistent basis. that is real problem and that rests with the department of labor and we need to make sure they're doing their part of the equation. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me say the davis-bacon act prevents competition for construction contracts from artificially depressing local labor standards. mr. bishop: the davis-bacon act will prevent subverting the prevailing wage laws which will lead to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns. under the prevailing wage laws people are forced to compete on who can best train, best equip

and best manage a construction crew. not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, the most exploitable work force, either lockly or importing labor from outside. the davis-bacon act is -- does not require a union wage. it requires prevailing wage based upon surveys of wages and benefits that are actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers such as workers in the community without regard they belong to a union or not. according to a survey, a whooping 72% of the prevailing wage rates that was issued in 2000 were based on nonunion wage rates. a union wage prevails only if the department of labor survey determines if the local union wage is paid to more than 50% of the worker in that job classification. now, higher wages and skills

result in greater produck tift and lower costs. it's so much greater among high wage skilled workers than those who use the low-wage, low-skill workers due to repairs, revisions and delays. the opponents who claim that the government can save billions by eliminating the davis-bacon protections, they ignore the produck tift equality, safety, community development and other economic benefits would contribute to the real cost efficientiveness of davis-bacon. a study of nearly 10 states, the highway bridgework done in the united states shows when highway workers are doubled the pay of low-wage workers they built 70.4 miles of roadbed and

32 miles of bridges for $557 million less. driving wages down won't help balance the budget, and the davis-bacon act will improve our local economies and it will result in increased produck tift. i am convinced that, again, we have people with good intentions that want to save us money, but if you pay cheaper wages, you will have to employ less skilled workers. if you hire less skilled workers, they will in all likelihood have to have work redone, there will have to be repairs, it will extend the costs, it will extend the time and ultimately it will cost our taxpayers more money and we will not get the efficiencies that each and every tax dollar should have because they're

hard-earned tax dollars and our taxpayers don't give them up lightly. but when we do pay our taxes, everybody in this body and across this country wants to make sure we get the best bang for the buck. davis-bacon would give us that result. it has proven that. the studies show that. and i will submit that this amendment is ill-advised and it should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is there any other members seeking recognition on this amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan would be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. sherman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sherman: will the clerk read the amendment? the chair: without objection, the amendment will be read. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used in controvention of the war powers resolution, 50 u.s.c. 1541. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: i had the clerk read the amendment because it's a simple one-sentence amendment. it says that none of the money in this act can be used deliberately by the president to violate the law. in particular, the war powers resolution, offered referred to by the war powers act, which is found in title 50 of the united

states code. this is the same amendment i offered to the homeland security appropriations bill. some 208 members of congress voted for that amendment. the only argument against the amendment at that time was that it wasn't exactly appropriate or relevant to the homeland security's bill. after all, i was preventing the funding of violation of the war powers act with the funds provided to the department of homeland security. now that i offer this amendment to the milcon bill, it is relevant. this is a bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for the defense department. and it is necessary and appropriate if we are going to adopt a policy that says that money is not going to be appropriated for deliberate violation of our law that we apply this amendment not only to the defense appropriations bill but to this second bill

that funds the pentagon. why is this amendment necessary? because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial presidency. the idea that a president can send our forces into battle for unlimited duration for any purpose, unlimited in scope. this is not what the constitution and the law provides. the war powers act is the law of the land and it says the president may indeed commit our forces, but the president must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw within 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the affirmative vote by both houses of congress. in libya we face not an attack on the united states, not an attack on our allies, but even in this circumstance, this president, like others, claims that he does not have to follow the law. the administration has implied that there are substitutes for

congressional authorization. they've implied that resolutions by the united nations, the arab league or nato, can be a substitute for congressional authorization. and they implied that consulting congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership is a substitute for the affirmative vote of both houses of congress. it is time for us to stand up and say, no, mr. president, you actually have to follow the law. obviously this amendment is more apropos to the defense appropriations bill. but we will be dealing with that weeks from now. the president have been violating the war powers act for many weeks. it is time to act today. moreover if we put this amendment only on the defense appropriations bill and don't put it on this bill, then we invite the administration to try to figure out clever accounting ways to use the

billions of dollars provided to the defense department in this bill to carry out operations in libya. we should not invite a loophole hunt. we should put the same restriction on both of the bills that fund the defense department. now if we can pass this amendment, the president will, i hope, request an authorization from congress to take action in libya. and he'll have to accept an authorization that will, i suspect, be limited in time and scope. perhaps it will say that only air forces and not ground forces can be committed. perhaps it will require renewal every three or six months. there may be conditions on what funding sources. for example, perhaps we could use some of the $33 billion that gaddafi was stupid enough to leave invested in the united states in ways we can find and we have frozen, rather than use taxpayer -- taxpayer dollars. congress may ask tough questions and we may put some

tough conditions requiring action by the transitional government. we will ask why the transitional government has refused to disassociate itself from the al qaeda fighters and libyan islamic group fighting men in their midst and why they will not remove from that transitional government those who have american blood on their hands from iraq and after fan stan. this is not -- and afghanistan. this is not just an issue of an aggrandizing president, it's also the issue of a derelict congress. continuing military action in libya should be conducted only in accordance with american law. if congress habitually appropriates funds knowing they will be used against the law of the land, we are complicit in undermining the rule of law in the united states. the question is not democracy and the rule of law in libya. the question is democracy and the rule of law in the united

states. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time knopp sigs? mr. culberson: i don't claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment because it is evident that the administration is in direct violation of the war powers act which requires the president to either certify to the congress that the united states has been attacked or there's a security interest of the united states at stake and if not we need to be notified. i think the -- still waiting for the administration to talk to us, to justify to explain the involvement of u.s. forces in libya and now we read over the weekend that the administration may send u.s. forces, our young men and women, into harm's way in yemen, what are we doing to --

going to do, syria next? the congress of the united states has a responsibility to assure the men and women in uniform and people of this nation that we are enforcing the war powers act and we are directly involved as a partner in the defense of the united states. the administration has consistently refused to involve the congress in the decision to send our troops into libya. we are not going to spend any money in violation of the law. we're not going to spend any money in rilings of -- violation of the war powers resolution. the distinguished chairman of the whole committee of the committee of the house is unable to speak but mr. mcclintock's editorial, the position the gentleman from

california has taken, there could not be a more clear violation of the war powers act than the president's involvement of american armed forces in lib dwhreasm congress has never been notified. there's never been any, obviously, no attack on the united states, no strategic interest of the united states at stake in libya or in yemen. where else is he going to send our troops without notifying the congress and the people of the united states as required by the war powers act. mr. chairman, i want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. i want to rise in support of the chairman, mr. mcclintock of california's, eloquent defense of the war powers act and urge the house to adopt mr. sherman's amendment and i urge yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition to the

amendment? does any member seek discussion in relation to the amendment? the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. dicks: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. further proceed thonings question -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in the congressional record offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

mr. amash: at the start of this congress, the house made important changes to the way the house operates. we began by ending earmarks. americans understood they favored representatives' pet projects and the american people had to pay for them. americans started to lose confidence in the government when they saw representatives using public funds for personal gain. house members named federal programs and building after themselves, americans can't be sure if the programs are funded because they're worthwhile or because they benefit a house member personally. it has a prohibition. my amendment extends that same

prohibition to current senators and the president. ending, quote, monuments to me, is an important step to preventing the waste of taxpayer dollars and to ensure appropriations are in the best interest of the public. i ask you to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes without objection. mr. culberson: i agree with the gentleman's sentiment, it's important that we don't spend any money to name things after ourselves. i would think -- it's inappropriate, it just ought not be done. i know that my colleague from texas -- of this rule is in place for the house of representatives and ought to be

in place for the senate and president of the united states. but unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment imposes a duty on federal agencies in violation of clause 206 rule 21. so i regret, reluctantly, have to raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment proposes to change existing law and therefore constitutes legislation in our appropriations bill in violation of clause 206 rule 21 and in that the amendment seeks to impose additional duties on a federal agency. i ask far ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order. if not, the chair will rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring determination by the relevant branch official of the

current membership of a body in the legislative branch, it therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. are there further amendments to this bill? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas, at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following section, none of the funds available in this act shall be rable to enforce section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007, public law 110-140, 171-42. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. flores: my amendment is quite simple. during the 110th congress there was a section added to the energy independence and security act that bans federal agencies from entering into contracts unless the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to such emotion missions from a conventional fuel produced from conventional sources this amendment would simply prohibit the government from enforcing this ban on the federal agencies funded by the underlying bill. i was not yet in congress when

the energy independence and security act was considered. it raises concerns over national security, economic security and it creates bureaucratic uncertainty. section 526 was added to this bill to stifle the defense department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids yet fuel. environmentalists allege that this coal-based fuel will ultimately produce more greenhouse emissions than traditional petroleum resources this allegation is uncertain at best and does not capture carbon technologies in association with c.t.l. technology. my amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to enforce section 526. section 526 makes it more difficult for our defense department to become energy independent, to rely on more domestic and more stable sources of fuel instead of sources located in more

unstable, volatile parts of the world. this creates uncertainty about what fuels d.o.d. can secure. it creates reliable fuel supplies for the armed forces. it opens d.o.d. up to administrative challenges for every fuel purchase it makes. per a letter to senator inhofe, such a decision can cause significant harm to the readiness because these may be widely used in certain geographical areas. not only certain areas, it hurts american families and american businesses but they are potentially causes harm to the readiness of the armed forces. the defense department should not be wasted time on fuel emissions and should not have to be stifled by a small section of an energy law.

this is an unacceptable burden to place on our nation's military and it is an unacceptable precedent in regard to america's energy policy. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. cull behrson -- >> i move to strike the last word and rides in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: we've been blessed by the good lord with extraordinary resources, we have the apparently world's largest supply of shale gas, shale oil, yet the administration is doing everything in their power to prevent us from even finding or locating additional shale oil or gas and it prevents us drilling in the gulf of mexico, which we've done cleanly and

safely for decades. we could create hundreds and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the united states if the administration would get out of the way and let texans run texas, and let the gulf states to do what they do best, produce domestic oil and gas cleanly and safely. the jobs that are produced in the gut of of mexico and the energy industry across the united states are safe, high-paying, high-quality jobs that the economy, the people of america, desperately need. mr. flores has brought an important amendment to the floor which would expand the use of petroleum derived from coal, the united states is blessed with abundant amendments of ole -- abundant amounts of coal and this section of law discourages the production of lick fied gas or -- of liquefied gas or fuel and

that's a vital part of our energy future. we understand as constitutional conservatives, as the new majority in the house that the united states needs to continue to invest in alternative techling ins for the future. -- technologies for the future. we are in support of finding new ways to generate electricity, to move the united states into the next era of energy beyond petroleum but in the meantime, in the short-term, we need to drill here and drill now. we need to use every available resource that the good lord has blessed this nation with in a way that's obviously clean, safe, ecologically friendly and we can do so. we have done so in texas for years, mr. flores has extensive experience in the energy industry, houston is to the energy industry what california and silicon valley is to the computer industry. we have proven time and again we can produce oil and gas

safely and cleanly, we need to open up drilling in the gulf this administration has deliberately and systematically shut down drilling in the gulf of mexico, which increases our dependence on foreign oil while the administration used our taxpayers and its influence to attempt to prop up and support brazilian exploration for oil and gas. discouraging american development of oil and gas. it's a policy that continues to drive down -- drive up the unemployment rate and drive down the procux of american oil and gas -- production of american oil and gas. mr. flores' amendment will explore the one vital resource we have in abundance and that's coal. i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge adoption by the house and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i move to

strike the last word. section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 is intended to ensure that any alternative fuel that is introduced to replace fuel must have greenhouse gas emissions. that is a commonsense approach. the department of defense alone is the single largest energy consumer in the world. its leadership in this area is critical to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues. section 526 provides an opportunity for d.o.d. to play a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate change. i would like to congratulate secretary mabus, the secretary

of the navy, for his energetic approach to finding alternative fuels. i think he as secretary has done an outstanding job. he's put the navy on a path towards energy independence and to reduce the amount of petroleum product that we're using today. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this very short-sided amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. dicks: i yield back. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: does anyone wish to seek recognition for this amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. roe: the amendment i offered last week would simply reduce information technology account in the v.a. by $70 million and increase the same account by $70 million. my intention is to make it clear to the department of veterans affairs we must seek progress on efforts to integrate the department of defense and the v.a. electronic

medical record. it's unthinkable as we make a transition from the military back to the homeland as seamless as possible we have a system that's befuddling as the one we have where a service member literally needs a piece of paper or copy of his record or her medical record to ensure information isn't lost transitioning between the two systems. when the severely injured patient is released and transferred from walter reed to the v.a. in johnson city, tennessee, all the information regarding their injury can be terribly difficult to access. that shouldn't be the case. this is why i support chairman culberson's report language which recommends that the department of veterans affairs set aside $70 of the overall $3.25 billion in the information technology account for the virtual lifetime electronic medical record. i would in fact like to strengthen this language by putting in the bill to ensure this money gets spent on integration. the v.a. and d.o.d. maintain the two largest health care

systems in the nation, providing health care to six million veterans and over 1 1/2 million active duty service members respectfully. within the v.a. alone there are 1,500 sfailts that provide care to veterans. to provide this care, the d.o.d. and v.a. both rely on electronic health record systems to create, maintain and manage patient health information. but the two agencies for years operated different systems that can't talk to each other. let me give you an example. $10 billion has been spent, a soldier leaves the military, his record can't be transferred electronically to the v.a. i just had someone in my office just before i walked over here on the house floor that showed where a electronic medical system record would have delayed trement of the veteran. this has occurred for years at the collective cost of billions of dollars. i first became aware of this problem when i arrived in congress and didn't realize it had been worked on for years. i applaud the appropriations

committee for highlighting the need for the vaer in its committee and i think this language should be put in the bill to make sure the v.a. spends the money on this purpose. the lifetime electronic health record system would improve the delivery of care for service members transferring from the military to civilian life. i know the importance of having an organized and efficient electronic medical record system. in fact, i put one in my office for over 70 providers and tens of thoups of patients. i do understand the difficulty and i know how hard it is to be done, but i know the importance of it. i hope the committee will adopt this committee and work on strengthening it in the final bill to make sure that this integration must be a priority. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. roe: yeah. mr. dicks: we're trying to vote on the flores amendment. could you have waited to -- make your five-minute speech? this is totally irrelevant to

this debate. mr. roe: i apologize to the gentleman. i yield back. mr. dicks: no problem. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member seek to talk on the amendment? the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. and the amendment is adopted. are there any further amendments to the bill? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cough mon of colorado. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used by the secretary of veterans affairs to provide disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, united states code, to any veteran pro--

posttraumatic stress disorder as required inservice or stress claimed by the veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile, terrorist activity that the veteran service did not include a combat zone. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i stand with the american people in wanting to make sure that our returning sull service members from iraq and afghanistan are -- returning service members from iraq and afghanistan is taken care of. since 2008 over 100,000 -- almost 100,000 claims for disability based on posttraumatic stress disorder have been awarded.

at a tremendous cost. but the concern is, again, that these veterans are taken care of. in july of last year, new rules were promulgated as to the eligibility criteria for proast traumatic stress disorder and what they is it -- posttraumatic stress disorder and what they did is it no longer required the service members to relate a specific combat occurrence or occurrences to their posttraumatic stress disorder. and so it is my belief that these rules are too loosely written and that what we ought to have is more definition to say that someone who's never served in a combat zone should not be eligible for posttraumatic stress disorder disability benefits, not treatment. serum they would be eligible for treatment, but i understand that this -- certainly they

would eligible for treatment, but i understand that this requires the veterans amferings to create a definition and -- administration to create a definition and -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. coffman: service in a combat zone. >> will the gentleman yield? i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i certainly can appreciate the concerns that the gentleman rises that have caused him to offer the amendment. mr. bishop: i wanted to remind the gentleman that the awful incident that occurred at fort hood in texas, there were a lot of our service members who were present and who experienced that awful, awful situation. under this amendment it would prevent the veterans -- once those people are discharged and service members from being able to take advantage of the

benefits of the department of veterans affairs because they were at fort hood as opposed to at -- in afghanistan or iraq or some other place of hostility. and also i would remind the gentleman that the service members who operate our unmanned aerial vehicles such as the predator, which has great capabilities for causing destruction in war, is one of our great weapons, but they actually can see it on video in real time the death and the destruction and the dismemberment that is caused by the utilization of it in nevada. and when the weapon is having its impact in afghanistan. and, of course, because of that they would be disqualified.

and under this amendment i think the gentleman's point is well taken and wanting to make sure that only those people who were entitled to veterans' benefits in fact gets them but i think that perhaps some problems in the artful drafting of the amendment that perhaps should be clarified and because of that i'm reluctant to support it and i must oppose it. mr. coffman: reclaiming my time. the chairman has raised a similar issue, and i certainly agree with him about the issue of expanding the definition in this amendment to reflect terrorist activity that would be beyond a combat zone. again, certainly treatment would be available. we're not talking about that. we are merely talking about disability compensation. i probably disagree with you on a combat veteran myself on the ground side under the example.

with that, mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. i realize that it is out of order because the fact that it really impeds on authorizing versus appropriating. it is my intent, certainly, and i'd be happy to work with the gentleman from georgia as well as the gentleman from texas in terms of coming up with a definition to make sure that we take care of those veterans who are most in need. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman begs leave to withdraw his amendment. is there any objection? hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract using procedures that do not give to small business concerns

owned and controlled by veterans as that term is defined in section 3-q-3 of the small business act, 15, united states code, 63 hq-3, that are included in the database under title 38, united states code. any preference available with respect to such contract, except for preference given to small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans as that term defined in section 3-q-2 of the small business act, 15, united states code, 632-q-2. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: i rise today to offer an amendment to protect veterans contracting with the federal government. after putting their live thopes line and their families and careers on hold for our

nation's defense, our veteran december serve every chance we can give them to adjust to life once they return. veteran-owned small businesses are part of the american fabric and we must do all we can to encourage that. here are a few facts. according to the most recent census, over 3.24 million of our nation's veterans are small business owners. their businesses make up 3.2% of all small business firms. finally, nearly a quarter of veterans say they're interested in starting or in buying a small business. despite these encouraging numbers, the truth of the matter is veterans are unemployed at a higher level than any of us find acceptable. for instance, the unemployment rate for young veterans returning from afghanistan and iraq reached a staggering 22% last year. mr. chairman this number is simply unacceptable.

we must work to reduce this number and it should be the explicit stated policy of all government agencies to assist veteran entrepreneurs. as our nation struggles to achieve an economic recovery, we should be looking to achieve the tall i want, expertise and skills of our nation's veterans. they volunteered to selflessly serve our cupry and in order to sked must display self-discipline and leadership. it is characteristic and character traits like these that should be nurtured and fostered to help our economy grow again and put people back to work. veterans have served our nation nobodyably across the world. now their innovation and expertise can help lead our american recovery. ultimately, we must all be focused on putting our constituents back to work and i believe, mr. chairman that this amendment will help to do that. this amendment will give veteran-owned small businesses

preferences for contracts equal to any group eligible for preferred consideration except for service disabled veterans. the practice of encouraging government to do business with certain groups is well established this amendment does not diminish preference to any other groups, it simply extends to veteran-owned small businesses any the same consideration. it would apply to all federal contracts authorized by all veterans affairs act and would apply to all projects funded with federal daughters. small businesses are considered those defined by the small business administration and eligible businesses must be registered, veteran-owned

we have seen many stories reported on national media. . there is a company in the washington area. those companies offer a quality experience and good value. the companies put emphasis on safety as opposed being secondary.

host: up next is johnson city, tennessee. caller: i am a little bit concerned because of monitoring when a tragedy happened.

guest: the the part of transportation has rulemaking in place. near the end of this year there will be a requirement for seat belts in buses. approximately 80% of every bus being ordered, motor coach bus,

are being ordered with seat belts. we have supported seat belt rule making. we have gone to the department of stress protection for years every time there wasn't accident and said to do the testing. they finally did that over the last few years and now they have rulemaking in place. host: bethlehem pa. on the democrats' line. >> guest: earlier in the show we talked about anti-regulation on just about everything. there was a truck driver in kansas who was fired for reporting -- he was concerned about his own safety and the safety of other people. the judge in that case was the famous mr. bork, if you recall.

guest: the question of reporting and unsay companies or unsafe equipment might be the question at hand. whenever a company knows of another company that is not operating safely, certainly they are asked reported to the part of transportation. the secretary of transportation came out on may 5 with a consumer focus piece that says thinks they beat every trip, every time. -- think safety. with with lower laws now, anyone who would turn in their employer or refuse -- with a whistle- blower laws, they would be protected under the law in most cases. host: sandra on the republican line. good morning.

caller: i think a lot of the problems with the buses would be a moral and ethical standard. morally and ethically, you want to keep people safe, and you want to make a profit, but if you do unethically and immorally, you put profits before people. how do you address that? guest: great question. when you look at the industry, and there are 3200 companies across the country. virtually all of them or mom and pop businesses and all of them family-owned businesses. they are carrying their neighbors, their friends, their family. safety is first and foremost for these companies. it is the ones that operate beyond margins of safety that are illegal and immoral. that is a great phrase. those are the companies we need

to target and make sure they get off the nation's highways. host: over 25,000 motor coach inspections in 2010 and over 1000 compliance reviews in 2010. talk about the ratio of 25,000 inspections and 1000 compliance reviews. guest: the compliance reviews or they come in and take a close look at the company and go through their records and three the equipment and really identify that company and know it from the inside out. the inspections are typically done along the road and at destination that sometimes that the company facility. that is really where that difference in number is. there are only 3200 companies. the most you could probably do in a year would be 3200. it is something that takes place on a regular basis. in some cases it is a regular. when i go back 10 or 20 years

ago, we had companies that had not been reviewed or had compliance reviews for a dozen years, sometimes two dozen years that had never been seen by an inspector. it is not until the last few years that the department of transportation has put focus on bus safety. now if a companies records have a lot of violations on them or they are out of the mainstream or well be on the averages, that might trigger a complaint review, or if somebody has called in, an individual or another and says we know they are operating without insurance or without proper dot identification or with no numbers on the bus, that might trigger a compliance review. caller: i am 30 years retired

from greyhound. i am currently working as a bus driver. the biggest problems i can see, you have first of all the cut road approach with these bus companies. this is all the result of deregulation in the 1980's. everybody is scrambling, buying any piece of junk they can drive and they are running all over each other to try to race for the bottom line. the whole idea of placing the onus of vehicle inspection on the driver's shoulders was an absolute travesty. the ticket out of the hands -- the responsibility away from these corporations and companies and threw it on the shoulders of the drivers. you cannot complain about the condition of vehicles. guest: first of all, i would say thank you very much for being a

bus driver. you have a lot of responsibility with the people behind you on every trip and we appreciate that effort in the job you do every day. when you look at the history of the industry, whether airlines or other segments of the transportation industry or any part of the industry, deregulation obviously had some pluses and some minuses. the plus is that we have expanded industry and created new opportunities for people to come into the business. we have expanded the number of travelers that would transport. we transport on average about 750 million passengers every single year. i am not sure that would have all happen without deregulation of the bigger industry. >> as far as getting a cto license, what is the minimum requirement? >> you have to look access -- look at cdl vs. a commercial driver's license. you have to show the added

proficiency of driving a bus. that is where we think there ought to be more enforcement and maybe a little more strategic in terms of how we look at passenger endorsement. there is nothing wrong with requiring that the states have a background search for anyone who has a passenger endorsement. your moving the most precious cargo, and we have seen too many instances where the driver may be was not who we thought he was. that accident that happened in the bronx back in march, that driver had multiple violations and multiple accidents. he had a felony count at one point. we need to require the states to do more than just issuing a license. host: does one accident prohibit a driver from getting an endorsement? >> 1 accident does not mean or a bad driver, but if someone is operating their vehicle on a regular basis outside the sector margins, in that person probably

should be taken off the road. host: tallahassee board, you are next on the democrats' line. caller: one of the biggest problems is in airlines, trucking, and passenger buses. no one is monitoring the fatigue level. these buses are driving all day long. they should be checked out and pulled off the road. this is not happening, from what i can see. this is what bothers me, the fatigue level. like the airlines right now, it is terrible. that has to be addressed, besides what else is being addressed so far in compliance. host: monitoring fatigue levels. guest: looking at drivers sleep patterns, fatigue rates, and how

that impacts the driver's ability to operate equipment. when you look at the safety factors of a good bus company and what they are doing in terms of monitoring the driver and educating the driver and making sure they are aware of what they are doing in their off time, and making sure they have well repressed drivers behind the wheel. that is what a safe driver does. companies that are operating illegally or immorally is a concern. those are the concerns that passengers need to be aware of. passengers need to do due diligence. we do not have a federalized system for the bus industry. we would also encourage passengers to make sure they know who they are traveling with an only travel with good bus companies. host: bill only independent line from indiana. caller: someone who is recently

hired who is qualified and maybe another group under semi or partial disability and is qualified with knowledge of the buses or that industry could use their time and talents and efforts to help with those inspections and would not require a lot of insurance or training, and it might save some .oney for the government' guest: the question on inspectors is a great one and we have advocated -- the department of defense uses an outside firm.

third-party inspectors do a great job for the part of transportation and the department of defense. there is no reason they should not be put into service for bus inspections. host: from florida on the democrats' line. caller: what is the difference between icc, fcc, and dot? who controls greyhound and any of these other buses, independent contractors? guest: the letters can be daunting sometimes here in washington. the icc really doesn't exist anymore. the fmcsa is a department under it the department of

transportation. those are the agencies that the federal level that are responsible for bus safety. the rules are the same for all bus companies like greyhound or tour buses you might see in any location. they are all monitored and adhering to the same rules and regulations that they are supposed to. transit buses come under different rules. they come under the federal transit administration. host: jan on the republican line from wisconsin. caller: i would like to see the regulations on the commercial buses be carried over to the school buses to carry her children around. guest: the department of transportation has authority over school buses as well. we were talking about seat belts earlier. they did put out a standard for school buses but they were not mandatory on either news -- new buses or used buses. that is up to the local

jurisdiction and the state at the end of the day. host: what is the minimum standard when inspectors are judging the safety of buses? guest: they are looking at the vehicle itself, lights, access, egress, looking at the door and windows to make sure you can get out in case of a fire or in case the bus would tip over in some fashion. they are looking at braking systems and examining the tires asking sure there is plenty of tread, no retread on the front tires, which would be illegal. they are looking at the company, insurance, drug and alcohol testing, whether or not the company has good safety practices in place. we comes to the driver, they are primarily looking at the driver's medical qualifications and whether or not the driver is fit to drive, it they have had enough rest, and they are looking at his law books.

host: are there rules that dictate if a bus has a certain amount of years it should not be put on the road? guest: the average age of the fleet right now is about 10 years. the way a bus is made and constructed, almost like a skeleton welded together, typically of stainless steel in most cases. it will last a long, long time if well cared for. host: water the insurance requirement for companies wanting to operate? guest: you have to have a minimum of $5 million in liability insurance. we see a lot of companies that have much more than that. they may have $8 million or $10 million or sometimes more. you want to ask those kinds of questions. what is your safety rating?

do you have insurance? what kind of maintenance facilities do you have? those are the kinds of things consumers need to ask as well. host: are those issues currently being regulated by the federal government? guest: a good bus company is going to be able to tell you that right away. they want to take good care of the equipment. it is a half-million dollar piece of equipment, so you want to make sure it continues to run safely and without any problems. caller: years ago there were laws passed that all cards must have seat belts. my child and the children who ride the buses, they do not even have an option on the school buses to use the seat belt. i think first of all, there has to be some kind of push not to have seat belts installed on

those buses. i think we need to follow the money. how many children have to die before that law is put into practice? what is the number? guest: again, i don't know what the history is with school buses. i know there are standards that if states and local jurisdictions decide they want to put seat belts in buses, the standards were set up a couple of years ago. as it relates to commercial buses, you have to do the science and research. he had to know what the standard can be and what the bus is capable of, what is the design has to be. it can be 12-g or 20-g. those are the kinds of research that went in by the department of transportation. that is what led them to developing the rule that is now

about to be finalized. host: is there satellite tracking on buses? guest: some buses do have that. a lot of them have very sophisticated systems now. they have satellite devices and they can monitor the engine and speed of the driver. they can monitor his breaking patterns. sometimes they have cameras that face inside and outside that record the last 10 seconds. if the driver hit the brakes too hard or hits them aggressively, that film is captured. you know the driver's pattern than you can go in and correct the driver and make him a better and safer driver in the future. it is for some of the smaller companies as well. most of the companies are family-owned businesses. a company with as few as five or 10 buses can have that system in place. host: kentucky, on the

democrats' line. caller: are these companies paying these drivers a living wage? can they support themselves with what the companies are paying them, or are they having to go out and moonlight and do other jobs? i think that is a question that needs to be answered. guest: good question. drivers make a good living. driver wages will differ from location to location. in terms of taking another job, that time of working would be applied to their hours of service. for example, you cannot be working for eight hours and then take a bus out for eight hours. that eight hours you have already worked will prevent you from driving for the 10 hours your allowed to under the law. host: what are the wages like? guest: they vary from place to place. there will be higher in the northeast and a little less in

the southwest. it will find drivers that have been with companies 30 or 40 years. that is not unusual. you have to assume they are happy with what they are doing and their wages and benefits are good. host: wendell is next on the independent line from michigan. caller: i am a retired bus driver, 74 years old. you got people out there driving trucks. the general public only knew the equipment that is on the road today. another thing, a lack of enforcement of just a good principle driving, like cars having to put on their brakes to let them in. i do not seek nobody enforcing that. it used to be people over in front of somebody and the officer saw that -- that was a traffic ticket for interfering

with traffic. the whole problem is the regulation. it used to be if you work for a trucking company, they are responsible for you. it would not have a bunch of tickets that still work for those people. >> i think again that is where we differ between hauling potatoes and hauling people. on a bus, 50 people are watching you every single time. if you are operating the bus unsafely, and virtually everybody has a cell phone today, there are enough people watching that pretty soon you are going to be off the road. >> do a lot of these companies operate in the evening hours and early morning hours? >> on school contracts is where you find people operating through the night. a school could be sending a group to washington d.c., but they don't want to pay for an overnight stay in a hotel room. they use the bus as somewhat of

a rolling motel. the driver is still limited on how many hours he can be behind the wheel. it is limited to 10 hours behind the wheel. but you do see groups doing that. to see that happening with school districts i think is that. caller: a lot of times the drivers will work eight hours and not record that on their locker -- on their log. guest: with a lot of the recording being electronic, you will not be able to do that much longer. we are very supportive of electronic onboard reporters to record that date. host: so when the driver sits in his seat and put in his time

until he gets out? guest: that is basically the system, you recorded when you get in and out or when you take a break. the new record when you start driving again. there will virtually be no way around how you record your time. that is a good thing. host: jacksonville, north carolina is next. go ahead. caller: i am talking about batik of the drivers. of the drivers. like dick -- why cannot have more refreshed drivers? you need fresh tires on the road, including at night.

the staff ratio would drop, but in this case they need to have fresh drivers that can stay on the road and watch where they go. thank you. guest: good companies are always concerned about the drivers and their passengers. when you see a company that is striving for a longer distance, typically nine hours or even eight hours, that will put our relief driver in the middle of that trip. many times they will fly the driver out as a relief driver so he is well rested and ready to go and the other driver will stay and get rested possibly for the return trip. when you see a company that operates the way the company did where we saw the accident in virginia, that company was not concerned about the safety of the driver or the passengers. they seemed to be willing to work that driver as long and hard as they needed to. that is not the norm, thank goodness.

host: stan from williamsburg, virginia, you are the last call. caller: as i drive on state and federal highways, i see places where trucks are pulled over at way stations. liken these not be utilized for buses, where they get pulled over in a separate lane where the driver's license can be checked, the vehicle registration can be checked, the driver's log can be checked, and do a quick check up the bus and make sure the tires are okay. possibly the maintenance log to be checked. we have the system already set up. why is it not being utilized? >> one of the issues we have with pulling buses off the road is the concern over passengers. there is no reason the bus cannot pull into a weigh station. we need to make sure if the buses put out of service that the passengers will have somewhere safe to go.

a lot of the passengers are seniors and many are students. they need a safe place to beat it the bus is not running. if a bus is put out of service and cannot be running, the passengers cannot sit in it when the temperatures get up to 120 degrees and they cannot be walking around the weigh station. host: thanks for your time. >> the house has recessed until 6:30 p.m. eastern, but when members return, we expect a series of amendments boats on 2012 spending for military construction and the veterans affairs department. members are not expected. more 2012 spending bills. next we will continue our look at bus safetyline wa

this hearing comes calling recent accidents in the northeast and northern virginia. we'll show you as much of this as we can before the house returns at 630 eastern. >> good afternoon. i would like to call this hearing of the house transportation and infrastructure committee to order. today's hearing is entitled how to best improve but they'd be on our nation's highways.

i will begin with my opening statement and yield two other members and then we will try to expedite hearing from our witnesses, which we will hear from all of them and take questions afterwards. i am pleased to be with you this afternoon and i will begin by trying to lay some groundwork with my opening statement and welcome our witnesses and members today. thank you for coming back. i know the house is not in session until it -- well, it is in session, but not voting until later tonight. the reason for this hearing is actually, i think, very important. in a few weeks, we hope to roll out legislation that dramatically reestablish is and sets new policy for various

modes of transportation. as some of you may know, we plan to roll out the new transportation legislation in two phases. starting on wednesday, will have a rollout and draft of passenger rail reform bill. we are going to introduce a separate piece of legislation dealing with that particular provision. we do have some provisions that are rather dramatic in changing the way things are currently conducted with our major passenger rail provider, and that is amtrak. we want a full opportunity for a new direction in passenger rail to be fully aired