representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 132. the nays are 287. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which the further proceedings were postponed an the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 109. the nays are 310. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the requested for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote theys are 2 3. the nays are 128. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which the further proceedings were postponed on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. two minutes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 186. the nays are 228. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, on which the further proceedings were postponed on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redenth the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lipinski of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the requested for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 162. the nays are 254. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business -- this is the last amendment in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment 3 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 101. the nays are 314. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: this act may be cited as the agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies appropriations act. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i ask that the committee report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and be recommended that the bill, as amended, do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2112 directs me to the report same back to the house with sundry amendments and the bill, as amended, do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. the bill, h.r. 2112, and reports the bill pack to the house with sundry amendments adopted -- back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole and ask that the amendments be adopted and that the bill, as amended, be passed. the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amended report from the committee as a whole? hearing none, the chair will put the amendments engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker. i have a motion to recommit at this time at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed? >> i'm opposed to the bill in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms. hochul moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2112 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to the same back to the house forthwith

with the following amendment -- page 55 after line 23, insert the following -- in addition for carrying out section 4-a of the commodity exchange act, including establishing limits to diminish, eliminate or prevent excessive speculation and as authorized by section 12-d of such act, 7 united states code, $11,800,000. page 6, line 11, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $4 million. page 27, line 11, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $3,800,000. page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $4 million. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hochul: mr. speaker, i'm here today as someone who very recently stood before the voters, and i can tell you that

the constituents i represent are fed up with our inability to control the soaring price of gas in this country. in the diners, in the small businesses and certainly at the gas stations, you can feel the incredible anger and helplessness of our consumers. and that is why i feel compelled to stand here today to offer this final amendment to restore critical funding to the commodities future trading commission. the cftc are like the sheriffs in town who protect us from the wild west of oil speculators. now, if the republicans -- >> the noise is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. if the gentlelady will suspend. please take your conversations off the floor. the house is not in order. ms. hochul: now, if republicans had their way, they'd send the sheriffs packing, let the speculators drive up our gas prices and run wild just shooting around town. those who support my final

amendment to the bill see it differently. we like law and order. we like it when people play by the rules, and we like having sheriffs around to make sure someone is keeping eye on these speculators on behalf of our consumers. the agriculture appropriations bill under debate right now would hurt every single person we represent. and among the many problems of this bill, it feeds speculation to the oil market back to big oil and it pits -- it pits consumers against speculators. today, oil is trading about $100 a barrel. in my district my constituents are paying over $4 a gallon just to fill up, and that's the regular. the price of diesel is really, really hurting my farmers who pay a quarter more for every gallon. you know, the worst part is that none of this is new for western new york. few years ago my region had the highest gas prices in america.

not high prices, the highest. even today the village of arcade, a tiny village in wyoming county is listed as having one of the highest gas prices in the nation. how can that possibly be explained? what is so disturbing is that our area was starting to climb out of the recession until gas skyrocketed sending our recovery backwards. for all the members who are concerned about the deficit, i hope you will support this amendment. the high cost of oil is only bankrupting american families and businesses, it's also bankrupting our country. i know that the folks back home in my district are fed up with the deficit, they're fed up with the poor economy and they are fed up with high gas prices . and they want to know what we're going to do to solve these problems. i'll tell you, the answer does not lie in firing the

regulators who watch and control the speculators who now make up over 70% of the market, and that's exactly what this bill does. recently several traders and firms were charged by the cftc with price manipulation trying to hoard crude oil. and i ask, how does gutting this agency which protects our consumers from speculators end up reducing the price of gas? the answer is it doesn't. even the c.e.o. of exxonmobil blames speculators for the high prices saying that just last month oil should be trading around $60 to $70 a barrel if it was governed by supply and demand. can you imagine, $67 a barrel? also recently the world's largest commodity trader, goldman sachs, they told their clients if the speculators had -- they said it artificially driven up the gas of oil by as

much as $27 a brl -- a barrel. the bottom line is how do we handle the company? it's not firing all the sheriffs just when jesse james is coming to town. i don't know about anyone else but when i return home this weekend i don't want to explain my support for a bill that would be in effect make it easier for big oil companies and speculators to take advantage of our consumers, our drivers. the choice is simple. does this congress stand with the consumers, our families, our small businesses and our farmers, or does it stand with the speculators? i know where my constituents expect me to stand. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is then recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the speaker and i want to point out, i want to start off by saying, if this was a serious amendment, if this was a serious proposal, we have had 25 hours of debate. it would have been out on the house floor and we could have taken a look at it. but let me say this. there's absolutely nothing in this bill that prohibits the cftc from looking at oil speculation with respect to supply or the cost of oil. this amendment is not needed because of that alone. but let me also quote the democrat commissioner on the cftc, michael dunn, a democrat member of the cftc. there has been a suggestion by some that once we set position limits, that's speculative limits, on physical derivatives that the price we pay will inevitably drop. i believe this is a fallacy. . today the staff has been unable to find any reliable economic

analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or the position limits will prevent excessive speculation. >> will gentleman yield? mr. kingston: i will be glad to yield once my five minutes is up. the price exists in our markets because of global supply and demand for physical commodity. why are the democrats trying to get us bogged down the price of oil is going up because of speculation? i can tell you. go back to january of 2009 and ask your constituents if they remember paying $1.83 a gallon. in that same month who became president of the united states? but the president obama, the democrat. the change you are asking for, the change we were promised was that gas went from $1.83 per gallon to now $3.80, a 90%

increase. and the democrats want us to believe it's because of speculators. you know why it's gone up? because of more regulation, more delays, and more lawsuits. think about this. the president recently went down to brazil and told them we understand you are going to drill offshore. we encourage you to do so. we want to lend you the money, and we want to become your wes customer. ladies and gentlemen, i got news for the president. i got news for the democrats. american technology and american eng nears do not need to hold second place to brazil or any other country in the world. we are america. we need to have an all of the above energy policy. we do need to look at solar. we do need to look at ethanol. we do need to look at wind. we need to also look at nuclear and fossil fuels and we need to

do it here in the united states of america. we are americans. unless you want to bring down the price of gas at the pump, then let's increase our own domestic supply and quit playing games of blaming it on wall street. i yield back the balance of my time. i recommend a no vote on the motion to reconsider. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. miss hochul: -- ms. hochul: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit. and it will be followed by a five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 2112 and approval of the journal, if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 185. the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 215. the noes are 200.

the motion -- the bill is passed.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 217. the nays are 203. the bill is adopted. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the jurem which the chair will put de novo. the question is a greigg to the spomplee of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please clear the floor. please cease your conversations. please clear the floor. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the floor. please cease your conversations.

remove them from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 7, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: senate joint resolution 7. joint resolution providing for the reappointment of shirley ann jackson as a citizen regent of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the joint resolution? without objection, the joint resolution is read the third time and passed. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 9 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight --

title of the senate joint resolutions. the clerk: senate joint resolution 9, joint resolution providing for the reappointment of robert p. cogante, as a citizen regent of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the joint resolution? hearing none, without objection the joint resolution is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 299, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 299. resolution permitting official photographs of the house of representatives to be taken while the house is in actual session on a date designated by the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the resolution? hearing none, without objection,

the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i call up h.r. 1934 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 59, h.r. 1934, a bill to improve certain administrative operations of the library of congress and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, therefore, the bill is n grossed, read a third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on senate joint resolution 7, senate joint

resolution 9, house resolution 299, and h.r. 1934. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, be removed as a co-sponsor of h.c.r. 59 which i am a sponsor and my name be removed from h.r. 657. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. hearing none, so ordered. the gentleman from virginia, for what purpose do you rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor from the bill h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i, too, ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor

from h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? i'm sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader of the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the majority leader. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic chip for yielding. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the

house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for lemming business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday. we will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules on tuesday which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, mr. speaker, i expect the house to consider h.r. 1249, the american events act. this jobs bill is sorry needed to fundamentally address the backlog of 700,000 applications at the patent and grade office. it will encourage entrepreneurship and growth by unlocking american entrepreneurship and growth. the house will also consider a bill from the energy and commerce committee, h.r. 2021, the jobs and energy permitting act of 2011 which addresses high gas prices. i also expect further action on the f.a.a. bill early in the week. finally, mr. speaker, i expect the house to begin consideration of the department of defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012, along with potential

legislation related to the ongoing military conflict in libya. and i thank the gentleman. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information on the schedule for the coming week. i want the gentleman to know that on our side we are very pleased to see the patent reform legislation brought to the floor . as you know that's a part of our make it in america agenda. i know it's a part of your agenda as well. i think this is something on which we can -- there obviously has been some controversy with respect to provisions of the bill, but it is absolutely essential that we give certainty to patents and to accelerate the approval of patents. the backlog that exists is not acceptable. and so i'm pleased that this legislation has come to the floor. very frankly this is a needed and welcomed piece of jobs legislation. one of the concerns we have on this side of the aisle, as you

know, is that we have not from our perspective had a jobs focus in the last six months, and we welcome this part of make it in america agenda and part of your agenda as well. again, i think we can cooperate in this effort hopefully. and have a bipartisan effort on this patent reform bill. i also would raise the issue, mr. majority leader, i want to say that i know that you and mr. kyl and others have been participating in the talks with vice president biden. there have been constructive talks. i understand, from your comments and the comments of the -- mr. van hollen, mr. clyburn on our side we are very hopeful that these talks will prove fruitful and that we can move ahead. we believe it's critical, as you know. and as you have articulated that

we address the default prevention responsibility that we share. clearly america wants to pay its bills. the american public expects us to pay our bills and the international community expects us to pay our bills. you and i have both read quotes from mr. bernanke, business leaders like jamie diamond, economist and others who have indicated that failure to assure that america does not fall on its -- default on its bills will have very dire consequences both here and around the world. i am hopeful, mr. leader, that although i did not announce it, we have very little time left, as you know, before the august 2 date which secretary geithner has indicated is the date on which we will no longer have the cash flow ability to meet our obligations as they become due and to fund the programs that we

have authorized and provided for the executive department to carry out. so i would very much be interested in your thoughts with reference to how we ensure that we take action in a timely fashion. i was very pleased to see speaker boehner's comment about a week and a half ago that he was focused on assuring that we did not default, provide for the payment of our debts, prior to the end of this month. as you know we have four days until -- 3 1/2 days left in this month and that's next week. because the following week we are off. i would very much be interested in your observations on how you see us going forward on this critically important issue. i yield. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i also thank the gentleman for his remarks in couching his observation or characterization of the agenda

having been brought forth by our side over the last several months because we believe strongly that the focus should be on jobs. we differ, i believe, with the gentleman and his side of the aisle that a growth agenda is not necessarily a government program. so our agenda, our jobs agenda is focused on trying to eliminate the environment which is full of burdensome regulations, unfair taxes, and new mandates on the real job engines of this country which are, mr. speaker, the small businesses and entrepreneurs of this country. and if the gentleman would look to see what we have been doing over the last several months, he would see that our agenda is very focused on accomplishing that end. we passed h.res. 72. it was a resolution directing our committees to take inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders of agencies from the government with respect to their

impact on jobs. those reports are due june 30. they will be focused on the kinds of things that we could be doing to remove the impediments the government here in washington has created for small business growth. we also brought forth h.r. 872, the reducing regulatory burdens act dealing with duplicative application of regulations on the pesticide industry. as the gentleman knows that bill took -- had a lot of bipartisan support. we also brought forward h.r. 910, which is the energy tax prevention act. mr. speaker, i think there's probably very little dissent among small businesses in this country that the e.p.a. has stepped entirely beyond its bounds and has provided gross impediments to the growth of manufacturing and small business in this country. that bill was squarely aimed at

trying to force the e.p.a. to stop in its conduct of attempting to accomplish what the prior majority tried to do under its cap and tax agenda. mr. speaker, i further say we brought h.j.res. 37 to the floor. this was a resolution of disapproval regarding the s.e.c.'s regulation of the internet and brond bad industry practices. otherwise called the bill to stop its attempt to control the internet. the ability for the government to begin to impose its will on the internet is a job killer. that bill was also taken up by the majority. we also as the gentleman knows passed h.r. 4, the small business paperwork mandate elimination act. he and his side joined us in the bill which began to repeal the job-killing nature of the health care bill. it was otherwise known as the 1099 provision. a bill which all small

businesses said provided too much paperwork and burdensome -- burdens on them. we also have been very focused on what people are most focused on when they begin to think about the summertime and taking a vacation which is the gas prices and the prices at the pump. we brought forward h.r. 1230, h.r. 1229, h.r. 1231, all of which were aimed at trying to lower the cost of fuel in this country to maximize energy production in this country so not only could families have the ability to do what they need, but also that businesses could see lower energy costs. . and all of this, mr. speaker, puts this in a context where we have a government that's borrowing every 40 cents of every dollar it spends. we believe strongly that not only do we need to focus on growth but we got to finally do what washington has failed over the decades which is to get its

fiscal act in order, to ensure, to ensure that we don't allow spending to get out of control again. and, mr. speaker, the gentleman asked about the biden talks. and i share his commitment as he related that this is an important issue, that no one thinks that america shouldn't pay its bills. but i would also add, mr. speaker, that the people who elected us expect us to ensure that the fiscal insanity that's been taking place in this town stops and that we put in place reforms so we can demonstrate that we changed the system. that's the spirit in which our side has engaged in the talks with the vice president. as the gentleman knows, i have been very public in my praise of the vice president in his conduct of these talks. i am hopeful that we can meet or exceed the expectations right now which is to say we are aiming to reduce spending

by the trillions in order for us to engage in the kind of vote taking that needs to take place to stave off defaults. but i say to the gentleman first and foremost, our side will not support any attempt to raise the debt ceiling that is not accompanied by the kind of cuts necessary and reforms necessary, nor will we support an attempt to raise the debt limit that raises people's taxes. that we don't want to do. and so, again, i am optimistic that we are moving forward so as to come to some agreement that meets those guidelines. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: well, i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would respectfully note that so much of what he talked about was resolutions. i think resolutions clearly do state an opinion. whether or not they have any

ultimate effect is to be seen. i think the american public in looking at the agenda that the gentleman has just gone through probably says to themselves, well, we don't see the jobs in that agenda. we do see the agenda in that agenda. we do see the politics in that agenda, but in any event i'm pleased, as i said at the outset, that we do have a jobs bill that i think will have an impact that is coming to the floor this week, the patent reform bill, which i think is essential. as it relates to the proclueding of america's defaulting -- precluding of america's defaulting, i appreciate what the gentleman says. the rating agencies, three agencies now, which have said we stand at risk of losing our a.a.a. rating, which america has always had, does not distinguish between how we get

to where we have a vote of approval on allowing america to pay its bills. i, too, like the gentleman from virginia, want to reach an agreement on the reduction of the deficit and the substantial reduction of the debt. the gentleman indicates he wants to cut spending by trillions. however, as we all know, and i repeated, the gentleman voted for a rules package the first day of this session which provides for $4.8 trillion in additional deficit without paying for it. that is the continuation of taxes while not cutting the spending by that amount. you precluded our continuing to provide for statutory pay-go applying to revenues as well as expenditures. both obviously have an impact on the deficit that we incur.

we incurred substantial expense during the bush administration. as you know some almost $3.5 trillion of deficit spending or $2.5 trillion depending on where you count some of the expenditures. but at a minimum an amount of $3.5 trillion that we did not pay for. we therefore increased the debt by 86% in those eight years of the bush administration. both of us agree that we have to abandon policies of buying things without paying for them. and spending beyond our means. i would hope that we could join together in accomplishing that objective, but i would sincerely urge the gentleman and urge all of us in this house to ensure that in the next few days, literally, we have less than 21 days of legislative time remaining before august 2. i urge all of us to ensure,

whether or not we can reach agreement and i hope we can reach agreement, but surely i hope the gentleman will agree that allowing america to default on its bills is not an acceptable alternative even if we can't get to an agreement. we want to get to an agreement. i want to work with the gentleman to get to an agreement. but allowing america to default on its bills should not be an option. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just underscore the sense that he tried -- the gentleman, mr. speaker, says that the markets are watching. i believe that is the case. i also believe the markets are looking for us to enact real reforms, real spending reductions. so by just acting to increase the credit limit of this country without a following through in our commitment for spending cuts and reform is just checking the box and is reckless. that's why i tell the

gentleman, it's important for us to come together, to walk together to make sure that we are able to execute on a plan to reduce spending once and for all and to reform the system here in washington so that the markets understand we mean what we say. and it's time for us to make the tough decisions now and not to just stall and say we'll do it later. the people of this country have seen that over and again and they're tired of it. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the tough decisions, however, are not to pretend there's a free lunch. what we buy we need to pay for. and if we don't want to pay for it we shouldn't buy it. now, frankly, that didn't happen under each one of the budgets that we adopted from 2001 to 2007 -- 2008. the 2009 budget.

it didn't happen. we spent far beyond that which we paid for in those budgets. and that took a $5.6 trillion deficit -- excuse me -- surplus projection to almost 100% turnaround and over $10 trillion projected deficit. i just say to the gentleman, i agree with him. we need to make the tough decisions. we need to make the tough decisions on cutting spending. we need to make the tough decisions on paying for what we buy. hopefully we will have the courage and the wisdom on both sides of the aisle to do just that. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i hope we also have the courage and the wisdom to focus on what it is that people sent us here to do. they sent us here to focus on jobs and the economy. yes, we take seriously our responsibility to get the

fiscal house in order. but if the priority is about jobs, we know jobs don't come from government programs overall. they come from the private sector. over half the people in this country work for small businesses. the amount of small business startups in this country has been anemic of late. we got to focus on that and ensure that we're responding to what people want. that is, they want more growth in this economy and they want to get back to work. that should be our goal. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i agree with him. what they need is the confidence in the management of this nation. they had the confidence in the 1990's when we had a balanced budget. they didn't have the confidence in the last decade and our economy shows the result. i certainly share the gentleman's view that if we can give them that confidence our

economy will grow and jobs will be created. i'm for working together to accomplish that objective. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bartlett: thank you, mr. speaker. today is the renewable energy and energy efficiency expo and forum going on until 4:30 p.m. in the cannon caucus room. the theme of this year's expo is efficiency plus renewables equals national security. there is 57 exhibitors including the united states air force. they all have displays. i encourage everyone to go and see the expo before you leave for the day. in addition to the house and energy renewable energy

caucuses we partnered in hosting with the sustainable energy coalition and sister caucuses, the house sustainable energy and environmental coalition, the house algae energy caucus, the house hydrogen and fuel cell caucus, the house high-performance building caucus, the green jobs caucus as well as the congressional peak oil caucus and the national security office. i want to give thanks to chris van hollen who is the co-chair of energy efficiency and this event would not have been possible without mr. bersong. please go to the cannon caucus and see the great exhibits there. 57 exhibitors including the united states air force. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart. to pay a debt of gratitude to a life of service and sacrifice by one of indiana's bravest. scott davidson of muncie, indiana, was a devoted husband, father and a firefighter. former yorktown fire chief, he'd been with the muncie fire department since the 15th of june, 2005. tragically yesterday, firefighter scott davis was killed fighting a fire at the tabernacle church in muncie, indiana. he become the first muncie firefighter to give his life in duty since 1955. those who knew scott davis was not surprised that the bravery and boldness he showed during the church.

he protected the community and in so doing scott davis will forever be remembered as a hero and as a servant leader. in the midst of this great tragedy, i honor firefighter scott davis, and we should also take a moment to remember each and every man and woman who serve and volunteer at full-time fire departments around this country. we should always remember and be grateful for those who run in when others run out. today, we remember scott davis, a devoted husband to his wife, roxanne, a loving father of three, jake, emma and max. from my family to yours, we offer our deepest condolences and those to the people of muncie, delaware county, in the sixth congressional district of indiana. the service and sacrifice of scott davis will never be fore goten. -- forgoton. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to

request to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with another remarkable opportunity to recognize texas a&m university. mr. flores: an unprecedented third straight year was won in the men and women track team. they ran the 1,600 meter relay to give them their third consecutive titles in des moines, iowa. they won both men and women's teams title in three consecutive outdoor seasons. the amazing talent, depth and teamwork displayed by these athletes helped the team to overcome obstacle and a shaky start. i commend the coach for his outstanding leadership and guiding the agees to victory and for becoming the only coach to accomplish a triple-double in ncaa championships.

and i recognize the athletic director. i'm honored both as an alumni and as a member of congress to talk about this university. to the coach and loyal fans to texas a&m university. get 'em and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence for mr. john larson of connecticut for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. . under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. flores: mr. speaker, most americans remember one year ago tomorrow president obama and

vice president biden launched what the white house enthusiastically called the recovery summer. this was supposed to be a six-week long push to highlight what the obama administration said would be jobs created last summer by a surge in federal stimulus spending across the country. senior advisor to the president, david axlerod, said, and i quote, this summer will be the most active recovery act season yet with thousands of highly visible road, bridge, water, and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country. giving the american people a firsthand look at the recovery act in their own back yards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing. end quote. yet, the only thing that's crystal clear to the majority of americans is that there is nothing to show from the democrats' failed economic policies that have set our country on a road to ruin. since president obama has taken office, he has done absolutely

nothing to promote american energy production. he's done nothing to reduce the regulatory burdens on small business owners. he has done nothing to fix the tax code to help job creators. he's done nothing to increase the competitiveness for american manufacturers. and he's done nothing to pay down america's unsustainable debt burden and bring back confidence among investors and entrepreneurs by supporting long-term american growth. american economic growth. and now president obama is selling the sequel to last year's recovery summer sales pitch and kicking off this summer by trying to convince the american people that 28 consecutive months of unemployment above 8% is just a bump in the road to recovery. in addition, a number of democrats are calling for billions more in taxpayer dollars to be spent on yet another wasteful stimulus to create jobs. but americans aren't buying it. unemployment is nowhere the 6.8% level at which the administration claimed it would be today if the stimulus was

signed into law. when americans promise prosperity and security for future generations is at stake, this cannot be brushed off as just a bump in the road. it is a mountain of constraint put in place by a litany of failed democrat policies and unfilled promises. what's worse is that president obama recently laughed off the fact that his stimulus projects, which are costing taxpayers trillions of dollars, have failed to live up to their promise to create new jobs. democrats promised this would be the summer of recovery, but their conflicting assessment of the economy and their double talk has left american families wondering, is this a joke? well, most economists and the american people are not laughing. their concern is growing and confidence in president obama's economic policies is plunging more and lower and lower every day and the idea of another stimulus is dead on arrival in the house. in the face of the greatest

economic crisis since the great depression, this administration and the democrats in congress are choosing to play policies -- politics with economic recovery and continue with another round of empty rhetoric and unfilled promises in their desperate sales pitch again this summer. house republicans are serious about creating real american jobs. we are making our mission to put americans back to work. we know that what we need are commonsense policies that will create jobs in this country immediately. we cannot let this administration have another frivolous shot at wasteful spending of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars or be given more regulatory power or allowed to spin its way out of the catastrophic economy the democrats have created with empty phrases like recovery summer. house republicans have produced a pro-growth, pro-job creation budget as well as a real plan for america's job creators. both plans will put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path

to restore confidence, lower tax rates, and allow america to remain competitive in the global economy. we want to take the burden of regulation off our job creators and produce more american energy so americans can start receiving the paychecks that they need and deserve. we want to reduce the hostility of the federal government's regulators toward american business, both small and large. we cannot allow this out-of-touch administration to continue with their failed experiments and silly punch lines. we cannot allow washington democrats to tax and spend away the futures of our children and grandchildren. we cannot continue down the road to ruin, mr. speaker. coming from the private sector to congress, i know that america can and will become prosperous beyond imagination, and millions of new private sector jobs will be created if we would just get back to our founding premarket principles and end big government and wasteful spending. it is time we take a different road this summer, mr. speaker.

we cannot continue on the misguided and irresponsible path endorsed by the other side of the aisle of higher taxes, reckless spending, bigger government, explosive debt, crippling regulation, higher deficits, and unacceptable -- unacceptably high unemployment. 81% of americans knows somebody without a job. if you look at the unemployment rate that includes unemployed and underemployed, almost one in every five americans is unemployed or underemployed today. under president obama's watch, almost 40,000 jobs have been lost every two weeks. president obama's so-called stimulus was signed into law 28 months ago. and there are nearly two million americans, two million fewer americans with jobs today. they have had their chance to make things right last summer, and it has not worked. now it is our turn. these are undoubtedly tough times. and i want to continue the great american legacy of leaving our children better off than we

ourselves are. it pains me to know that only 17% of the mothers in this country believe that their children will be better off in the future. it doesn't have to be this way. there has not been a more important time in our nation's history to realign our principles and policies in light of current economic reality. it's a sign of a hardworking rancher in the texas panhandle, i always reflect back to those tough decisions and sacrifices my family made around the kitchen table. we had no choice but to live within our means. every day i remember these life lessons whether i'm balancing my family budget or making important decisions for my constituents. i must represent the best in terms of taking care of our country's fiscal health. we must make tough decisions on spending, on tax reform, and on reducing our nation's debt. we must remain committed to spurring economic growth and job creation. we must do this, most

importantly, because we owe it to our children and grandchildren so that they are afforded the same american promise and prosperity and security that we were when we were born. mr. speaker, about three months ago my wife and i had our first granddaughter. we want that girl when she grows up to have the same opportunities to live the american dream that we had when we were born. mr. speaker, before i close, i'd like to ask our american people to remember our country in its prayers during these difficult times, in their prayers during these difficult times and also remember to pray for our military men and women who protect it daily. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you.

mr. flores: i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. flores: mr. speaker, if i may continue i have additional remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas only for a motion. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the privilege to be recognized here

on the floor of the house of representatives. and to address you about the issues that are important i think to you and all of us who serve in this united states congress. and as we know the american public watches the work that we do here and sometimes wondering how we would like to hear that work interpreted. today i would take up two or three subjects. one of them is a piece of legislation that is an amendment that i offered on the agriculture appropriations bill that did pass the house of representatives today and became part of the bill as final passage. that amendment was an amendment that had language in it that prohibited any of the funds in the bill from being used to support the telemed components of this which are used to

contribute ru-486 or the legal drug named ru-486 which we know, mr. speaker, is an abortion pill. it has become a practice in iowa where planned parenthood is using iowa as an experimental state to do what i call skype row bow abortions. that is this practice -- robeo abortions. that is this practice, under the regulations under ru-486, they are required to have a physician present who can conduct a number of emergency procedures, if necessary, to examine the patient and planned parenthood has circumvented this. they clearly violated the intent of the regulation. i believe they violate the regulation of the f.d.a. on ru-486, the abortion pill and are setting up and have set up and have been practicing what i call skype robo abortions.

in other words, a young woman who is pregnant would go to a planned parenthood center in iowa, sit down in a room with a computer screen monitor in front of -- on a desks that has a drawer in it, usually. there are a number of different practices, a physician who might be 1,000 miles away is on the other end of the computer internet connection and this physician would then ask questions of this soon-to-be mother, and once she answers the questions to his satisfaction or her satisfaction, the physicians, there is a button pushed. a little drawer opens up and the abortion bill rolls out and it's there for the individual to take the bill where she's advised, go home now, and your body will go through some significant changes and will expel this little baby. this is skype robo abortions and under the grant program that

is facilitated by funding within this ag appropriations bill, there have been already some grants that have been offered, and presented to planned parenthood that have been administered by the health and human services, kathleen sebelius', agency. i know this, mr. speaker, because i headed up a letter signed by 70 members of congress asking for the documentation in a form from health and human service, are you providing grants to apportion providers, planned parenthood, that answer was yes. are these for telemedicine. that's the category in the bill. and the bill that just passed this house, there's $15 million for telemedicine. . it's supposed to help so we can do congratulations or remotely diagnosis, not that we can do

remote, skype, robo abortions. it says you can't use any of the funds for telemedicine that will be used to distribute or used to facilitate the ru-46 abortion drug. there is a little more precise language in that. mr. speaker, i put the precise language into the record last night during the debate on that amendment. the precise language which is the congressional intent for this amendment. there is no misunderstanding, however, mr. speaker, since planned parenthood also scored this vote and also interpreted it in the way that i have just stated. so i just simply clarify this into the record that these funds under this appropriations bill will not go to telemedicine grants that could be used for the purposes of facilitating the skipe -- skype robo abortions.

i'm grateful for the house of representatives for a significant majority to pass that amendment. i'm grateful for the strong, pro-life majority that this congress now has. the position which this congress has and has taken it a number of times that it is -- a lot of us believe immoral. some others won't take that position but they say it is unjust to compel taxpayers to fund abortions or to fund the facilitation of abortions through their tax dollars. in a way it's the majority in this congress now, the pro-life majority in this congress that has given the american taxpayer the voice of conscientious objection to federally funded facilitation of abortions. i'm grateful that this congress now has this majority. i'm grateful that they put this vote up again today and there have been multiple in this new congress that express the very sentiment that i've just expressed. so i'm expressing it, mr. speaker, my gratitude to the

house of representatives. and my commitment will continue forward down this theme until we can one day see an end to the ghastly and ghoulish and gruesome procedures that sometimes described as women's health services. they are not and they're not good for women's health either, mr. speaker. so then i would -- i would transition into the second amendment that i offered last night, the vote was rolled on until the last couple hours here in the house of representatives and that was the event -- the amendment that addressed the pigford farms issue. now, this issue is about the class action lawsuit that was filed by a gentleman by the name of timothy pigford in the aftermath of an announcement made by then agriculture secretary in 1995. the secretary of agriculture in 1995 said admitted that the

usda had been discriminated against black farmers. that opened the door for a class action lawsuit. the class action lawsuit's been known as the pigford suit because it was timothy pigford that filed the suit and his claim that he was discriminated against. i believe that he has been at this point compensated but i don't have a way to prove that because the records for pigford are sealed. congress at this point can't get at the records for the settlements in the largest class action lawsuit in the history of the united states of america. but here are the numbers, mr. speaker. the numbers work out to be this -- in 1995 in anticipation of and negotiations with a consent decree on the black farmers discrimination case of the department of agriculture against that -- the discrimination of them against black farmers. they anticipated 3,000 would be the sum total universe of the

black farmers that had been discriminated against who might file under the pigford class action lawsuit. 3,000. that's out of a universe of 18,000 black farmers. now, whatever whenever you're going to look at the -- now, whenever you're going to look at the applicants you look at the universe to determine then what percentage of you think the total universe will be filing claims and would actually have a claim. well, the 3,000 was surely calculated as i think 1/6 of the overall total university. they thought then, an informed judgment, that one out of six black farmers had been discriminated against and would file. well, it didn't turn out to be one out of six black farmers. it turned out to be about 1 1/2 out of every black farmer that filed under pigford 1. not quite 1 1/2. there ended up being 22,000 and

some-odd claims with black farmers. so out of that came 15,000-some settlements of we believe $50,000 at a minimum and that, mr. speaker, was a number of claims that were greater than the number of actual black farmers. now, i don't have a problem with carrying this debate when i look at a universe of 18,000 and i see that 22,000 and some filed a claim. surely some of those that filed a claim were not farmers and some -- surely some of those that filed a claim were not discriminated against. it took those standards in order to pay out presumably. in any case, pigford 1 was resolved. $1.5 million was paid out. $1.05 billion with a b. i found out about this when a

usda employee who had been deployed to washington, d.c., in the very late 1990's or maybe early 2000, came back home and was sick to his stomach that he had had to distinguish these millions of dollars to people he believed 75% of them at a minimum had filed a fraudulent claim. many of those applications that he brought back the copies of those applications and presented them to me and said, please do something. this is an unjust payout of people that allege that the victim -- they're victimhood of discrimination who were never farmers, didn't want to farm, didn't know where the farm service administration was, the usda office was, but yet this had been recruited to file the claim. at least 75% fraudulent. i took all those applications. i tell you, mr. speaker, i was blurred by it. i couldn't quite absorb all the

implications by just reading the implication and reading the description of the individual that brought this back. he's not the only one. there are a number of others who willingly came forward and are willing to testify and some of whom -- especially in other states that were directors of the farm service administration who participated in the administration payout of the first $105.05 billion. but since that time, pigford 1 was closed and then extended gep for any filers to get in and then closed again. that's where we ended up with the 22,000 and change. after that, mr. speaker, there was an effort that was brought forward here in congress by archer davis, bobby scott in another initiative to open this up under pigford 2. there's also an initiative in the united states senate. one of the people that introduced stand-alone legislation to open up pigford 2 was barack obama himself as a

united states senator in the year 2007. and the bill that he introduced was s. 1989. that legislation didn't go anywhere. it didn't have a single co-sponsor by my recollection but it put the marker down. there was a very -- i'll say a very urban senator from chicago who's opening up a second round of pigford when -- in illinois, the state that he represented, and truly he represented all of illinois as the united states senator. there were only 78 black farmers in the whole state. the payout was 100 to 153 people and that's a little snap shot of illinois itself. without breaking this down county by county and looking to see surely -- i mean, it is certain that there were more claims paid out in pigford than

there were black farmers in illinois. and probably -- i'll say it's not necessarily true in every single case and every single county. we know that's the case for illinois. at any rate, it became a political tool in my view, and as they tried to open up pigford 2 in the house, it didn't pass the house. and when it did finally pass the house it didn't pass the senate. and finally in the senate during the lame-duck session late last fall, actually november 22, there was an action that put the pigford issue in together with the cobell issue and the other native american claims, a bill called the claims act. the claims act included tarf funding, all of this that was out there that the pigford case that didn't fit. but my back channel information tells me that the president

ordered the pigford be attached to the cobell and claims act which they did in the senate and because it rode along on a piece of must-pass legislation, it passed out of the senate, was messaged over to the house in november of last year and passed after the election so that the discredited congress, the lame duck congress voted to now appropriate another $1.15 billion into pigford 2. that, mr. speaker, goes on top of the farm bill which was the 2008 farm bill. i sometimes do better thinking about this chronologically, but in 2007 when we discussed and debated the farm bill in the house, the chairman of the ag committee at the time, collin peterson of minnesota, provided for and supported language in the farm bill that carved out a

$100 million authorization for the -- a second round of pigford. and when i objected, and i said, mr. chairman, that will open the door for $1.3 billion in additional money to go into that fraudulent pigford claim, his answer was, no, it's $100 million. that's the end of it. that's the limit. that caps it. and that settles all outstanding claims. you don't understand, this is the end of it and make sure it's done and it doesn't open the door beyond $100 million. we had a disagreement. some would call it an argument about whether it opened up to $1.3 billion, which is what i said. that was my assertion, mr. speaker. or whether the then chairman of the ag committee was right in that $100 million was the cap. well in any case we know now who is right because there's $1.25 billion in the pipeline for a second pigford claim.

$100 million of it was in the farm bill, and $1.15 billion of it was stuck into the claims act. and how did that number get arrived at? according to the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, he told me that i voted for the farm bill and directed him to go negotiate with the black farmers in the means of trying to put an end to this so that it limited the potential liability of the federal government. well, no, when you go back and actually look at what happened, i voted no on the farm bill coming out of this house because in part it had the pigford $100 million in it. none the -- and the language that's there that says this is the end, this is to resolve all outstanding, unresolved claims over pigford, $100 million. as the chairman of the ag committee, collin peterson, asserted that's the language that's in the bill, but the secretary of agriculture, tom

vilsack, and the attorney general, eric holder, took that and somehow interpreted the plain language of the bill to direct them to go open up a second pigford claim which now turned into an additional $1.15 billion on top of the $100 million which was in the 2008 farm bill. and now when we started out with 3,000 potential claimants -- excuse me -- 3,000 projected claimants to pigford 1 which would be the total sum of the claims out of the universe of 18,000 black farmers, now we have 94,000 claims, mr. speaker. 94,000 claims that have risen to the bait of $1.25 billion additional. i say that if you round it to the nearest 10th of a billion dollars i was spot on that it would be a $1.3 billion by the $100 million in the farm bill. it has come just as i said,

slipped in, forced in, pushed in partly by the president of the united states at his directive. he was told to sign it. and according to the secretary of agriculture, he was to negotiate with the black farmers and ask for an additional $1.5 billion. the language limits but doesn't empower. he claims, also, the authority to negotiate in any case and that the attorney general has the authority to negotiate in any case. so here we are. when i asked the secretary of agriculture, who's been disciplined for perpetrating a total of $2.3 billion of discrimination against 94,000 people who claim to be black farmers, who are they, who's been fired, who's had charges brought against them, the answer after a few questions is, no

one. think of this, mr. speaker. $2.3 billion worth of discrimination allegedly brought against plaque farmers agreed to apparent bibi the secretary of agriculture and the attorney general and they're looking for justice and they can't find a single perpetrator of scrummings and they're the ones that hired them. the checks go out today to employees of the usda under the guidance of secretary vilsack and not one of them can uncover as a perpetrator as even a part of the $2.3 billion that they allege was discrimination that took place. not one perpetrator on his payroll, even though every perpetrator had to be on his payroll or the payroll of his predecessors. they can find 94,000 victims where only a universe of 18,000 exists but he can't find a single individual that perpetrated discrimination and

we are to believe in the united states congress? that somehow this is just an example of where government went wrong and discriminated and we're trying to right a wrong with a checkbook that comes from money borrowed from the chinese and goes to people that could not have been farmers in the first place, could not all of them been discriminated against and i'd go further that we have a hole list of discrimination claims that come from accounting where the supervisors of the usda's office were all black. kind of hard for me to get my mind around how it could be racial discrimination of people by the same race against people of the same race. that's a little hard to define. you know, when the irish go at each other, they don't call it racial discrimination. so just to put that in a metaphorical position so people understand it clearly, mr. speaker -- mr. speaker. i am very concerned that too many members of this congress understand how much fraud exists in pigford.

and they just don't want to put up the vote, they just don't want to put up the words to correct this and call it what it is. and i'll say that the fear of being accused of not having the will to face a difficult subject matter is superseded by the fear of being called a racist so they walk away from it. i believe this, they must have equal justice under the law, we cannot continue to be a great country unless we continue to have equal justice under the law , that means that you deal with people without regard to their race or ethnicity or their national origin or their gender, by the way, or their disability or their age, all of those things are immutable characteristics and so -- almost all of them, but it's defined clearly in title 7 of the civil rights act, mr. speaker, and

broadened in some of the civil rights sections that take place within our states which i abide by and live by. but we cannot, mr. speaker, be a great nation if we're always going to shrink away from difficult subjects. if we're going to pay out borrowed taxpayer money, we're borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, some of that money's borrowed from the chinese, some of it is borrowed from the saudi arabia ran -- arabians and we too take that money and hand it to people and say, please don't raise a fuss, i know that you are a minority, therefore you must have been victimized some place along the line. this is being sold and marketed in the south in a number of different ways. fish fries in the south, sometimes in black churches in the south and they say to the people that attend those kind of gatherings things such as this, you know, you don't have to be a farmer if your grand daddy was a farmer, you're a farmer. if you're the grandson of a farmer, you were discriminated against because surely somebody

discriminated against your grandfather and surely he would have been a rich farmer they not done that and surely you would have inherited the farm or some of the money that he made from that so you've been discriminated against, if your granddaddy was a farmer, you're a farmer, you file, it's naturally you were discriminated against. the regulations and the standards on this, the proof is so low that all an applicant has to do is allege that there was discrimination and then find someone who will attest, someone who is not a close family member, who will attest that they complained about being discriminated against. so, joe and george can get together and say, let's go file mutual applications and allege that we wanted to be farmers, we were discriminated against and we complained. automatic $50,000 check goes to them out of the borrowed money of american taxpayers, along with a $12,500 check that goes to the i.r.s. to pay the tax liability and they have the

temerity, some of them, to complain that they weren't also getting their estate tax waived. so the money that would be into the estate if someone dies, obviously, and they wanted -- they don't want to have to pay a state tax on their inheritance. we can have a million dollar exemption, they still don't want to have to pay the tax beyond the exemption, that is not just temerity, that's audacity. and another component of this, mr. speaker, is this part. that the largest civil rights class action lawsuit settlement in the history of the united states is pigford. the single individual who has received the greatest settlement from that is shirley sherrod. shirley sherrod, the former usda employee whom the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, hired three days after she received news shah she was going to receive $13 million in her claim

against pigford. that was on a july 22, he hired her on july 25, and later on when a speech that she gave before the naacp came to light, then the secretary fired her like that. i don't believe that that was an act that was his decision alone, i find the secretary to be a wise, smart and a careful, well prepared man. however often i disagree with him. i believe that order came from the white house. and he tried to hire her back. it didn't work until some weeks ago. now she's back on the payroll, having filed a lawsuit against who? the guy who published the truth, andrew brybar. these are all things this congress needs to get to the bottom of, mr. speaker. this congress needs to, if we have to, subpoena the records, go through the 94,000 applications, sort them, chart them, evaluate them, bring people under oath, gather

testimony, do a complete investigation of what i believe is the fraud that's been perpetrated against the american taxpayer and done so within several difficult administrations, some i believe was motivated for less than stellar reasons. and i think whenever someone has been discriminated against in these cases, we need to make them whole if we can. i support that. i think we did that for almost all of them in pigford one. and i think we made a bunch of people whole that did not have it coming and then by legislative shenanigan, the white house opened up a pigford two that put the taxpayer on the hook for an additional 1.15 -- $1.15 billion and now the sum is up to $2.3 billion. $2.3 billion, 94,000 claims, where there's 18,000 black farmers, an expectation of only 3,000 claims altogether, not a single identified perpetrator of discrimination and congress

can't look at the records, congress can't get a straight answer, a freedom of information act request is denied by the usda because it's sensitive, sensitive that the usda releases this public, all of the information that goes in farm subsidies, that's out there and people go on the website and complain about the farm subsidies that are there. why if you're a farmer should the subsidies that come to your operation be public knowledge but if you are one who has alleged you've been discriminated against your records are secret, even from the united states congress? that's all wrong, mr. speaker. we know that. the conscious of this congress has spoken today, 152 of us have spoken up and i think the foundation for legitimate hearings has been heard. and so i appreciate your attention, mr. speaker, and i would at this point, not seeing another speaker arrive, pause

for a moment and see if i could inquiry of the speaker if there's an anticipated speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is uncertain at this point. we're going to wait a little bit and then mr. king: can i inquiry as to how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: thank you. i'll stand by for the allotted amount of time. mr. king: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would be preesed -- pleased to entertain a motion to adjourn.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on sunday, june 5, the state of texas and our nation lost a true hero, chief warrant officer was killed in afghanistan after his helicopter

crashed near kabul. brad was the best and brightest of what the first congressional district of texas has to offer. raised in texas and a graduate of the university, he was truly a son of east texas. general mcartur once said, duty, honor, country. those three hallowed words reverendly dictate what you ought to be. what you can be. what you will be. they are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail. to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith. to create hope when hope becomes for lorn. for brad, these three ideas were not just to strive for, he understood them, he embodied them, he lived them.

brad, just 31 years old, was a husband, a father, a son and a brother. outgoing and aggressive, brad truly personified the army's old slogan, be all you can be. the summer before his senior year in high school, brad joined the reserves and went to boot camp. his family joked that he was never more people ared for the upcoming high school football season than he was that year. on graduating from the university, brad enlisted in the army and was sent to fort rucker in alabama. there he pursued his dream of flying and graduating from flight school. the next stage of his military service brought him to fort drum in new york where he met the love of his life, ginny. during his second deployment, brad achieved pilot in command rank, a highly skilled specialty

officer which is very difficult to achieve for those who were not commissioned officers. this speaks to his hard work, his outstanding training, his performances, the respect his superiors had for him. a true family man, last month brad rushed home from his third deployment in afghanistan just in time to help with the delivery of his newly born daughter, addison. his family will always remember his great sense of humor, his infectious smile, his kind heart and his desire to brighten anyone's day. today i want to extend my prayers and condolences to brad's wife, ginny, his young -- two young daughters, telie and addison, his parents, his

relatives, his friends, their american warrior is home. he has met his maker, his master, his duty is done and he is at peace. george or well said, we sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. a grateful nation is so very proud of this son of east texas. we grieve the loss of our warrior brother, we honor brad for his courage, his sacrifice and his selfless commitment to duty, honor and country he gave his all in service for the sake of safety, freedom and

liberty. may god bless the sacrifices and the last full measure of devotion that brad paid. and may he bless us all because of such a patriot. now, i would like to, mr. speaker, address a bit about -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. we'll ask the observers in the gallery to please refrain from applause. mr. gohmert: i'd like to address myself for a moment to afghanistan. it's where brad and so many americans have fought, have

died. it was the place where the taliban flourished. they train terrorists. they prepared for the chance to come kill thousands of americans in new york city. they came up with plans to kill americans in other places in the united states. so it was important that we go take out the home bases of the taliban. for those that know the history of our fighting in afghanistan, they know that what we initial ly did was send in advisors and trainers to help the afghans to-foot and take out the taliban. -- to fight and take out the taliban. in fact, a group that proved most helpful was the northern alliance. some say it's run by warlords,

but these tribal regions with their leaders accepted munitions, accepted training, accepted what it took to bring war upon the taliban and they whipped the taliban. at least until later the taliban resurged. but after the northern alliance defeated the taliban, we did something that i was not aware of until some of the warlords or northern alliance leaders wanted to sit down with somebody from our government and our state department they said refused to meet with them. well, these were the leaders of groups who risked their life, many in their group lost their lives fighting the taliban and whipped them, and when my

friend, dana rohrabacher, said somebody wants to meet with the u.s. government. the state department will not meet with them. will you go with me? i said, sure. initially we were going to try to meet near northern afghanistan. but when the uzbeks found out, they didn't want to give visas to these people. we thought we'd meet in india. they didn't want to give them visas. so at the last minute we arranged to meet in berlin. five of the nine did meet, and something that many americans don't realize, the taliban, in preparing for 9/11, knew that there was a man who was charismatic, who was a powerful leader, who had the chance to bring together afghanistan as a nation, afghans as a people, even though it's so very tribal, one person had the

chance to really pull it all together and on either september 9 or september 10 of 2001 he was boldly assassinated so that when a day later 9/11 occurred there would be nobody that the u.s. could really turn to as one individual to rally afghans against the taliban. they took him out before they committed their act of atrocity against americans. they knew what they were doing. they planned well. but our american soldiers know what they're doing. when we sent special forces, intelligence folks to help, they were able to whip the taliban. and i didn't realize until we met with these northern alliance leaders that after they whipped the taliban we

demanded that they disarm. according to them they were told, look, we're the united states of america. you have nothing to fear. we're here. we'll make sure you're not harmed. you fought for us. you whipped the taliban. it was our mutual enemy, and so turn in all of your weapons. i said, you turned in everything? he said, well, we have some small arms. we can't fight the taliban with the little they have left. we gave all of that back plus some of our own. and the taliban has resurged. the war has gone on much longer than it should have. there are reports of corruption. the poppy production has surged much more than anything else in afghanistan.

and what they had heard was that our government was negotiating directly with karzai, the nominal leader of afghanistan and with pakistan and what they had been hearing was that our government was negotiating indirectly with the taliban itself. they want to destroy america, and the word they had gotten was that basically the united states just wanted out and if they would let us get out without a major incident then between the taliban, karzai and pakistan they could divide things up just however they wanted. i want our troops, i want our people, i want our resources out of afghanistan, but we got to make sure that people like brad gardet and so many others who have given their lives

haven't done it for nothing. but it seems that that initial success may have given us a good road map to how you succeed in afghanistan. equip the people that are our friends, who have the same enemies as we have and let them do the fighting. things went well when that's the way it went. we provided trainers, advisors, gave them some intelligence and they whipped the bad guys for us. what would be wrong with getting back to that point instead of what the rumors are that this administration is prepared to do, let the taliban take back up where they left off once we leave? does anybody think if the taliban gets a foot hold again as they want to do, al qaeda gets a foot hold, radical islam

gets a strong foot hold in afghanistan again, does anybody really think they won't come after us again? they pledged that we're a great satan, we must be eliminated. the most free country in the world, the greatest country in the history of mankind and these people want it destroyed because it doesn't fit into their narrow scope of having a global caliphate where one religious leader dictates to everybody. we kind of like our freedom. those of us who are christians are free to worship and those who wish to worship any other way are free to do so. that's america. but it's not time to just cut our losses and leave. it's time to act smartly, and i am very much afraid this administration will continue to reward our enemies and to turn

against our allies and friends. you can't keep maintaining foreign affairs and any credibility in the world when you turn against your friends thinking that your enemies are going to like you better because you showed you'd turn on your own friends. your enemies don't like you any better when you turn against your friends. in fact, what happens is they not only don't like you, they know longer respect you because some in the world, they don't like us, they hate us. they think we ought to be destroyed. they respect our power. once they see that a nation will turn against its friends and hurt its own friends and allies, they know this country should not even be respected. and as i've said many times, we don't have to keep paying people to hate us.

they'll do it for free. it's time to quit paying our enemies to continue to nurture hatred against us. it's time to be a true friend to our allies. we heard one of the greatest speeches i've heard in my 6 1/2 years in congress from that podium right there and it didn't come from any state of the union. it came from the leader of israel. we heard from palestinians. they felt the speech was a declaration of war. it means they didn't listen to the speech, because as prime minister netanyahu made very clear, as soon as the palestinians are willing to tell their people, there will be a jewish state of israel, peace can be work out very quickly after that. but no one wants to say that on

the palestinian side. so as patrick henry said, men cry peace, peace, but there is no peace. and there will be no peace in the middle east. and here we think that, gee, at least this administration, we heard our friends, our enemies will love us. they've been trying that since the clinton administration when the clinton administration classified an anti-khomeini and ahmadinejad, as of now, group called m.e.k., their initials, they're an anti-totalitarian regime group and there are over 3,000 residents of a camp in iraq. we as a nation gave them our sovereign promise.

we'll make sure you're safe and secure. when we turn things over to the elected government of iraq, we were assured by that government that they would take care of that promise and they would keep the residents at camp ashroff safe. and yet last -- well, i guess nearly a week ago when a group of six of us met with the prime minister of iraq there in baghdad and tried to discuss the issue of the iraqi military going to camp ashroff and killing over 30, perhaps 35 residents of the camp, wounding perhaps 100 or more from reports from a video dana rohrabacher had seen. i did not. he said it was clear these were unarmed civilians that were killed by the iraqi military.

that's not the promise we made to those people in the camp. it's not what president maliki made to the iranians in the camp and yet the iraqi military killed civilians in camp ashroff. as i tried to explain to prime minister maliki, when he said for us to be concerned and tried to do something about the killings will be a violation of their international sompt, i tried to explain that actually it does involve sovereignty but the u.s. sovereignty was involved in promising their safety at camp ashraf, and his sovereignty was involved when they promised the safety of those residents at camp ashraf,

so we have a vested interest with all of the american lives and treasure that were laid down and invested in iraq, we have a very strong vested interest in seeing that justice is done and that people that made promises to us keep those promises. because if we don't see to that, then how can we expect anyone to trust us? how can we expect anyone to truly negotiate fairly with us, expecting we'll keep our word? sometimes you make bad deals but if you're going to keep your word and you're going to be known for being a country and a people of honor and a people of their word, you got to keep your word. as a former judge and chief

justice, some things i've seen have been unjust but when we can do something about it to help us keep our word to those who trusted us, we got to do it. we can't look back. so we were a bit surprised when our group of six members of congress, four republicans and two democrats, we flew up to abil, met with folks up there, always good to see troops around , american troops, the best i've ever seen, the four years i spent in the army, starting in the late 1970's, left me concerned that if we were attacked back in those days we were in a lot of trouble. but the military i see and i meet and visit with, those from my district, from all over the the country, so impressed me, so impressed those around.

we have an ind credible military these days -- an incredible military these days of our service men and women. when we left northern iraq, we were flying out, we got word that our embassy had been contacted by prime minister maliki and told that our group was not welcome in iraq any longer. i have attended far too many funerals of people from texas and other funerals of americans who laid down their lives and in doing so provided people like prime minister maliki the chance to come back from compile, to be elected in that country and -- exile, to be elected in that country and to be a leader. i don't think it's too much to ask for a little gratitude. we're not asking anything in

return. i know there was some discussion , wasn't from me, about, gee, maybe you could help us instead of doing deals with china for your oil after we've secured your country and got rid of the tyrant saddam hussein, maybe you could deal with us. i'm not asking for those things. i'm just asking for a little gratitude. for the lives and the treasure that were expended to give people in iraq the freedoms they have today. and i expect people who have become leaders in iraq to keep their word to us because if they can't be trusted, if they won't keep their word, well, they can lock me out of their country all they want to, but we have the power of the purse. i didn't join in the lawsuit against the administration over the war powers, i think it's well intended, the friends that

are involved in that suit this week, i didn't engage in that as a party for one reason, this body has the power constitutionally of the purse. we don't need a war powers act, we don't need any interpretation by the supreme court of whether the war powers is effective or the war powers is not because we have the ultimate weapon in this body called the power of the purse. and if the president wants to send our american treasurer and -- treasure and our american military which composes 65% of nato's military, what a joke to say, hey, we're turning it over to nato, we won't be involved anymore, we're 65% of nato's military. if we're going to have a president that sends people over there, not because congress thought it was a good idea, not

because a majority of the american people did, but because the arab league asked us to and some in the u.n. thought it was a good idea, then congress has the ultimate power and we don't need the war powers to do it, we don't need the supreme court's ok, all we have to do is shut down every dime being spent in libya until such time as we can be sure that whoever takes over libya will not be worse for the united states than the crazy murderer that's there now. we need to be sure of that. and i know the president made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states and i'm well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of o.i.c., the islamic states in the world, perhaps there was

some confusion whether he'd been to all 57 islamic states as opposed to all 50 u.s. states, but nonetheless we have an obligation to the 50 american states not the 57 muslim islamic states, our oath we took is in this body, in this house and it's to the people of america and it's not to the muslim brotherhood who may very well take over egypt and once they do, they are bent upon setting up a caliphate around the world including the united states and this administration will have been complicit in helping people who want to destroy our country. out of the ignorance to think, if you help your enemies they're going to like you better. not only do they not like you, they disease respect you when

they -- disrespect you when she they see how foolhardy you are. it's time to quit involving this country in warfare around the world until we can be sure that such welfare helps us keep our oath to the united states of america. and to quote my dear friend from texas, also a former judge, and that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize the gentleman for a motion. for a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i do hereby move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on

links to c-span media part ners -- visit us at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> the british chancellor of the

exchequer announce that nor the rok will be put up for sale three years after the british government stepped in to support the mortgage lender. speaking to an annual gathering of bankers, he also said it was time for the banking and financial sector to stop relying on british taxpayers. the number of people seeking assistance increased to a two- year high. mr. osborn's speech is just under half an hour -- mr. osborne's speech is just under half an hour.

>> it's an honor to be invited to speak here again. michael, we thank you and barbara for the hard work you have put into supporting and promoting this city. thank you very much. [applause] it is also good to be here with the governor of the bank of the bone -- bank of england. all of us will have seen the queen's birthday honors. how wonderful it is to see and i could go to someone who has contributed so much to the british to see a -- to see a nkight -- a knighthood to

someone who has contributed so much to the british society. why did not produce -- bruce forsyth get one sooner? tho se are the day s -- those are the days, guv'nor. there is no one who has worked harder to get our economy back on track. we thank you. [applause] mayor, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago, standing here, just five weeks after the government had come to office, i spoke about the financial crisis. i quoted what winston churchill said in this very room in the middle of the second world war. this is not the end. it is not even the beginning of

the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning. i believe that sentiment of cautious optimism has been borne out by this in the 12 months since then. the british economy is recovering. output is growing. the necessary rebalancing of the economy, away from that fuel consumption -- that fuel consumption -- debt-fueled consumption, has gained momentum. today's unemployment figures show that -- the fastest pace for more than a decade. our deficit is falling from its record high. stability has returned. britain is on the mend. but it will take time. external shocks have made that

recovery more difficult. the dramatic and debilitating rise of the world's oil price -- up almost 6% since last june -- the terrible japanese earthquake and the impact on the supply chain, the ongoing crisis in the euro zone -- our largest market for british goods and services -- the softness in the u.s. economy -- across the world, to be economic waters have become chop your still -- choppy economic waters have become t choppier still. as i said at the time of the autumn forecast last november, recovery was always going to be more challenging than after previous recessions we're seeing the unwinding of debt built up over an entire decade. of all the major economies in the world, britain was the most

over-borrowed. our families are more in debt and any others in the g-7. our house price bubble was bigger than america's. our deficit higher than that of greece. the balance sheet of our banks went from around three and a% of gdp in 1998 to a staggering -- 300% of gdp in 1998 to a staggering -- just three decades later. the balance sheets are shrinking, not just because of the new rules of regulators, but because the markets themselves .emande it money and credit growth remained weak. it is a powerful drag and recovery -- drag anchor on recovery. here is a striking fact about the last six quarters. but it is little understood, but crucial to understanding our challenge. for five of those six quarters

since the end of the recession, the financial sector has continued to contract while our economy as a whole has grown by 2.5%. the financial sector has shrunk by 4%. the growth outside of that has been above its average rate for the last two decades. the financial sector into the equation shows that economic growth has been below trend. our banking system fueled the boom, and now it is slowing the recovery from the bust. that might surprise you. but around the city. activity is growing. investment banks are hiring again here in london. there are some 25,000 more jobs in a square mile than a year ago. i have seen it. i have been to the openings of new headquarters in new buildings. funds are out there investing.

law firms, investors, insurers -- they are all busy. for all the doomsayers who warn of decline, london has -- of global, financial centers. we are the number one place to do business. instead of talking ourselves down, let's agree to go around the world and talk ourselves up. of course, we have to stay in the pole position. even in is straightened times, have the greatest urban infrastructure investment and the western world -- we have the greatest urban infrastructure investment in the western world today. i have made it clear that the 50% tax rate that i inherited must only be temporary, not permanent, as some politicians now proposed. this week, we're publishing plans to end the uncertainty

those rules and set out new plans. all this activity, wealth creation -- uc in the city is -- you see in the city. it does not compensate for the millions of pounds being shed from the balance sheets of our banks. economists like ken rogoff and carmen reinhart warned us. how can government respond. for a start, we have to avoid that now well trodden path from a banking crisis to sovereign debt crisis pape. and sustainable barring our banks must not lead to an unsustainable borrowing from our -- unsustainable borrowing from

our banks must not lead to unsustainable borrowing by our government. in a world where so many countries are seeing their credit outlooks put on a negative outlook, our country has come off of wha negative outlook and been affirmed. we have a huge stimulus planned. abandoning our deficit reduction plan would take that stimulus away. that was the imf boss a verdict last week. in the recovery from a -- imf's verdict last week. in the recovery, stability is a precious, hard-won achievements. we will do nothing to undermine that. instead, we should try to manage the nature and pace of the deleveraging. while it is part of the rapid buildup of borrowing in our

banking sector, consisting of lending from one part of the system to another, that can be reduced without directly impacting the real economy, even as it reduces the measured contribution of banking to gdp. what is crucial is that this inevitable process of deleveraging does not strangle the supply of credit to businesses and families who need it. we're taking action to ensure that this does not happen. we are resolving regulatory uncertainty and encouraging new capital investment in our banking system so that deleveraging is not only achieved through smaller balance sheets. in the g-20 and the basel ban committee, britain argued successfully for higher capital liquidity standards phased in over a longer time periods. policyw financial b committee has been mandated to take what on our own regulators so that they do not act in a

pro-cyclical way. we struck a marlin deal with the banks to prevent small and medium-size businesses from becoming the innocent victims of shrinking balance sheets. i very much welcome the opse who arerom the investing -- from those who are investing in britain's businesses. there should be no doubt i would use every tool available to me to hold the into the commitment they made. the government can also actively helped to rebalance our economy by being and a quickly pro- business and pro-enterprise. all plans for growth have set out a new wave of reforms to restore britain's competitiveness. we're investing in apprenticeships, cutting implement tribunal costs, reforming pensions and anti- growth planning rules, reducing legislation, creating a green investment bank, reforming the

education and welfare systems, and taking low-pay people out of tax. we are serious -- below is business tax rate of any western economy. 5% reduction in the rest of corporation tax in the space of just four years. from shanghai to seattle, investors can see that britain is open for business. while the gradual unwinding of the debt continues, all of this demonstrates that we are not powerless to respond. the legacy of the financial crisis does confront us with a very simple dilemma -- what you might call the british dilemma. as a global, financial center, generating hundreds of thousands of jobs, a successful banking and financial services industry is clearly in our national, economic interest. but we cannot afford it to pose

a risk to the prosperity of the nation's entire economy. we should strive for global success in the financial- services, but that success should not come at an unacceptably high price. we should be clear that we want britain to be the home of some of the world's leading banks, but those banks cannot be underwritten by the british taxpayer. i said here last year that the uncertainty hanging over your industry was causing real damage, that it could not be resolved overnight, but that i owed you a process that would lead to the conclusion. one year on, i believe we are much closer to an answer on how we can achieve those successful, competitive, financial services, and a healthy balance economy -- healthy, balanced economy. there is a sense of what is the

right regulation, how international rules should apply, and we're successful banks fit in. first, the culture of regulation. the failure was not a series of unfortunate accidents. i believe it was hard wired into the design. the decisions to divide the responsibilities for setting up a systemic financial risk from the responsibility for applying that assessment to particular financial institutions created a world where no one was in charge. at the same time, the system required endless box ticking and costly process is. we had the worst of both worlds. this new government proposes, therefore, a completely new culture of regulation. tomorrow, we published our white paper and a detailed draft legislation. a permanent financial policy committee will be establish inside the bank of england. its remit will be set by parliament and refined by the

chancellor of the day on an annual basis. its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identified baubles as they develop, spot dangerous -- identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous -- it has never been done before. the committee will work alongside a new authority bank that will also sit in the bank of england -- it will assess the safety and soundness of individual firms. i have heard the argument that insurance companies face different risks. we will set a specific statutory objective for them. the operation of markets and protection of consumers will be the responsibility of the new financial conduct a 40. i'm delighted that -- financial conduct authority. i am delighted with our new ceo.

the financial contact authority will have a new primary duty to promote competition. it is a result of all of these -- if it is the result of all of these that send some brass signs have changed, we will have failed. we do this to change the culture. we want to move away from the kick-box mentality of the current system -- tick-box mentality of the current system. there is too little room for invaluable judgment. we will have clear lines for accountability and the space for regulators to exercise judgment. you will have the freedom to innovate, to grow your business, to compete in the world. you will be constrained if you put taxpayers or consumers at undue risk. this new culture of regulation

is the first step toward solving the british the lama. forgetting-- british the dilemma -- british dilemma. exposed to financial instability elsewhere in the world. we're exposed to the global competition. global standards are strongly in our national interest. we want to see the full implementation of the new basel standards around the world, including here in the european union. it is vital that those european union rules give the discretion to add to those regulations when required. this would help the fbc do their job. we need european core mission to force common rules in a single market -- european cooperation

to force common rules in a single market. we support the efforts to make this year's stress tests more credible than last year's. we will also, as a government, always fight hard against that which undermines europe as a location for finance or london's role as this continent's preeminent, global center for it. the newill fighting on derivatives regulation. pain in the financial sector should also be regulated to avoid a race to access -- excess. we have world-beating standards for transparency. we have come up with good principles that must now focus on a consistent implementation. these are the first two steps to

solving the british dilemma. it will create a space for innovation and commercial success. in an agreed set of international rules, making the global financial system safer, it will protect us from competitive arbitraged by other financial centers -- arbitrage by other financial centers. history teaches us that the risk can never be reduced to zero. we do not want the british taxpayers to be on the hook. there was no agreement on how this problem should be addressed. i have sat at his very dinner as a guest -- this very dinner as a guest. finished -- first spoke

here i announce the names of five highly respected individuals whose job it would be to listen to all sides of the argument, proposed solutions, and help bring an end to the uncertainty. the independent commission on banking has now published its and your report. i want to pay tribute to the commission for their excellent -- the excellent job they have done. it has commanded huge respect at home and abroad. there are two particularly important proposals -- bail in, instead of bail out -- so the private investors pay if things go wrong -- and a means to protect the vital services that banks provide to the economy if things go wrong. today, i have told the commission that the government endorses both of these proposals in principle.

of course, the commissioners are still consulting and preparing their final report. i will not print their conclusions. -- pre-emt their conclusions -- pre-empt their conclusions. all banks should be allowed to fail without imposing costs on the taxpayer, in a manner consistent within line with the, we agree with more capital requirements on system banks. i strongly welcomed the commission's proposal on increasing competition in retail banking. healthy competition is a powerful defender of consumer interests. we will make these changes to banking to protect taxpayers in

the future. taxpayers today owns a large part of the banking system and underwriting guarantees to the rest of it. it is time for us to plan our exit. i am pleased that the banks are taking up the opportunity and they are ahead of schedule. repaying the bank of an england. this is a sign of confidence in our system. i remind everybody that we have increased the level of deposit insurance to 100%. we made it clear that there is no taxpayer guarantee. once all these other forms of subsidies are removed, are direct shareholdings in banks are -- remain. it will take several years before we can sell them all.

we can start that process. on behalf of view, the taxpayer, we are putting northern rock on sale. it is time to rebuild that presentation. it will be a sign of confidence and increased confidence in banking. we can start to at least get some of our money back. the sale prices will be open and transparent. any interesting -- interested parties can bid for it. we will continue to own northern rock asset management, assetsrate bank who's have been run down over time.

the independent advice that i have received is that a sale process is likely to generate the best the value for the taxpayer and should be explored as a first option. it would be a very important first step of getting the british taxpayer out of the business of owning banks and a sign of confidence in the industry. last year, i came here raving about the future of regulation. i did tell you it was my job to resolve them. i said that our goal should be a new settlement between our financial system and the british people. a new settlement where the city is able to believe the leading financial center in the world without putting at risk our entire economy. if we achieve it, then we would

solve the british dilemma and put our country on the path to prosperity. i want to london to be a striving center of enterprise. more concerned about serving its customers rather than what the government might do to it next. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> there is live coverage of the republican leadership conference. we will have coverage of newt gingrich's beach at 7:30 eastern time. we have presidential candidates michelle bachman, rick santorum, and herman cain. other speakers include haley

barbour of mississippi and bobby jindal of louisiana. a presidential candidate and a texas governor, marsha blackburn of tennessee, and the rnc chairman. live coverage on the c-span network. >> blackberry users, you can access our programming at any time. public affairs, and nonfiction books, and public history all for free. you can also listen to our signature programs every week. download it free from blackberry app world. >> house republicans held a news conference today on jobs and the economy blaming the obama administration for the slow financial a cop -- recovery. this is just under 25 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. job creation has been the focus of our new majority. you can check out all of the details at jobs.gop.gov. we want to create growth, the kind of growth that the stimulus promised, but failed. turns out that federal regulators have been hiring at a rate of three times the private sector. taxpayers are footing the bill for more bureaucrats. washington democrats say that the only economy, this is what

their economy looks like. we have invited the president to work with us on jobs. he downplayed the unemployment as bombs in the road at laughed off the stimulus failure. americans are still asking the questions, where are the jobs? the american people deserve some answers. when it comes to this administration, it is clear that they do not have any. it is time to get serious. i hope that the president will change course and work with us to help enact real job creation ideas and get this administration from continuing to block the recovery with all of their regulations and calls for higher taxes. >> good morning. yesterday, the head of the democratic national committee said that their party owns the

economy. she expressed some frustration astute questioning why businesses did not embrace their agenda. i think that shows you how out of touch they are. the reality is that most people in this country are employed by small businesses. what small businesses see is a muriatic of overregulation, of unfair taxes and new mandates that keep coming down the pike. where is the realization that we have got to create an environment where small business people and entrepreneurs are going to take some risks? economic growth is not the government program. it is high time that this administration to realize that it should join us. we put together a program for job creators. we have got to empower

entrepreneur words, people who are willing to open new businesses, commit their capital, and rove value. that is how we are going to get this recovery going again, not through insistence by here in washington that we know how to grow this economy. >> good morning. the president a year ago said that it was the summer of recovery. we are at 28 months with employment above over 8%. debbie walsh said that they own the economy. what are the facts of owning the economy? since the stimulus, 1.9 million america -- 1.9 million americans have lost their jobs. as prices are up more than 100%. food stamp recipients are up over 39%.

the only factors to go down our home values and start-ups. when you look forward to the future, what does it say? start-ups in the last 12 months are at its lowest point in a decade. i want to stress that, the lowest point in a decade. you take the lowest point of the last recession, 2001-2007, small business employers created jobs. there is a fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a government job. an entrepreneur does not take a job from anyone, they create jobs. these democratic policies have crushed us to a new low. the republicans have a plan that will unshackle america, create new regulation and allow us to compete with the rest of the

world and invest in american jobs and energy. there has to be a fundamental change here. we challenge the senate to take this up because america can no longer wait. >> as kevin said, this is the one-year anniversary of the president's summer of recovery. another summer and no recovery. 9.1% unemployment. 28 months of unemployment above 8%. americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs? the bureau of labor statistics announced that it now takes on average 10 months to find a job at if you are unemployed. this is the longest in recorded history. americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs?

entrepreneur ship is that a 17- year low. americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs? one out of seven on food stamps. americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs? with all due respect to the president, a $1.10 trillion stimulus project, they say it killed half a million jobs. mr. president, that is no laughing matter. it is no laughing matter to the people that remained unemployed in the fifth district of texas. this is why republicans have announced a plan for american job creators. it has everything to do with making our tax plan faireer, and simpler. we want to give confidence to our employers to create jobs.

it has everything to do with eliminating or modifying regulations whose benefits do not exceed the cost of jobs in america. it has everything to do with making the cost of energy reasonable to our job creators and our families. if be sent it would take it up and the president would get out of the way, we would actually have a summer of recovery. >> the question that has to be asked and the question that has to be answered, where is the white house on's credibility when it comes to economic growth? this is a white house that declared that unemployment would peak at 8% only if b stimulus was passed. that was 28 months ago. we have had nothing but 28 months of underperformance. last summer, the white house

said that this would be the summer of recovery. after the summer of recovery, what do we have? 9.1% unemployment. the white house seems to think that this is somehow a punch line. this is something to be laughed off and shrugged about. it is increasingly clear to most americans that as they look at this administration, it is an obstacle to job creation. the question that most republicans propose, when will the white house recognize that it is their policies that have to change in order for us to move forward? >> i am from wisconsin's update the district. back in january, a representative from virginia and i started a caucus of job creators. people who own their own businesses. as we begin to talk, what types

of policies can be put together to begin the process of helping our economy grow. we came to a common conclusion. the common conclusion is that government must it out of the way. some new programs, some stimulus, some big government i get is not want to solve the problem. we have to remove the obstacles. two weeks ago, we provided to the american people a plan to do that. it will address regulatory reform, tax reform, patten reforms, we will begin to do the things that put obstacles in the way of job creators. that is exactly what the summer of recovery did not do, but needs to be done now. >> a good morning. families in the second district and across this great land are reeling from the effects of

unemployment. recently, the president said this about the jobs report. people in the markets are skittish. people are thinking about the trauma of just 2.5 years ago. as an entrepreneur werner and somebody that knows the great joy of looking somebody in the eye and saying, you are hired, america's all business owners, we want to be optimistic, we want to invest. what we see are so many obstacles. i want to speak directly to our job creators. here is what you are faced with. would you like to create green jobs off the coast of virginia with the wind farm? be patient. it will take about seven years to get a permit. would you like to get hud assistance on a new construction project. be patient because it will take a year. are you wondering why your local

banker is not coming by to say, how is your local business doing? they are not out because they are out there trying to grasp the and know -- the normandy of the regulations coming out. this is not in dispute. it to all of our job creators, i want to look you in the eye and say that we are fighting for you. so many of you were sent to congress the first time. we get it. the american people get it. we are asking the president to stand with us on creating jobs. >> i have the privilege of representing new york district 19. i have a great joy of caring for patients. one of the ways in which american medicine has distinguished itself over the decade is that we have been key

to medical innovation. we have been the greatest innovators in the world with new pharmaceuticals and devices. some of the manufacturers said that we cannot afford to do what we have been doing in this country. we are going to have to move our research and development overseas where regulations are less oppressive. where we will not be taxed for creating and providing to our patients who need new devices and new innovations. in january, the house of representatives passed a refill of the affordable health care act which included a tax on our medical innovators. marchant late, the senate did not follow suit. we have a problem in this country. we have a problem among our small businesses.

i had the privilege of visiting pdj. they are in chester, new york. she said, even with all of the burdens that have been placed on us by these new laws and regulations over the past couple of years, we are really ready to go. we need customers. we need an economy that works. our employees are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work. i want to assure to him and all of his employees that we in the house republican conference are rolling up our sleeves and getting to work to make sure that they have the jobs and opportunity that they deserve and that they are ready to run with. >> good morning. i am from the 17th district of texas. i'd like to thank you for joining us this morning. we talked about job creation and

sometimes it gets abstract. i want to talk about a real world firsthand example. let's talk about some parallels in history that should guide us and that the administration and democratic leadership of the congress should be thinking about. in 2005, four individuals and i got together. we decided to build a new gas company. we build a new business plan. within a few months, we raised the of corporate capital that we needed. we made an acquisition of over $100 million. we had revenues of over $100 billion. if you asked the five of us to sit down today and make a decision to do that again, the decision would be different. why? epa, obamacare, osha, you name

the initials or the law and you will get a clear answer as to why. it is because those agencies and those laws create uncertainty and they represent hostility towards job creators in this country. what does history tell us? you go back and look at the great depression. we have two dips in that depression. one in the early part of the depression and another in 1937 and 1938 that could have been avoided. what happened? federal debt grew by 130%. what happened here between 2006 and today? a 150% increase in debt. federal spending increase. what happened between 2008-2010?

federal spending grew by more than that. tax rates increased from 24%- 79%. federal revenues fell by half. we just went through one uncertainty about tax rates six months ago. fortunately, we kept them low. 18 months from now, we have the same old debate again. you do not know what your tax rates will be as a business person. there was great hostility. the roosevelt administration ordered more executive orders all the way -- of the administration's all of the way through bill clinton combined. the secretary of the treasury in april of 1939, henry morton said it this way. he summarized the policy to the house ways and means committee. gentlemen, we have tried spending money. we have spent more than we have

ever spent before and it does not work. after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot. the solution, stop the spending, stop the deficit. get the government out of the way of america's job creators. >> are you aware that he might resign? >> no. >> what is your reaction? >> when i become aware of that, i will let you know. watch what impact do you think this has had on the house? >> it has been a distraction to the american people who want to focus on job creation. this was a distraction that was unnecessary. >> can you talk about your

concerns that the administration provided? where do you think they answered your questions and did not answer questions? the administration gave their opinion on the war powers resolution. they did not answer the question in my letter as to whether the office of legal counsel agrees with them. i am looking forward to an answer on this by tomorrow. the white house says that there are no hostilities taking place. we have got drone attacks under way and we are spending $10 million a day as part of an effort to drop bombs on gaddafi's compounds. it does not pass the straight face test in my view that we are not in the midst of hostilities. it has been four weeks since the president has talked to the

american people about our mission. it is time for the president to outline why we are at -- why we are there, what the mission is, what the goals are. >> the question is, what are you prepared to do it if you do not like what you read and you do not get the satisfaction that you asked for from the white house? >> the white house has options. next week, we may be prepared to move on those options. >> one of the things that the white house seems to be willing to consider it is extending the payroll tax holiday. >> there are a lot of options

out there. i am not prepared to give an answer as to whether you are going to take over or not. >> to what extent does that still work. do you need to work for a tax overhaul? >> most changes in the taxes have been part of our changes to lower the corporate tax rate and flat in the tax code. to the other part of your question, the uncertainty that is out there is not going to be overcome by another short-term gimmick. the policies coming out of this administration are causing great uncertainty. look at every great regulatory body in this town. they are grote -- going after the private sector as if there

is no tomorrow. we need to stop the regulations to provide more certainty for the job creators. >> have an you try to cut the purse strings for libya before? that is the only option that the house has. >> there are a number of options that we are looking at. the only other option is that the congress has the power of the purse. that is an option as well. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> house democratic leader nancy pelosi also focusing on jobs and the economy in her briefing. she points to unfair trade practices. >> good morning. thanks for joining us for our regularly scheduled for thursday morning press availability. as usual, we are here to talk about jobs, protecting medicare and protecting the middle class. if you are here to ask a question about congressman wiener, i will not be answering any.

it is my understanding that later in the day, he will be having a press conference. after that, i will have a statement available. it has been 163 days before -- since the republicans have taken over the majority of the house of representatives. six months and still no jobs bill on the floor. the republicans have put forth a budget that and medicare by making seniors pay more to get less of giving tax subsidies to big oil. they are harming seniors by change in medicaid while they give tax breaks to businesses that send jobs overseas. they are reducing our investment in education and making it more expensive for nearly 10 million young people to go to college, making it prohibitively

expensive for them and while they give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. we want to put people back to work. we want to do so while we put our fiscal house in order. we will not do it on the backs of our children, our seniors, or the great middle-class. the democrats want to strengthen the middleyou have been here wiy hoyer and the agenda to stop the erosion of commercial manufacturing, to make america by making the infrastructure of our country greater and we have had this presentation over and over again. this was brought to the floor under the leadership of the republican majority. we are taking one element that

is a component, with the manipulation of currency by the chinese government. this is not fair to american workers, and they have 1 million jobs, and i believe they have the leadership of the members who are here with us. sandy levin has worked with us for a long time, and congressman -- he knows about the impact of the manipulation of the currency. this is a disservice to our workers, that we're going to have.

they will not bring this to the floor. now, if so pleased about the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> it is an honor to be here and stand with the leader and the former chairman, talking about the currency manipulation by the chinese government. what you may not remember his last year, he brought a bill to the floor, and in december of last year, 340 members voted to pass this. we all recognize that this is an issue. we're here again because this did not pass in the senate. the bill was introduced again. this has been sitting at ways and means ever sense. i am from southwestern

pennsylvania and although i hear our concerns about the economy and what we are doing to create jobs and the manipulation of the chinese currency costs this country about a million jobs every year. these are issues where we lost garments because of realistic competition keep i. this cost us a million jobs, reducing the gdp by 1.5%. we're waiting for the republican leadership to move on what americans want for us to talk about. this morning, i dropped the discharge petition to the rules committee, so that we can get

this to the floor, which the democrats and republican support. with that, i would like to yield to congressman levin. this is something we need to talk about, and this gives -- the administration gives our country leverage, in dealing with organizations that manipulate their currency. >> this is currently a jobs issue and that is the major point. when another country manipulates their currency, especially china with its huge economy, this hurts american jobs. the estimates will vary from a half million to a million and half american jobs. we get the latest on chinese

currency. and the basic estimate is that this is more undervalued now than last year. we estimate 28% undervalued. it tips the scale like this. i just want to show you as i finish this chart, this is an every two week estimate, and it shows that we reacted on the bill in the fall, this impacted it. and there was this kind of a drop, a change in the evaluation. since then this has been much stronger -- smaller, as the playing field continues to be

rigged. this discharge petition is being introduced as another effort to make it clear to everyone that this congress cares. it is up to the majority to show that they care. this is not a priority. if jobs are the number-one priority they will act on this. >> and we would hope to get 280 signatures to discharge the bill to come to the floor. that is all of the republicans who voted for the bill more than one time will see the need to address the concerns of their own constituents about the impact of fair trade policy. yes? >> at this time, will you

withdraw a call for anthony weiner's ethics investigation? >> i said i would not respond to these questions. we will see what he decides to do today and we will go from there. i will not make any announcements for him or about him. >> to talk about what it would take to ask for one of your own members to resign? >> we will have a chance to talk about that, but not before we have a decision from him. we respectfully gave him time to make an announcement. i will not predicate any remarks on decision we have not heard yet. we will not be deterred from the requests for jobs.

this would be as strong as it is on the other subjects. i respect your questions, but over the kitchen table -- people still vote -- very concerned about the manipulation of currency and other unfair trade packages and how these affect their lives. we are doing something that has passed the congress before the house. this congress, in context of the fact that we may see some trade bills coming to the floor of the house in the short term, we want to be very clear about the interest of america's workers, and the jobs in our own country and put this first. --the president's rationale does this past a straight face test.

he believed the president has worked out a case about the war powers resolution and why does not apply? >> it is important to respect the prerogatives of the congress in respect to being involved in military action, and the consultation between the executives and the legislative branch is essential whenever we engage in military action. the limited nature of this engagement allows for the president to go forward. i am reviewing a report that they have sent to the congress, to be classified as in the public domain. i am going over the classified aspects of this. but we see an interaction and consultation with congress, and i am satisfied that we can

continue in this limited role as part of nato. we have troops on the ground and this is a different story. the charge that we went into, to stop a humanitarian disaster, i think from the readings that i have seen, up until now these have remain classified. i have had classified briefings all along. but i am is satisfied that the president has decided to go ahead. and i am very protective of -- congressional prerogatives and consultation all along the way. >> do you think that this is what they should be doing with consulting to congress, and this is the place where the constitution and the war powers act is not with the authority of

the president and congress are. we're on shaky constitutional footing without having a vote on the congress? >> the war powers act is controversial in the first place. and having said this, a person who supports this act -- if the congress does not feel they have adequately communicated, -- i do not think that they should stop the support that they have given to stop the humanitarian crisis in a limited role there. >> what has just happened? >> this was important, we do with the classified and unclassified aspects of this. this references other

communications as well. >> do you think that the president has done enough to make the case, not just the congress but the american public about u.s. military action, such as the direction in afghanistan? >> i thought on tv, over 50% of the american public like what is happening in libya. the message may not be enough communication for congress, but this has reached the american people. there should always be more, and this is like a marriage. if the other party does not think you are communicating, you are not communicating enough. think of it that way.

you could always do more. as president lincoln said, public sentiment is everything, i would encourage any presence to communicate with the american people, especially when we are engaged in a military action. i also think if the congress does not think that they are being communicated with, they should step up to communication. >> you see the president did not need the initial authorization, and still does not, from congress about libya? >> thank you all very much. i want to make a couple more points. it is important for us to emphasize medicare, and with the republicans are doing to end this.

they are now censoring the mail of the members of congress so you cannot refer to ending medicare, and they have changed their policy the day before the election, before the 23rd of may. -- we could say whatever we wanted, and we have the documents to demonstrate this. after the election, you can't say that this sends medicare. we want to focus today on the jobs issue as it relates to the manipulation of currency by the chinese. >> since the house agriculture bill, this is a safety net for the poor. will we be hearing more from the

democrats about this? >> that is because this is fundamental. was this yesterday? it was 6:00 in the east. 6:00 -- 6:00, when the families sit down for dinner. parents are saying to go eat their vegetables. congress was saying to them, we will not provide food to the children. many of these children go to sleep hungry. i was so proud of the leadership of congress, and the ranking member on the committee, who had been fighting on this issue. not only is this issue important in and of itself, but this is demonstrative of the foolish

cuts, that you would cut feeding children to give tax cuts to big oil and sending jobs overseas, i think that this makes the case of misplaced authority in the budget. the republicans did not protected this amendment when it came to the floor, which is much unfortunate. >> anything that this is fundamental. >> it is comfortable around the kitchen table, this is not a priority for us to be able to put food on the table. this is not a priority to be concerned about, that we can depend on medicare, because we will end this. this is not a priority to make college affordable for the children, so that they have better prospects for the future.

this is all about the values, and this is where we try to find common ground. we have the budget decisions that did not deter the rest of the economy, if we see this as a way to reduce the deficit. we should be able to find common ground down here, but we must take the high ground first, and the other decisions will then fall into place, if you believe that investing in our children is important to the future. you could not possibly support this cut. we would not consider ending medicare and paying more to get less.

>> why wait for him to announce this. >> making the announcement for him, this will not happen. [unintelligible] >> anthony weiner is resigning from congress, apologizing for the sexually explicit photos he sent to several women. this is what he said from brooklyn. [applause]

>> good afternoon. about 20 years ago, i stood in this very same room, and ask my neighbors for their help, to take a chance on me, in electing me to the city council. seven years later, i asked those same people to join with people in queens to sydney to congress. there is no higher honor in a democracy than being sent by your neighbors to represent them in the united states house of representatives. it is humbling to represent this district, because the communities and families of the ninth congressional district are hard-working, patriotic, opinionated, and authentic.

i have never forgot my neighbors because they represent the same middleclass story as mine. i went to public schools my whole life, my mother was a schoolteacher, my father went to law school on the gi bill. the middle class story of new york is my story and i am proud of this. i am here to apologize for the personal mistakes that i have made and the embarrassment that i have caused. i make this apology to my neighbors and constituents, but particularly to my wife. i have hope to continue to be able to do the work that the citizens of my district have enabled me to do. unfortunately, the distraction of i have created has made this impossible. today i am announcing the resignation from congress.

so my colleagues can get back to work and my neighbors can get a new representative, and we can heal from the damage that i have caused. to repeat, most importantly, so that i can continue to heal from the damage and i have caused. i want to thank my colleagues in the house of representatives, democrats and republicans alike. they come from different places but fundamentally, we all agree that there patriots. i also want to express my gratitude to the members of my staff, their young people who

are not paid very much, people who work very long hours, and ultimately those people define the notion of service. i want to thank the people who have helped me, the people who have volunteered and given me advice, the people who have given me good ideas, and i want to express my gratitude to my family. to my mother and father who gave me the values that carried me this far. and my wife, who has stood with me to this very difficult time. i got into politics to give a voice to the people who did not have a voice. and the idea that leading a family or community, or ultimately a country, is the one thing that we are all focused

on. with hard work, we will all be successful. thank you, and good afternoon. >> nancy pelosi released a statement. here is part of this. he exercised poor judgment and today, he made the right judgment in resigning. i wish him well. a native of new york city, he served four years on the city council before he was elected to congress in 1998. he has covered parts of queens and brooklyn since 1999. >> this is reasonable action on the backs of the person who put this out. there is a lot of secure information and other things.

what kind of person would do this? >> 40 years ago, there was the first installment of the pentagon papers. now you can see prospectus from historians and the people who made history. watch what you want, when you want. >> the 2011 republican leadership conference is getting underway in new orleans. live coverage begins with a speech by newt gingrich. we will have this at 7:30 eastern time on c-span. >> c-span has launched a new web site for politics in the 2012 presidential race. information on the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates, and connections to the media partners in the early caucus states.

>> jay carney discusses the report to congress on libya, in balloting that he met with general petraeus on wednesday. he also had remarks about anthony weiner. from the white house, this is about 45 minutes. >> hello everyone. i have no announcements so we will start with questions. >> there is increased tanker and criticism moment -- among members of congress and the areke rwants tr wants to know - you satisfied with the report? >> we have consulted regularly with congress, 41 * if you look

into the substantial report, which included our reasoning with regard to the war powers resolution. i think it was quite clear and i can go through this if you want. we absolutely respect the interest and desire for consultation, and this is why we have been so responsive with this report that we provided yesterday. it is noteworthy that the views are in contrast to those expressed in 1999, when this was called constitutionally suspect, and congress was warned to resist any action that would further early damage the institution of the presidency. i make an observation about this because it is worth noting in

the current context. >> do you believe that john boehner is playing politics? >> in 1999, he had concerns about the actions that president clinton was taking, and yet, despite these concerns, he urged congress to resist invoking the war powers resolution because of the damage to the institution of the presidency. the context is worth noting. i think that our legal reasoning that we provided to congress is quite complete, and it stands alone and does not need any additional -- do you have an update for us about if the president plans to meet general petraeus? >> he was here yesterday, with his national security team, to discuss afghanistan and review

an array of issues about the drawdown that will begin in july 2011 next month. he will consult further with his national security team, in the coming days. >> and he will provide his recommendations? >> they have discussed a range of options. the general has said that this was a question about different options and this conversation will continue. >> when does the president hopes to make a decision? >> the president has said he will make a decision soon. i will not -- get more specific than, soon. the operative date here is july 2011. it would be policies that he began to implement in december 2009, that he calls for in the

beginning of the drawdown in july 2011. it will be in time for this to happen. back a littleep bit. he meets regularly with his national security team, for the important reasons, including the u.s. military personnel who are on the agenda when he meets with the national security team. and this will occur with some regularity. he did meet with his team yesterday, and -- there is no process that is similar to the one that was taken in december 2009 to review the strategy. this process was designed to produce the policy of the id