host: that goes along with the headline in the washington times today that says a do nothing congress could solve deficit woes. taxes would rise from -- up to 23%. the house of representatives is now in session. thank you for being with us on the washington journal this morning. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 23,

2011. i hereby appoint the honorable mike fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it's time after a decade to wind down this american-afghanistan adventure. with his speech last night, president obama started a

process america needs to accelerate, removing 100,000 combat troops from afghanistan. i supported the initial move 10 years ago against the taliban in afghanistan. it began on a very hopeful note. even with people like iran working with the united states in that critical 2001-2002 post-9/11 era. it was a tragic mistake not to finish the job and withdrawal with global support. instead, the bush administration sadly with support from too many in congress started a recognizals, flawed and ultimately tragic war in iraq. president obama recently says that we won't try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we won't because we can't. america has already invested enough.

direct costs of over 1,500 american lives, approaching 1/2 trillion dollars. bear in mind, we've invested $2 trillion in the war against terror and the long-term costs are going to be between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. in afghanistan ultimately there will be a negotiated settlement with the least worst guys. the taliban and warlords, asorted tribal strongmen. it's already started. we cannot afford to continue this effort. not when crime needs us here in america to rebuild our country. last weekend the american mayors got it right when they called this question and called for renewed investment here at home. the tragedy is that it's not ultimately going to make that

much difference. the longer we're there and the more we fight. whether it's going to be one year, two years, 10 years far in the future, it's not going to look that much difference in terms of the ultimate outcome in afghanistan. america needs to be engaged in this dangerous region. it needs to help afghanistan. it needs to help the pakistani people. it needs to be involved both diplomatically and with development assistance. no longer do we need to have combat troops being a part of that mission. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this week, my republican female colleagues spent an hour on the floor of this great chamber talking about why they have chosen to

come to congress, talking about why they have chosen to leave the private sector and come to the public sector. and talked about why it is so important, so vitally important that they chose to come as republican women. i think as you listened to that debate, their stories were inspiring. you realized the diversity of the background, of the republican women that have come to this chamber, the richness of the experiences, the life experiences that they have brought with them. you, also, realized how solidly and firmly committed they are to strengthening and preserving this great nation. i think it's fair to say that our republican philosophy of government centers on faith, family, freedom, hope,

opportunity and preserving those tenants that really underpin this nation. i can say that as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a small business owner i've had the blessing of learning firsthand how very important it is that we take our conservative philosophy of life and government into the public sector of our nation. daily we work to preserve opportunities for all of our children and our grandchildren. we need to make certain that each and every child in our presence knows the value of and realizes there is an opportunity for them to achieve the american dream, that it is a good thing, a healthy thing for them to dream big dreams and to work very hard to make those dreams come true.

we know and we teach our children and our families and our extended families and our classrooms that if you work hard, you exercise discipline, you show integrity and you put others first that inevitably you're going to prevail and enjoy seeing your dreams come true in the marketplace of products and ideas. we all know and we work hard so that our children don't have to work harder. we work hard so that we're giving more opportunities to the next generation. that is why you're going to see our republican conference women continue to lead the fight on preserving jobs, rebuilding jobs, rebuilding this economy, making certain that the 21st

century economy is jobs rich for our children and our grandchildren. that is why we have taken the lead on the issue of health care. women are the drivers when it comes to health care decisions, and we are committed to making certain that we reverse this course that we are on with obamacare and that we push to repeal that law and that we make certain we preserve access to affordable health care for everyone in this nation. we are committed to strengthening our nation, our economy, jobs, strengthening our people and making certain that we secure freedom for future generations. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for five minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you. my colleague, once again -- my colleagues, once again i come before this house to ask you to reconsider re-establishing the draft. i know some of you don't think it makes since. after listening to the president last night, the only people i saw that were making sacrifices in these wars that have been undeclared have been our troops. they have volunteered. they come from communities that most of them are not wealthy. but when they get there they defend the flag. every war, every time our nation is threatened, all of the american people should be prepared to make some sacrifice . those of us in congress, when we authorized troops to go overseas should not say that we have volunteers willing to do it. we should say that we have americans that come from our

families, our communities, our states and their wealth should not be an issue. everyone should be there. now that the president has dramatically reduced the need for all of those volunteers, why don't we mandate that every american make some sacrifice? let them be trained during this transition as we withdrawal our troops. let them to be able to do something to make certain that america remains strong. this is too serious an issue. it's not a democrat or republican issue. it's a moral issue. true is the dollar spent in undeclared wars. but who's paying for it? the poorest among us, the lesser among us and joblessness and homelessness. and now the wealthiest of americans have the lowest tax rates since 1950.

and really it just bothers people when you say they, too, should make some sacrifices. not just for the war that i don't support but for the security, the economic security of this nation where the debt ceiling is going to be an issue. those paying for the cuts have nothing to do for the crisis that we're in. so i conclude, i'll be back in support of h.r. 1152, and i will ask you to consider that as we wind down from our involvement in the middle east, think about giving some relief to our volunteers. think about asking our young americans to make some type of commitment. think about having an america that says, yes, i support the involvement and am prepared to make sacrifices which includes my family, my community and our great nation. we should not just have

professional volunteers. it's not america. it is not moral. when our country is involved, everyone should be prepared either to stand up and be counted or don't support this type of involvement. it's not just costly financially, but our america looks throughout the world, especially among our young people, most of whom do not know any period of time that we haven't been involved in a war. so if we're not prepared to be honest enough to call a war a war, if we're not prepared to put every congress, every president, republican or democrat on the line for constitutional reasons, for god sake, let's find some fairness as we ask people to put their lives on the line for our great nation. and it's not just the lives. it's not just how they come

back home but the mental disturbance and problems that we're bringing to our great country. it's going to be not just trillions of dollars but adversely affecting our ability to deal with education and training and technology and research while we try so desperately hard to bring these people to some type of normality for the sacrifices they made to our country. so h.r. 1132 only says if we have to be involved, don't have just a small segment of our great nation. pay the ultimate sacrifice while others make no sacrifice at all. please consider a bill that mandates that everybody from 18 to 25, 26 to have some type of mandatory service for our great country, and we will only select those people that we need for the military.

if indeed there's a transition that we support, it means they can support our country, our national security, support our armed forces and not really hopefully be in harm's way. please really consider it and rest assured that i will return with this plea from time to time. i yield back, mr. speaker, the balance of my time, and i thank this house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for five minutes. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i am pleased to

rise today after the former chairman of the ways and means committee. i want to talk about taxes today, but i want to associate myself with the previous speaker's comments about how we make different decisions when we have skin in the game. because that is absolutely something that we are losing in this country. we are losing what used to be that common value that we rise and we fall together. i see my colleague from the rules committee, mr. mcgovern, sitting in the chamber today and he tells the committee on a regular basis, we need to pay for those things that we do. we are involved in wars and we need to pay, we need to have a people that believes in what we are doing in such a way they are willing to sacrifice not just their time but their treasure to support those measures. and when we don't have folks who have skin in the game, we make different decisions. when a minority of the folks get the benefit, or minority of the

folks are bearing the burden, we make different decisions. now, the former chairman of the ways and means committee is absolutely right, we have the lowest tax rates among the highest earning individuals that we have had in this country since 1950. what the gentleman did not mention is we also have the lowest tax rates that we have had in this country for the lowest income individuals that we ever had. we have fewer americans paying income tax today than any time since the 1950's, since the expansion of the income tax that happened during world war ii. hear that. we have the wealthiest paying the least they have ever paid as a percent of -- as a marginal rate. they are actually paying more than they ever paid as a percentage of all the federal receipts in this country. we have the lowest income individuals paying the least they have ever paid as a percentage of the income that comes into this country, and i say to you, mr. speaker, that much like we make bad decisions

about foreign policy when we don't all have skin in the game, we make bad decisions about economic policy when we don't have skin in the game. when we talk about iraq and afghanistan, i'll tell you, mr. speaker, those are complicated solutions. it is not obvious to me how we move from today to peace. i don't know how we get that done. we have externalities there. but not so with the tax code, when you look at the american economy, there is nothing going on in the american economy we did not do to ourselves. think about that. anybody, mr. speaker, do you have any constituents back home who have lost their jobs to corporations that have moved overseas? i do. and yet we continue to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world in america. who decides that? we do. we decide that's the kind of country we want to live in and we can change it, folks. there is nothing wrong with america that we collectively can't fix. now, i have introduced a bill i

believe is going to make a dramatic, dramatic impact in that direction, it's h.r. 25 in the house, s. 13 in the senate. mr. speaker, as you know it is the most broadly co-sponsored piece of tax reform legislation in either body. in fact, it's the most widely co-sponsored piece of legislation on tax reform in both bodies. and what the fair tax does is this, no magic solution, mr. speaker, it doesn't have some sort of clever math that's going to make everything ok. it simply goes into the american tax code and erases it. and says if you can start with a blank sheet of paper, what would you do? mr. speaker, we can. we can start with a blank sheet of paper. we can choose our own destiny. we can make sure that we are making the best decisions for jobs and the economy in this country. the fair tax does this. it eliminates the income tax code, that income tax that punishes people for what they earn. and it changes that tax code to a tax code that collects taxes

based on what people spend. i'll tell you, mr. speaker, it pains me every time i open up the "wall street journal" and bemoans the fact that american consumerism is in decline. why can't we celebrate american savings. why do we have to celebrate american consumption? the reason is because we have been building an economy based on income tax code based on debt and refinancing and debt and refinancing, but we can change that today, mr. speaker. we have a billion new consumers coming online in china. a billion new consumers coming online in india, and they want what we produce. the fair tax erases the income tax code that forces american productivity overseas, forces american jobs overseas, and it returns us to our roots as a country, our roots as a country that reward productivity. that he encourage folks to stay. there is only one taxpayer in this country, i know we have a corporate income tax. i know we have taxes on goods and services and excise taxes

and on and on. there is only one taxpayer in the american economy, and that is the american consumer. because every single tax we have rolls downhill. you want to charge that corporation tax, you want to charge wal-mart and excise tax? what do you think will happen at wal-mart? prices go up. you want to charge coke a sugar tax? what do you think will happen to the price of coke? it will go up. one taxpayer in this contry, the american consumer. this is a radical idea, i won't kid you. by radical it's the same one thomas jefferson had and alexander hamilton, by radical we haven't done it in the last 100 years but we can do it today, mr. speaker, with h.r. 25 and s. 13. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last night the president outlined his strategy for afghanistan which included a drawdown of 10,000

troops by the end of this year and an additional 23,000 by the end of next year. i believe this is insufficient and i fear it means more of the same for the next 18 months. the same strategy means the same cost. and i'm sad to say even more casualties. more american soldiers losing their lives in support of an afghan government that is terribly corrupt and incompetent. we have been doing this for 10 years. it's the longest war in our history, mr. speaker. enough. our focus should be on encouraging a negotiated settlement, a political solution, and bringing our troops home where they belong. our troops are incredible men and women. i am in awe of their dedication and their commitment. they don't belong in the middle of mountains and deserts fighting a cruel war. according to the pentagon's own figures, u.s. and coalition casualties in afghanistan are steadily rising. last month was a record high for the number of coalition forces killed. march and april were also the worst respective months of the

war in terms of casualties for u.s. forces, coalition forces, and afghan civilians. a poll last month by the international council on security and development found that afghans are overwhelmingly opposed to the current u.s. strategy with nearly eight in 10 believing that u.s. and coalition operations are, quote, bad for their country, end quote. these are serious matters, serious consequences of the strategy the u.s. will pursue at least through next year. we need a change in direction now, mr. speaker. not 18 months from now. we are borrowing nearly $10 billion a month to pay for military operations in afghanistan. borrowing. we are not paying for it. we are putting it on our national credit card. our kids and grandkids will pay the price. each day we remain in afghanistan increases that burden. we are currently having debates about how to reduce our deficit and debt. there are some who have

advocated deep cuts in programs that help the poor. in pell grants and infrastructure. for those who support the status quo in afghanistan, let me ask, where is the sense in borrowing money to build a bridge or school in afghanistan that later gets blown up while telling our cities and towns we have no money to help them with their needs? it's nuts. some of our biggest problems, mr. speaker, are not halfway around the world, they are halfway down the block. americans are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure our national security. but let me remind my colleagues that national security includes economic security. it means jobs. it means rather than nation building in a far off land, we need to do more nation building right here at home. contrary to the tired and ugly rhetoric employed by senator mccain yesterday towards thoughtful critics of our strategy in afghanistan and its consequences, i'm not an isolationist. as my colleagues know, i firmly support human rights and the u.s. being engaged around the world. those who advocate a political

solution in afghanistan are not isolationingses. i don't believe we should walk away from the afghan people, but tens of thousands of u.s. boots on the ground in afghanistan does little in my view to advance the cause of peace, protect the rights of member, and ethnic minorities, or strengthen civil society. if you want to protect afghan women, we must end the violence. you end the violence by ending the war. you end the war to a political solution. i have great respect for president obama. i believe he has the potential to be a great president. i also realize as lyndon johnson once said, it's easy to get into war, hard as hell to get out of one. it is not easy to end this war. it won't be neat or pretty. i believe with all my heart it's in our national security interest to focus on al qaeda and not waste our precious blood and treasure in a conflict that can only be ended through a political solution. rather than crafting a compromise and trying to chart a middle course, i believe we need to change course. i urge the president of the united states to rethink our afghan policy.

we think it in a way that brings our troops home sooner rather than later. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, we have a group of people in the united states who are all volunteers that i call the american angels abroad. they are el-- those thousands of peace corps volunteers throughout the world that are helping third world countries in many different ways. they go to remote areas of the world, far from home, far from their families, they work in very primitive conditions, but yet they are those angels trying to help other people throughout the world. and they are called the peace corps volunteers. the peace corps started as an idea of president kennedy back in 1960 when he spoke to the university of michigan and encouraged those students to volunteer to help america abroad. and finally, in 1961, he started the peace corps. since then over 200,000

americans, mainly young people, mainly females, have volunteered to go around the world representing the united states. it is very hard work being a peace corps volunteer. they deal with issues that most americans never deal with. just simple basic necessaryities of electricity and water and matters such as that, they do without or they are difficult to find in the remote areas where they are because they are helping other people that don't have those things that we have in the united states. generally they work alone when they are in foreign countries. but all is not well with the peace corps, mr. speaker. because during the time since president kennedy started the peace corps and those wonderful people go overseas, many times those volunteers, those young americans, become victims of crime in these foreign countries. and when they become victims of

crime in some cases our own country abandons them. between 2000 and 2009 the peace corps itself says there were over 221 rapes, attempted rapes, almost 150 major sexual attacks, and 700 other sexual assaults. that's 1,000 crimes against american peace corps volunteers. recently the peace corps has announced there is an average of 22 rapes a year against american peace corps volunteers somewhere in another country. this is not acceptable, mr. speaker. we are talking about real people. they are real stories and they are real victims. i'd like to mention just one of those persons i know personally. i have gotten to know jess since this crime against her has occurred. she joined the peace corps in 2004. on her first day as a peace corps volunteer in bangladesh, a group of men started sexually groping her as she was walking

to the house that she was to live in. but no one in the peace corps did anything about this assault. she told the peace corps staff over and over again that she felt unsafe in bangladesh and the situation she was in, but the peace corps didn't do anything. months later she came in contact with the same men who then kidnapped her. they beat her, they sexually assaulted her, but they weren't through. they abandoned her and threw her in an alley somewhere in bangladesh. and no one did anything. according to jess the peace corps did everything they could to cover this up because they seem to be more worried about american relationship with bangladesh than they were about this american volunteer that was assaulted and victim of crime. jess says that the peace corps not only didn't do anything, they blamed her for the conduct of herrings. -- of others. they blamed her for being a sexual assault victim. mr. speaker, a rape victim is

never to blame -- to be blamed for the crime that is committed against her. it is the fault of the criminal offender, whether it occurs in the united states or abroad. and we need to understand that these precious people who go overseas and represent us somewhere in the world when a crime is committed against them, we need to take their side. we need to be supportive of those individuals and we don't assume they did anything wrong because they did not do anything wrong when they became a victim of crime. they were just victims of crime and the person that should be held accountable is the criminal and not to blame the victim. mr. speaker, rape is never the fault of the victim. it's always the fault of the perpetrator. but jess got no satisfaction from the peace corps. no one did anything. when she got home she was told to tell other people she was coming back to the united states for medical reasons, but to have her wisdom teeth pulled not for the sexual assault that was

committed against her. this was jess' case and a few others were brought to light recently by abc news and "20/20," and now more and more of these peace corps volunteers over the years are coming forward. and telling us about their stories. mainly they are women. we recently had a hearing in foreign affairs about this situation and their stories were heartwrenching. now it's time to pass legislation to protect these women, to give them basic victim services, and that is what we will be doing in the next few days along with the senate. mr. speaker, people cry peace, peace, but there can be no peace for american angels abroad until they are treated with the dignity that they deserve and the support of the united states and helping the peace corps readjust itself to become a better institution. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes.

ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, like many americans, i was profoundly disappointed in president obama's announcement last night . i had hoped that he would offer an afghanistan troop drawdown that was significant, swift and sizeable. sadly, the proposal failed on all three counts. now is the time for bold action and decisionmaking to bring our nation and afghanistan policy in line with what the american people want while recognizing the deep and grave toll this war has taken on our global credibility and our national security. instead, the administration's office was largely stay the course. instead, president obama chose to perpetuate a war that is not only bankrupting us morally but fiscally as well.

the loss in blood and treasure cannot be underestimated. the american people have endured great sacrifice, but after nearly a decade of war, they're weary of losing their bravest men and women and their hard-earned tax dollars to a policy that simple has not achieved its goal. we are not more secure. the afghanistan leadership wants us out, and their people do not appreciate our sacrifice. this is not a partisan issue. when asked, the majority of americans want our troops to come home. and not several years into the future. no. they want our troops to come home now. abandoning this military policy does not mean that we will abandon the people of afghanistan. a smart security plan would

provide for depofmente and reconciliation -- development and reconciliation. it would bring the international community together and help the afghan people move towards a sustainable future with economic support and other means. more than 1,600 lives have been lost. where will it end? when will our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and people we know in the community come home from afghanistan? how many empty chairs are there at the dinner table tonight? when will the heartbreak end? and let's talk about the economic cost. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about dollars and cents, but how this and other actions we take are costing us too much money. well, while we stand here,

money is flying out of our treasury to support this war. try $10 billion a month. imagine what we could do with $10 billion a month. just last week this house voted to take food from the mouths of pregnant women and their children. we're supposed to pinch pennies on important investments like our children and other american projects while we waste huge sums on a failed war. this boggles the mind and it shortchanges the needs we have right here at home. it is long past time, mr. speaker, that we put an end to this madness. it is time to bring our troops home, all of our troops safely home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from illinois, mr. kinzinger, for five minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. there's something that i'll personally never forget and that occurred in april of 2007. and i'll get to why that is something i'll never forget in a second. that's when majority leader, senator harry reid, said of iraq, quote, i believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows, he said, is that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in iraq. as in 2007, harry reid was a rush to the exits in iraq and a rush to declare a win had been lost.

i had been in a nation by afghanistan getting ready to fly a kc-1 aircraft, and while i was on the thread mill exercising i found what the fourth most powerful guy in politics said and i felt it in my soul, i felt anger. i knew there was celebrating in the caves in iraq and the caves in afghanistan because the united states said we were going to lose. well, guess what? it took the brave leadership of somebody to say we will not lose in iraq, and we're on the verge of victory, and we had a surge in iraq and today it appears to be a more stabilizing situation and hopefully in 10 years iraq will be an example of democracy in the middle east. last night i heard the president say nothing of the word victory in afghanistan but talk about how this is the beginning of the end.

general mcchrystal recommended to the president that to win in afghanistan we need 80,000 additional troops. mr. president, at a bear minimum, we need 40,000 additional troops. the president gave 30,000. and in giving the 30,000 he immediately gave a timeline for withdrawal. now, i will tell you the taliban are used to fighting for long periods of time and they know if they have to simply wait another couple of years that's an encouragement to them. but i supported and support what the president was doing in afghanistan up until last night. even though i believe he should have given the troops required for victory, victory, but last night i saw that all troops are going to be pulled out, all the surge troops are going to be pulled out of afghanistan magically by election day. as a military pilot, i can tell you, as an air national guard pilot still, i can tell you the soldiers are weary of war. the american people is weary of

war. but leadership is not about saying we're tired, we're going to quit. it's about standing up for freedom and standing against those that would destroy our way of life. i was in afghanistan just a month ago talking to generals on the ground who say we literally have turned a corner in afghanistan. it is bewilledering to me that yesterday we send a -- bewilledering to me that yesterday we send a message that we're wrapping things up. and it's the beginning of the end. let me ask you, do you believe last night in the president's speech that the taliban was sad to hear what he was saying or that they were happy to hear it? ladies and gentlemen, just as senate majority leader harry reid couldn't have been in a bigger hurry to the access of iraq, he, too, was wrong. we will be proven wrong again. america has a vested interest

and seeing an afghanistan that can stand up against terrorism, that can defend itself against terrorists who seeks to overthrow their country, that seeks to overthrow pakistan and can do so with limited u.s. help. that's when we can begin to see victory. or we can just give up. i can tell you that as a soldier -- as a military member and the military members i talked to, we don't want to have to be there another day. but we also don't want to come home in any condition less than total victory. let us finish the job. let the generals on the ground have the tools they need to finish the job. how we get good news and turn that into a immediate pullout of afghanistan is beyond me but, mr. president, i did not hear you one time last night mention the word victory in your speech. i hope that was a needless and sad omission from your speech

and did not reflect what you believe in afghanistan. ladies and gentlemen, we can win. america only loses when we choose to. america will win in afghanistan. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, it's hard to believe that the war on drugs has lasted 40 years. the stories of americans who suffered because of the war on drugs continue to flood my inbox. even veterans who served our country are victims of our senseless drug war. for instance, alex from franklin, ohio, wrote into me. alex is a u.s. army veteran with chronic pain and muscle spasms due to his service to our country. after returning to his deployment he was put on opium muscle relaxes from our v.a.

clinic which didn't work for him. he tried medical marijuana and it worked for him. he was forced to quit because of a new job and his pain returned. he returned to the v.a. over and over again searching for something to relieve the pain. their only answer was to prescribe stronger and stronger opiants. far stronger than marijuana. when that didn't work he was sent to physical therapists who didn't have an answer either. because he lives in a state that doesn't have access to medical marijuana he's forced to have a very difficult decision between living with his pain or violating the law. another person who wrote is bob from fulton, georgia, who wrote me to share the story of his wife who suffers from systemic lupus for over 30 years. lupus has slowly deteriorated her body. multiple doctors have said there's nothing they can do to relieve her pain. during those three decades they've tried all sorts of

powerful approved and legal narcotics to no avail. the only thing that's relieved her pain with no side effect and makes her life better is medical marijuana. again, unfortunately for bob and his wife, their state does not have access to medical marijuana like my home state of colorado does and 14 other states. bob ends the story about his wife saying, she's 65 years old but can only look forward to pain and agony. i'm sure there are other folks in our country in the same situation. is this the reason that we're waging a war on drugs, to ensure that sick people continue to suffer from pain unnecessarily or are driven to buy stronger, more powerful and more addictive narcotics? now, there's a lot of use of what a more sensible marijuana policy may look like. my own approach is support for

legalization and creating a regulatory system similar to what we have for alcohol and tobacco. we can regulate access, make sure people are not driving under the influence, prevent minors from accessing drugs, tax drugs and engage in public outreach and education campaigns about the dangers of marijuana. taxing and regulating marijuana would save taxpayers billions of dollars and generate revenue. in fact, each year the federal government spends $8 billion arresting and locking up nonviolent marijuana users. again, not marijuana dealers, not marijuana growers. $8 billion spent to locking up nonviolent marijuana users like, for instance, alex the veteran or bob's wife in georgia could very well fall victim to that if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. taxing and regulating marijuana would also make our communities safer. removing maumpling from the criminal market would -- marijuana from the criminal market would free up police time so they can focus on violent crimes, property crimes

and people driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or another substance. it could lock up real criminals rather than the veterans like alex or others that was prescribed at the v.a. instead of reaping these benefits our country continues to suffer under the failed war on drugs. we need to put an end to this war on drugs which has cost so much needed suffering. they need to treat americans like responsible adults and should offer to help those suffering addiction instead of incarcerating them. the proper front to win the war against narcotics abuse in this country is a health war, not a war of violence. we are losing this war. addicts continue to suffer needlessly every day. those who would benefit from medical marijuana are continuing to force to violate the law or live their lives in

pain. we can do better as a nation. many states are leading the way, and we at the federal level need to pursue the direction that's been followed by an increasing number of states and regulate the use of marijuana in a way that is compassionate, discourages usage among minors and makes sure we have a health aspect to dealing with addiction where it exists. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to rise and come before this body to talk about something that i think is key. a key question that the american people have. we are dealing with a lot of witty issues these days. afghanistan, libya, the debt ceiling. tax code and tax reform. but i believe the key question

that we have before us is and the key question that the american people have for us, is when and how will america get back to work? you know, mr. speaker, it's far more than just creating a bill and labeling it job creation bill or a whole package of those, or a stimulus package of government spending that, frankly, hasn't worked and even admitted to and joked about by the president recently when he said those shovel ready jobs, those shovel ready projects maybe weren't so shovel ready. no, they weren't. but it's far more than creating a bill and labeling it job creation. it's about creating an atmosphere for private sector growth. you see, mr. speaker, the private sector creates prosperity. not the government sector. the government sector can give a job, but the private sector creates wealth. and creates prosperity. it's not just in our tax code and how that's being applied, but it's also in the regulatory

atmosphere that would present to those job creators. i can tell you, mr. speaker, that this house is trying to inject some reasonableness into a system that has gone awry. whether it's the e.p.a. creating out of whole cloth regulations that we have not dictated should happen or whether it's the national labor relations board coming up with hurdle after hurdle for these job creators, this administration has continually overstepped the bounds of reasonableness. and it's our job, mr. speaker, to rein in that. you would think with 429,000 new jobless claims last week, let me repeat that, 429,000 new jobless claims, we would try to more aggressively create a better climate and to change that sphere. i can tell you we are trying -- atmosphere. i can tell you we are trying to do that in the house we just need some partners.

recently the republicans had an opportunity to meet with the president at the white house. my good friend and chairman of the small business and job creators caucus of which i'm a member, my friend from wisconsin, read ribble, got up an indicated to the president, we need to do three things for success. one, we need to have consumer confidence. whether people up in the balcony, watching on tv, the money they have in the pocket they feel confident enough they'll have extra that they can go out and spend money on an appliance or car, very important for those of us from michigan. or maybe on a vacation. we need to have some consumer confidence and they don't have that right now. the other thing is we need to have credit be available to those small business creators, job creators who are out there, who are cash flowing, who are continuing to make those tough decisions to stay in the black. but they are now finding out that they can't access credit because of the unreasonable

regulations that the dodd-frank banking bill put in front of them. and lastly and thirdly, maybe most importantly, we need certainty. we need a stability that has not been there for a number of years now. we need stability in our tax code. we need stability in our regulations. people basically need to know what the rules of the game are so that they can make long-term business decisions to again create those jobs. mr. speaker, that's one of the reasons why i support the houses' plan for american job creators and i encourage you to go to my website huizenga.house.gov. to see more about that. it's not just a bill that's labeled job creation, it's about an attitude that we need to have, but in this package, we know that we need to remove red tape and excessive regulations that are out there. we know that we need to expand american domestic energy production. that's a must-do for us. we need to fix and stremline our tax code. we need -- streamline our tax

code. we need to expand our markets abroad for the goods our manufactures make. it's not just a bill. it's an attitude. we need to have an attitude of, yes, we will work with you to help create those jobs, not, no, it don't matter what your question is, the answer is no. we are not going to help. and that, unfortunately, mr. speaker, has been the dominant attitude of this administration and of this government and it's time we change that. thank you very much, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: the united states objective in afghanistan was to root out, destroy al qaeda, osama bin laden, and their taliban hosts. that job is done. afghanistan has been superseded now as a haven for terrorists by

tribal areas in pakistan, yemen, and sudan. the interand intratribal disputes in afghanistan are rooted in ancient history. and 12 to 36 more months of a large u.s. troop footprint is not going to resolve centuries old conflicts among the afghan tribes. there never has been, there never will be a strong central government in afghanistan. so i disagree with the president's plan for a snail's pace, partial drawdown of u.s. troops over the next few years. we should do it much more quickly and leave only a residual force to prevent a terrorist takeover. there are only a few thousand troops there when we drove out the taliban, and when we pursued

osama bin laden. unfortunately we lost an early opportunity to capture and kill him because of mistakes by then secretary donald rumsfeld. but that being done, the president did say something last night with which i strongly agree. he said, america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. i couldn't agree more. i have been trying to do that for the last 2 1/2 years, but the roadblock down at the white house when i tried to rebuild the nation's transportation infrastructure. let's think for a minute we are borrowing and spending $120 billion a year in afghanistan. both to support our troops and to engage in nation building. building them schools, building them highways, building them bridges while our own schools,

our own highways, our own bridges are crumbling and collapsing. $120 billion borrowed and spent in afghanistan. what could we do with that here at home? we could begin to address the backlog of 150,000 bridges on our national highway system that need repair or replacement. the $70 billion backlog on our transit systems for basic capital maintenance, let alone new investment in new transit systems to more efficiently transport our people. to deal with the 40% of the payment on the national highway system. to move freight and americans more effectively. and in addressing that with $120 billion that we are borrowing and spending in afghanistan today and instead spending that money here at home, we could put over three million people to work. not just construction workers. people say to mee, congressman, i don't work construction. it's not just construction. we have the strongest buy

america requirements in transportation of any part of the government. that means when you buy a transit vehicle it will be made in america. that's manufacturing, that's software, that's engineering, design. it goes across the economy. it's small business suppliers, minority suppliers under the laws. we could put millions to work and stimulate our economy if that money was spent here. last week i confronted the president's deputy economic advisor over these issues, and he did admit that instead of more tax cuts, which isn't putting anybody back to work, that's their one no, sir trum that seems to be adopted by the obama administration, hasn't worked for a decade but if we cut them more that will work then. it doesn't work. investment works. we know it works. let's invest. but the president's deputy economic advisor said you can't do that. can't get the money to do that. but we can do a social security tax holiday and borrow $200 billion more and not put people back to work. come on, let's follow up on what

the president said last night. let's get serious about it. and let's make the investments here. america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home and put our people back to work and assure prosperity for future generations. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, for five minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. good morning, america. president reagan once said the nine most terrifying words in the english language were, i'm from the government and i'm here to help. recently i met with job trainers, small businesses, and midsize businesses in our east texas district to talk about jobs. i wish the president would have been with me. to listen to the men and women who create jobs in my district and they are like the men and women who create jobs across america. in meeting after meeting, job creators in my district made their voices heard loud and clear. they don't want another washington jobs bill.

they don't want government to taxes more, spends more, regulates more, and borrows more. they aren't watching for more incentives or tools to start hiring. want more jobs, they ask? then get your finances in order. get washington out of the way of our economic recovery. they want this congress to cut now and cut deep. when this congress thinks it's cut enough wasteful and nonessential government spending, they want this congress to cut more. in other words, they want their lawmakers to do what it takes to get our nation back on sound footing. a councilmember asked we are making the tough choices in our city budget, when will the federal government do the same? at the rotary club, i was told they want washington to pay down the debt, go after fraud in medicare, and above all get out of the way of our job creators. in orange, texas, small businesspeople flat outrejected more borrowed stimulus.

they insist congress not raise the debt ceiling unless we begin cutting up washington's credit cards. and local hospital administrate or said as bluntly as can be, control spending. in huntsville, texas, i heard how concerned citizens are, how concerned people are over our huge job-killing tax code. sandra sherman not overwhelm wants us to stop the spending, she wants government out of so many areas of our lives from housing and banking and medicine and energy, insurance, and other sectors. a loud message was sent we should not give in to the big spenders. they are right. we can't give up the fight for a fair tax or save medicare and social security for our young people. i heard that same message in livingston, texas, and in texas where they said forcing fewer and fewer taxpayers to carry more of the burden is a sure way to kill the golden goose of

prosperity. fear and uncertainty of what's coming next from washington in higher taxes, higher health care cost, energy costs is keeping these employers from putting out that help wanted sign we are looking for. every town hall round table and civic club in my district, the four letter word on the lips of everyone's tongue was debt. mr. president, tax the biz who can pull out the slump, say it's time to cut up the american credit cards. they'll tell you washington doesn't back away from the cliff of more debt, more spending, more regulation, we might cease to recognize our great nation in the future. today two years after that economic recovery, supposedly started years after we spent $820 billion against all republican objections, that stimulus, we have fewer americans working today than when the stimulus began.

1.5 million people fewer working than when all that stimulus was supposed to jump-start the economy. manufacturing's down. factory orders are down. consumer confidence is down. we would promise our unemployment rate would be 6.5%. it's almost 9%. we have the lockest -- longest number of people out of work, unemployed. it's almost at historic levels. we have fewer people working today than almost a quarter of a century ago. fewer people in the work force than almost a generation. the stimulus failed. it's time for a new approach. it's time to listen to the job creators. what they really did like, by the way, was the republican plan for america's job creators to get the tax code out of the way of our small businesspeople, to get energy, higher energy and health care costs out of the way of our job creators. they want to lower the barriers so america can compete and find new customers around the world. get those barest out of the way. they want a better business climate. more patent reform, more lawsuit

reform. it puts extra costs out of the way of our small businesses. and they want us to get our financial house in order. mr. president, get out of the white house. listen to our job creators. they don't want more government jobs bill. they want you and this congress out of the way what they know they can do. with that will bring the jobs, bring unemployment rate down, bring us back to the strongest economy in the world, not just for a few years but for an entire century. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, for five minutes. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to thank the national labor relations board for moving in a direction with a recent proposed change that

will actually strengthen the workers -- a worker's ability in the united states to unite, to work within a system that has more transparency, that is fair, that is streamline so that we can return a little bit more power here in the united states of america to the worker. and representing a district in northeast ohio and cities like akron and youngstown and in a region that includes cleveland and canton and not too far from pittsburgh, we have had a long, proud history in our region, of a strong middle class that in many ways that had union representation, to bring some balance to an economic system quite frankly right now that is run by major global multinational interests that

will do whatever is necessary to drive down wages for average workers. and i love this economic theory that we hear many times from our friends on the other side that if the minimum wage just wasn't so high, if workers just weren't making as much money that maybe the economy would start humming. let's reduce taxes on the wealthiest people in the united states when they've had a boom for 20 years of an increase in income, but if we reduce wages for middle-class people that somehow this economy will just turn right around. and let me remind my friends on the other side, we are currently living under the president bush tax system. if this tax system of cutting taxes for the wealthiest worked and created jobs, we wouldn't have the problems we have right

now. think about it. we are living under president bush's tax system. this system in 2001 and 2003 was supposed to lead to tremendous growth in job creation in the american economy. it hasn't worked. america works when we reinvest back into our people, when we make sure people are trained and educated. and i'm for a reduction in the corporate tax. we do need to keep business taxes low so we can be more competitive. but when you start makes hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars like warren buffett and bill gates, you got to pay a little bit more in taxes. and we need that revenue so that we can rebuild our infrastructure in the united states, so that we can make college more affordable in the united states, so that average families in youngstown, in niles can send their kids to college to become engineers. that revenue can be used to make sure that every american

has affordable health care, so that no family in the united states has to make a decision or stare at the ceiling when they're laying in bed at night worrying whether or not their children will have proper health care, or if one of their kids get sick they may not be able to afford health care. that shouldn't happen in the united states of america. and what the nlrb has done is let's give more fairness, more transparency a more streamline process so workers can unite together and have some little bit of leverage against the massive corporate interest. and i've been down here nine years now in this congress and it seems to me that whatever the oil industry wants they get. whatever the insurance industry wants they get. whatever the multinationals want they get. and if we don't begin as a

country to empower average people to make a good middle-class wage we are not going to be the america any of us want. we're going to be weaker. you want to talk about family values, these are family values, what the nlrb has done is move us closer to having some family values. so i rise today, mr. speaker, to say thank you for the leadership of the nlrb for some of these proposed changes. i hope they continue to move forward, and i hope this is just one small step where we as a country say, you know, if the middle class is working, if we're manufacturing things in the united states, if we work together with the common cause, common purpose, if we're healthy, if we're educated, everything else will take care of itself. that's the kind of country that this decision is moving us towards, and i'd like to thank them and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. while our president telegraphs to our enemies, a timeline for ending the war that they are certainly willing to continue to commit to. while military efforts continue in libya with uncertain, undisclosed and unsuccessful outcomes led by our administration under nato command, greater atrocities perpetrated against freedom seekers in syria go unaddressed, unannounced, unconsidered by our president. why? what's the reason? what's the time limit? it is known that syria has been a continuing threat to freedom and a strong supporter and sustainer of unrest and terrorism in the middle east and around the world. they're a strong ally of iran

and a constant threat to our friend, israel. as freedom seekers seeking citizens of syria join, mr. speaker, and many others in the middle east in calling for political reforms, respect for human rights and regime change. the government of syria and the president is violently and sadistically suppressing the syrian people, his own people. tanks, snipers, goon squads, violent attacks on women and children, starvation and dehydration, inhumane imprisonment, torture and worse has been the norm for the syrian people for too long. without a strong and principled response from our president and our nation. why? we're not calling for a war. we're not calling for troops on

the ground. we're not calling for anything right now except to take a stand against this atrocity. other nations have stood and voiced their concerns that the president has violated its international obligations, including the international covenant on political and civil rights and the united nations convention against torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading punishment. isn't it time for our president and this administration to stand and speak as the world leader that he must be and call president assad to step down and for the syrian government to end its cruel crimes against humanity? i am firmly convinced that the rest of the peace-loving world will respond to our leadership. they're looking for it. they expect it.

they're asking for it. and the syrian people will be encouraged and defended and liberty's cause will be promoted in this earthquake zone called the middle east. it's time to speak up. may god grant our president and this administration and our government the courage to do so because it is for humanity and people like ourselves that we speak. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents know that washington could learn a lot from using just some good old-fashioned common sense. i want to tell you a quick

story. earlier this month after one of my town hall meetings, a mayor from a small town in my district came up to tell me about the hard times that her city has been dealing with recently. unemployment has shot through the roof, and many businesses have been forced to downsize or shut down completely. the mayor told me about how tough times have also required her to make some bold choices about hushton's budget. ultimately in efforts to keep the town afloat, she ended up by slashing their budget by a whooping 67%. the mayor said to me, quote, everything has to be put on the table. nothing can be impossible to cut. my liberal democrat colleagues need to take note. it's long past time for the obama administration to stop spending money like there's no tomorrow.

there is a tomorrow, and even though right now with over 9% unemployment, that tomorrow is looking pretty bleak. america's runaway spending has gotten so far out of control that it's hard to get a grasp on the amount of debt our nation is in or how long it will take us to repay the almost $14.5 trillion that we have borrowed. americans don't want excuses any more. they want solutions. they want less spending and more jobs. they want burdensome regulations removed from the backs of small businesses who can put so many more people back to work. they want more free choice and less big government when it comes to their day-to-day lives. washington needs to follow the leads of small cities, small

businesses and families who are tightening their belts all across this country. that small georgia town in my district that cut 67% of their budget to deal with their financial crisis ought to be a model and a blueprint for the obama administration and for congress. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12 >> members will work on 14 remaining amendments and once that work is complete, they will return to defense spending and just a note that house majority

leader eric cantor is pulling out of the talks with the vice president biden on the debt and deficit. he says he's doing that because of democratic insistence on including taxes, tax increases in that deal. we'll update that story as we get more informing. live house coverage at noon here on c-span. going to take you live now over to the rayburn house office building on capitol hill. admiral michael mullen and michelle flornoy talking about afghanistan and the plan the president announced last night. >> appreciate your leadership and your service. we have a hearing yesterday and i think the comment was made that the numbers are probably less important than how our troops are utilized or which troops actually would be leaving and certainly which troops would be staying. can you break that down in terms of support troops, in terms of

combat troops, in terms of training troops and whether or not that decision has been made? the follow-up question to that really is when we think about the afghan forces, how are they going to be sustained financially into the future? and how do we envision our help and support to them as we move forward? >> with respect to the afghan security forces in the bill that's associated with that, i think president karzai and his people recognize that, and certainly we do from our side, that at the current level of $6 billion to $7 billion a year, it's not sustainable. and so there's a lot of work going on on both sides right now to figure out what is sustainable and what will be needed including a view do you need 352,000 in 2014 or 2015.

i don't know the answer to that. but everybody recognize at the current level from a financial standpoint it's not sustainable. and solutions have to be taken with respect to a way forward there. what was the first part? >> the way that the remaining troops, of course there are large numbers. talking about 68,000. in terms of breaking down with support troops versus combat troops, training. >> i think the combat -- in those three categories, were i commander on the ground, i would be focused on the combat and training troops first, keeping them as long as we could. i just don't discount the need for the kind of support troops, if you will, i include in the first group the enablers. and that general petraeus and general rodriguez and their relieves will have to determine the specifics. i think on the 23,000 i think knowing exactly where they all

come from, it's far too soon to know that. because that will be conditions based and the conditions will change between now and when they really have to focus on executing that. i think in the near term clearly that general petraeus and general rodriguez had some expectation, obviously there would be a withdrawal here over the course of this year, and specifically what that might entail. and they have done a lot of that work. i have not seen it although they will certainly come in in the near future with how to do that. >> thank you. if i could i want to follow up on the reconciliation issue. and we know if we look around for success, i think a lot of that is defined by the number of young women that are in school, girls are in school. i have had a chance to visit at those schools, as well as a number of trips that we have taken for mother's day to visit with our troops, but also to engage with women in villages as well as in leadership.

a number of those women were here in the capitol this last week. what role are we really playing to make sure that it's not just a lot of rhetoric about the fact that they are important to the development of a civil society there? how are we moving forward to be certain that their voices are meaningful voice in this process? and at what point would we consider that the reconciliation is not even working or moving forward and what role would that play as we continue to look at troop withdrawal? >> i think the secretary clinton and many other members of the administration have consistently raised the issue of female participation in both the reintegration community base processes but also the larger reconciliation process. and we have raised that issue with our afghan interlock tutors

. i think you have seen a gradual expansion of women involvement in the high peace council for example, involvement in more of the community based oversight efforts that are emerging. when we talk about the key criteria that those who reconcile must meet, and we talk about respecting the afghan constitution, the key element of that is respect for minority and women's rights. and that's been a key plank in our policy from the get-go. it's something we continue to try to translate into concrete improvements with our afghan interlock cue tors -- interlock utors. >> mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, i want to go back to a topic that i think goes to the heart, really, of what we see in the conflict in afghanistan which is the issue of opium production and the

drugs that are fueling and funding the taliban and other insurgent activities. frequently when we have these hearings i hold up this chart, congressional research service bar chart that shows the opium production that has occurred during our time period and historically in afghanistan. if you look at this chart you can see that in the four years of 2006 through 2009, opium production almost doubled. that is the time period when we saw that we needed to go in with a surge. the period beforehand there was historical levels of opium production. i use this chart both with president karzai and general petraeus to raise the issue of we need to do more to lower the opium production and narcotics trade. general james jones said that he believes that these funds go directly to fund the taliban and

he said it also goes to fund the issues of corruption. when general petraeus was here last time, i held up this chart. he kindly told me there was new information as to what successes we have had. he sent me a new bar chart. the new bar chart shows that in 2010 there was a 48% decrease as a result of our counter narcotics efforts. also there was disease wrong the crops. but also there's been a 341% increase in our nationwide drug seizures in afghanistan. clearly showing this was a result of the activities of increased focus. admiral, with our reduction in troops, my concern is we are going to go back to a period where we take our eye off the ball and we may again see a surge in narcotics. what assurances can you give us that with the limited number of troops that we'll be able to maintain a counter -- counternarcotics strategy?

>> i think we'll continue to press on this issue. you looked just showing the charts, you look at the levels over the years and in many ways it's a way of life. that isn't going to go away quickly. there have been considerable improvements and we continue to keep pressure on that. one of the challenges, this is going on obviously, it comes principally from helmund. and the landscape, the dynamics are changing in helmund by no means is it gone. and it is -- the long-term goal is obviously to produce a better way to provide for one's family than what has been -- what has happened today. i think it actually happens over the long term on the security environment and having profitable crops that are able to do that. but i don't think that's going to mean that we are going to dry it out over night.

-- overnight. a critical focus here on the taliban is where they get their finances from. as it is for any terrorist organization. certainly this is -- over the years this is varied. i have seen many estimates of how much money they actually get from it, but it's substantial. and we need to continue to focus on that as well. so there's a near-term peace but a long-term peace. from an overall strategy standpoint, my view would be that we would have the conditions in the south, and helmund in particular, where they couldn't sustain that kind of production over the long term. >> i'd like to yield the rest of my time to joe wilson. >> thank you. admiral, a question i want conclude in regards to conditions based. the success of the surge, the ultimate reduction in violence, the development of civil society, if in fact violence increases, if we are unable to promote a civil society, will the president change his course

or is the timeline of withdrawal more important than conditions? >> i think that's for the president to decide. but what i said earlier, mr. wilson, and i go back to mid 2009, we put 10,000 marines in helmund in my view then was -- if this isn't working within 18 to 24 months, we need to reassess our strategy. i think from the standpoint of the next 18 to 24 months given the transition, and it doesn't just include the military side here, because the issues of corruption, the issues of governance, those -- issues of pakistan, those are all still significant, inherent risks in this overall strategy. so i think certainly from my point of view after a period of time, if it's not working, that a reassessment is in order, that's not for me to decide. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman mullen.

i appreciate your extraordinary service. it's not easy doing your job and one of your toughest parts may be the patience you have to demonstrate in front of committees like this. i appreciate your forebarons. one of the most important factors as you know better than anyone is the pakistan reaction. and i assume the pakistan situation was taken into account when the decision was made. >> it was. >> what is that reaction? >> you mean the pakistan reaction or the pakistan itself? >> pakistan's reaction to the decision to have a slight troop drawdown? >> i actually haven't gotten it yet. i spoke with my pakistani counterpart yesterday, and as we made many contacts, and so we agreed to talk in the near future after he is able to sort of absorb it.

from a standpoint how pakistan views the future and it's consistent across their government, they see a stable, peaceful afghanistan as a goal they, too, would like to be a result of this overall strategy. they live there, seeing is believing, and over time exactly how they view this will be determined on how this works. i think, personally. i also think that they are clearly going through this -- a very difficult time right now from a strategic standpoint, i and many others believe, including the president, that we have to sustain this relationship. as difficult as it is. this is a country who has a significant terrorist problem. it is a country whose economy is very weak and a country with nuclear weapons that is in a very dangerous and strategicically important part of the world. not just the united states but the regional countries need to

continue to focus on this so that stability is something that is the output of all of what we do there not just -- not continued instability. i think the continued downward trend is trust for all of us. -- dangerous for all of us with respect to pakistan, afghanistan, and the region at part. >> -- at large. >> i know it takes a great deal of patience and expertise to deal with people like that. i find my constituents don't realize that pakistan has more people than russia, for example. >> they are projected to have over 200 million here in the next 20 or 30 years and be the fourth or fifth largest nuclear power, if you consider weapons. i think the fourth in roughly the same time frame. so it's not a country -- it's just a country i think we have to continue to engage with and be frank with. at the same time i think we are

paying the price in afghanistan and pakistan for walking away in 1989. and that's a model that just runs in my head 20 years from now whoever's sitting here or sitting in your seat we are having the same conversation were we to walk away, except it's much more dangerous than it is right now. >> increasingly pakistan has itself been the victim of terrorist attack. in karachi most recently. other instances. they have felt the wrath of the taliban and other groups. >> they have lost tens of thousands. they have lost specifically over 3,000 of their military. they have had tens of thousands wounded. they have sacrificed greatly for their own country. sometimes that sacrifice gets lost. and they have some enormous, enormous challenges. they face them. they will continue to face them. i think we need to help them not

hurt them. >> as you say reality we are going to have to deal with regardless and we might as well face up to that and not push the problem to a side or ignore it. a book was written talking about the wrong war, about the war in afghanistan, he said one of the chief problems is karzai's willingness to police the gaps in the mountains, valleys, and terminate flow of folks across those treacherous border regions . is he mistaken. is this something we need to demand of president karzai? >> i go back to what general petraeus and rodriguez did in the course of the past year. general petraeus made along with general rodriguez and general campbell who basically ran the campaign in the east for the last year, to refocus it, to layer it from the border in pakistan, to kabul, and to pull

forces out of those very remote places which none of us thought were strategically significant. that doesn't mean we didn't have bad guys out there, we do. but this layered approach to ensure that we could protect the capital and deal with the economy, make it much more difficult in the network which is the one that flows most of the fighters in there was a better strategy. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, here during an interesting time. secretary flournoy you have been back here month after month and i want to say thanks for both of your service. we don't always see eye to eye but you are out there out front and you are doing what you believe is in the best interest of the nation. i haven't heard anybody talk about our strategy. i'm not -- people ask what we think about the troop numbers. i have no idea what the troop

numbers are supposed to be. i'm not a military planner. i know what our troops are capable of and i know higher numbers are better for a big counter insurgency. if we had 10 years and people it could be like san diego. we don't have 10 years or 300,000 people on the ground. i haven't heard talk about change in strange to accommodate the change in troop numbers. how come? >> actually the short answer is strategy hasn't changed. >> we are at the low-ball end of the numbers. i don't want to get wrapped up in the numbers game. >> mcchrystal was talking about troops. this is two to three years ago. it's changed dramatically on the ground since then. clearly something we look at all the time. it's interesting in overall numbers because -- i spend a lot of time looking at who is there

and who is making a difference and who isn't. and we have a culture of putting a lot of numbers in, historically we have. all of us. we have learned a lot with respect to that. in a meeting as recently as yesterday we were talking about what we learned with respect to iraq, and we had excess forces in iraq just because we were moving them so fast. so we literally take those lessons into account as we look at how we do this. despite the pressure on numbers, that also forces us to not adjust our strategy but look at how we focus this. prioritize, and still achieve success. you talked about the military. it's an unbelievably innovative, creative, capable military that we have. and again i talked about more risk and quicker than i had originally anticipated, but it hadn't put me anywhere close to out of the risk envelope of getting this done. at some point in time if it's not working, we are going to

have to adjust the strategy. the strategy still is a counterinsurgency focus without any question properly resourced and we could probably get into the debate about that, i think it is given the mission of the objectives that we have right now and the progress that we have made. if it's not working, in a year or two, i think -- my recommendation would be it needs to be reassessed. >> we probably have different interpretations of conchte insurgency. it could be all encompassing where you build hospitals and schools, or security operations which are working very well. little militias in each town. those are working. some things aren't working. you don't think there's any need -- you are telling me there's no need for a relooking at the strategy as we draw down in the tens of thousands for the clear hold bill? >> i'll be specific.

how are we going to handle the east? the east is going to not be held by u.s. forces. it's going to be both denifed across the border as well as -- denied across the border, as well as held by afghan forces. >> you have to hold the south as you go east or you are going to lose the gains in the south. hold what we have and taken so many troops and move these at the same time with fewer troops? >> the intent over the course of this transition is to hold and transition to afghan security forces. and that's going to be the challenge. i'm not here to say that's a done deal because it isn't. that's the strategy. within the resource that is we see right now we see it as executeable. no one, not petraeus, not rodriguez, not anybody has said that's not the case. is it going to be hard? you bet it's going to be hard. >> i was going to add, if you go back to the original six campaign objectives laid out in the west point speech, reverse the taliban's momentum, deny them access to population

centers, disrupt them in areas outside of that, degrade them to levels manageable by the n.s.f., build the n.s.f. capacity and build the capacity in selective areas of afghan government. > we are successful now. on all those things. >> correct. as we do that that success enables a shift of the effort more towards the afghans as they stand out. it allows us to thin out -- >> identify understand how it works. >> we have always anticipated that with success the strategy would require fewer resources on the coalition side and more on the afghan side. that's the path we are on. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. garamendi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral and undersecretary, thank you very much for your service. i know that you worked long and hard on extraordinarily

difficult challenges. and it's much appreciated. i want to just confirm, i think i heard you say, admiral mullen, a moment ago, that the mission remains a counterinsurgency mission. is that correct? >> that's correct. the strategy is a counter insurgency strategy. >> thank you. >> and that involves all that was just said just a moment ago, all of the clear and hold and all that goes with it. in other words, nation building is very much a part of this. >> it is -- from my perspective it isn't a very part of this. it is a counterinsurgency strategy focused on as the secretary laid out limited objectives. which is what it's been and what the president talked about in his speech in 2009. >> the notion of counterterrorism, that is to focus on the terrorists wherever they happen to be around the world, is -- seems to be secondary to this mission in

afghanistan. >> i think it's not secondary at all. it's integral. very much even has been -- i have spoken about that before. that's also how it's being executed. and i just don't separate the two. it's part of it. >> do you have -- >> if i could add. if you look at the region, large afghanistan and pakistan, and you look at the progress that we have made in terms of focusing pressure on al qaeda senior leadership, the osama bin laden is the latest example, but that pressure continues. looking at them globally. so there is, i would say, only an intensification of our focus on counterterrorism alongside a complementary counterinsurgency campaign in afghanistan. >> are all of the taliban the same? that is the taliban in kandahar and do they have the same goal? >> they are not the same. this is a diverse symbiotic

network of groups, that assist one another, rely on one another, but do have overlapping but sometimes distinct goals. >> some would describe afghanistan as a five or six sided civil war. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i would disagree with that. i think what's happening right now in afghanistan is really the emergence of -- emergence of a nation from 30 years of war. and the rejection of the taliban by the population. and with that the reduction of the threat to us because as the population rejects that movement and as they build their own national capacity, afghanistan is less and less likely to become a safe haven for al qaeda in attacks against united states and its allies. >> can i add one thing? this border area we have focused

on and al qaeda receives the focus, and symbiotic, i have watched terrorist organizations over the last three or four years merge with each other, increase their horizon in terms of objectives so l.e.t., the local outfit in eastern pakistan, focused on india, is now in the west and is now has transnational aspirations and we see -- so terrorist organizations are also different. generally in support of each other. in this place this is the epicenter of terrorism in the world. that's one of the reasons the focus on both afghanistan and pakistan is so important. >> what's the cost of the strategy that you described to us today? the cost in 2011, 2012, 13, 14? >> the -- if you look at the

costs over time, what we do see happening is those costs actually coming down. >> let's be very specific. surely you have figured out what the cost is. >> the request for afghanistan was $43 billion. >> i'm sorry. >> the request for afghanistan. >> we are running right now about $10 billion a month. the request for -- >> obligation. >> the 2011 request is for $117 billion. the bill -- we at it coming down about $30 billion or $40 billion a year based on the strategy that's laid out. >> 2012 will be how much? >> $less than $120 billion, for

$160 billion in 2011. it's about a 40 million decline. >> could you give us those numbers? >> we can do that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. coffman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, secretary flournoy, thanks again for your service and dedication to this country. counterterrorism and counterinsurgents they are not absolutes. it's more of a continuum. and how would you gauge the current strategy? are we then shifting a little bit more to add more counterterrorism elements as we draw down forces? how would you state that, admiral mullen? >> again, i think where we are a year from now is going to determine how it goes this year. it's heavily focused on both as we speak.

the c.t. effort inside is significant. and general petraeus asked for and got more forces to do that. will there be a different balance a year from now? probably. how much, i think it's hard to say. i think again what forces the commander on the ground recommends taking out next year is going to be determined by what happens this year. and we are not even halfway through this fighting season. so it's really difficult to say exactly how it's going to look a year from now. >> admiral mullen, i think you stated, quote, in a counter insurgency, firepower is manpower, unquote. could you drill down just a little bit on what does that mean? >> you have to have people out there engaged, the whole idea, couldn'ter insurgency is to focus on and protect the people. in this case the afghan people. what's important in this it goes

back to the success of the build of the afghan security forces. the army for sure, the police absolutely. not like iraq, the police lag the development here, although it's going better and better. so in the end it's the protection of the people, security for the people, and there's going to be in numbers a larger number of people focused on this in 2012 than 2011 because of the continued build of the forces. it's not just u.s. manpower or coalition manpower, it's the totality. in fact the b.f.o.'s who have gone so well, that's an enormously successful program. and the local police. and we'll continue to build that. >> admiral mullen, in the lisbon conference that i believe the

decision coming out of that was that we would transfer operational control to afghan security forces by the end of 2014. can you just be more specific as to what that really will look like? does that mean we'll still have some boots on the ground in support of afghan security forces? >> the model that certainly is very much in the front of our minds is iraq. and we will clearly continue to have forces there. and the lisbon commitment is to have afghans in the lead. throughout the country. every single district. by the end of 2014. and that's where we are headed. as much advised -- advice, assist, and support as is necessary. what we watched in terms of the both growth rate and learning rate, they are on a pretty good

glide slope right now in terms of ascendance to be able to do this, the afghan security forces. >> mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. thank you. mr. kris. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my questions flow along the lines of what mr. wilson brought up earlier. and mrs. davis. talking about the drawingdown being determined by conditions on the ground, the movement towards the afghan security forces, the afghan national police, being able to table over security. my concern comes from the future of this operation at an economic level. the afghan security forces are taking over more geography, but are we creating a situation

where we have created such a large army that the afghan economy can't support that. i think we have to look at this, if the crystal ball says we'll be drawing down to a condition sort of like what we have in iraq right now, by 2014, what is the dollar amount that the afghan government, afghan economy is going to have to generate? and how much of the u.s. support is still going to be there in a financial sense? >> that is something we are looking at in great detail right now. one question is, once the insurgency is degraded, the level of threat is degraded, how big army and police force do you really need? it may well be smaller than what we have currently planned. they may be experiencing their own surge right now. maybe they'll settle at a lower level. secondly, we are working very hard on -- with the afghan

government on revenue generation, whether it's substantially increasing their border revenues, growing their economy, working with them on extractive industries to gain from their strategy mineral and mining resources. but ultimately we do have to get this on a more sustainable footing and it has to cost less than what is currently anticipated. i think we are working through that now with lots of analysis and the afghans. we do believe we can get there. it is going to -- let me be clear, this is going to be a substantial assistance effort not at the levels currently projected, but this is going to be -- afghanistan is going to require international development assistance for many, many years. it will remain one of the poorest countries in the world for quite some time. >> obviously you have heard from this committee, the support from this committee for what our military personnel are doing is second to none because they are doing -- besides being war

fighters, they are educators, counselors, parents, they are doing more than probably any military has ever had to do. so the support is very strong. again it seems we have developed a model that's not sustainable. then you look forward and if you say a shrinking of the security forces, well, we know in this country we call them layoffs, that means there's people not working. obviously with an economy, the delta is so large, i'm very concerned about this. as are a lot of people. we are setting ourselves up for either many decades of support just to maintain this, or just something that's just not functional come down the road. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. young. >> thank you, madam secretary and admiral mullen for being here today. i really appreciate your testimony. i can't our troops to come home

as soon as possible. everyone here does. but notwithstanding your reassurances, admiral mullen, i'm not yet comfortable the decisions related to this drawdown or future decisions related to our force posture in afghanistan are going to be primarily based upon conditions on the ground. so i hope to get comfortable with that. one of the conditions on the ground as i see it that does very important as we consider our existing force posture and future force posture is the conditions on the ground in pakistan. where there are elements of various extremist elements, including elements of the taliban, that reside over there in a relatively safer haven than afghanistan. you acknowledged that yourself, admiral, that the situation in pakistan is a significant,

inherent risk to our overall strategy. these elements, extremists, laying in wait in pakistan, threaten to create the very conditions, destabilizing conditions, that justify our presence in afghanistan. regardless of our progress towards the six components of our overall strategy, articulated in the president's west point speech. my first question, laying that groundwork, is admiral mullen, are you prepared to say the conditions on the ground in pakistan have improved to such an extent that the threat to the government in afghanistan and to the people of afghanistan by these extremists in pakistan has diminished to a significant degree? >> i think it's important to remember that the core goal of

the president's strategy was to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda. and al qaeda is very much on the ropes right now. i don't say that thinking it's over. because they still would like to kill as many of us as they possibly could. and they have asked -- aspirational goals to do that. secondly, make sure that afghanistan can't turn into fertile ground for al qaeda or another organization which would threaten us long term. that's really what the afghanistan piece of this is. >> i'm going to rudely interject which is au of nism for -- euphemism for interrupt. we are trying to get conditions of course where afghanistan can become a safe haven but it seems pakistan is a relatively safer haven already. >> that's where first of all fargetting significant leaders in those other organizations, the afghan taliban, the --with

in many cases our pakistani partners is problem mat inc. is part of this. what the strategy is inteded to do is buy space so that there can be political reconciliation across the board. that's not an insignificant -- >> it seems that we are approaching pakistan with a very limited sort of counterterrorist strategy when we are implementing a counterinsurgency strategy over in afghanistan. we have our u.a.b.'s, much reported, that are going -- >> i think our approach with pakistan has been to engage them to try to partner with them, support them in training, so that they can deal with the threats which are both inturnal to them as well as external. that's a very, very difficult strategy and execution just because of what -- because of both the history, lack of trust we left them before.

>> admiral, in your estimation we can never send in enough american troops to afghanistan to create conditions where the extremists across the border in pakistan would not present a threat to the afghans, conbelievably a threat -- >> without a change in pakistan. >> right. so all of this depends upon the pakistanis playing ball, if you will. >> there's great risk in the strategy tied to pakistan. there has been from the beginning. >> finally, is our remaining presence on the ground in afghanistan in part a hedge against or deterrent to future efforts by these militants in pakistan to use regions of in a country as an unfettered training ground for their activities, or even worse case scenario, get control of pakistan's nuclear arsenal,

perhaps through violent means? >> i think through pakistani eyes what you say they are very concerned about an unstable afghanistan that could threaten them with a much larger force. that's why getting to some level of stability and peaceful outcome here is so important. i believe if we can, pakistan will come to that. >> we should in no way factor in the fact that our troops are playing a productive role in perhaps deterring those extremists, taking control of the nuclear arsenal? >> am i allowed to answer that? >> if we could get the question on the record and get the answer. i appreciate it.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, thank you for being here. secretary flournoy, appreciate your service to our country and all that you are doing to keep america safe. admiral, let me just say that i'm concerned that we are reaching a point of diminishing returns in afghanistan. clearly the war is costing billions of dollars. thousands of lives lost or wounded. was mindful this past tuesday when i went to walter reed and visit some of our wounded soldiers there. and our emerging threats here yesterday on involving terrorist threats, national defense university noted that al qaeda no longer exists in afghanistan. any reasonable number. ultimately clearly we deployed to afghanistan to eliminate al

qaeda and denied the region as a source of terrorist activity there. our troops clearly have performed the mission incredibly well. al qaeda has gone from afghanistan, but obviously new terrorist threats are being cultivated in other troubled spots like pakistan and yemen and north africa. the president and-n his strategy that he released last night is going to bring home 33,000 troops by next summer. my question is, i know that you have talked about the number there is to ensure that we have enough troops to support another wave of heightened violence. soy that our claimed victories there won't be lost. i have to say i really remain unconvinced as both a member of the armed services committee and

house intelligence committee, i have transparency into both worlds and i question the gains that really have been made, that we justify as keeping the additional 20,000 troops in there until next summer. can you further convince me, what is the real rationale for not bringing the 33,000 troops home by the end of this year? i know that my constituents are looking for that answer and i need to have it as well. >> from a military standpoint, it is the focus on keeping the firepower, if you will, the manpower there, through the fighting season. certainly by the end of september it does that next year. and then obviously putting the commander in a position to make decisions about where he may or may not take troops from. first of all. secondly, i get the al qaeda,

very small number of al qaeda in afghanistan. that is not the case in pakistan. i just never looked at this as a single country approach. you can't, from my perspective, you can't do that. it is the region and part -- the other core objective, if you will, of the strategy has been make sure afghanistan is stable enough so it can return to where it was when al qaeda grew up there and struck us in the first place, or some other outfit that would seek to do the same thing. there are growing numbers of those. so -- that's not where we are in pakistan. that's where we are in afghanistan. admittedly al qaeda is not there any kind of significant numbers. al qaeda, however, is very tightly wound with the network who continues to try to destabilize afghanistan and take over that government. the taliban's strategy goal is to still run the country. i'm hard-pressed to think that if the taliban are still running the country or get back to that position, that they won't be the

host, if you will, for organizations like al qaeda in the past. so the focus, again, i think is to have as much as combat power through this fighting season. we talked about that. and the importance of getting through that -- through next fighting season as well. and then move the troops. that to me is the time to bring the troops, surge troops out. >> let me try this from another perspective. i had hoped quite frankly the president would withdraw more troops than what he has planned over the next, even the next year. why are we not cutting our forces in half by next summer? what is the utilityity of having the extra 17,000 troops there between the 30,000 that the president wants to bring home by next summer and the number, 50%,

that extra 70,000 troops by the summer? >> i think if we did what you described, we would undo all the gains that occurred since you put the surge in. simply. the strategy had absolutely no chance of succeeding were we to do that. >> i know my time has expired. >> you can continue to watch this online at c-span.org. the issue of defense certainly to come up next as the u.s. house gavels in. they will begin with debating rules on the defense spending bill for the next budget year. that measure will be then setaside and the house will continue on a bill that revises u.s. patent and trademark law. a bill they started work on yesterday. the senate meanwhile continues work on a bill to eliminate senate confirmation of some white house appointments. live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. we take you live to the house floor here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray, o lord our god, we give you thanks for giving us another day, you have kept us in light, sustained us and allowed us to reach this moment. bless the members of the peoples' house, that you have gifted to serve our nation. preserve them this day and for the coming day. supply their needs according to your riches and prompt them to

work harmoniously with one another. give them a heart for the needs of all time -- people and help them to reason together for the public good. should they be tempted to rancor, ease their passion and grant them the respectful desire to see past differences toward accomplishments worthy of your desire for the benefit of all. all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his atrolve thereof. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it and the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire. mr. altmire: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, as new york's state's secretary of state, i have received the resignation of anthony d. weiner as new york's ninth congressional district representative in the united states house of representatives. the new york state department of state files a letter today, a

copy of his letter of resignation is attached. signed, sincerely, cesar a. practicals i, secretary of state. the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner, the whole number of the house is 432. the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> request unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- the speaker: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last night we heard president obama's plan for withdrawing our troops from afghanistan. while i share the president's goal of wanting to bring home our brave troops as soon and as safely as possible, i'm concerned that plitcal considerations were given more

weight in this decision than military strategy. as a military veteran of 27 years, i understand how important it is to base decisions like this on the guidance of our commanders in the field. our military commanders are the best military strategists in the world and they are the ones in a position to know how many and what type troops they need to do their mission. when the president announced his troop surge he includes the lasting influence of the taliban among his reasons. the taliban remains allied with al qaeda and both terrorist networks would rather see afghanistan destride than lose their influence over the afghan people. mr. speaker, we've learned that fighting our nation's wars from the oval office does not work. let's make sure our troops come home in victory. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. >> in july medicare will be 46 years old. this is an opportunity for all of us to take a look at history. in 196544% of americans over the

age of 65 had no health insurance, many seniors were pushed into poverty by medical costs. in 1965 when medicare was first passed out of 200 republican members of congress, less than half voted for it. future precedents bush and reagan called medicare socialized medicine. so it should be no surprise that republicans are still trying to end medicare. today it's called saving medicare. we should end it in order to save it. 70% of the public does not support the republican plan to end medicare. ms. bass: so it is a sad fact that a month before the 46th anniversary of medicare republican members of the house are not celebrating the nation's commitment to ensure that our seniors have health care but are instead trying to end medicare before the 46th anniversary. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the nlrb under the influence of union bosses on tuesday acted again to restrict workers rights. the nlrb proposed new rules that would speed up elections for unionization. in doing so unions would force workers into union memberships before fully considering both the advantages and disadvantages of membership. by implementing a shorter work period or voting period, u.s. chamber vice president randy johnson has revealed this as a cleverly disguised mandate to pressure workers into joining a union without making an informed decision. moreover the nlrb wants to delay litigation over many voter eligibility issues. as chairman john klein stated, they have found faithful friends at the obama nlrb. the job-killing influence of unions over the nlrb must be stopped before it tramples the rights of american workers. killing jobs at boeing in south

carolina and now killing jobs across america. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my concern for the christian community in egypt. mr. sires: for some in egypt, the transition has led to more threats, more fear and more violence. while mubarak is gone, extremist groups in egypt are using the newly open political space to open their war against the christians. churches are burning, people are being murdered in the streets over their religious beliefs. if these groups get their way, the opportunity for a democratic and free egypt would be lost. as the united states partners with egyptian communities to

support democracy in this time of transition, it is imperative that human rights violations are not pushed aside. the united states must demand that the egyptian government protect the rights and lives of its citizens before any u.s. dollars are given to that government. the respect of human rights including religious freedoms is imperative for the future and stability of egypt and the region. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the cost of gasoline is devastating american families, their budgets, destroying jobs and debilitating our economy. gas prices in my home state of illinois are among the highest in the nation. it's clear that america needs an energy policy that will take advantage of america's vast supplies of oil, gas and other resources, but instead of choosing to boost domestic energy production, which would create jobs and help get our

economy moving again, the president has chosen the shortsighted politically expedient and financially expensive route of tapping our strategic petroleum reserves. mr. hultgren: i urge him to reconsider his decision and embrace the legislation we have passed to increase domestic energy production. i've been proud to support the bills we've passed because they will not only reduce our reliance on unstable and unfriendly regions of the world, they will also create good-paying jobs here at home. so instead of tapping the s.p.r. to help his re-election campaign, the president should do what's truly best for america and support our efforts to increase domestic energy production and create the jobs hardworking americans are looking for. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? without objection, the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the

equal rights amendment. yesterday i was proud to join 158 of my house colleagues, women and men, in co-sponsoring this simple constitutional guarantee that a quality of rights shall not be denied or abridged on account of one's gender. the e.r.a. was passed by congress in 1972 and won approval from 35 states before falling just three short of ratification. since then women have gained significant protections in society, in the workplace and at home. but it is clear that much more must be done. earlier this year a sitting member of the u.s. supreme court stated his view that the constitution does not prohibit, quote, discrimination on the basis of sex, unquote. while many legal scholars were quick to disagree, his words illustrate clearly the need for explicit constitutional protections. without them congress can and has already attempted to roll back these gains. i urge my colleagues to join me

in supporting the e.r.a. and standing up for constitutional protection for women and families. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to rise to support my colleague, donna edwards, and her bill to reduce the corporate tax. mr. bartlett: to create more jobs in this country. the corporate tax is the most regressive tax we have. because in reality you cannot tax a corporation it simply becomes a part of the cost of doing business and they pass it onto the consumer who pays the tax which makes everything cost more that the consumer buys. so the consumers will be benefited several ways when we reduce the corporate tax rate. corporations will grow and there will be more jobs. more corporations will move to this country, creating more jobs and by the way the revenue stream from this increase in the size of corporations and the number of corporations may

actually increase the three bills of reducing the tax rate. there will be more jobs for our consumers and the things they buy will cost less. this is a win-win-win for everybody. thank you, congresswoman edwards, for your leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, this week i co-signed a letter to transportation secretary lahood expressing concern about the waste of taxpayer dollars at the federal highway administration's international scan program. this program has likely wasted millions of dollars over the past 10 years, sending government officials abroad, most recently to study billboards in five different countries, over 17 days at a cost of $300,000 to the taxpayers. rightly secretary lahood responded to our letter by immediately suspending the program.

but the question remains, why did it exist in the first place? and how many others like it exist throughout the federal bureaucracy? we must continue to scrutinize the budgets at all federal agencies so we can put an end to this type of wasteful spending once and for all. hopefully suspension of this billboard program is just a sign of things to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as the proud representative of indiana's hardworking third district and an original member of the job creators caucus. i have come to the floor today to talk about what makes america great and what we can do to encourage job creation in america's entrepreneurial spirit. america's curiosity, passion for excellence and drive for efficiency moves every small business owner and entrepreneur in our nation. mom and pop grocery stores, local mechanics, independent

insurance agents, farmers and countless others make our nation great. mr. stutzman: make no mistake, our greatness isn't contributed to our prosperity. rather america is prosperous because she is great and she is great because she is free. as a small business owner and a farmer, i have firsthand knowledge of our nation's unique and wonderful design. business owners are free to make the countless decisions they face each and every day. unfortunately that entrepreneurial spirit is under attack. individual americans are still restless for opportunity. but a threat comes from an excessive government that limits opportunities and stifles job growth. in 1913 the ford motor company reduced its production time from 14 hours to 1 1/2 hours. today a massive bureaucratic machine produces job-killing regulations at a speed that would make henry ford shoulder. every year unelected bureaucrat it's issue more than 3,000 final rules, close to 10 rules a day. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in these times of great difficulty and uncertainty , our senior citizens want to know where we stand. and i want the senior citizens to know that i stand with them. oy will not vote to voucherize medicare, and i will not vote to socialize to the extent that we privatize social security. medicare has been there for millions of our senior citizens. it is a program on which they can depend. in their minds medicare is better care. we have 40 million seniors depending on medicare. we cannot take that from them.

many of my seniors in my district depend on social security to the extent that if they don't have social security they do not have. these two programs mean a lot to the people that i represent. no privatization of social security and no voucherizing of medicare. i will vote to sustain them and protect them. i yield back the balance of my time. soin the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection, the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, president obama announced today that he is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the sprum -- strg petroleum -- stredge petroleum reserve. the irony here is obvious. who attacked libya and created the disruptions in the first

place? furthermore, this is the same president whose policies and regulations over the past two years have systematically choked our domestic energy production, stifled job creation, and resulted in record energy prices for the american public. releasing oil from the s.p.r. is an obvious political move to cover up the high gasoline prices created by the president's policies. mr. president, if you were truly serious about increasing the supply of oil and lowering prices, you would stop being the candidate in chief and begin taking leadership on a sound energy policy, parts of which the house has already passed. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are advised to address the chair and not the administration. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute.

mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commemorate the 375th anniversary of the founding of the city of providence, rhode island. the rhode island's mavs capital city. providence finally known as the creative capital, and beehive of industry has embodied american values since its founding in 1636. when rod williams founded the city, he could not have phone what it would become. it built upon the tradition of diversity, welcoming immigrants from around the world. having stood for eight years as mayor of the city, i'm aware of the reputation. providence recognized as one of the coolest cities in america, one of the 25 best cities for arts and culture, one of 100 best cities for young people. it's also recognized by the u.s. conference for mayors for innovative school programs, and restoration of city rivers, creation of downtown waterfront parks, and spectacular historic preservation. 375 years after its founding,

providence is without question one of america's greatest cities. and it's a true honor to commemorate the founding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? ms. pingree: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one mincht. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last month when i was standing on the banks of the york river in maine, i learned that the river serves as a whom for species like the new england cotton tail, eastern box turtle, and the threatened harlequin duck. but the york river is also a place where people are making their living. fishermen depend on the good quality of the water and access to the waterfront. farmers in the york river watershed grow pumpkins, potatoes, and others. the natural pute of the river draws visitors to the area from around the state and country. mr. speaker, later today i am introducing the york river wild and scenic river study act which

would commission a feasibility study to funed out if the river qualifies as a wild and scenic partnership river. a designation that would help preserve the river as an economic and natural resource for generations to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: it's time to talk turkey about jobs. too many americans are unemployed and it's time to get americans back to work. as we enter this new decade in the 21st century, research and development is critical to rebuilding the american manufacturing and to creating jobs. in today's global economy, manufacturing here in the united states and innovation remain a linchpin for economic growth that's being challenged rigorously by our competitors around the world. today i rise to highlight legislation i introduced with my colleague from maryland, roscoe bartlett. to spur innovation and economic development. mr. speaker, h.r. 689, the 21st

century investment act, would encourage companies to co-locate their research and development activities with job creation here in the united states. we'd make permanent the research and development tax credit, and increase the domestic manufacturing tax credit to 15%. those are jobs here in the united states. so the time was we were the global leader in the architect of research and development, but not true today. we can and we must do better because whatever that is we are down to about number 17 or 21, we can do better. by joining mr. bartlett and me, mr. speaker, h.r. 689 will reclaim the mantle of innovation and create jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. in june the global conference on drug policy, a 19-member group that included former u.n. secretary kofi annan, ronald

reagan secretary of state george shultz, and paul volcker, said that the drug war was a failure. that it needed to be readdressed with new priorities and suggested this country get out of the federal marijuana possession business. it is for that reason and others that i'll be joining today with congresspeople ron paul, john conyers, barney frank, jared polis, and others to introduce a bill to get the federal government out of possession of marijuana and into interstate and international shipments of marijuana and allowing states to decide like alcohol how they should deal with it. better they should deal with it as a health policy and not a criminal policy and not stigmatizing young people for life that might deny employment and taking police officers away from haven't crimes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise?

without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a very dedicated leader from my community. our superintendent, jane russo. she has served the santa ana unified school district for over 25 years. as the first woman superintendent for santa ana unified, she has been a visionary for the community. superintendent russo has built partnerships with parents, with community leaders, with government, and with business leaders. she has taken leadership roles and she has mentored and she has shown parents and faculty and administrator the business community, all of us, what it is to truly collaborate and work together. with approximately 58,000 students, 61 schools, 4,500

employees, superintendent russo manages the second largest employer in santa ana and largest school district in orange county and sixth largest school district in california. her accomplishments have been recognized at the state and national level. under her leadership for the school district's academic performance index, it increased by nearly 100 points and she received the highest score on state compliance report cards for special education and the highest increase in state testing for english language learns. scoring proficient and above. miss russo will leave a lasting legacy in our district. she has shaped and made our community even better. and i am honored to recognize such a great member of our community and i congratulate her on her retirement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of

the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have spent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in executive order 134-66 of ruin 26, 2008, expanded in scope in executive order 135-51 of august 30, 2010, and addressed further in executive order 135-70 of april 18, 2011 is to continue in effect beyond june 26, 2011. the existence and risk of proliferation of weapons usable fissile material on the korean

peninsula that destabilize the korean peninsula and imperil u.s. armed forces, allies, and partners in the region continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security foreign policy and economy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to these threats and maintain in force the measures taken to deal with that national emergency. signed, barack obama, the white house, june 23, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the

congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the person balkans emergency is to continue in effect beyond june 25th, 2011. the crisis constituted by the actions of persons engaged in or assisting sponsoring, or supporting extremist violence in the republic of macedonia and elsewhere in the western balkans region or ii, act obstructing implementation of the dayton accords in bosnia, united states security council -- united nations security council resolution, and kosovo in the framework agreement of 2001 in macedonia that led to the declaration of a national emergency on june 26th, 2001. the acts of extremist violence and obstructionist activity outlined in executive order 132-19 as amended are hostile to

u.s. interests and continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to the western balkans and maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat. signed, barack obama, the white house, june 23, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? there being no objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: thank you very much, mr. speaker. next week marks the 45th anniversary of implementing medicare. on this occasion it is right that congress work together, and i state, that it is right that congress work together to protect and straighten medicare for our future generation. sadly instead of preserving medicare, my republican colleagues have approved a plan

to destroy it. the republican budget privatizes medicare program, turning it -- control over to the insurance industries, ends medicare coverage for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system. doubles out-of-pocket medical costs for seniors. i ask my colleagues, where are your priorities? we should be creating jobs, helping middle class families. we should not be dismantling safety net programs like medicare and medicaid. let's stop the politics. let's work together. let's work on a plan to protect our seniors and be responsible to lower the deficit. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity. for more than a short period of time we have had an opportunity

to talk about free trade agreements. and when we talk about it it's about jobs. jobs in the economy. more than 57 million jobs in america are directly supported by international trade. free-throw with other nations not only creates more jobs for americans, it creates more opportunity around the world. mr. dold: in my district over 58,000 jobs are directly supported by exports. in fact, last year almost $20 billion worth of merchandise was exported from my district alone. . if washington is serious about creating more jobs, then we should immediately pass the free trending trade agreements with korea, colombia and panama. new jobs are created in our local community when is our nation increases free trade. free trade also lowers prices for the american consumer. when burdensome tarrists are listed, a family of four seeance increased purchasing power of $10,000. now is not the time to play

political games with these free trade agreements. now is the time to pass these pending free trade agreements so we can create jobs here at home. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 320 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 47, house resolution 320, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2219, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairing

minority member of the committee on appropriations. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2-a-1, it shall not be in order to consider amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing both a decrease and an

appropriation designated pursuant to section 301 of house concurrent resolution 34 and an increase in an appropriation not so designated or vice versa. two, paragraph 1, shall not apply to an amendment between the houses, b, with respect to h.r. 2219, subconnection a shall apply only in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, is recognized for one hour. mr. nugent: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself the time that i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nugent: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the -- yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.res. 320

and the underlying legislation 2219 which appropriates funds for the department of defense for fiscal year 2012. the rule is truly an open rule. one which provides for ample debate on the bill and gives members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in debates. any member can submit an amendment to h.r. 22 as long as it's germane in keeping with the rules of the house. as a member of the rules committee, i'm proud of the transparency, the openness and the free-flowing debate that we've seen thus far in the 112th congress, especially in the appropriation process. one way we can show our commitment to change, we promised the american people is by supporting open rules like this. the underlying bill keeps our promise to bring an end to wasteful pet projects in keeping with the house earmark ban, h.r. 2219 doesn't contain a single

earmark. now as a father of three sons all currently serving the united states army this bill is of special importance to me. it's important to the blue star moms and dads whose kids have answered the call of duty and are serving their country in uniform. but this legislation isn't just important to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of the loved ones serving overseas, this legislation is important to all americans. this appropriation bill ensures that the men and women in our armed forces are equipped with the tools and the resources they need to get the job done. the bill that ensures we can continue to go to bed at night and be safe and sound in our homes, knowing our troops are protecting our nation and our way of life. mr. speaker, i had the honor and privilege of visiting iraq and afghanistan and pakistan during

the last constituent week. while there i got to meet many military leaders, our allies, but most importantly our troops on the ground. i saw with my own eyes the equipment they're working with and the environment that they're working in. i saw what they had and what they heard about what they needed to get their jobs done and this legislation is vital do to giving our men and women in uniform the resources they need to to -- to perform their mission and more importantly to get them home safely. and, mr. speaker, while i support our troops no matter where the president sends them, i also believe we need to focus on the wars we're all right fighting. to that end i'm sorry there aren't restrictions on using these funds in libya. i thank chairman young and ranking member dicks for not appropriating for further

hostilities in that country. we can't stretch our resources so thin that we ultimately end up tying the hands of our troops. and finally, mr. speaker, i'd like to take a minute to discuss the rules' commitment to budgetary transparency. the budget resolution adopted earlier this year included specifically delineated funds for operations related to the global war on terror. this fund is capped at $126 billion. the intent of the budget language was to preserve these funds specifically for the war on terror and to ebb shoe -- ensure that the money was diverted for unrelated programs. previous majorities have used the similar construct for the exact same purpose. additionally in previous congresses the budget committee chairman was prepared to advise the chair that in terms of spending levels, it is

impermissible to use funding for the global war on terror to offset increases of spending elsewhere in this bill. same is true in this congress. section 2 of the rule codifies the budget resolution's intent and the past practices of this house. the rules prohibit funding for the global war on terror from being used to pay for operations of any other kind. this provides for transparency and accountability to exactly how much money is being spent on the global war on terror rather than counting the funds as an offbudget emergency spending program. with that i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and to vote yes on the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. 2219, the defense department appropriations act, for fiscal

year 2012, represents $530 billion in regular discretionary spending. thsdz 8.9 billion below the president's request, but $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted. before going further into my remarks, i'd like to thank my friend and fellow floridian for yielding time to me and i extend a personal thanks to he and his family and particularly his three sons that are serving in the army. i don't have three sons but i had three uncles that served in the army in another era, in the second world war. and as i was proud of them, i'm also proud of mr. nugent's sons

and the many families and service men and women in our military. from pay raises for military operations this legislation offers a basically reasonable and comprehensive approach to our nation defense activities. yet i'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money this country continues to devote to the military. at a time of fiscal austerity, when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars from essential social programs, it's in my view absurd that we continue to exempt the department of defense from the same scrutiny that we applied to

our domestic programs. for all of the rhetoric that i've heard through the years from my colleagues on the other aisle about runaway spending, the fact of the matter is that republicans actually increase spending in this bill. while they insist that more families must go hungry, less students need to go to college, less firefighters and teachers need to work in our cities and less jobs need to be created, the republican majority believes that $649 billion still isn't quite enough. the united states accounts for 43% of all military spending on earth. we already outspend russia and

china, the next biggest spenders, by a factor of six. we tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. we tell mayors that they can't have more cops but we don't tell generals that they can't have more ballistic missiles. and we tell americans that they can't get their roads fixed or their levees strengthed but here we are -- strengthened but here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons. not to mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody on earth 25 times over. mr. speaker, we need to recognize that our priorities are askew and our spending on defense is unsustainable. let me give you an example. the republican majority recently

cut 1/3 -- proposed cutting 1/3 of the budget. almost $500 million from the food for peace program. over the course of almost 50 years this program has cliffered -- delivered life-saving food supplies to over three billion people. as john f. kennedy correctly noted when he was running for president, and quote him, food is peace. unquote. yet these cuts mean that millions of people in vulnerable and underdeveloped regions of the world will not receive food aid from the united states. the arab springs uprisings that arose in tunisia were largely because of the concerns for food

and that is true elsewhere in the middle east and north africa and this particular year should be a reminder that conflict erupts when people go without their most basic needs including food. and at the same time as people see that the food they receive is coming from the united states and i've had the good fortune of visiting around the world, having served over a period of time, eight years over a period of 10 years on the intelligence committee here in congress, and having served previous to that on foreign affairs committee, and now serving the committee for security and cooperation in europe, i had an opportunity to see firsthand in germany countless amounts of food

stamped with u.s.a. on them and i've seen them in camps and i suffer with the people now in the southern sudan, my colleague donald payne and a former colleague from west palm beach were together at a refugee camp and previous to that in kenya. i've seen our food aid around the world reduce the kind of antiamerican extremism that often festers in these regions and manifests itself into conflicts that we wind up having to go and fight about. the reality, mr. speaker, is food aid is critical to our national security. and the spending that we do to preempt our prevent conflict means the less money that we have to spend later fighting them. we are doing a disservice to our service men and women by cutting programs that reduce the risk of

war while adding billions to programs that create ever more powerful methods to wage war. at the same time we need to recognize that the increase of amounts we spend on the military means the less money we have here at home to a-- address our pressing domestic concerns. all of us heard the president of the united states last night speak to this issue that while it may appear and might readily be or perceived at nation building that we are doing in some countries, it is time for us as the president said to begin domestic building. i went to iraq a few years ago, they showed us the remains of a water treatment plant. we spent $14 million u.s. dollars building that plant and

just as soon as it was finished, somebody came and blew it up. mr. speaker, i feel building water treatment plants in basra and baghdad kandahar, and kabul b. you don't see us building much -- but i don't see us building much needed water treatment plants in the cities of glades that i he represent, belle glade, as well as others, deerfield beach, and my hometown i have had requests for water treatment matters, as well as riviera beach. every year cities and counties in the congressional district that i'm privileged to serve come begging and asking for money to support infrastructure projects that no one is likely to blow up. and yet we don't fund them. i don't say that we shouldn't help the iraqi or the afghan

people or develop their country. but i do say we ought to be mindful in our own country we have bridges collapsing, dams breaking, levees failing, and water utilityities leaking away. we simply cannot justify to the american people our willingness to spend tens of billions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan while negligenting those same efforts here at home. finally -- negligenting -- neglecting those same iferts here at home. this contains several billion doesar in aid to pakistan. you can't readily say the word afghanistan without saying the word pakistan. to the extent that we are involved in afghanistan, we also are involved in pakistan. we spent billions of dollars to pakistan only to see large sums of that money be used against

american interests. funding the very same extremists groups -- extremist groups we are trying to eliminate. a recent article in "the new yorker" magazine noted that the pakistani military submits expense claims every month for the united states embassy in islam ma bad. no --is islamabad. no receipts are provided. none is requested. you are sending money out the door in one of the most conflict regions in the world without so much as an understanding where that money is going, what exactly it is being used for, who in pakistan is giving to who, and what someone is receiving it. we know that the pakistani military and intelligence community supports some of the extremist groups that are engaged against united states interest. and which have committed acts of

terrorism against civilians. so again, mr. speaker, i come down to the point that we spend absolutely too much money on military and defense matters that we do not give half the same attention to debating as we do about cutting nutrition support as is proposed for women, infants, and children, or financial aid to college students. when belle glade florida in the congressional district that i serve, comes looking for less than $1 million to fix their infrastructure and provide jobs for their local residents, the republican majority has a whole long list of reasons why we can't afford it. yet before us today i see $5 billion for two submarines, $2 billion for one destroyer. and $6 billion for 32 fighter

jets. i maintain, mr. speaker, that our level of defense spending is on an unsustainable course. and at a time when we are demanding that the american people do more with much, much less, we also have to make choices and set priorities when it comes to our nation's military spending. mr. speaker, at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, i agree with a lot of what he said. we talk about pakistan and i just came from there. we talk about the threat that the taliban that are hiding in pakistan pose to our troops in

afghanistan and we talk about that every day. we talk about the inaction of the pakistani military and i.s.i. in particularly rooting out those that are killing more u.s. troops in afghanistan than anything else. i would like to see more direct involvement as relates to pakistan or military on accountability issues that mr. hastings brought up. about the ability for us to make sure that if there are going to be allies in this fight against terrorism, particularly against the taliban, that they truly are. but in regards to this bill, the underlying legislation, this is $9 billion less than what the president of the united states requested for military d.o.d. allocations this year. for 2012. $9 billion less than the

president's request. some of it is to restock our national guard and reserve units that have decimated over the years in regards to fighting wars on two different areas, two different countries. it's about giving our troops a pay raise. it's about taking care of the medical needs and research regards to providing better medical care for those that are in the military and guess what? that also bleeds out into the civilian world in regards to those applications that are developed in the military. it is about our core mission. the constitution is clear our core mission regards to national defense. it talks specifically about this nation and what the responsibilities of this congress in regards to national defense. i said earlier what does trouble me is that in this our chairman

did a great job of not putting funding in to fund any more incursions into libya, but it doesn't restrict it right now. there's going to be discussion on libya coming up later today. with you i got to give credit to the chairman of the committee of the subcommittee in regards to appropriations that they really have crafted a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support in that committee. has bipartisan support across the board in regards to where we need to go. in regards to keeping this nation safe. against threats known and unknown in the future. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, reserves. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very, very pleased to yield four minutes to

my very good friend from georgia an icon in this nation, and a passionate person on the subject at hand. i yield to mr. lewis four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, is recognized for four minutes. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend, mr. hastings, for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today because the american people have grown weary of war. war destroyed the dreams, the hopes, aspiration, and longing of a people. a wise man once said every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a threat from those who hunger and

the not fed. those who are cold and are not clothed, it's like spending money alone, it is spinning the threat of its labors, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of a children. these are not the words of dr. martin luther king jr., these are not the words of gandy -- gandhi. these are the words of a five star general, president dwight eisenhower. we have spent billions of dollars, thousands of our sons and daughters have been left on the battlefield and scarred by the brew tality of war. -- brutality of war. and glad the president is bringing 10,000 soldiers home from afghanistan, but we must do more to end this war and start investing in our future. we must continue, we cannot

continue to fund this war while we tell our seniors there is no money for medicare. we cannot fund war and tell our children and young mothers that we won't pay for food stamps. we cannot pay for war while bridges and our roads are crumbling. we cannot afford to make bombs and guns. we must use our resources to solve the problems of humankind. to build and not tear down. to reconcile and not to divide. to love and not to hate. to heal and not to kill. if you want to create the beloved community, create a beloved world, a world that is at peace with itself. if that does not go, our way must be on peace an nonviolence.

skilled diplomacy not military might. we must lay down the tools and instruments of war and violence. stop paying for war. believe in the power of peace. and end this war. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, reserves. the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, is recognized. mr. nugent: might i inquire, mr. hastings, if he has any further speakers. mr. hastings: i thought i was going to but i don't have any speakers. in the interest of time i'm prepared to close. thank you, mr. nugent. again i appreciate your complementary remarks regarding mine. and i compliment you with regard to yours. i don't think we have a single bit of daylight between us when it comes to the support of the

men and women that are in the military. i do karl -- quarrel with the 14th street bridge, the amount of money spent at the pentagon. i have personally seen generals serving generals. and somewhere along the line that does not add up to true gallonity. mr. speaker, the -- frugality. the legislation before us provides a comprehensive accounting of our nation's military activity. and includes much deserved pay raises for our troops, critical funding for health programs, and disease research. let's make it very clear, the only thing that we could afford was less than 2% raise for our troops and i personally, and i believe chairman young of the subcommittee and the