as anyone who watches the labor market in the united states, most people finding new jobs are finding non-union jobs. a very small number from unions getting the assistance. there is a high likelihood that they are getting a job that is not union so i don't quite understand the argument. host: howard rosen, peterson institute. the house is coming into session. but first, to let you know, tonight on booktv.org, in case you want to watch it live online away from our usual weekend programming, mark stein of will be at the smithsonian institute and will talk about how the state's got their shapes, too he is now writing "how the states got their shapes, to." daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:15. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. for five minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, there are moments in the lives of nations when existing order is suddenly revealed as legitimacy and no longer viable. the wave of unrest spreading across the arab world, a

tunisian fruit vendor, has exposed the rot of decades of incompetence. if this one man's desperate act can lead to the fall of tunisian, perhaps yemen, is a testament to the pent up frustration of millions of people who are denied rights and economic opportunity we are granted here in the west. it's not just syria where the arab spring hangs in the balance and the maximum violence like armies of old, select units of military and security services, troops have been moving from city to city in a quest to quash the ever-spreading demonstrations which have become a feature of life in syria. a town of some 75,000 near

syria, army and security forces have repeatedly assaulted the town and surrounding villages killing hundreds of civilians and arresting anyone suspected of taking part in demonstrations against the regime. on april 29 in the village of jesa, the syrian secret police rounded up anybody who was thought to be part of the protest including one who had watched a demonstration with other members of his family. for a month, his family waited for him to return. worried but hopeful he would be released unharmed. it was not to be. on may 30, his mutilated body was returned to him. he had been tore turd, subjected to repeated electric shocks and whipped with cables. his eyes were swollen and black and there were identical bullet wounds where he was shot through his arms. on his chest was a deep dark burn mark. his neck was broken and parts of his body were cut off. he was 13 years old.

video of the boy's shattered body has been seen by millions on television and the internet. ham stpwhrmbings a, like the tunisian fruit vendor who set himself alight, has been a symbol of the countrymen around the world of a regime that would torture its own children to death. our ability to bring additional economic pressure on syria is limited. its economy is already under immense strain. it is small, weak and isolated. political pressure in the form of u.n. security resolution condemning the violence and crackdown has been blocked by russia and china and there's dread over what will happen when assad falls. given the internal divisions between sunni and shiia, christians and jews, the sectarian splits is potential of large scale violence as iraq. the danger is real but the promise what have began in tunisia and is now materializing in egypt and

elsewhere is real. people of courage can determine their own destiny and it need not be of he had red tare dictate -- hereditary or dictatorship. people need to chart a path of peace with their neighbors. to conclude otherwise means we relegate tens of millions of people to suffer of capricious ruthlessness of their dess pits of generation after generation or we're willing to trade the illusion of stability for the harsh reality of their suffering. that's not the choice we made for ourselves 235 years ago and not one we should make for others. assad is a ruthless tyrant whose time has past and clings to power by only of virtue of brutal force. our role and that of the international community should be to work with syrian opposition figures and with others to advance a negotiated transition to a new syrian government that will represent all syrians and prevept the trading in of one set of thugs for another. the arab spring cannot be

allowed to fail because of brutal oppression, the specter of relimbous fanaticism, a fear of the unknown -- religious fanaticism, a fear of the unknown. the region's many millions must have the freedom to write a new chapter for themselves and their prosperity. i thank the speaker, and 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: thank you, mr. speaker. freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, two of our most important fundamental principles that this nation was founded upon. it has recently become under attack by none other than this federal government. the authoritarian behavior and attack on the first amendment rights is an attack now on the veterans that have served our nation. last week in houston, texas, i

met with the veterans of foreign wars. they shared with me very descriptive and disturbing stories about the aggressive and hostile censorship of religion and speech that is occurring none other than at the veterans cemetery in houston, the second largest cemetery for our veterans in the united states next to arlington, which is right down the street across from the potomac river. the director of the houston national cemetery, arlene ocasio, is accused of attacking the constitutional rights of our military who fought and died for our country, the very rights that they fought and died for are being under attack by none other than this director. the thought that someone would have the audacity to censor religion and speech anywhere is despicable, but censoring the funeral services of the veterans who spent their lives protecting the first amendment is malicious and it's not forgiveable. director ocasio is an unelected

bureaucrat, a nonveteran who is clearly out of touch with our veterans and the constitution. it's unbelievable she would be put in charge of the sacred burial ground in houston, texas. here's what the accusations against her are, according to the veterans of foreign wars, who i met with, and these are the men who go to those funeral services and are the honor guard for america's war dead that are buried. and here's what they say that she has done. the chapel that is on the premiseses has been closed. the bible has been removed. the cross has been taken out of the chapel. we don't know what the chapel's being used for. some say a storage place. some say a meeting place. some say it's not being used at all. she censors the prayers that are being given at the burial services of our veterans. she's banned the word god, the word jesus christ from these funeral services and the utterance of the word god has

put this director in a tizzy, so much so she wants to review the prayers. there are 60 burr yals a week at our houston cemetery and this action has got to cease. this unconstitutional action by the director. it's not the business of the federal government to be engaged in anti-religious activity, especially what some consider to be a religious ceremony, the burial of our veterans. the philosophy of behind such pog particulars is anti-american. the first amendment is the most important because it protects the treatment of press, the treatment of free exercise of -- the freedom of free exercise of religion. the director wants to be in charge and make sure that none of these burials are a religious ceremony, and that's

got to stop. this cemetery, mr. speaker, does not belong to director ocasio. in fact, i don't think it belongs to the federal government. it belongs to the veterans who have served this nation all over the world in all wars. it belongs to them and it belongs to their families who bury them. and religious censorship has got to cease at this cemetery. americans are irate about this government attack on religion. i have heard from numerous veterans and loved ones all over the country who are shocked that this government, our government would allow such thing to occur. one man in particular stood out who called my office and he was in tears, mr. speaker, because his father, a world war ii veteran, was days away from being buried in the houston national cemetery and his father had heard about the censorship of religion and speech and he doesn't want to be buried in that cemetery with other veterans any longer. so no wonder that so many are

shocked by the actions of this director. after all, it reminds me of the old soviet union the way they used to censor religion and prevent the free exercise of religion. the first amendment is sacred. our veterans are sacred. when they are souls are buried that is sacred. if these actions are true the director needs to be terminated. the government's attack on the very freedom that these people have lived and died for are a violation of the freedom of speech and the freedom to freely exercise religion promised to all americans in the constitution, and that must be upheld, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: yesterday, the american civil liberties union, the puerto rican liberties defense and the national

institute for latino policy published this first page in "roll call," one of the key newspapers here on capitol hill. these civil rights and policy organizations have denounced the civil and hamm rights crisis in puerto rico. they bought a full-page ad to alert congress about the serious concerns about civil and human rights, about abuses against the citizens of puerto rico by their government, including the infringement of right of free speech, peaceful assembly, freedom from police violence and abuse, end quote. and they make an essential point. if these abuses were happening anywhere in the 50 states they would not be tolerated. these abuses would be the front page on every newspaper as they are in puerto rico. it's time for this congress to start paying attention. students and working people, journalists and environmentalists in puerto rico are paying attention because the freedoms we take for granted in america are being denied to them each day. i'd like today to remind you of what has happened. on this floor i have condemned

the use of heavily armed riot squads against peaceful student and labor protestors at the university of puerto rico and in the streets of san juan. i have denounced the beatingsful students by police, armed with night sticks and use pepper spray on protestors and even journalists. the groping of female students. i have stood up to defend the puerto rican bar association, a clear voice for justice has been attacked by the ruling party and their legislature and those on the federal bench. i have spoken on the house floor about the environmental emergency the ruling party has brought on to puerto rico. the government declared an energy emergency to avoid routine fact finding and licensing procedures so they could build a 100-mile-long, $500 million gas pipeline on a tropical island that is designed more to help wealthy insiders than the people of puerto rico.

while actions in ohio and wisconsin and other states that threaten workers' rights are discussed routinely in the u.s., the fact that puerto rico the government of puerto rico has canceled agreements is largely unknown. but tea partyiers, don't rejoice. he's doubled the property taxes on everyone. they have packed the supreme court of activism of the ruling party. he created two new positions on the supreme court in order to add two new judges to the court that already had a majority of the ruling party. he did this, of course, despite the fact of having denounced hugo chavez when he believed he was doing the same thing in venezuela. just two weeks ago, the ruling party yet again changed the law so they could fire the island apple budswoma -- ambudswoman. because i have spoken out against the ruling party in

puerto rico i have earned the censorship. and "roll call" condemned me for using my right to speech. only the ruling party of puerto rico would respond to complaints about free speech and civil rights abuses by officially passing a resolution condemning someone for speaking. should any of my colleagues not believe this absurdity, you just need to come to my office where i display proudly these documents. i invite you to come and see them. i ask my colleagues today, please pay attention to what is happening in puerto rico. if it were happening in illinois, new york, texas or wyoming or any of the states of our union, this congress would have great concerns. one meaningful first step would be to join me in urging the department of justice to complete the investigation that they have initiated and to police abuses in puerto rico that started in 2008 and promptly release the results. i would also ask my colleagues and their staff to attend the

congressional briefing organized by the aclu next tuesday and i ask my colleagues to do whatever we do when we see regimes that refuse to treat people fairly, please speak out. please join me in standing for liberty and justice for all. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. stern, for five minutes. >> today the united states government owes close to $14.3 trillion. it's estimated by the congressional budget office that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100% of every dollar raised in revenue on entitlements. and yet, we are being asked to raise the debt limit to $16.3 trillion. that's a two trillion dollars

increase, or 14% increase. in 2010, our national g.d.p. was $14.6 trillion, raising the debt to $16.3 trillion mean our debt ceiling will surpass our country's g.d.p. and yet for the 81st time since 1940, we are being asked again to raise the debt ceiling. if -- in 2002, our debt stood at $10.6 trillion. now not even 10 years later, we are asked to raise it to $16.2 trillion. that's a 250% increase for an average of 16.7% increase per year. obviously, continuing on this past, next year, it is likely we will be asked in this chamber to raise the debt ceiling to $19 trillion. that's staggering. in keeping with this 70-year tradition, we are certain to

force our nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt on to the backs of our country's children and grandchildren. raising the debt ceiling today without reform will merely lead to a new call, a new call to raise the debt again tomorrow. is the united states disciplined enough to solve this debt problem through austerity and productivity? i think it is. yet i believe we can, but only if we break this tradition of continued spending. now, recently a constituent of mine wrote a simple letter to the editor of my hometown paper, and this is what he said. if your wife and yourself have a budget and you're having problems and your credit card is maxed out at $14,300, what do you do >> one, you expect the visa to raise your limit to $16,700? print counterfeit money in your backyard or garage?

borrow more money? or sell the cadillac? responsible americans would sell the cadillac, and it's time for the federal government to do the same thing, reduce spending or sell unneeded assets. we must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent programs. sunset some of them. as we negotiate the upcoming vote, we should ensure that any cut in spending exceed any increase in debt limit. selling the cadillac is meaningless when you continue to max out on your credit card. the point here is to make a difference in our debt, not to merely provide a vehicle to continue washington's spending addiction. moreover, any future spending must be restricted. we cannot sell the cadillac this year only to buy a mercedes benz next year. again, we must begin to live within our means. i know the leadership is working tirelessly to ensure that a compromise can be reached and the republicans' demands can be met. it appears we are making

progress. but the president has in one breath asked both parties to leave their rhetoric at the door. but then in the same next breath, he accused republicans of trying to cut tax loopholes for the rich in order to curb the debt problem. but that alone won't do it. beyond being contradictory and self-serving, these accusations demonstrate that democrats continue to misunderstand the real problem. c.b.o. has nailed it. they recently revealed that it is runaway spending, not a lack of revenue, that is driving our debt today. according to c.b.o.'s long-term budget forecast, even with tax increases that raises revenues from its historic 18% of g.d.p. to 23% of g.d.p., the national debt will continue to grow unless we have the spending reductions. everyone here in congress understands how important this vote is. but surely after the c.b.o. analysis, we must confront the

fact that spending is growing relentlessly needs and -- and needs to be placed under control. we need to see correspondingly spending reductions regardless, regardless, without tax increases. now is the time to do it. it can be done, and it must be done today. i yield. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. wilson, for five minutes. ms. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since 2005, i've spoken from this very spot 399 times. on nearly every occasion that house rules allow, i have stood to deliver a five-minute special order highlighting the moral outrage of the united states' continued military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya.

i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan.

$10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already defeated al qaeda? and so who are we fighting and why? for $10 billion a month, mr. speaker, our expectations as taxpayers, as americans, as members of congress should be high. is it too much to think that $10 billion a month to buy a stable ally, ally capable of standing on its own two feet, taking responsibility for its own security and having respect for

the rule of law? instead, corruption and chaos are ruling the day in kabul. basic government institutions are failing to provide services. president karzai has tried to establish a special court, in fact, for the purpose of stripping 62 members of parliament of their seats and the financial system is teetering on the brink of collapse. with the head of the central bank fleeing the country and accusing karzai's regime of fraud and cronism. just a few days ago, mr. speaker, a brawl broke out on the floor of the afghanistan parliament with one member throwing a shoe at another member when a motion was proposed to impeach president karzai. for $10 billion a month, is it not too much to ask that the afghani parliament not look like an episode of "jerry springer"? there is so much we could do

with $10 billion a month right here at home, especially at a homent when so many of our people are struggling and so many of our communities so badly need public investment. especially at a moment when the clock is ticking toward a catastrophic default on the national debt. i'm not suggesting that we ignore, or that we run away from afghanistan's deep-seated problems, but i believe we cannot begin to address their needs with a military solution, it will never work. it's time to reinvest at pennies on the dollar in smart security efforts. humanitarian and civilian aid. aid that will promote democracy. economic support to address poverty and rebuild infrastructure in afghanistan. mr. speaker, this is a moment and this is a time where we put our priorities in order, but it's not a job for our troops.

they've served with unbelievable valor. now it's time to bring them safely home and invest in the humanitarian way in afghanistan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. olsen, i'm sorry. mr. olson: mr. speaker, congress has a very important decision to make very soon. on whether or not the -- to increase the national debt ceiling. today our national debt ceiling is a staggering $14.3 trillion. and the president is seeking a $2.2 trillion increase to our debt limit. an increase to our nation's debt ceiling that is not accompanied

by equal or larger spending reduction would be reckless and arrogant. speaker boehner was right when he said, i quote, it's true that an america default would be irresponsible, but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process. this debate is a unique opportunity to achieve significant and serious spending reforms if washington, and to prove to the american people that their employees, the members of the united states congress, are listening to them. i believe this is our best chance for the foreseeable future to obtain substantial incredible long-term deficit reductions to reform washington's taxpayer dollars and save america from ruin. elections matter. last fall changed debate here in

washington. we may not be cutting spending as fast as some of us prefer, and quite frankly, i've been frustrated by the pace. but the discussion has shifted to how much should we cut. not how much should we spend. this decision is critical. to getting our nation's fiscal house in order and one that has been driven by conservatives in the house. house republicans have developed a threefold, cut, cap, and balance strategy that includes deep spending cuts, enforceable spending caps, and a balanced budget amendment with strong protections against federal tax increases. these proposals will ensure that the federal government adheres to the same parameters that families and businesses live with every single day. the time for irresponsible federal spending is over. with each passing day, our

nation's fiscal problems only compound. leaving our children and grandchildren with a larger legacy of debt. my colleagues on the other side have advocated increase to our debt with no strings attach. they could stand for business as usual right here in washington, d.c. but we cannot know the problem nor can we simply tax ourselves out of this mess. further more, before we reach the debt ceiling, we cannot trust the white house to prioritize our debt payments, nor can we trust the administration not to default on our obligations. the american people must remember that if we default on our debt, the executive branch would have full control over what programs to cut, not congress. mr. speaker, the only resolution to this problem is to secure trillions in spending cuts, put us in strong financial standing and ensure a stronger future for

our children and our grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: earlier this year, congress significantly changed the manner in which the federal government allocates that funding. in the past, state and local governments and non-profit organization spent a great deal of time trying to persuade individual members of congress to earmark funds to support local projects. the reality is that at least for the time being the days of earmarks are over. with a ban on earmarks, a greater emphasis will now be placed on competitive grants whereby applicants across the country will compete for funding made available.

in theory, the appropriations process holds promise. under a well administered grant , an applicant is judged on its merits. an increased emphasis on competitive grants will overall the process if the federal government announces and publicized grant process in a clear and organized manner. grant seeking will not be a -- it's a process of identifying, applying for and obtaining federal grants is clouded in mystery and confusion and understood only by experts. in 1999, congress created a website, grants.gov, which allows applicants to search grants online. but much more needs to be done to make the grant solicitation process as transparent and user friendly as possible. many of my constituents have expressed frustration with the manner in which the federal government makes grant opportunities known. often the potential grantee

will apply for needed funding only to know that the deadline for the most relevant grant passed days or weeks earlier. in other situations, they will become frustrated in finding they need to scroll through pages and pages some of which are outdated or not fund by congress. to address these problems, i introduced h.r. 2393. this bipartisan legislation would make two important changes to the federal grant solicitation process. first, my bill would require each federal agencies within two months of the start of any fiscal year to submit a full grant solicitation that the agency expects to issue for that year. such a forecast would allow perspective applicants to determine in advance which grant opportunities they wish to apply for. the second improvement my bill would make is to allow each forecast or listing to be

organized by detailed subject area. grants.gov currently organizes it by agency and by very broad area such as energy or housing. as a result, when an applicant search for health related grants, for example, he she must scroll through 30 pages of grant listings. it would require grants.gov to organize grant opportunities by specific subject so they can look for grants that will address their needs. now, let me turn to puerto rico which i represent in this congress and it pains me that some statements were made earlier on this floor regarding my beautiful island and its government. puerto rico shines because of democracy. every four years we have freely elected -- free elections and our voters go out and express their will at the rate of 80%

of -- which is something we are very proud of. we do have a police department in puerto rico. actually, the second largest in the nation. and there is an ongoing civil rights investigation by the department of justice. but i am sure, and i can vouch that the police department of puerto rico is doing everything 100% meant

lives lost. some of the center's most noticeable accomplishments remained largely secret. however, the strategic investments will pay dividends for many years to come. under his leadership, the

center actually improved its processes for screening, c.t. data, deployed a new database better known as tide that's yielded yeezier management, resolution, faster, more efficient processes. in the wake of the attempted downing of a passenger aircraft in december of 2009, director leiter reallocated significant resources to develop the pursuit group, a team of highly skilled analysts that sifts through considerable amounts of data to eye departmentify desperate pieces of loose intelligence and find linkages that identify terrorists, their networks and their plans before they can be executed. his leadership in the areas of radicalization, extremist messaging are particularly noteworthy as well as his focus on cooperation and engagement with outside communities. this lays a foundation for the

continued success of this initiative. director leiter leaves the federal government for some well-deserved time with his family and friends, and i wish him well, but, however, it's my sincere hope that he continues to use his expertise in counterterrorism to keep america and its citizens safe. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this past week we were in our districts to visit with our constituents to learn from them and to celebrate america's independence day. much of my time was focused on the issue of energy and the need for energy independence because constituents are concerned with the high cost of energy and how these costs are impacting their businesses and lives. republicans believe in an all-of-the-above approach for energy independence.

there were plenty of examples in the district for me to visit. in boons, people from appalachian state university solar homestead team showed me the home they're preparing for the 2011 solar decathlon competition to be held on the mall here in washington, d.c. in december. the team is advancing renewable energy systems through research on phase change, material energy storage, integration of solar volume stayic panels and consen -- votaic panels. and while much money has been invested in this project by both the public and the private sector the hope is that the research will result in alternative reunusual sources that will be able to -- renewable sources. pat and clyde have developed carolina heritage vineyard an energy-efficient small business which is benefiting from a

taxpayer funded solar system. they are well educated people who are retired from their first careers. clyde served in the u.s. marine corps. earned his ph.d. and served as a teacher, principal and superintendent. pat earned her m.b.a. and retired from i.b.m. however, while both have their graduate degrees were helpful in general both returned to their community college to earned an associate degree so they can pursue their organic wine business. they bring many skills to the area and others in the business. the gilbert hemlich family farm in north carolina where the family works hard on their poultry, cattle farm is -- he made it very clear to me that the high cost of energy and regulatory burdens are having a negative impact on his

business. they are paying more and more for feed and for fuel to run their equipment. because fuel costs have almost doubled since president obama came to office, they have not replaced two of the 10 workers they had last year. they can't afford to replace them. in a transfer, jeff harvey told me the skyrocketing cost of fuel and regulatory burdens are counterproductive to job creation and the growth of his business, the harvey family practices christian values throughout their business and they've blirked non-profits to feed the needy and when possible hire homeless people, which enables them to leave shelters. but all this great work for the community depends on his business performing at a level that will allow him to continue contributing to the community. as i visited with constituents during the independence day work perioding one thing was clear,

we need another independence movement, independence from middle eastern oil. unfortunately, rather than pursuing energy independence, the obama administration keeps fostering an independence policy at the cost of american jobs, higher prices at the pump, and endangering our national security by make us more dependent on unstable meefrpb governments. house republicans have responded by introducing and passing four bills to increase our domestic energy production and create american jobs. but the senate has taken no action. liberal democrats are obstructing the opportunity for jobs for americans, lower energy costs, and a new era of independence. it's time we declare independence from middle eastern oil and start using our own resources for the benefit of all americans. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. foshes for five minutes.

mr. foshes: the good news is that even congressing is beginning to ask the core question that's part of that financial crisis, which is simply this. how long can we continue to spend almost twice as much money as we bring in. the unfortunate part is that we waited so long to ask that question. i wish we'd ask it before we embarked upon the series of bailouts and stimulus bills that we have embarked upon over the last several years. i'm happy that i'm one of only 17 members of congress that voted against each and every one of those. but i'm unhappy at where it has brought us, which is the fear that we had, that this runaway spending would bring us to a point where we had to begin cutting the national defense capabilities of our country. today we will vote on hr-2219, which will reduce the president's budget for national defense by $8.9 billion. that's only a down payment of the cuts that are going to come.

the next cuts we're told could be $400 billion to $700 billion from our national defense. and before we do that, there are two crucial questions we need to ask. the first one is what is the risk assessment that the united states faces today? that should be answered by our defense review, but if you look at a bipartisan independent assessment of that defense review, you find out that we are a train wreck on its way to happening because that defense assessment has truly become no more than an affirmation of what we are already doing. the second thing that we should be asking before we decide where we can cut is how much we are currently spending and what the risk will be if we make those cuts. unfortunately, the department of defense hasn't provided us with the awe did financial statements the law requires so we know where we're spending those dollars and we don't know the true risk of making those cuts.

but, mr. speaker, let me just tell you that there is a way you can find out. our commanders on the field provide us with the quarterly readiness report to congress, which is a classified document. now, i know as chairman of the readiness sub committee that i'm in the minority, probably and going to vote against this bill today. but, mr. speaker, i'm also in the minority of the individuals who have read this classified report. and the one thing that i would encourage our members to do before they cast their vote today to begin down that series of cuts to our national defense, is at least go in to our staff today and read the quarterly readiness report to congress that's a classified document. our staff is ready to show you the document, to let you review that document, and, mr. speaker, i believe if you will just do that, it will be very difficult to then come on this floor and

begin to start voting to cut and make the cuts we're going to make to national defense. mr. speaker, that's why today, i can't support that bill and will be voth against it. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for five minutes. mr. turner: mr. speaker, this past week, the citizens of ohio's third congressional district were met with the sad news that former congressman charles w. waylon jr. passed away on monday, june 27, in washington, d.c. born in dayton, ohio, on july 31, 1920, he was known throughout the community as chuck. during world war ii, he served as an army first lieutenant in the china, india, and burma theatre. after earning a masters from harvard university, he worked as a professor of economics at his

alma mater, the university of dayton. he later became chairman of the university of dayton's economic department in 1962. before his election to congress in 1966, chuck was a three-term member of both the ohio state senate and the ohio general assembly. while serving in the state house, he wrote ohio's first fair housing law. while in congress, chuck retained his seat handily in every general election, even running unopposed for re-election in 1974. as a member of the house armed services committee, chuck worked to move our military to an all-volunteer army. the nixon administration in developing legislation on this issue adopted many of his recommendations, and today the u.s. has an entirely all volunteer active duty military force. in addition, he was focused on social reforms and supported the landmark civil rights act of 1964. he was also one of the most traveled members of congress and visited more than 150 countries, including every nation in

africa. chuck was highly regarded for his ability to speak publicly, having been a college debate champion at the university of dayton. so it should be no surprise that in retirement, he co-authored two books with his wife, a former journalist. the longest debate of legislative history published in 1985, and the fighting mccooks, america's famous fighting famly published in 2006, focusing on two ohio brothers and their 13 sons who served in the union army during the civil war. not one to be contained by the academic or literary worlds, he was also an avid sports fan and reveled in debating sports trivia and stats. he was president of oakwood high school's class of 1938 and he is remembered for possessing extensive knowledge of pre-war aviation, largely due to dayton being his birthplace. as a son of ohio, congressman waylon made his final journey home and was buried in calvary

cemetery in dayton. waylon is survived by his wife of 52 years barbara and their six children, charles, daniel, edward, joseph, anne, mary, and their seven grandchildren. today, we remember the life and work of congressman waylon and thank him for his service to both the third district of ohio and also our nation. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, for five minutes. mr. pence: our nation is facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportion. we have a $14 trillion national debt. a $1.65 trillion annual spending deficit, and we borrow 42 cents for every dollar we spend. after years of borrowing and spending and bailouts by both political parties, now comes a

national debate over raising the nation's debt limit. now, look, i believe if you owe debts, pay debts. we must honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. but i also believe that now is the moment to take decisive action to put our fiscal house in order and restore the full confidence of the american people in the fiscal integrity of our national government. i believe our debt limit should not be raised without real and meaningful reforms in the way the federal government spends the people's money. in the short term and the long term. in the short term, we need to cut spending now and implement statutory caps on how much money the federal government can spend going forward. but in the long term, the time has come for this congress to send to the states a balanced budget amendment to the constitution that will limit federal spending and require

this national government to live within our means. while the debate, it seems, according to the newspapers today, is focused on spending cuts versus tax increases, the real answer is to cut spending now and to make any increase in the nation's debt ceiling contingent on congress sending to the states a balanced budget amendment that limits federal spending to 1/5 of the american economy. in short, it's time to let the states decide. article five of the constitution provides a process that requires any amendment to pass the house of representatives and the senate by a 2/3 vote. but ultimately, any amendment to the constitution is sup mitted to -- submitted to the states. the states decide whether to amend the national charter. if 3/4 of the states agree, the constitution is so amended. by demanding spending cuts today and sending a balanced budget amendment to the states, we'll let the states decide. and i have every confidence that these united states will choose

fiscal discipline and reform. 32 of our 50 states operate under a balanced budget requirement in their state constitution, and 49 have some sort of balanced budget requirement. in indiana, our state had a prohibition against assuming debt in our state constitution since 1851, and the hoosier state has a balanced budget and even a surplus rainy day fund. i can tell you after years of fighting runaway federal spending by both political parties here in washington, d.c., i can tell you we need more accountability. we need more engagement of the states and the american people. if you think about it, as ronald reagan said, it's important to remember that the states created the federal government. the federal government didn't create the states. by engaging in a process where we demand serious and meaningful spending cuts today, capping spending going forward, but requiring that any increase in the debt ceiling be contingent

on sending to the states a balanced budget with real spending limits in it, we will build on the wisdom and foundation of our founders and our system of federalism. mr. president, if you need more borrowing authority, let's cut spending now, let's cap spending tomorrow, and let's let the states decide whether we should permanently require that our national government live within our means by enacting a balanced budget amendment that limits federal spending and requires that our national government live out our own commitment to fiscal responsibility and reform. we will do right by this day, we will do right by our children and grandchildren, and we will do something worthy to be remembered in this time. the speaker pro tempore: speak to the chair, not to anyone else. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, for five minutes. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i came down here today to talk about the libya issue, the war that supposedly is not a war. but i wanted to start off by talking a little bit about the rhetoric that's coming out of the white house and from the president. i was watching the news this morning and the president indicated that they were going to have these budget talks down at the white house today. and he said, and i quote, that the republicans, in effect, have a gun to the head of the american people. and that just isn't the kind of rhetoric that should be used

right now when we're talking about the huge budget deficits we have. and if i were talking to the president, i would try to admonish him to not do that in the future. and then when we were talking about libya, i think it was just about four or five days ago, he said that we in congress are making libya a cause celebre, indicating that it's not an important issue and we're just trying to puff it up so that we can make political points. the fact of the matter is it is a war. the president went to the arab league. he went to the french, the english. he went to the united nations and nato and decided he was going to be involved in an attack on libya and muammar gaddafi, but the one place he didn't talk to or the one place he didn't come to talk about this issue was the congress of

the united states, the house of representatives and the senate. and the first place that a president ought to impif he thinks we ought to go into -- go if he thinks we ought to go into a conflict of any kind is the congress, and the constitution is very clear on the responsibilities of the president before he goes into a conflict. it has to be a threat to the united states, a threat to our interest and it has to be approved by the congress of the united states. the congress of the united states is the only body that can declare war. he can't do that. he can manage a war. he's the commander in chief once we go into war, but he can't start a war unless it's in our national interest or if there's a threat to the united states. and that was clarified by the war powers act during the nixon administration because there was some question about the

latitude the president might have using the constitution. so the constitution was explained very carefully in the 1970's in the war powers act. now, that's never been tested in the courts. some say it's unconstitutional. but the fact of the matter is, it's the law of the nation. and the president cannot violate the law or the constitution, and in our opinion he's violated both. now, let me just tell you what's going on in this war that the president says is not a war. we have flown almost 30% of the sortees. that means we have flown 375,000 flights into the combat area. we have dropped bombs and miss -- missiles 132 times and sometimes we hit civilians. nobody likes muammar gaddafi.

nobody wants him in office, but the fact of the matter is we've been involved in a war to get rid of him. on pay 22, the figure was that of the missiles that were fired, there were 246 missiles fired and 228 were the united states missiles at $1.1 million per missile. and we're paying p.m. 60% or 70% -- paying 60% or 70% of the total through nato or directly from the taxpayers of the united states. now, the reason i came down here today is to say that we should not be in that conflict because it was not in our national interest and there was no threat to the united states and it was a violation of the constitution and the war powers act. the president said he had to do it because it was a humanitarian issue. if it was a humanitarian issue and we really needed to go in there he should have came to congress.

the previous president, president bush, did go to congress on afghanistan and iraq to get approval before he did it. but president obama decided to do this unilaterally. so we are in a war now and it's closing the taxpayers close to $1 billion in a war that we should not be in. now, he said it was for humanitarian purposes. if that's the case we ought to be in a war in the ivey coast. right now in the sudan -- ivory coast. right now in the sudan there are thousands and thousands of people being executed and killed, and if that's the case we odd to be in the sudan. in syria, we all know what's going on in syria right now. if that's the case we ought to be in syria. there are wars of opportunity every place, and i just like to end, mr. speaker, by saying this, the president should always come to the congress if it's in our national interest or the threat to the country before he goes to war. and it's constitutionally required. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from georgia, mr. woodall, for five minutes. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker. i came down to the floor today to talk about the fiscal crisis that we're having in america. there are those when i open the front page of the paper, mr. speaker, i read the headline and it talks about having a debt limit vote crisis in this country. a debt limit vote crisis. i wept back. i looked back. apparently we raised the debt limit over 70% with a vote right here in this body. having a vote is mott a complicated thing to do. what we're having is a debt crisis. i think that's an important distinction. i was talking to a freshman colleague of mine yesterday about that. understand that we can have the vote, mr. speaker. it's within the house's authority to bring a vote to raise the debt limit tomorrow. in fact, we brought that vote to the house already. should we raise the debt ceiling or should we not?

mr. speaker, we defeated it, defeated it by a wide margin in this body. what we have is a debt crisis. now, mr. speaker, if it were just existing debt, perhaps we could work out a way to finance that, but it's not. it's continued borrowing each and every day to the tune of 42 cents of every dollar that we spend. 42 cents of every dollar we spend, mr. speaker. in other words, if we paid for medicare, medicaid, social security, interest on the national debt, those other mandatory spending programs, just those, mr. speaker, we already spent every nickel in federal revenue. that means every nickel that we spend for education, every nickel that we spend for trappings, every nickel we -- transportation, every nickel we spend for environment, on the courts, every other nickel we borrow with absolutely no plan, mr. speaker, for changing that going forward.

if the president were here today, mr. speaker, i'd say we do not have a debt limit vote crisis. we have a debt crisis, and there is only one body in this town that has put together a budget that will address it. i'm proud to say as a freshman in this congress, freshman in this house, it was the u.s. house of representatives that took on that responsibility, mr. speaker. it's been 799 days since the united states senate last passed a budget. hear that. three years ago since the senate last passed a budget. not a balanced budget, mind you, mr. speaker, but a budget at all. these are serious challenges that require serious people to offer serious solutions and the only one that's been offered in this town, mr. speaker, came from this body, and i encourage the president to go back and take one more look at that because when we come down to game day, come down to crisis,

understand what we're talking about a crisis, we passed the debt limit back in may, mr. speaker. just know we have been shuffling the books in this town because that's what washington does so well. raiding this fund to pay that. raiding this fund to pay this. over and over again and apparently the game runs out. the games must stop and stop here and we must lead as we have always led in this body. we don't have a debt limit vote crisis. we have a debt crisis that is driven by our addiction to borrowing and spending. the borrowing and spending stops here, mr. speaker. i thank you for your leadership on that. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until the hour of

>> over the july 4 constituent workweek, most members of the

congress spoke to their con stitch -- constituents. the number one question my constituents still have is where are the jobs? i personally held about eight, nine town hall meetings, and i asked the question of many small business people, the national debt, do you believe one day you're going to have to pay for it? everybody's arm went up. does that make you more likely or less likely to hire more people? to a man and a woman, it makes them less likely. the debt issue, a spending-driven debt, is a job issue. the president has come out to talk about oil and gas and private jets. he's a little late to the party since in the republican budget, we have already proposed a fairer, flatter, simpler tax code to creating more jobs, which is what the american people care about. if this was about only dealing

with the debt, you would ask the president, why is it that his corporate jet loophole is 400ths of 1% the additional debt he proposes and his oil and gas tax provisions are about four 10ths of 1% of the spending that he has proposed. again, the american people are asking where are the jobs? we've got to cut the spending if we want to create the jobs. >> >> i heard thing over the july 2 recess from the american people, they keep asking the same question, where are the jobs? we know all the deficit spending and national debt are a burden on the american people and they create uncertainty for the american people and they really create uncertainty for small business people. so i think dealing with the short-term debt problems and the long-term debt problems are critically important.

president asked us early this year to increase the debt limit for our country with no changes in spending and no changes in terms of how we spend the american people's money. i made clear that we would not increase the debt limit without real cuts in spending and real changes to the way we spend the american people's money. i also said that we would have to cut spending by more than what we would increase the debt ceiling. as these conversations continue, those principles continue to be in place. i've also made clear that we are not going to raise taxes on the american people. we're not going to raise taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to help grow jobs. >> good morning. i'm looking forward to going to the white house today in what i believe is the beginning of the final stage of discussions over trying to resolve the issue of the debt ceiling. and there is no question that

when we left the biden discussion, there was a blueprint on the table that there could be over two trillion dollars in savings, consistent with what the speakers' -- speaker's mandate is, which is we're going to insist to make sure that the cuts we achieve exceed the amount of the debt ceiling increase. in addition to that, the talks that were ongoing up until 10 days or so ago, they were premised on how we can find common ground. common ground is getting a hold of the spending situation so we can stop borrowing over 40 cents of every dollar we spend. but i'll make it as clear as i did then, that we as republicans are not going to support tax increases. it's counterintuitive to think that you can raise taxes in a sputtering economy. so, again, i look forward to going to the white house with the speaker and seeing how we

can go together to resolve this issue so that people across the country can regain some confidence and get back to work. >> every day seems to make new. today marks 799 days since the senate has passed the budget. here we are with the largest deficit ever, but digging yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging. you've got to produce a budget. when you look at small business and the history of america, and you go back to the last recession at the ending of 2001 to 2007, small business, meaning those with 500 employees or less, added seven million jobs. those with 500 or more decreased by a million. what does the president propose when we've had the largest unemployment consistently since the great depression? job-killing tax increases on small business. that is not a way we're going to get out of this. want to see real leadership, you

look at the house. in four months of taking majority, we've passed a budget. what did the budget do? it reined in spending, had job growth, had us reforming our tax policy that had us competitive. it had an energy policy that put us on the right path. i hope we look at the leadership within the house, be able to move and have the senate fundamentally change where they begin to lead as well. >> last week, "the wall street journal" referred to this summer as being the job lesson of summer, and you look at some of the numbers, only 25% of teens are work. you compare that to 2001 where over 40% were working. 81% of americans know someone that is seeking to find a job. and the average unemployed american has been searching for a job for 38 weeks now. this is a record. this is nearly nine months. it's never been that long in the history of america. we can do better.

and house republicans believe that we can do better. we've introduced a plan to get america back to work. we recognize that hard-working, middle class families all across this family expect us to lead, expect us to implement policies that will make their lives easier and get them back to work. our plan focuses on small businesses and regulatory relief, addressing the debt that is suffocating job growth. that is our plan. we want to move forward on it and we urge others to join us in >> back home in chicago land, in president obama's home state, there is a high level of anxiety about job creation and the pathway forward. small business owners are scratching their head when they look at washington, d.c. and they are flummoxed at the idea that the remedy that the white house is proposing is to increase taxes on them, and they ask this question and they've asked me to pose this question to democratic colleagues and to

the white house, and that is show them a tax increase that has created a job. it's an absurdity. the white house seems like they're chasing the big fish. we need the level of commitment that the president is demonstrating on tax increases to be used on deficit reduction and getting this economy back and under control. the question that has to be asked and has to be answered is when will this white house recognize that it is their very policies that are creating the obstacle of job creation? >> can you pass a deal as it requires to major entitlement reform? just a few weeks ahead of this deadline? >> everything is on the table, except raising taxes on the american people. >> speaker, are you closer to a deal now than you were two weeks ago? do you think it's going to have

to come down to a meeting -- >> the conversations have gone on for weeks. both with the biden group and between the president and myself. but there is no agreement. >> is comprehensive tax reform possible -- >> we believe it would make america more competitive, help create jobs in our country, and it's something that is under discussion. >> [inaudible] >> we are not interested in raising taxes on the american people. >> how are you going to reach a deal? they want new revenue. >> there's a lot of conversation

that's under way, but let's make it clear, we believe that spending is the problem. we've got to get our spending, both in the short term and the long term under control. we know that the entitlement programs are important programs for tens of millions of americans. but we also know that if they're not reformed, that they won't exist in the future. there are changes that need to be made to ensure that those programs are around for the long-term. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> republican leadership within the hour. speaker boehner and eric cantor heading down to the white house

for a discussion on the deficit that are under way at this hour at the white house. we expect to get some readout on how those talks are going, too. we have cameras at the white house should any members come from the meetings and speak to reporters. we'll also hear from jay carnie, the white house spokesman. he will brief reporters this afternoon at 1:00. speaker pelosi will also have her reaction, her weekly briefing later this afternoon at about 2:30. and we'll hear from senators rand paul and mike leigh on their view of the debt and deficit conversation. part of our conversation this afternoon, to continue the act of discussions that have been taking place and improve the atmosphere heading into what all sides agree is a vital five or six days to cut a deal. about some of the nitty-gritty of getting through this congress, major garrett writes that sources involved in the talks will require at least 16 to 17 legislative days to pass a bill of this size and complexity

now under consideration through congress. the house coming back at noon for defense spending, and the senate under waipahu now -- under way, too. we're going to take you to this morning's "washington journal"." he is vice chair of the house democratic caucus and he is on the ways and means committee. in fact, he is th ranking member of the ways and means subcommittee on social security. welcome back to the "washington journal." we appreciate you being here. i want to start with an article on yesterday's "hill newspaper. leading house democrats say social security cuts are a nonstarter. that was in yesterday's paper. this morning's paper, a lead story and "the washington post." obama -- social security on the table. did this take you by surprise? guest: in this sense that the president saying that -- a

program that has not contributed one sense of the deficit should be on the cutting table. absoluly. to the degree that the president is saying we must all enter this negotiating room with no preconditions -- no. but the president, like any other politicians, would have to explain why -- to the american people why it program that has worked for more than 75 years and never contributed to any of these dicits or the national debt should be used to pay for these massive deficits were suering from. host: would you consider any changes to the social security benefit program or the funding formulto help get rid of the debt? guest: peter, it is for the purpose of strengthening social security so in a quarter-century we are told there will be an imbalance of about 20%, absolutely i would consider that. but if it was for the purpose of paying for these deficits that were caused by other things -- principally the bush tax cuts to

a wealthy and unpaid for wars in iraq and afghanistan, then i would be absolutely against that. host: one more headline and then we will move on to the debt talks. "administration offers health care cuts as part of budget negotiations." this is from "the new york times" on tuesday. guest: what the president is trying to get a very recalcitrant bunch of politicians to come to the table and negotiate. he has tried many ways to get republican colleagues to come to some middle ground and has not sueeded and i suspect he is saying, look, i will put everything on the table and let us see what sticks. i suspect that is what he is doing. otherwise we just save about half a trillion dollars in medicare the nt -- years through the historic health reform. how you are going to take more out without really hurting seniors, i don't know. host: steny hoyer, your democratic whip, said he was

willing to work with the republicans to reduce the debt. what did that mean to you and how willing are you? guest: i think with -- what mr. steny hoyer is saying is most democrats have put things on the table, some very painful things. and i believe that democrats once again are prepared to put some painful things on the table. the president has suggested that even social surity might be on the table. i wouldn't put it there but if i want to set at the negotiating table i have to recognize that i have to keep all of my sacred cows, all the things i want to protect, on the table, and see what stays on because ultimately the publ should get to see what we put on the table and will be kept on the table. host: xavier bacerra is our guest, ranking member on the ways and means social security subcommittee and also by share of the house democratic caucus. he represents an area in

southern california. 202 is the area code -- are you seeg any movement on the republican side as far as tax increases go? guest: you know, it is unfortunate but even in getting rid of tax loopholes which cause a very small fraction of americans to have lower taxes than the rest of us, we can't get that even on the table for real discussion. i think it is crazy when executives can use corporate jets, writes off the cost of that, and most americans are lucky if they can't find a economy seat on a commercial aircraft and they don't get a deduction. it is one of those thingwher we should at least talk about getting rid of the tax loopholes that allow people to evade paying their fai share of

taxes. host: the first caller is from minneapolis on the republican line. richard, you are on caller: good morning. i want to remi you i am a republican and i want the democrats to defend social security because it just can't be done because a lot of people out there cnot work until they are 62 even, in these manual laborer jobs. so, i want the house democrats and the senate democrats to defend social security, and even though i am a republican, and it seems like obama is turning into a republican -- i think he has to be voted out. thank you very much. the guest: richard, i would say you are not a republican. you are an american and a taxpaying american who wants to see a program will -- that worked so successfully work again. i have a chart i would love to

show. let me take it and -- host: let meake it and put it under the camera. host: the bush era tax cuts have contributed to the lion's share. guest: that is not my chart here that the congressional budget office. we use this to account for the cost of programs. and host: this is the stimulus. red is the park, fannie and

freddie. and economic downturn is the light blue. these are what the cbo is saying -- this is what the cbo is saying this is what the deficit would be without these factors. guest: bottom line is if we have not done the spending that is outlined, the deficit would be the very bottom line, which is virtually nothing. but because we went into iraq afghantan and did not pay for it, and we have also seen the economy turned down, and you can see the effects of the park, bailout for wall street coming in the effects of the stimulus-- ofyou can see the effects bailout for wall street, and the effects of the

stimulus. the big costs we still run are with the bush tax cuts, because they continue to grow for those that areery wealthy. in the chart you see social security? -- do you see social security? host: it is going down, correct? guest: it is going down, but it is still high. in the next 10 years where it is social security contributing anything to these massive deficits? not a cent. it will continue to contribute to the surpluses, because people will continue to pay into salsa security. that is where some of the subject when someone says you have to cut social security benefits for seniors to you can cover the deficits.

take good you think the 106,000 income cap should be lifted on so-so security? guest: those are the kinds of things we could have a conversation about to help social security in the long term. if you're going to raise the cap on income so that bill gates pay's not just taxes on his first 100,000 in income, but more of it the way most americans do. 94 percent of americans earned 106,000. 6% of americans to make more than $106,000 did not get all of their income tax. could we do something like that? absolutely. that could be pa of the solution to help shore of social security. comes from next call pittsburgh. george.

hello. caller: my points are -- i would like to make quite a few, but it will be hard. as far as social security, i have been on it for some time now the first hit is when ronald reagan started charging making it eligible for taxes 50% of your social security. then when i finally did retire in 1992, shortly after bill clinton raised it to 85%. and the fact is yes, what does that do for me? i have paid $50,000 more in taxes because my social security was taxed. for a while my wife continued to work until she was 75 when the department store shutdown, and she was paying into social

security tax while we were receiving some. as far as i am concerned, this national debt and deficit, it started when ronald reagan cut taxes from 75 to 30%. guest: art has two very important facts correct. that is that people have paid for social security. this is not a welfare program where people are getting some sort of unearned benefit. we have, as was mentioned in the past, shored up social security and done things to collect enough to cover the cost of social security. when all is thrown into the mix to help cover something that social security did not cse, it becomes very difficult for a lot of people to understand. if i were geoe i would be

concerne the other part of what george mentioned is also important. if i turn turn to the chart you have in front of you there, i think it is important for us to recognize social security as not only never contributed a dime to the deficit, but social security holds more money in its reserves than it has spent. there are people who say it is fictional, no such thing as a social security surplus. the chart in front of you shows how much we put into the system in the 75 years and how much we'd taken out. >> this will be by the end of 2011. by the end of this year, 15.5 trillion dollars will have been contributed or deposited into social security. the aerial table shows that in the coming 10, 15 years, the output will be much greater than the income. the dark blue bar in the first

bar, the blue portion, that is where people have contributed to social security taxes. the fica tax is the total amount. the beige bar, that is the amount that has been earned in interest on all of that money. the blue bar that has been deposited to the trust fund. about 14 trillion has been deposited by americans and a lifetime of social security through taxes. another trillion 0.5 has been deposited into the deposited -- another trillion and a half has been deposited into the trust fund. the red bar is the actual befits that have been paid out to all americans in 75 years. the small black bart is the cost that has been administered to social security for the 75 years. total them up and you get a net surplus of over 2.5 trillion

with social security. some say you cannot count interest. when you deposit money into the bank, you earn interest. same thing. payers have been deposited through treasury certificate for quite some time. even if you discount interest, social security, american workers have contributed more to social security then we have ever snt directly. our taxpayer dollars are still more than what is being used. you will begin to see the red bar grow in size, and that is why we have a quarter of a century we will have to do something, but we're talking with dealing with deficits and debt today. social security -- we could all fall asleep for a quarter of a century and social security would continue to go forward until 2036 without running any deficits. obviously no one wants to wait

until 2036 comes to deal with the shortfall, so we should deal with it today. host: what you think the politics behind president obama social security proposal or throwing it on the table, what do you think the politics are behind that? >> i think iis the president tried to figure out how you get republicans to sit at the table? we saw how the republicans walk away from the table. we started talking about all the things that really needed to be done. i believe it is getting them back to the kitchen will be tough. every american family has to sit in the kitchen figuring out how to pay for the bil, how to figure out how you send your kids to college, so shouldhe people who have been elected be able to sit in the hot kitchen and do their homework.

this is not as difficult as peop say when it comes to social security. when they talk about the shortfall, what would it take to fix that shortfall? this is a chart to give you a real quick sense of how simple it would be to fix social security -- term to make sure there's no cut in benefits. you take the bush tax cut for the top% side burners in america. if they had to forgo their tax benefits they got to the bush tax cuts, you could take care of social security forver. host: half year but sarah is our guest. american hero tweets in to you. -- javier basero is our guest.

guest: that is a distortion of what we have been saying. what i am saying is we should all make sure we're paying our fair share. if you and i are paying taxes at a certain level, there are few americans that are paying at a lower level, because they're finding these tax loopholes to avoid paying e amount of taxes that the best of us are paying. if we tried to get those folks who are eating their fair share of taxes by finding all of these tax giveaways, i do not consider that a tax increase, i in -- consider that leveling the tax rate so everyone is paying their fair share. someone has to pay for the war at some point, and should not be on the backs of working class americans. did someone is making $1 million, there is no need to give the millionaire another tax loophole to pay even less in taxes. that is why warren buffett, one of the richest men in america

continues to say i pay at a lower tax rate than my secretary. host: next call comes from hamilton, montana. caller: there is so much to talk about here, and i think the biggest thg to do is forget about taking the money from the people, let's take it from the military. we have 800 bases around the world. when i was in the military are protected royal dutch shell. i protected the people of mixed in corporation. all you do when you are in the mitary, you fight for corporations. when they tell you we're going to go to iraq to fight for freedom, they were telling you a big lie. we should have went to iraq and said now we got these place --

now we have this place secured. 15 trillion dollars just to set foot here. we have some real problems here, and it is because these corporations are taking us to task. >host: anying you want to respond to? guest: there are a lot of folks that are not only very concerned about our strategy in places like a rock and afghanistan but are very concerned about the fact that we are now waging war with our kids money, because when george bush took us into iraq and afghanistan, he did it with borrowed money from china, japan, banks. we have never really paid for the cost of being in iraq and afghanistan, and now we're seeing the cost of that.

i have said this directly to the administration. it is important enough for us to go to war and put the life of one of our young men and women in uniform on the line, then it should be important enough for us to pay for the cost of that with our money, adult money, not the money of our children into the future because we borrow it. i can understand the misgivings come the real concerns, apprehension, agitation, because the reality is most people feel the same way. we should be responsible enough for paying what we say is important. whether it is a rack or afghanistan, let's pay for is we do not run into the situation where we have massive deficits to deal with. plano, texas. dan on the republican line. caller: i would suggest that we consider the fact that before we

allow these corrupt politicians to go after social security or medicare that we rectify the unhealthy situation in medicaid. what i mean by that is virtuay every illegal alien in the country is on medicaid and thanks to the efforts of organizations such as catholic charities, which provide three -- free paralegal service to illegal aliens to sign them up for welfare benefits this country has to offer. it seems to me that is borderline treason. be that as it may, there are huge amounts of money to be saved if we just start with medicaid and a fraud that exists there. guest: i agree with the first part of a phone call where we should keep politicians' hands off of social security and protect medicare.

i disagree with the second part in the sense that -- let me agree with in the fraud. we have to grope for any fraud. what we should not do isgitate by distorted numbers. the reality is that there is no evidence that we see massive fraud being committed within medicaid for purposes of getting undocumented immigrants onto medicaid. are there instances of it? absolutely there are, but is a widespread? nothing we have seen and the evidence. absoluly the calller is correct, and we should do everything to make sure that folks who do not qualify for medicare or so security or medicaid can get onto the system, because it should be left -- those programs and services should be left to those who paid into them and

people who are in this country. host: some ideas are floating around about private retirement accounts. what is your view on that? guest: privatizing social security is the same as ending social security. to privatize it means to pull the money out of the system. whether we go back to the charts that were discussed, whether you pull out of money from the system today, all of those people who paid into in the previous year's will no blogger be able to count on the money being there for them in the future years when they are retired. so the difficulty with privatization is that it sucks the money out of the system so that you put the money into your own private account. the first problem, you are reading -- reneging on the commitment that we may to future generations. i will pay into the system so

that when i retire you will pay into the system when i retire. the second problem with pratizing social security is beyond the cuts to benefits, what do is essentially put individuals at risk of market downturns. if you take a look at what your 41 k or ira statement, a monthly statement or quarterly statent shows you today, it is probably better than it was two or three years ago when we saw the debt of the recession -- recession. social security during the debt of the recession paid out benefits in full and on time,

and it is -- it has never faid to pay in full on time one under% benefits. and that is the rock solid commitment of social security, ins that it is the one leg of the three-legged stool. -- in that it is the one leg of the three legged stool. it is the one guy that has never failed in over 75 years. to risk it by privatizing so security and risk to the retiree, you can do it, but you then destroy what has been a very successful system. host: do tax increases have to be on the table as far as the house democratic caucus is concerned? guest: you have to put taxes on the table. whether you define the as tax increases depends on what you're doing within the tax code. if you're trying to get the loopholes out of the system, i do not view that as a tax

increase, because the vast majority, probably 90 percent of americans will not see a tax increase, because they're not taking advantage of tax opholes. how much are we talking about? over one trillion dollars. it is not little money. if you dispose of the tax loopholes, you are bringing people up to level of up to where everyone else is when it comes to paying taxes. if you talk about other types of tax increases, that is a different matter. we could discuss that if you want to have fairness overall. this kid to a long way to solving the problem in a balanced way with spending cuts and tax spending cuts as well. host: next call comes from a can, south carolina. hi, angela. en, southfrom aikn carolina. caer: one of the problems that

i have, and i watched this diligently, is the way we start the conversation. we speak of the so-called stimulus bill. it was the economic recovery act. we were in a deep hole. we had to come out of it. this was not all about jobs. republicans do not even acknowledge the tax cut that were in the bill. they do not even acknowledge the fact that allows the stimulus money went to states that took it instead of using it for what it was designated for. governors used it to balance their budgets, but they do not want to give obama credit for it. i agree with you about social security, it has nothing to do with the debt. there is a lot of fraud in medicare, and i will give you a quick examples and i will be through. medicare pays for shoes for

persons with diabetes. we actually got a bill for a pair of shoes that we received. you could have bought the issue for about $50 at any department store. they put inserts and them and they charged the government $500 for one pair of shoes. each micare recipient that has diabetes as eligible to receive this. the second example is i've had many stays in the hospital. doctors prescribed me -- put me on aspirin regimen. you can buy a 1 milligram aspirin -- at any store for 100 4 $1. guest: i think angela has crystallized why it is we can still find the savings, and even

valuable programs like medicare without making cuts to benefits. what we have to do, and by e way that was done in last year's historic health reform, wch saved us lf a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. that is what we did in the bill. we found those types of savings that she is talking about. we said provider of alth-care services, you cannot do three x- rays of that patient and then expect to get paid three times by medicare for providing a service there really could have been done with one x-ray. we are moving towards that where we tried to find fraud and eliminate it and prosecute those people who are taking advantage of the system. angela is correct, we have to continue to dig deep, because these guys always find a clever way to try to take advantage of the system. there are ways to make the cuts that we need to make in

spending without killing a program the way it was proposed in the budget that passed the house. i think you can go a different way. angelo point out how you can find the savings. host: he received his undergraduate from stanford univsity. creasy tweets in the gop keeps adding unobtainable demands. -- gracie tweets id the gop keeps adding unobtainab demands. guest: i hope that is not true, because if that is true, we are about to see the nation for the first time in its history default on its bills. the biggest problem with that is that defaulting on the bill does not just mean we raise our hand and say the government cannot pay. what it means is the bond market

says wait a minute, you want to borrow more money to operate? interest rates will have to go up on you. if interest tes go up on the u.s. government, they are obviously going to go off on every single american who wants to purchase a home, to buy a car coming to send their kids to college. all this and the ripple effect will be that american families are feeling the consequences of of republicans not agreeing to help us deal with the debts and we end up defaulting on those bills. the other consequence of not being responsible is that we tell our kids that we are not prepared as assaults -- adults to pay for the spending that we did today, and we're willing to go bankrupt, which will hit you tomorrow, because dealing with the debt ceiling does not affect anything about spending tomorrow. it is allbout taking care of e spending that was done

yesterday. once we deal with the debt ceiling limit, we will have done nothing to deal with the future. it is just taking care of all the spending. it has nothing to do with future spending. it has to do with all of the bills from yesterday. host: as a member of the commission on fiscal responsibility you voted against the final report, but what cuts did you support? guest: i was very close to supporting the proposal. what i said to mr. bowles and mr. simpson is you were anemic and your men met -- menu of choices and how you apply them. principally the tax loopholes. they put the tax loopholes on the table, which is very brave of them, because they are sacred, but of the 1.1 trillion per year that we give out and tax loopholes, tax giveaways, they took only 100 billion of it

to help cover the debts of the past. i believe that we shod have put more of that, because by only putting 100 billion of that into paying for the debt of the past, they had to make very harsh cuts to medicare. even to social security into other programs to try to get rid of the deficits. i said that is not fair. i did not think it is fair. i said if you change or mix coming your prescription of the things you have on the table, i will vote for it, but they had to keephe votes ty had. they did not go where i thought it was important to go so i voted no. otherwise i thought it was great. >> lawrence, georgia. ed on the republican line. caller: you said too many things that i do not have time to answer to come up but i will take the main one. you're talking about fair share.

people paying their fair share. most of the people that are paying this -- that are listening to you are paying less than 12% appear again you know a flat tax would give all of the pimps and prostitutes a little bit of money. guest: i disagree with you. i think most americans are paying their fair share. when you say the rates of 34% coming your talking only about income taxes. america pays far more than just income tax. they pay the payroll tax. they pay excise taxes. they pay sales taxes and property taxes. by the time you added up, americans generally pay their fair share. the folks who do not belve pay their fair share are the folks that can hire very expensive attorneys and figure out how to navigate the tax code and find the gaps so that they can avoid pang what should be their

legal responsibility in terms of the tax code. those are the folks that i am saying do not pay their fair share. can have discussion and argument about what rights we should all pay at, and we have a prressive system of taxes where the wealthier you are, the higher your rates go, but bill gates pays the same amount of taxes on his first $50,000 in income as every other american does he makes $50,000. the problem is he makes a lot more than $50,000. most americans would probably enjoy being able to say they are were bill gates are when it comes to income in taxation. host: a tweet for you -- guest: this is a big question come and that is why it is so difficult to tackle. that is a tax expenditure, because if you own a home, you

do not have any mortgage to write interest of up when you pataxes. you do not have any interest payment on your mortgage if you do not own a home. so it is something you get over someone who does not own a home. the earned income tax credit is something you ge only if you are lower income worker, but your income is low enough that you get to take advantage of the earned income tax credit. that was a program that ronal reagan created. those are both considered tax loopholes. when i said to you that the tax loophole benefit adds up to 1.1 trillion dollars in a year and give away money, i include that. i also include the deduction on state and local property-tax is that you get to deduct from your taxe when you file your statement every year. some people say that is not a loophole. you could agree. i would agree that the mortgage interest deduction has great value when it comes to getting people to buy their home.

first-time home buyers, great when they know they can get the deduction. they are paying rent and not getting any kind of deduction. but we have to do is decide which are the valuable tax expenditure programs and which are not. is it good to good corporate executives a tax break when they like a corporate jet and set up commercially? we have to decide. because we have so many of these different tax loopholes, people are taking advantage of it. millions of americans take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction. very few take advantage of the corporate loophole on jets. that is why i said i can go with ur plan if you are more robust and how you deal with the tax loopholes. that is what i meant. go after those that are not for most americans. host: tulsa, oklahoma. david on the line. i agree with the

lady, angela, about fraud and medicare. also, i think there can be some things done about generic drug negotiations that could lower the cost, and also, the charts that you pulled out on social security, you're absolutely right about that. it really is not adding to the deficit and doing what the republicans are saying. there is a lot of fear thathey are putting out there, and it does not add up to the fact and what you're actually showing. joseph stilitz has a book out on the iraq war called the three trillion dollar war. there were three retired supervisors of e pentagon that

have a book called the pentagon labyrintthat shows all of this waste and fraud. we a dealing with medicare, social security, and here are the oth 82 percent of the budget that we should be looking at, which is the military, the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in these most important days in debates here in the people's

house, we beg you to send our spirit of wisdom as the members struggle to do the work that has been entrusted to them. inspire them to work together with charity and join their efforts to accomplish what our nation needs, to live in to a prosperous and secure future. in this week in the wake of celebrating the great blessings bestowed upon our republic, please bless those men and women who serve our nation in uniform wherever they may be. give them the protection of your loving embrace, grant them the trust to know they have our eternal gratitude. please keep all the members of this congress and all of whom who work for the people's house in good health, that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them by the people of this great nation. bless us this day and every day. may all that is done here this day be for your greater honor

and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. baca. mr. baca: before we begin the pledge to our flag, let's remember our men and women serving our country. put your hand over your heart and let's begin. 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 pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise from arkansas? >> to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize mazie outdoor products, a rogers, arkansas, company celebrating its 125th anniversary. daisy moved to rogers from plymouth, michigan, in 1958. since that move, daisy's impact on the northwest arkansas economy has been substantial. not only in providing jobs but the incredible recognition this famous brand brings to our region. mr. womack: as the largest b.b. gun manufacture, it has a history. the contribution to the shooting sports, the united states military and the character of young men and women nationwide is noteworthy. and who can forget ralphie, in "the christmas story" and the coveted red rider, the most famous b.b. gun ever produced. mr. speaker, 125 years in business is a milestone.

it's a tribute to the vision, commitment and hard work to the employees of daisy. congratulations, daisy. i'm proud of you and our nation is proud of you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor and recognize the rich history of cape verde as we mark their independence day. this week we honor the people of cape verde here and around the world who are celebrating 35 years of independence. in doing so we honor the many milestones and important cape verde leaders like al, who fought for the liberation of cape verde. we honor the lives, work and history of cape verdean americans. they have made significant contributions in the areas of art and culture, business and

public service. cape verdeans has brought jazz and others. rhode island like speaker of the house gordon fox has been prominent leaders in politics. and i want to pay tribute to the late george lima. he served in world war ii. he then served our state honorably as a state representative and was head of the rhode island naacp. cape verdeans are skilled, proud, caring members of our society. i'm honored to celebrate cape verde independence this week. 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 south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president says he supports nuclear power development, but

his actions have sadly stopped construction at yucca mountain after more than $10 billion of ratepayer money has already been invested, killing jobs in nevada. utility companies across the country have been mandated by the federal government to collect over $33 billion for the nuclear waste fund to build yucca repository. the federal government promised citizens of south carolina and georgia that nuclear material being stored at savannah river site would be sent to yucca for permanent disposal. now this high-level waste will sit at s.r.s. and it's reported by "the post courier" at more than 106 other sites across the country. "the courier" editorialized the president's decision is breathtakingly irresponsible. i agree with brian tucker, president of the north augusta chamber of commerce that the president should stop playing political games, to be guided by science and not politics. 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 connecticut 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. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. when former president harry truman and his wife, bess, were officially enrolled as the first medicare beneficiaries on july 1, 1956, only 66% of america's seniors can pay for health care. it made seniors basically uninsurable. that all changed 45 years ago last week when medicare was established as a guaranteed benefit providing a basic level of care for seniors regardless of income or illness. from the beginning, medicare has proven resilient, adapting to rapid changes in medicine and serving in wartime and peace and in economic boom time and recession. medicare has faced more difficult financial challenges in the past than the ones that face us today. preserving medicare's guaranteed benefit for future generations is our solemn duty

and we must stop the push for vouchers which will ruin america's middle class. on the 45th anniversary of this landmark program, we must rededicate ourselves to protecting medicare as a guaranteed benefit for today's and tomorrow's seniors, not butchering it with a voucher program or using it as an a.t.m. for the top 22%. happy anniversary, medicare. hope you have many returns. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the administration's war on coal led the office of surface mining and reclamation would try to change a rule of what is called extreme. i am pleased that an amendment i offered over the budget continuing resolution has been included in the interior appropriations bill in an effort to stop this irresponsible, regulatory

overreach. no one is surprised that the obama administration is continuing the war on coal, but this is also a war on jobs. mr. johnson: and the coal industry employs thousands of people in eastern and southeastern ohio. mr. speaker, we all want a cleaner environment, but we need to make sure that the policies being enacted are common sense and do not come at the expense of jobs in our economy. stopping the obama administration from rewriting the string buffer zone rule will be a victory for jobs and a defeat to a radical agenda that is seeking to outlaw colon tirle. we can and we -- ndou law coal entirely. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: as the deadline looms

to raising the debt limit, the american people sent a clear message to all of us. they won't stand for a budget that is balanced on the backs of seniors and the middle class. the american people know that it is wrong to privatize medicare with a new voucher program. cut guaranteed health benefits for seniors. sacrifice medicare aid services for the poor and disable. it is not too late for us to compromise on a balanced approach. yes, we can trim spending with intelligent cuts, but we must end tax breaks for the ultrarich. i state, we must end tax breaks for the ultrarich and corporations that ship jobs overseas. no new faxes equals no new jobs -- taxes equals no new jobs. no taxes, no jobs. we must have historic opportunity in front of us. let us stop the bickering and work together on a plan that straightens the middle class, lowers our deficit, creates new jobs here at home. 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 georgia rise? mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: mr. speaker, we have overspent. we have overextended, and now we have to get out of debt. the last 0 years we have been increase -- 20 years we have been increasing the debt ceiling and allowing washington to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money. this method of madness hasn't worked, and today our economy is suffering because of it. yesterday i introduced a unique bill that would lower the debt ceiling to $13 trillion. this proposal would force washington to make the spending cuts that we so desperately need to pay down the debt. state and local governments, businesses and families understand that when you've maxed out your credit card you can't just give yourself a credit increase.

instead, you have to cut spending and pay down your bills. the federal government is the only entity that does not understand this. mr. speaker, i urge my closing to support h.r. 2409, the debt ceiling reduction act, because we need to turn this country in a completely different direction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. clarke: i have a proposal to help us save tax dollars, pay down our debt and better protect the american people. instead of spending billions and billions of dollars to secure afghanistan at the rate that we are, and we spent over half a trillion in afghanistan of our precious tax dollars over the last 10 years, i propose to redirect a small share of our tax dollars back

to the u.s. and to use our own money to hire and equip more police officers, more firefighters, more emergency medical providers because one of the most effective ways to help protect the american people from a terrorist attack is to make americans safer right here at home. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee 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. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. on june 27 -- 22, president obama released 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, just over a day's worth of oil. they continue to play politics rather than develop a comprehensive national energy plan which will help lower unemployment and improve our stagnant economy. this country's economy was built on inexpensive and

abundant energy. folks are frustrated now. a fellow stopped me the other day and said, doc, it's a sad day when a guy can't buy a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk for less than $10. they want solutions. they want to work. they want to provide for their families, and it's way past time to ease this pain at the pump. the president shows no interest in the republicans' all-of-the-above energy strategy that encourages drilling in anwr and the outer continental shelf. with the national unemployment stuck above 9%, the american people expect us to work together to lower the cost of energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create american jobs. with that 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 new jersey rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose the privatization of amtrak. it will threaten reliable,

defendable and accessible passenger rail service throughout the united states. i travel home every weekend to my district in new jersey on amtrak. it's an essential part of our economic vitality. on the plan to privatize amtrak, the essential service they provide to millions of passengers could be lost and nearly 20,000 amtrak jobs could be eliminated. it could turn over to the already deficit burdened states to maintain. it's likely the staff will be cut and commuter rail services will be cut. freight railroads may face logistical problems if amtrak becomes privatized. many important labor provisions will be eliminated. future railroad employees will be exempt from this ability, pension retirement and unemployment benefits. by removing future employees from these benefit systems, current retired employees will be negatively impacted.

i urge my colleagues to oppose privatization of amtrak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> while marching in parades all over my district over the fourth of yull weekend, i spoke with concerned parents, job creators, seniors an folks who have been out of a job for a long time. one message i heard loud and clear from all of them, redeuce government spending so that businesses can create jobs again. that's why i signed on to the cut cap and balance pledge, which calls for a balanced -- balanced budget amendment to the constitution. mr. harris: i know the idea that the government have to balance its budget every year is strange here in washington,

especially to entrenched bureaucrat here's in washington, d.c. imagine if the federal government had to live within their means. cut, cap, and balance. let's make sure we put america back on the path to prosperity, not unemployment and bankruptcy. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from haye rise? >> -- from hawaii rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speakering for so long we've been hearing about our debt and who owns our debt and of course the name china comes up. that's why we need to have the currency reform for fair trade act come to this floor because that's the only way, the only

way we're going to address the currency manipulation by china and simply ask that they play by fair rules for fair trade. look at what this means for us. ms. hanabusa: let's understand by not having the currency stop being manipulated by them, they have the benefit of 25% to 330%. that's what we're exporting. if we fete the currency manipulation under control, this is what we hope to accomplish. the budget deficit will reduce to about $857 million over the next 10 years. the trade deficit will reduce by $138 billion. the g.d.p. over the next 18 months will increase by $285 billion. this will support 1.6 million american jobs. so as we are asking, where are the jobs, look to currency.

the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> on july fourth, we celebrated our independence from britain. mr. hensarling: my constituents want to know when we're going to celebrate independence from borrowed money. and the other thing they want is more jobs. the president doesn't seem to get this. if his reckless spending and class warfare rhetoric created jobs, we would be the most highly employed country in the history of man kind. instead we are mired in the most sustained unemployment

under his policies sips the great depression. we have a plan. make the tax code fairer, flatter, simpler. stop the president's job-crushing tax increases and end the dumb regulations that prevent jobs in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. welch: we face a debate about raising the debt limit not because we want to but because we have an obligation to pay our bills. the majority on the democratic side voted to do that. it was not to incur new spending or obligations but to meet obligations already incurred. $2.3 trillion for the bush tax cuts, iraq on the credit card, afghanistan on the credit card.

if we are going to level with the american people, we have to acknowledge we're going to have to pay for things whatever their intentions. the time is long overdue for us to accomplish this. if we're going to be successful on the two things we must do, pay our bills, maintain our full faith and credit that have a long-term fiscal plank then everything must be on the table and that has to include taxes as well as spending and it must include the pentagon. mr. speaker, this is not an ideological battle to win, it's a practical problem to be solved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. there's no tout our economy is struggling. with stagnant unemployment, over $14 trillion in debt and soaring food and gas prices, america faces challenging

decisions. in my home state of illinois they can debt per person is over $4,400 and the state faces a $15 billion shortfall in next year's budget. these, indeed, are real problems that need to be addressed with common sense solutions. mr. dold: one solution is to encourage american companies to reinvest their earnings here at home. currently they hold $1347b9 trillion in earns overseas because the united states tax code encourages companies to keep their earns outside of the company. we must encourage companies to reinvest their earnings here in america. not only will the earnings stimulate the american economy but the government would collect approximately $50 billion in immediate tax revenue this money would help spur job creation, more growth and investments here at home. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan h.r. 1334, the -- so

we can have more solutions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the yealt rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: i was elected in november of last year for the 10th time here. i have had -- i'm in my fourth district in that period of time. i spoke to people all over dallas county, tanchte county and collin county and unanimously they're concerned about the lack of serious -- are seriously concerned about the lack of serious job plan from the republican majority. so we must cut spending. we must ensure long-term fiscal health. but grid welcome over spending cuts does not create jobs. we need a bipartisan compromise that focuses on fisscrealsponsability while maintaining investments in our community that continue to create jobs and grow the economy. to get americans back to work, we must invest in science,

education, research and innovation to create this ejobs of the future and we must focus on america's ability to build, grow an construct across the country to remain globally competitive. these efforts can and will spur job growth and ensure our nation can compete and be a leader in the global economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> for too long, washington has borrowed money and today we meet to discuss the looming crisis. we know the crisis is spending driven. it's not that government taxes too little, it's that government spends too much. mr. yoder: the american people know that tax, borrow and spend won't lead us to prosperity as

a nation. taking money from hardworking americans and sending it to washington is not the answer. it's time for washington to roll up its sleeves, get to work and live within its means just like families and small businesses have to do across the country. it's time to put in place caps on future spending and pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. if we're to rebuild our nation's economy and put americans back to work, we must put our own fiscal house in order first. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: in a short time, the house will have an opportunity to reclaim our constitutional authority on matters of war and peace by voting to stop the use of funds for the war in libya. an agreement has been reached through work that mr. amash and

i have done to create a bipartisan amendment which states none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the use of military force against libya. the amash-kucinich amendment is co-sponsored by a growing group of bipartisan activists, including representatives ron paul, lynn woolsey, walter jones, conyers, barbara lee, ted poe and pete stark this could well be a historic moment where a bipartisan coalition rally this is congress to defend the constitution and to reset the balance that has been upset by the administration's claiming the war power. vote to end the war in libya, support the bipartisan amash-kucinich amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the yealt from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address

the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the number one job for house republicans is job growth. the number one impediment to job growth is uncertainty. uncertainty caused by record high debt, $14.3 trillion and grow, and the record high tacks that are going to have to pay for it. uncertainty about the largest tax increase in the history of the nation that the president pledges to support in just 19.s. add to that the unknown cost to the government takeover of health care and the unknown price of dodd-frank and you've got a very uncertain private sector. we cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. they need us to work with them, not against them. if we follow the house republican plan for america's job creators and stop spending money we don't have, certainly -- certainty will be restored, our economy will grow and jobs will be created. i yield back, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with a heavy heart i turn our attention to the plight of sudan's nuba people who are fleing their homes in the tens of thousands as the sudanese armed forces conduct brutal military assault on their homeland. there are widespread reports of sudanese forces are bombing, shelling, and executing civilians in the oil-rich state of -- state there. they are restricting the musme of u.n. personnel in the area. as we welcome south sudan into the community of nations this week, united nations personnel

must investigate reports of possible war crimes against the nuba people by the sudanese forces. we must not be intimidated by omar al bashir's bullying or we may find ourselves saying, never again, again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i'd like to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. sanchez: i rise to honor the life of greg cooper he recently lost his battle with cancer on maye 26 othis -- of this year. he was a proud united states marine and he served his country there between 1963 and 1967 and he did a tour in the

vietnam war. upon leaving the marines, greg was hired by the santa ana police department, where he held several very high profile jobs and worked with elite tactical units we have. while serving his community as a santa ana police chief, he earned a bachelor's degree from california state university at fullerton and a master's degree from the university of southern california. leaving santa anna in 1992, he was appointed chief of police. and in 1996 he relocated here to washington, d.c., where he accepted a position with the department of justice to administer our cops grant program. in 2002, greg joined the department of homeland security as chief security officer for fema and he retired in 2008. mr. speaker, this nation and my community mourns the loss of a

loyal friend, a respected leader and a dedicated public servant, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: thank you, sir. to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. while we were in recess on june 25, memphis lost one of its great citizens, bishop paterson jr. he was the grandson of the founder of church of god and christ. the cousin of the late bishop paterson. he was a public servant as well as a bishop and a revered citizen of memphis. he was my friend. we served together in the constitution convention in 1997. he served 20 years in the city council and was the first appointed mayor african-american mayor of the city of memphis. he was the leader in his church and he cared about his community, he cared about jazz. he cared about his fellow man.

he was low key, sincere, down to earth and a leader whom memphis will miss. he did much with the communities that he was given through his father and his family and his city in politics and in other areas. he was the jurisdictional bishop for the tennessee headquarters, the head of the penacostal temple of god and christ and did much. i will miss him and so will the city of memphis and all the saints. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> mr. speaker, i present a privileged report for printing under the rule. the clerk: the clerk will report the -- report to accompany h.r. 2434, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: this

is referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, all points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2219. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 320 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2219. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2219 which the clerk will

report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, twelve, and for other purposes. -- 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, jewel 6, 2007, the bill had been read to page 161, line 12. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated in the congressional record as amendment number 13. the chair: the clerk will report the -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. mr. cole: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is quite simple. it prohibits the funding of

military -- prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to conduct military operations in libya. a place where i believe we are engaged in an illegal and certainly unauthorized conflict. mr. chairman, i feel a little bit today like a lawyer with two very unpopular clients. one of them is libya and the other one is the united states congress. but in this case each one of them has an important point to make. with respect to libya, let me make it clear, i don't believe anybody in this chamber supports mr. gaddafi, supports that regime or wishes it well in any way. but libya did not attack the united states of america. libya did not attack any member of nato. libya has not allowed al qaeda to operate with impunity out of its territory. a number of years ago, libya turned over nuclear material to the united states. quite simply, however much we

detest mr. gaddafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war or conducting military operations in libya. and frankly, if we allow that situation to continue, i think we have to ask ourselves, are we willing to attack any nation anytime that we disagree with with a regime we don't like simply because the president chooses to do so? more troubling than the attack in libya, in my view, is the circumvention of this body, the united states congress, and its war-making authority under the constitution and the war powers act. only congress has the ability to authorize and fund military operations. the administration consulted with nato, the administration consulted with the united nations, the administration consulted with the arab league. it never in any real sense consulted with the congress of the united states before beginning military operations

in libya. two weeks ago this house made clear its opposition to the libyan venture by refusing to authorize even the limited use of force. we should build on that by removing funding today. some may question whether or not this amendment is germane on this particular piece of legislation. frankly, mr. chairman, i worked very clairefully with the parliamentarian on the language, and more importantly, it's moderned after the famous amendment in 1983 to defense approps bill that year that was approved by this body 411-0. some may argue, like the administration, that we really aren't engaged in hostilities in libya. that's simplely laughable. attorneys at both the department of defense and the department of justice of thised a jferings believe that our activity requires congressional authorization under the require powers act.

we've flown over 1,000 combat sortees over libya airspace. we launched 228 tomahawk missiles. we launched over 100 predators. we're refueling and supporting nato aircraft that are engaged in attacking libya every single day. if that's not war on our side of this situation, i can assure you that other on that side consider it war and certainly consider it hosle. the reality is we should not be engaged in military action of this level unless it's authorized and funded by the congress of the united states. in libya, the president has quite simply overreached. however, in congress we have so far allowed him to do so. we have not authorized this activity. there's not a single line in a defense authorization bill or in this bill which actually funds this activity, and we ought to explicitly prohibit the president from concluding.

i think, like many in this body, this is a very important moment for the congress of the united states. whether or not we claim war-making authority and exercise our power under the constitution is really the issue here. you could be for the libyan venture and still be able to support this legislation or you could be against it. at the end of the day it's extraordinarily important that we stop the erosion of the war-making authority and responsibility of the congress of the united states, that we end this ill-advised venture in libya, and that we reassert the rightful place of this institution in conducting war, authorizing it and funding it. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition today to the gentleman's amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: and before i start on my discussion, i want to say that i have great respect for congressman cole who serves on the defense appropriations subcommittee. one of our most thoughtful members. the nato-led mission to defeat gaddafi and protect the people of libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations. including the arab league and it followed a resolution adopted in the united nations security council authorizing all necessary measures. this amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this could materially harm our relationship with nato, who is also playing a major role in this. we will undoubtedly require support in the future in our dealings with nato, and we get support in afghanistan today. i do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and cost of u.s. military

forces engaged in the libya operation, both in the defense and foreign affairs committee as well as here on the house floor. we should let the mission with our nato allies continue so we can overthrow gaddafi and protect the libyan people. i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: the constitution, mr. chairman, and the war powers act clearly says what the parameters are in which the president must act or follow. number one, a declaration of war. number two, a specific authorization. number three, a national emergency created on an attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. none of this criteria was met

by the president. he said he went in there because of humanitarian issues. he consulted, as we said before on the floor, with france, england, the united nations, nato and the arab league. he had two or three weeks to do that but he didn't have time to talk to the congress of the united states, and he's gone in there and spent almost $1 billion at a time when we just don't have the money. now, if you're talking about humanitarian problems, in the sudan 2,300 sudanese have been killed this year alone and more than 500 people died in the last two weeks. in darfur, 450,000 to 480,000 have been displaced or killed, and just recently, and one of my colleagues talked about this a while ago, in the nubian

mountains in the sudan they're killing people every single day. it's a horrible atrocity that's taking place. human rights violations. and if you're talking about humanitarian issues, why wouldn't you go in there as well? you look, also, at syria right now. in syria there have been an awful lot of people killed. we all see that on television every night. there are wars of opportunity. if you go to liberia, if you go and look back, we didn't get into those wars and we're not getting into these wars right now because it's not in our national interest and it's not a threat to the united states. and the president has taken us into a conflict. he said it's not a war, but it is a war. we've sent about 230 missiles in thereto -- in there at $1.1 per to kill people. we've flown planes in there

dropping bombs. it's a war. it's the united states' war and it's being covered by nato. now, we shouldn't be going to war unless this body and the other body says it's ok. it's in the constitution. it's in the war powers act. we should not be there. nobody likes muammar gaddafi. nobody thinks he should be there, but we can't be going into wars of opportunity every place, especially at a time when we're fiscally broke. i think it's extremely important that legislation like that, which mr. cole just offered, should be passed, and i hope we will pass it. there's a whole host of these amendments that are going to be read today and we are going to be voting on, and we need to send a very clear signal to the white house that this must never happen again. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. dicks: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. would the gentleman -- which -- >> amash 27. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amash of michigan. at the enof the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, up in of

the funds made available by this act will be used -- may be used for the force against lib yasm the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. amash: i'd like to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, for his leadership on this issue. there's growing bipartisan support for this amendment. it's an amendment that gives us the opportunity to stop this unconstitutional war in libya. the united states has been at war against libya for nearly four months. we have dropped bombs on libyan buildings. we have flown sorties other libyan air space. it has been reported we targeted caw draw fee himself. -- gaddafi himself. the president has not attempted to obtain congress' authorization for the ar and yet at this moment as we debate on the house floor, the war continues. instead of following the

constitution ap seeking authorization, the president made trained arguments tooff the continued operation. at first, the operation was supposed to be limited. as though that undefined term serves as a constitutional escape clause my constituents certainly would be surprised if congress established a limbed religion or subjected them to limited cruel and unusual punishment or quartered soldiers in their houses but only for a limbed time theasm limited argument wan its course, the president turned to an invitation from the organization of arab tates tooff our involvement. those were not around at the time of the constitution much less are they listed in its tax. the administration has retreated from its constitutional arguments in public and claims that at least the war powers resolution does not forbid the strikes because

we're not involved in, quote, hostilities, against lib yasm imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, that libya was bombing us. would we view the libyan air force's bombing of our infrastructure as a hostile act? of course we would. last week a member of the other chamber called the president's arguments, quote, cute. i would use a different term. embarrassing. it's embarrassing that the administration atells to hide mind these transparently trained and flimsy arguments, especially when we're dealing with such a grave issue. but you know what would be more embarrassing? if this congress did nothing. more embarrassing an the president's contortion of the law and disregard for the constitution would be if congress, with full knowledge it was occurring, gave him a pass. in the face of an attack on the constitution, in the face of an attack on this institution and our powers as a co-equal branch, we must stand up and say, stop.

if we don't, we should be the ones who are embarrassed. the amash-kucinich amendment prevents funds from being used for military force against libya. i believe that congress doesn't need to do anything to stop the president from ordering forces in libya because the hth has not received authorization. the use of force is already illegal. however to reinforce our constitutional position, our amendment says that beginning at the start of the fiscal year, on october 1, the armed forces may not drop bombs on libya or otherwise use military force. unlike the bill we considered week before last, our amendment does not implicitly authorize any actions against libya. it simply says force may not be used because the president has not sought, nor has he received, authorization for force. please vote yes on the amash-kucinich amendment an defend our constitutional role in war powers. thank you, mr. chairman.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i move strike the last word. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman if this were a debate on policy or a debate on philosophy or a debate on the war powers act specifically, the position that i would take would be somewhat different than i must take today. but as the manager of this bill, what i have to work with is the bill before the house and the amendment before the house. the amendment is simple. none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the use of military force against libya. what i would say to the chair, there are no funds in this bill, in this act, for libya. i was curious about that.

and as chairman, preparing to write this bill in conjunction with mr. dicks, the ranking member, i wrote to the president on april 1 and i sent each of our members a copy later on asking the president for specific questions about the scope of this activity, the expected cost, etc. on june 22, the white house finally responded. and they said that they will not plan to ask for a supplemental appropriations bill. and there's no money in this bill for libya. the administration says they will not ask for a supplemental bill to pay for libya. that they will use funds in the base budget. i wonder where they're going to take the money out of the base budget? as chairman of the subcommittee, this worries me.

where do they man to take the money? -- plan to take the money? that's only part of the argument. there's no money in this act for libya to start with. bucekly, if this amendment should be -- should become effective, here's what we would not be able to do. we would not be able to fly or perform search and rescue missions of american forces who may be flying aerial activity and be -- have the planes go down. like early in the operation, we lost an f-15. two american pilots went into libya and safely rescued the pilot of that f-15. couldn't do that under this amendment. what we are providing today is surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance. couldn't do that under this amendment. aerial refueling, our coalition

partners and they are partners and we have agreements with those partners, we provide aerial refueling because most of them do not have the capacity to refuel their aircraft in-air. we would not be able to provide aerial refueling. we couldn't even provide operational planning, sitting down and talking with our coalition partners about the plan for libya. so while this amendment sounds good if we were discussing philosophy and if we were determining the policy, the policy has already been established and this amendment does not change the policy, it just -- it affects something in the bill that's not even in the bill. so there are no funds in this bill for libya and according to the letter from the white house, they will not ask for supplemental funds, they will just pay for the operation out of existing funds.

that remains a good question, and i say that again, i'm really curious to know what base funds do they intend to use to pay for this operation in libya? i don't have the apps today. i'm hoping that one day i may have that answer. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i rise to strike the last word in support of the amash-kucinich amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: the esteemed chair, my good friend, the defense appropriations -- of the defense appropriations committee, raises a question. where are they getting the money? the money is not, as he points out, expressly in the bill. this legislation, the amash-kucinich amendment isn't

to delete funds that have been appropriated, this is to forbid the administration, forbid the administration from using funds that are appropriated in this act. now -- and this -- there's no way that congress could or would intervene to stop a search and rescue mission and that's not relevant. unless you're talking about that this congress is finally going to search this defense budget, figure out where the president is getting the money and rescue the american taxpayers from a wasteful war and rescue the constitution from an illegal war. that is what make this is a search and rescue mission. but no search and rescue is prohibited by the amash-kucinich amendment. now i want to say that i'm

proud to have worked with mr. amash to come together with this bipartisan agreement and the support for it is growing. we have mr. paul, ms. woolsey, mr. jones, mr. conyers. mr. burton, ms. barbara lee, mr. poe. mr. stark. mr. mcclintock. mr. nadler, mr. nugent, mr. johnson, mr. honda. the support is growing. and members can call either mr. amash's office or my office right now if they want to co-sponsor. this is our moment, in congress. this is our moment to reclaim the constitution of the united states which the founders envisioned that under article 1, section 8, we have the power to determine whether or not this neigh gos to war. not some rebel group in benghazi because when you reduce it to its ultimate, a group of bengaw zero rebels made the decision to go to war against its own government and

before you know it, nato joins in, we're pulled into it, the administration went to everyone except getting the approval of the united states congress. this is our moment to reclaim the constitution. will we rise to the occasion? this isn't only about this congress right now. history will judge us. whether or not we understood. the imperative of article 1 section 8. this is about the constitution. certainly it's about a billion dollars that would be spent by september unless we intervene at a time of rising debt, at a time of tremendous pressure in the budget, at a time when local governments and our communities are cutting public services because they don't have the money. this administration determines they're going to keep us into war and they didn't even so much as give this congress an opportunity to have this debate before the decision was made.

that was wrong. part of the nature of this forum to understand that we have a higher calling here. and that higher calling is to defend this constitution of the united states which describes what our duties are, when we come here, we take the oath, to defend the constitution. that's what we shall do today. we shall rescue this congress from the ig no, ma'amny -- the ignominy of having this government assume we have no right in this government. this is our moment to stand up, democrats and republicans alike. i'm proud to wash with mr.

amash to craft this bipartisan amash-kucinich amendment. this is our moment, members. let's not lose this opportunity to stand up and speak out on paff of the united states constitution, on maff of the separation of powers, on maff of the co-equality of our house of representatives and the congress of the united states. let's show the founders and the -- and the spirit of the founders is always with us in this place, let's demonstrate that we remember where we came from when this constitution was set forth. let's demonstrate where we stand up. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, for more than three months now, our nation has been amidst a quiet constitutional crisis that carries immense implications. my friend, the gentleman from florida is sadly mistaken to