footage of his dissent inside -- descent inside eagle lunar module to his landing. many of you i'm sure have seen this footage but to hear neil armstrong offer a live narration as the eagle descends and settles on the moon's surface is something i'll never forget. also i want to recognize my good friend buzz aldrin whom i've come to known over the years. buzz has never failed to council me on all things relating to space and nasa and i appreciate his commitment to our country and our space program. mr. speaker, the last congress passed legislation signed by the president authorizing a congressional gold medal for these brave astronauts. the legislation before us today, s.con.res. 29, authorizes the use of the capitol rotunda on november 16, some 43 days hence, to formally make the award. i support the resolution and urge all members to support it as well and i thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jackson the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from mississippi reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. . >> i thank the gentleman from mississippi and i ask my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to thank chairman lungren and ranking member brady for their support on this matter and i urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to senate concurrent resolution 29. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection mokse most. -- the and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a message.

the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i am pleased to transmit legislation and supporting documents to implement the united states-colombia trade promotion agreement. the agreement is an important part of my administration's efforts to spur economic growth, increase exports and create jobs in the united states while promoting our core values. the agreement will create significant new opportunities for american workers, farmers, ranchers, businesses and consumers by opening the colombian market and eliminating barriers to u.s. goods, services and investments. the agreement also represents a historic development in our relationships with colombia. colombia is a steadfast strategic partner in the united states and a leader in the region. the agreement reflects the commitment of the united states to supporting democracy and economic growth in colombia. it will also help colombia battle production of illegal

crops by creating alternative economic opportunities. under the agreement, tariffs on over 80% of u.s. consumer and industrial exports will be eliminated immediately. the united states agricultural exports in particular will enjoy substantial new improvements and access to colombia's markets. currently no u.s. agricultural exports enjoy duty-free exports to colombia. once the agreement enters into force, almost 70% by value of current u.s. agricultural exports will be able to enter colombia duty-free immediately. in addition, the agreement will give american service prosliders greater access to colombia's 134 billion services markets. that will help to level the playing field. since 91% of our imports from colombia have enjoyed duty-free access to our markets under trade prrch programs. the -- preference programs.

this includes state-of-the-art provisions to enforce intellectual property rights, reduce regulatory red tape and reduce regulatory barriers to exports. it contains the highest standards for protecting labor rights, carrying out coverage, environmental agreements and ensuring that key domestic labor and environmental laws are enforced combined with strong remedies for noncompliance. colombia has already made significant reforms related to obligations it will have under the labor chapter. a number of these steps have been taken in fulfillment of the commitments colombia made and the agreed action plan related to labor rights that president santos and i announced on april 7. colombia must successfully implement key elements of the action plan before i will bring the agreement into force. this agreement forms an integral part of my administration's larger strategy for doubling exports

by the end of 2014 through opening markets around the world. in addition, the agreement provides an opportunity to strengthen our economic and political ties with the andean region and underpins support for democracy while contributing to further hemispheric integration and economic growth in the united states. this agreement is vital to ensuring colombia continues on its trajectory of positive change. as a part of an ambitious trade agenda, it's important that the congress renew a strong and robust trade adjustment program consistent with reforms enacted in 2009. renewal of that program is necessary to support americans who need training and other services when their jobs are adversely affected by trade. after we expand access to other markets abroad, we need to ensure that american workers are provided the tools needed to take advantage of these opportunities and are not left

behind in the global economy. approval of the agreement is therefore in our national interests. i urge congress to enact this legislation promptly. signed barack obama, the white house. october 3, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee of ways and means and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i am pleased to transmit legislation and supporting documents to implement the united states-panama trade promotion agreement. the agreement is an important part of my administration's efforts to spur economic growth, increase exports and create jobs here in the united states while promoting our core values. the agreement will create significant new opportunities for american workers, farmers,

ranchers, manufacturers, investors and businesses by opening panama's markets and eliminating barriers to u.s. goods, services and investment. the agreement also represents an important development in our relations with panama and accords with the goal as expressed by the congress in the caribbean basin trade partnership act to conclude comprehensive, mutually advantageousous trade agreements of the caribbean basin, trade preference program. it further reflects a commitment on the part of the united states to sustain engagement in support of democracy, economic growth and opportunity in panama and the region. panama's one of the fastest growing economies in latin american. upon entry into the agreement, panama will immediately eliminate its tariffs on over 87% of u.s. exports, on consumers and industrial goods

and more has half of u.s. exports of agricultural goods. panama will eliminate most other duties on u.s. exports within a 15-year transition period. 85% of u.s. businesses exporting to panama are small and medium-sized enterprises. the elimination of duties provided in the agreement will help to level the playing field for them and for all u.s. exporters based on 2010 trade flows as approximately 98% of our region -- of our imports from panama already enjoy duty-free access to the u.s. market. in addition, the agreement will give american service providers greater access to panama's $20.6 billion services market. the agreement contains state-of-the-art provisions to help protect and enforce intellectual property rights, reduce regulatory red tape and eliminate regulatory barriers to u.s. exports. the agreement also contains the

highest standards for protecting labor rights, carrying out covered, environmental agreements and ensuring that key domestic labor and environmental laws are enforced, combined with strong remedies for noncompliance. panama has already made significant reforms related to obligations it will have under the labor chapter. as part of an imbeneficiaries trade agreement, it is important that the congress renew a strong -- renew a strong and robust trade adjustment program. renewal of that program is necessary to support americans who need training and other services when their jobs are adversely affected by trade. as we expand access to other markets abroad, we need to ensure that american workers are provided the tools needed to take advantage of these opportunities and are not left behind in the global economy. approval of the agreement is in our national interest. the agreement will strengthen

our economic and political ties with panama, support democracy and contribute to further economic integration in our hemisphere and economic growth in the united states. i urge the congress to enact this legislation promptly. signed, barack obama, the white house. october 3, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i am pleased to transmit legislation and supporting documents to implement the united states-korea free trade agreement. agreement. a landmark agreement that supports american jobs, advances u.s. interests and reflects america's fundamental values. the agreement levels the playing field for u.s. businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers,

investors and service providers by offering them unprecedented access to korea's nearly $1 trillion economy. the agreement eliminates tariffs on over 95% of u.s. exports of industrial and consumer goods to korea within the first five years. and together with the agreement entered in through an exchange of letters in february of 2011 addresses key outstanding concerns of american automakers and workers regarding the last of a level playing field in korea's auto market. the agreement also ensures that almost 2/3 of current u.s. agricultural exports will enter korea duty-free immediately. in addition the agreement will give american service providers much greater access to korea's $580 billion services market. the agreement contains state-of-the-art provisions to help protect and enforce intellectual property rights, reduce regulatory red tape and eliminate regulatory barriers to u.s. exports.

the agreement also contains the highest standards for protecting labor rights, carrying out covered environmental agreements and ensuring that key domestic labor and environmental laws are enforced combined with strong remedies for noncompliance. increase u.s. exports expected under the agreement will support more than 70,000 american jobs. the agreement will bowleser our economic competitiveness -- bolster or economic competitiveness in the asia-pacific region. the united states was once the top supplier of goods exported to korea. over the past decade our share of korea's import market for goods have fallen from 21% to 10%, behind japan and china and behind the european union. the e.u. has several other -- the e.u. and several other trading partners are negotiating or have recently concluded trade agreements with korea. if the united states-korea

trade agreement is not approved, the united states could lose further market share, export supported jobs and economic growth opportunities with damage to our leadership position in the region. as a part of an ambitious trade agenda, it's important that the congress renew a strong and robust trade adjustment assistant program consistent with reforms enacted in 2009. renewal of that program is necessary to support americans who need training and other services when their jobs are adversely affected by trade. as we expand access to other markets abroad, we need to ensure that american workers are provided the tools needed to take vafpk these opportunities and are not left behind in the global economy. approving and implementing the agreement is an opportunity to shape history. we must seize the moment together to support jobs for the american people today and to sustain u.s. leadership well into the 21st century. i urge the congress to enact this legislation promptly. signed, barack obama, the white

house. october 3, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, by separate message i have transmitted to the congress a bill to approve and implement the united states-korea free trade agreement and that message i highlighted new commitments that my administration in close coordination with the congress successfully negotiated to provide additional market access and a level playing field for american auto manufacturers and workers exporting to korea. here with i am transmitting the letters exchanged between the united states and korea that contains those commitments which further enhanced both commercially significant trade agreement and the united states has concluded more than 17 years. the documents i have transmitted in these two messages constitute the entire

united states-korea trade agreement package. signed, barack obama, the white house. october 3, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p documentary. >> the reason why prohibition initially was passed is because that broader array of people, no matter what they're all tell

your motives might have been, sincerely thought that we could take this big problem off the table. this big problem is suffered by perhaps 10% of our population. we made the unfortunate decision to apply the solution to 100% of the people. it did not work, but it does not leave us free of the moral obligation to try to improve society. >> see his remarks tonight s 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> for the first time, americans will have access to connectivity, even if there are natural disasters and other things happening, through a satellite network. >> the head of lightsquared on his company's efforts on building a $14 billion high- speed wireless network. there are reports that it might interfere with global positioning equipment for the military. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> the house will consider a spending bill that will keep the federal government open for another six weeks, through mid- november, and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch our live coverage of the house on c-span, and the senate on c-span2. and use our comments of resource on congress to get more information about your elected officials. c-span's congressional chronicle, including video of every house session, voting records, committing hearings, and more. it is washington your way. this is the networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> now remarks from illinois congressman on the creation of the congressional israel caucus. we will hear about the history of the u.s.-israel relationship and why many feel is still important politically. the hudson institute held an all-day conference looking at the issue. this runs one hour 10 minutes. ladies and gentlemen, i have

a difficult job of calling you back to order after a full morning and lunchtime. but it is important that we try to start soon, especially as a couple of our participants will have to leave a little bit early. good afternoon. i am a senior fellow of the hudson institute, and i direct the program on the future of the muslim world, one of whom is activities is to publish a journal on radical islam called current trends in islamic ideology. today, it is my privilege and pleasure to serve as the

moderator of this, our third panel, and our fourth session. this panel is devoted a, i might say, to come in a way, the overall subject of this conference, the subject of the strategic relationship between the united states and israel. we have come to this subject in a certain way by various steps and by is somewhat indirect route, but we're finally there. and it subjects, the questions were posing, are what is the basis and value of this relationship? by way of introduction to our subject and the commons that our panelists may have all heard, let me cite the often repeated claim that america does domestic politics in stops at the water's edge. what this means or is alleged to

mean is that we, americans, when venturing forth in the world, put aside our domestic disagreements and put on a common face to other countries. both friends and adversaries. well, we're here in washington, and they've been if we were not inside the beltway, we note that this is not always true. but in the case of the state of israel, it has been remarkably true. and over a remarkably long time. that is to say that israel has enjoyed support from a very broad sector of the american public and its elected representatives. the character of this relationship has been very broad. it has involved political and military factors, but also cultural and increasingly, as we heard from our noon speaker, economic ones.

as a result of the spread of the project of this relationship, it has come to be seen in called strategic, as distinguished from transaction. that is, a relationship goes beyond one-off and temporary communities of interest. we have grown very used to this relationship and its steps, such as to take it very much for granted. but it is, in a way, and curiosity, given the disproportion between these two countries, the state of israel and the united states. the u.s. is now an old country. israel is still a very young one. the u.s. is a very large and powerful country. with worldwide interests and influence. israel is a very small one. and necessarily more restricted in its influence, as well as its interests. of course, israel's primary

interest today and throughout most of its life has been ensuring its continued existence, and most serious interest that the u.s., i am happy to say for the time being, does not have to worry about on its own behalf. we know from history that it is not uncommon for large countries to disdain the interest of small ones, especially one as far away. i use this expression advisedly, because it was an expression used by, some 70 years ago, by neville chamberlain, prime minister of great britain, who used it in reference to the importance of that check was a hockey might have to the interest of great britain. czechoslovak yet being a country not bigger and not much smaller

than israel. what then explains the strength of the relationship between the u.s. and israel? why is there this relationship between such a large and influential country and such a small one? moreover, i think it is an important question to raise. it is especially important to raise because, despite the present depth of that relationship, it was not always so, and we tend to forget that. from 1948 to 1967, there was broad american sympathy for israel and some political support. it was a variable, and there was a very little of a military relationship. it was only after the six-day war that military relationship between the united states and israel became in any way really substantial. so this relationship has not

been of this depth from the beginning. it has grown, but it also might decay. should it, we know that there are, today, people who argue that it should, but this is a relationship that exceeds what is in the interest of the united states. so it is important to ask, what are the basis of this strategic relationship? what are its grounds, and are then divided? are they truly inviting, or will they change? to address these questions, we are privileged to get three very distinguished speakers. i will announce all three of them in a moment and then call on them to speak in that order. the congressman from illinois, who is co-chair of the republican israel caucus, gary

bower, director of the organization on american values and formerly undersecretary of education for a very long time, actually, eight years, i think. that probably said some record for people in that office [laughter] >> they could not find it. [laughter] >> and the vice president of the american foreign policy council. we have asked our panelists to each speak for about eight minutes. i understand that my colleague has already announced the means by which we have to enforce this. thereafter, we will pursue some follow-up questions with our panelists and between them and then open the floor for questions. >> thank you. >> i must say that the

enforcement mechanism was not disclosed to these panels. [laughter] but we will find out if i go eight minutes and five seconds, we will find out. i served -- as a reserve in my third term in the house of representatives. i represent the western suburbs of chicago. i am pleased to be here and co- chairman of the house republican israel caucus. i thought i would try to give you a perspective, over the past several months, what it is like to be inside the house of representatives in dealing with these themes about the u.s. and the israeli relationship. i would not presume to begin this strategic talker the weapon stock or the economic talk, but that may give you a talk with some insight for what it is like to deal in the house of representatives right now. interesting thing, the 2010 election cycle was about what? it was not about israel. it was not about foreign policy.

it was about largely spending and economic themes, and the role of the government in domestic life. that was the prelude to the 2010 election, and that was the national conversation that we had. so how is it that israel has become front and center in house operations within the past several months? well, it is largely based on the approach that the administration has chosen to take, and it is an interesting thing, because inside the house of representatives from israel had an impact. let me give you an example. 87 new republicans to come into this congress, many of whom have never served in public life, and their first task is to figure out how to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. turns out it is going to be a continuing task for them, but it was their first task, too. so the coming in, and there was

a strong movement at the beginning to say, you know what, the best way to do this is sitting across the board cuts and call it a day. it is the easiest and a straightforward thing. they came to the conclusion that they did not want to do that. in large part, why was that? because they knew it would have an adverse impact on the u.s.- israel relationship. they knew that it meant they were going to cut military support to israel, and members of congress tell me that nobody sent me here to cut support to israel. interesting little planning. that was a decision that was a threshold decision inside the house strategy on moving forward. in other words, doing across the board cuts and an adverse relationship or adverse support

to israel, let's not go that route. why? because israel is important to us. israel needs our support, and that's come up with a different pathway. another little observation is is the decision by speaker boehner to invite prime minister netanyahu for a joint session speak. the amount of world wide and national attention and focus on a joint session speech is something that money just cannot buy. right? the ability to coming in, to convene, and to speak to literally the who's who of american public life, there to be welcomed and to be celebrated, is a thing to behold. now, this is an opportunity that was available to the previous speaker, and for whatever reason, she made a decision not to do that. i do not have any insight as to that thinking. but i knew -- i do know that

speaker bonner was intentional about inviting prime minister netanyahu here. that sort of focal point creates a great deal of energy around the u.s.-israeli relationship. another interesting thing, and it is just an anecdote. when i became chairman of the house republican as well caucus, the first thing i asked for, i said, where is the list of members? >> that's really fabulous in a place of 435 members. i have five people on the list, and the staff said they are going to move the needle. i started working the floor, just going up to members, and i would say george, do you want to be in the house republican israel caucus? they would say, i thought i was in the caucus. after i signed up 80 people, i gave up. it was like i was not playing

fair. in other words, the esteem with which israel itself was something that was very easy to get people to get around, the purpose of the caucus and then is to highlight the relationship, to advance the relationship, to educate folks about the relationship, but i almost felt like i was not playing fair. do you know what i mean? give me a hard job here. i am advocating for israel among people that basically feel great about israel. i am happy to do that, and it was an easy thing to do. the last think that gives you an insight into how israel is perceived is there was a large amount of new members who took the opportunity to accept an invitation to travel to israel in august. i will be going on a sixth trip to israel next month, and it

goes without saying, to see it is to believe it, and to come away from that experience is really formative. i just want to give you one last personal experience. i was involved in a competitive race for congress in 2006, and it was one of those were you did not know whether we were going to win or lose, one of those larger than life situations. during the fall, my wife and i decided, win or lose, let's go do something fun. if you win, it is always fun, but if you lose, you want to have something to look forward to. we decided we were going to go to israel, and we have not been there as a family. we have four children, and i can only describe to you as the formative experience in israel for my children. i am a christian. i am not going to israel as a jew, i am going as a christian

with my wife and our four children. it was something that is a touchstone in our family life, a touchstone experience. i am here to bring encouragement today, encouragement that says within the house of representatives, israel enjoys a unique status, a status that is based on a premise of its shared values, shared interest, and obviously a tumultuous part of the world. it is one that i think most americans, as they reflect back and set politics aside, they recognize that a close relationship with israel is in the best interest of the united states. it is in the best interest of the united states for israel to be strong, for it to understand its relationship with the united states, and that is where i think the administration is in

some ways running into difficulties. the sword of damocles is upon me. my time is up. i am moving back carefully, have not touched anything, and i will be happy to stick around for questions. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be with you all today. i thought it was 80 minutes, by the way. [laughter] it is pleasure to be here on such an important subject and to talk about the strategic relationship and like it is so strong. pour about the last 10 years, since 9/11, i have had the opportunity among other things i do to work on a project of trying to build grass-roots support for israel and for the alliance between the united states and israel.

it really has been very easy work to do, because this is the grass roots of the united states and all kinds of people and strata and economic groups, etc., a natural affinity for the nation of israel that drives elites crazy. over the last 10 years, because of that work, i have been able to do for better or worse a lot of interviews with the media, not only the u.s. media, but media from europe, latin america, europe, around the world. the interviews are almost identical. they come up to my office, they set up their camera, everything gets ready, and then they lean in and ask a question, why do americans support israel? or why are christians so pro- israel? the question is always asked with an arab hostility and

almost disdain. because media elites, as you know, certainly in europe and increasingly here in the united states, are very hostile to the cause of israel. they think it is a bad thing that the united states places itself on the side of israel. we see that over and over again with twisted news coverage, etc. it seems evident early in to the interviews that these reporters are graduates of the helen thomas school of journalism. they come into the interview with a set of assumptions that no decent, honorable, educated person could possibly be deciding on the present israeli regime against the poor palestinians who are being put upon, etc. as i said, i have found it is a pretty easy job to get people to

support israel. it certainly has never been hard for me to look at the middle east and be able to tell the difference between the murdered and the murderers, or the difference between who stands for freedom and who stands for something quite different than that. it has been alluded to a number of times already today that the two nations have very strong military ties. we share intelligence, etc., but i would like to suggest to you, and i would argue the main reason there is such an affinity among the american people for the nation of israel, and also among the people of israel, an affinity for the people of the united states and for the nation of the united states, is that our bonds go a lot deeper than military arrangements or even normal, strategic relationships as one would understand those. the two nations love and honor the same things.

to cite one obvious thing, we worship the same god, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. judaesm and christianity are obviously joined in a basic way. there is a sort of tapestry of shared values that has been woven between the two nations. i think we will strive together , or we will expire together. not to be too melodramatic about it, if by some terrible set of circumstances our nations fail, then i don't believe it is that arguable that the world would sink into another dark age. the two nations, i am comfortable putting it in this way, i see the two nations as

the pillars of judeo-christian civilization. that is a concept that will get you great scorn on the universities of many u.s. campuses and certainly israeli campuses, too, but there is such a thing, western civilization, judeo-christian civilization. i remember -- first of all, we could go around this room and everybody could tell me exactly where you were that morning of 9/11. i was stuck in a traffic jam on an exit off of 395 near the pentagon when that hijacked plane went into the side of it. i found out later that at that very shocking moment, friends of mine died at their desks at the pentagon and died on that plane, so i certainly will remember the

moment. i also remember something else. i remember turning the tv on in the days that followed and seeing celebrations in some precincts of the middle east. palestinians running into the streets, shooting guns into the air, dancing, handing candy out to their children, celebrating the pain that we were feeling. we had not even pulled bodies out of the rubble yet, and they were engaged in this. i remember seeing in israel people we being with us, the israeli government declaring a day of mourning with us, lowering their flag as we lowered our flag. when a reporter says to me, why are americans -- is this really a close call for anybody that is paying attention? the israelis knew exactly what we were experiencing that morning, because they have been

subjected periodically to these grinding campaigns of terror. the two nations are together because we have the same in any -- the same enemies. these death worshipers, who even as we are meeting here this afternoon are still doing everything they can to bring us greater sorrow than we have ever experienced. they don't want 3000 to be dead on the next day like 9/11, they want 300,000 to be dead. i said that our two nations agree on certain central, philosophical ideas. one of those is the whole of dignity and value and worth of every human being. judaism and christianity both believe that man is made in the image of god. et believe that every man has a divine spark, regardless of handicapped or age or were you are in life or the color of your

skin, etc., each person has value and worth. that is a central idea, a judeo- christian civilization and of western civilization. it is why every place we go, we tend to promote these ideas of individual liberty that goes with the idea that men are made in the image of god. the central idea of america, as i am sure we all know, is in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, written by the founders, who were students of the hebrew bible and the old testament and of the christian new testament. they took their ideas about man and liberty out of the bible, old and new testament, which led them to write in the second paragraph, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator -- that is a revolutionary idea.

the creator that is being referred to in the paragraph that the founders were well familiar with was the god of abraham, the same guy that said to abraham, he who blesses you, i will bless. he who curses you, i will curse. this is why christians in the united states tend to be instinctively very pro-israel. by the way, our steamed moderator said that the strong relationship is relatively new, but among the american people generally, this goes back a long way. the american founders were ists.ration thi that also believed that america would play a role in that. jefferson and franklin thought that the seal of the united states ought to be a depiction of moses leading the people of israel out of captivity to the

promised land. this goes through a long part of american history. the israeli ambassador to the united states has written about this quite eloquently. harry truman went against all the advice of his advisers and recognized israel almost immediately after the new nation was declared. it was reflecting what he was taught at his southern baptist church. in the years that followed, when people would stop by the oval office and talk to him about this, he would compare himself to king cyrus, who allowed to choose to be liberated out of babylon. these routes between israel and the united states kovach very deeply. my time is up. i believe as we nurture this relationship and as we try to defend western civilization that we not only need to work on military cooperation, intelligence sharing and all the rest of it. i think both israel and the

united states need to be sure we are teaching children that they are part of a great civilization, western civilization, judeo-christian civilization. they are being told by the popular culture, by academicians, and all sorts of people in the lead that this is a civilization that has oppressed people, that it is not worth defending, that everywhere it has gone, mr. has followed. the exact opposite of the truth. i believe the children free men and women everywhere need to know that wherever western civilization has gone, freedom, human dignity, self government has followed, and that, indeed, is a civilization represented by israel and the united states, will work the pending. thank you. -- well worth defending. thank you. [applause] >> thanks very much.

i am delighted that i will not have to bore you as long as i thought i would. i thought this was a useful introduction to the topic. when we think about israel and about the u.s. relationship with israel, a couple of things tend to be self-evident. the first is that the strategic partnership is historic and broad, and the second is that support is almost a given in the context of congress and a lot of key constituencies. what we do not have a lot of understanding of is why the strategic partnership makes sense from a political view. that is where you have that tension between the mainstream media and the questioning of the durability of the alliance. let me spend a few minutes talking about the relationship in geopolitical context, about why this makes sense.

the current bargain see of the relationship is very much a modern phenomenon. in the early days, israel was seen as a liability, under the kennedy and johnson administrations. politically, the american public was supportive in the main of israel, but in terms of a strong alliance, it had yet to develop. this began to change during israel's military victory and the logic of partnerships that began to emerge in washington as a result. it did not truly become a partnership of strategic proportions until the reagan era. the relationship that washington build with jerusalem was driven essentially buy four main considerations. the first was that there are common values. israel was and still is the only western style democracy in the

region. this gives israel something that is culturally and politically understandable and relatable in a way that israel's neighbors are not. this is israel's enduring compared to the advantage when it comes to talking with the united states and interacting with washington. it is one that israel has managed to leverage very effectively. it stands as one of the building blocks for the partnership moving forward. the second is that israel was a reliable military partner. there's a u.s. general that term to israel a land-based battle carrier. that is how israel came to be seen in the context of what the united states was looking at in the middle east. it was seen as a country where u.s. forces could contain and from which they could deploy in a regional crisis. the port of haifa became a port of call for the u.s. sixth fleet

and ancillary relationships started to be built. israel began at -- began to be seen as an industrial partner. technological vances' came to be seen -- advances came to be seen as an asset for the united states that we could leverage. the fourth and probably most important is that israel was seen broadly as a strategic force multiplier for the united states. because of the items above, the military the partnership, israel came to be seen as a country that was mainly congruent with the united states and could be expected to act in a way that would be beneficial to us. an enduring example is when israel acted to eliminate the

nuclear program of saddam hussein. it was an act that was publicly vilified and privately congratulated on the part of many in this town because it was seen as being congruent with what the united states saw as a threat and a response. the result of this was that israel came to be seen as a security producer in the region, not a security consumer. from that flowed the foreign aid that we give israel, the idea of qualitative edge, the promise that was given to israel under the reagan administration that israel would be provided with the type of military equipment that would allow its to stand and fight against the quantitatively more numerous adversaries in the region. there have obviously been tremendous changes in the relationship since the end of the cold war.

the peace process it entered into the mix in a very dramatic way. the security in burma has become very fluent. in the first gulf war, israel has taken a back seat in terms of coalition building in a way that it would not have during the cold war. 9/11 injected new -- the war on terror allowed americans to understand intuitively in terms of what israel was suffering in terms of terrorism and the threats it faces, but qualitatively, the threat to israel from groups like hamas and hezbollah has not diminished substantially. you can make the argument that it has grown. this sort of very fast forward summary brings us to where we are today. relationship between the u.s. and israel is clearly weathering a time of turbulence.

from the israeli perspective, they are seeing a challenging environment. it is more challenging than any they have faced since the early tumultuous days of the post cold war era. we are talking about the arab spring and the realignment with turkey, and an uncertain future with the palestinians. the obama administration, at least politically, is not seen as being very supportive in this context, but all of this needs to be put through the lens of a relationship that is both historic and abroad. the logic is still sound. israel shares, and societal values and shares congruent use of regional threats and other opportunities. israeli american cooperation is durable because it makes strategic sense. that is why you see the sort of mixed picture of the

relationship that is emerging under the obama administration. politically, the relationship is turbulent, because there has been emphasis to a greater extent under this administration that under the last one on issues regarding settlements, palestinians, reinvigorating the peace process in a way that has created tension between jerusalem and washington. strategically, and you don't see much of this on the surface, but the partnership is thriving. there is tremendous cooperation on issues like missile defense in counter-terrorism, homeland security training and law enforcement training. the reason for this is that in the main, the pillars that undergird the alliance are apolitical. that is why it enjoys so much support across administrations,

and irrespective of political orientation. that is why i enjoy so much bipartisan support in congress, in terms of generating the consensus politically speaking and also generating the legislative fuel to keep the relationship humming. as we move forward, we should be thinking about the issues that are relevant both to the united states and to israel. over the last several years, you have seen a number, including the topic we talked about before launch, which is iran. a common front between the united states and israel on the subject of iran is one of the most enduring issues of the years ahead. this is the good news. the bad news is that the political friction that ec between washington and jerusalem could lead to the perception that israel is isolated and vulnerable. that perception serves neither

the israelis nor the united states. the u.s. needs a partner that is willing to compound american policy and objectives in the region. when israel is viable and working, it is driving force in terms of u.s. policy in the middle east. thank you very much. [applause] >> i thought it would begin by posing a couple of questions that arise from what has been said so far. it seems to me that there have been it two things that have been mentioned as powerful forces in the relationship. part of that is shared principles, shared sentiments.

mr. bauer spoke eloquently of intwined hearts and so forth. that has been and remains a very powerful thing, and even more so if there is a very concrete experience of israel itself. in a way, it is remarkable, since very few americans actually have an experience of israel, and that sort of personal relationship is phelps by large numbers of americans. if i may offer an observation of my own, i think some of it has to do with the shared heritage that israel and the united

states draw upon. some of that being historical, but some also just being the experience of democratic life. one of the things that has been very striking over the years with people who have seen the interaction of israelis and americans, a sense that they are democratic and egalitarian, with the pluses and minuses of that. the notorious rudeness of israelis and the notorious simi rudeness of americans. there is something about the national character of each country that is shared. on the other hand, and these are very powerful, general things, about 35 years ago i had a year to do research in israel and jerusalem, and i used to say to

israelis that were very concerned about the relationship that these are really powerful,, and things. they would say yes, but what about when specific interests arise? they were trying to come up with a very hard, concrete argument for why it is absolutely necessary for israel and the united states to be in a strategic partnership. they felt and a certain way that the other things are powerful and good, but at certain times will not be the determining force. i think that is important. i want to raise the question of how that works, in your opinion, the relationship between these general, shared things which are there all the time and the

specific issues that arise. in a way, there is a very natural occasion for referring to that. the comments of our secretary of defense, leon panetta, this morning, who was quoted by everyone as saying the following thing, that israel is more isolated today. the first response one might think up to that is,"gee, do you think?" when he refers to the relationship between israel and turkey and israel and egypt. the question is, obviously, what

are they supposed to do about it? maybe the secretary of defense would admit there is nothing they can do about it, but then the question is, what does it mean for us? and how are we supposed to approach these kinds of tensions, or is there no real tension? should there not really be daylight in the circumstances between the u.s. and israel? if so, why, and if not, if there is some daylight, how is that supposed to be managed? feel free to comment on the other things that have been said here, but i throw that out for discussion. >> anytime there is tension in a relationship, or ambiguity in

our relationship, people in the relationship are well served by dealing with it quickly, speaking to it for brightly and attending to it. when i was practicing law, by analogy, nothing good happened when i got a file and let it sit on my desk for a while. you blow a statute of limitations or run into some other hassle. nothing good happens, the longer you wait. i believe there are consequences to leadership decisions and we are in part in this time of israeli isolation, based on how the administration has been leading and how the administration has created a great deal of ambiguity about the relationship. ambiguity in this context is not helpful. i serve in the house leadership as the chief deputy whip, which

isn't obscure title which means nothing to anybody, but what it really means, the whip, kevin mccarty and i, or talking to more rank-and-file members than probably anybody else in the house of representatives. you do not start the morning of the vote or the week before the vote. you give it a lot of time. i think what the administration has done in terms of how it has approached the un situation, for example, is to presume that it was able to sort of speak teenager. you say hey, how're you doing, just like that. like we just expect you to vote a certain way because we are telling you to vote a certain way. you have something up as consequential as a statehood question, and the vote has not been whipped four months in advance, you create a great deal of ambiguity and tension.

i would suggest nothing good happens. the good news is, israel enjoys a very strong relationship here in the house, in the senate, obviously. but i am not surprised that now there is this sense of israeli isolation. this is the consequence of leadership that i think has not served that relationship well. i don't think it is in the best interest of the united states, and there is a remedy for that. create clarity about what the united states relationship is with israel, that it is in the u.s.' best interest for israel to be strong in the region, and ultimately good things can happen from there. in a nutshell, ambiguity creates tension and tension creates isolation, and it is not helpful.

>> the statement by panetta today is the latest in a series of statements by officials of the administration that seems to be manifestations of another round of pressure on israel to make certain concessions under very bad circumstances. naturalsee it as a tension between the united states and israel. i see it as a tension between israel and the current advances -- administration. they announced early on that they intended to oread foreign- policy toward the islamic world. it raised certain expectations, it seems after three years of trying this, all it has accomplished is, we are no more well-liked in the islamic world and before this pro-islamic reform policy was initiated by the president, and israel is under even greater pressure.

to the extent they are under pressure, i don't think anyone in washington should take any lesson out of that other than that we are being isolated, too. the middle east is increasingly hostile to israel. by definition it will increasingly be hostile to the united states. does anyone think of israel is suddenly gone are makes major concessions that week since itself and strengthens its enemies, that suddenly the position of the united states would be stronger? it would be the exact opposite. this is one of those cases where are shared values of bring us together, but those of bell you should put us on the same side when confronted with the draft of turkey where the new situation in egypt or whatever other headline is grabbing your attention at the time. >> that is a perfect segue. it is a moment to talk about

where shared values pull you apart. good example is what i ended my talk with. i did not get a chance to flesh out my thoughts. the iranian portfolio is an example of how the relationship can work extremely well or very poorly. when i was in israel few weeks ago, i had a conversation with an israeli expert on iran. he said if he had only one bit of advice to give to the israeli government, it would be to stop talking about iran. the more you talk about it, the more you on the issue. in this context, where the u.s. and israel have a shared perception of the threat, the perception has become almost entirely is ready and focus. israel is presumed in this town to be the solution to the problem. i think that is an erroneous presumption. iran is also a threat to the

international community's in terms of how it positions itself and talks about regional hegemony and threats to its immediate neighbors and to the united states and the west. the more we talk about the idea that israel -- the more we spend less time thinking about what we could do about it. in the context of shared ideas, sometimes it is useful to understand that the shared values could drive us to inertia if we assume that the israelis are the tip of the spear in dealing with iran. >> we need a microphone. i have to keep track of the hands. >> thank you.

this administration has been kind of unique in trying to dictate terms and negotiations, in terms of policy to an independent country. i am wondering is this directly from president obama, or from his advisers? where did he get this idea that he can start dictating the conditions for independent countries? >> it may not be that anyone on this panel can answer that specific question. they might answer the question of whether your characterization is correct and what is the appropriate -- >> i have no inside information, but it is ironic that we have a president who campaigned with a critique of bush's foreign

policy that we were trying to run the world and dictate to many things, and then he takes office and starts dictating that a whole group of countries indeed very committed to cutting into israel on how to approach negotiations. it worked in an administration for eight years. i don't believe that advisers talk a president into doing something that he was not naturally inclined to do. if there were advisers' urging him to do this, i suspect it was a very short conversation. >> we have a question back here. there is a man on the aisle there. >> there has been a movement within the united states among

intellectuals for decades to disparage western civilization. >> we need questions. >> the use of the term the christian west increased in regions in the west. i see the absence of jewish communities. they have been treated as almost nonexistent since 1948, and increasingly, christians are being persecuted. i was wondering if you could comment on this. >> you stated a fact, areas where there had not been a large christian presence now have a very small christian present. the same goes for jews

throughout the middle east and surrounding areas. i saw an interview in the washington post where there is one guy living in kabul and they did an interview with him and he is hanging on, but there is a fact here that goes unremarked on, which is that as i alluded to earlier, where a judeo- christian civilization advances, the freedom of religion and religious tolerance tends to grow. where islam tends to advance right now, the freedom of religion and religious tolerance shrinks, and it seems to me that ought to be -- the dispute about israel aside, it ought to be a matter of some concern to anybody in the world that believes one of the fundamental rights of all human beings is to worship as they see fit.

>> there was a story in the egyptian papers yesterday and in our own papers today that a very substantial number of christian and egyptian copts have left since the revolution and february. it was on the order of 50,000 or 60,000. this number is likely to continue on that rate on the basis of anxieties of what they have already suffered since the revolution. i question is, is your expectation about the american community in general with regard to something like that? whether that will become to be an issue in american foreign policy, in your judgment,

especially as a large number going to arrive in the united states. there are established communities of cops in need -- copts in new jersey and california. i just wonder if you think it will come to be an issue. >> you would think that in a country where significant majority say they are christian that this would be a huge issue, but is interesting how often the attitude of conservative christian churches is that persecution as promised by the script, so they are upset about it, but they don't rail about it as much as you would expect them to. quite frankly, it is frustrating to many of us who would like to see churches speak up more strenuously and more consistently about this pattern that is happening in quite a few places around the world.

>> could you wait for the microphone? >> you were talking about shared values and the palestinians do not share the same values as the united states government does. it is not their fault or the fault of their people, but what should be done for palestinians to have the same values of democracy and freedom? >> thanks for the easy one. [laughter] >> there is an opportunity here, and the opportunity is, it is born of a good foundation. what israel is able to do is to communicate time and again that it is willing to enter into a

relationship with the palestinians, and i am sure there are as many opinions on the pathway forward as there are people in this room today. but there is an opportunity to negotiate and to live in community and to live in relationship, but it is based on the premise that you understand one another and that you value one another. i think that is the break challenge. i characterize it jokingly as an easy question because you get the sense that there are people in the leadership among the palestinians that really don't want to live in relationship. they don't want to live at peace, and ultimately, they have approached this as a zero sum game. you succeed at my demise or i succeed at your demise, and there is not a way that we can be in relationship community together. i think that is part of the

great frustration that americans have as they look over to the middle east and they say why can this not come to some sense of fruition? why can people not come and sit down and negotiate with each other? if you are operating or you do not share a premise, one does not acknowledge the right of the other two even exist, it is impossible to come to a remedy. the question then becomes to the palestinian people, how long do you put up with this? ultimately it does not create an opportunity for you to live in relationship. >> [unintelligible] they believe everything hamas tells them. it is mutual. there are lots of israelis who

have never seen a palestinian in their life and there is all this hatred they have against palestinians. thehis year's conference, panelists are talking about the palestinian government being guilty. there is a lot the israeli government can do also that they do not do. know if't actually there are any palestinians who have not met jews, but there are certainly no israelis who have not met palestinians. the relationship is now 63 years old. something like one seventh of the population of israel within the green line is arab. their relationship exists, and

also some others exist. it is not simply a question of relationship. congressman, thank you very much. [applause] >> i would really dispute your statement. in israel, there is a lively political debate about how much should be given for peace. there are strong political forces in israel that periodically do very well arguing that israel needs to once again take another step to can see something in order for peace. i have been to israel numerous times. i have never met an israeli consumed with hate for the palestinians. you can regularly see it in palestinian communities. i am not aware of any strong movement in the palestinian

territories willing to debate publicly or take on at all the idea that if israel is making reasonable concessions, they need to, also. [applause] >> let me add just one thing. it is important to understand that this discussion is not happening in a vacuum. it is happening within a very fluid palestinian policy. earlier in the spring had a deal between the ruling palestinian faction and hamas, which would have created a hybrid government in which the senior partner would be a movement that is dedicated to the eradication of israel and the creation of an islamic state of palestine. the question here is, how much responsibility there is on a grass roots level on the part of the palestinians themselves. there are certain things we can do in order to empower them to

make the right choices. one of the most important is something that is happening now in the context of the united nations. the notion is dangerous and pernicious for the reason that it rewards bad behavior. if you look at what the palestinian authority has done over the last five years with the aid we have given them, you would be challenged to find a lot of positive advances in terms of transparency and anti- corruption and grassroots development. creating a state on those the foundation tends on rewarding bad behavior. you have to have a dialogue, best done in a bilateral dialogue in which the palestinians come to understand there is no such thing as moving the goal post, that lasting resolution they need on issues such as the states of jerusalem

and right of return, happens in a negotiated framework rather than one declared by political fiat'. >> mr. bauer, you talked about grass-roots support of israel and the united states. the congressman spoke about the strong support in congress. that is not reflected on university campuses throughout this country and maybe some other quarters as well. because of your background and education, can you give us some ideas were you think this is coming from? where does this disconnect come from? >> it has been observed that when someone does not much like america, they are not going to

like israel. you will recall that in the 1960's and 1970's, people were marching around in channing that american civilization has to go, and arguing against courses that of held -- a lot of those who were marching in the streets are now professors on these university campuses. the same disdain they also bring by extension to israel. if you are a professor and you believe the history of america is a history of genocide, of colonialism and occupation, and you look at israel, you see israel as an extension of that. i think it plays itself out. it is very pernicious thing and something that has to be confronted by those in the united states that care about this relationship and care about what future americans will think

about israel as well as us. i am sure everybody knows, the saudis are funding schools of middle eastern studies all over the united states, from the largest university to the smallest university. those centers often have text books and study material and professors that know who the hand is that feeds them and teaches up version of middle eastern history and conflict resolution that inevitably pictures the nation of israel as the only thing standing against peace in the middle east. >> i try to conceal the fact that i have an academic background, especially with people like mr. bauer. that is undoubtedly a very big

and complicated subject, but it is striking that the principal source of pursued in israel and this country comes from what we roughly called elites. explaining that would entail explaining a lot. one thing that does strike me about this is the following. after 9/11, there came to be a phrase or word that was extremely popular, and that is new wants -- nuance. it became an important accouterments of cultivation and distinction and so forth.

as a recovering academic, i know the value of nuance. it came to be seen as a mark of pride which allow you to ignore the forest for the trees. the disconnect now is between people who just look at things fairly straight forward and simply, the average american, and see a forest. maybe they see it a little bit crudely, about who our friends and enemies are, whereas that kind of this distinction is lost with a certain kind of sophistication, which has some justification. it has also become a kind of self indulgent, a mark of superiority to people who are recorded -- regarded as simple

or ordinary souls. one more question, but let's make it a question. questions are required. >> when you talk about christianity and judaism, please look at abrahamic tradition. we all believe in the same values and the same ways. i would like you to add islamic ic the list of abraham make

tradition. >> with all due respect, i believe there is a civil war in islam about what it is you are going to embrace. i will add islam to the judeo- christian values when i see those like yourself who do believe that these values prevail. right now, i think it is very open question about who is going to win that battle for the heart of islam. >> i think you have an answer, maybe not one that is satisfactory to you. our time is up. thank you. [applause] >> 2:30 will be our next break, and our final panel will be at 4:00. we will take a quick break.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight on c-span3, documentary filmmaker ken burns on his new pbs documentary on prohibition. >> the reason prohibition was initially passed is because that brought -- a broad array of people sincerely thought we could take this big problem off the table. this big problem was supper by perhaps 10% of our population. we may be unfortunate decision to apply the solution to 100% of the people. it did not work, but it does not leave us free of the moral obligation to try to improve society. >> see his remarks tonight at

7:00 eastern on c-span3. >> for the first time, americans will have access to connectivity, even if there are natural disasters and other things happening through a satellite network. >> the head of lightsquared on the communicators, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> with congress back in session this week, the house will consider a spending bill that would keep the federal government opened for mid november, and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch your live coverage on c- span and the senate on c-span2. get more information about your elected officials with c-span congressional chronicle.

it is washington, your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> the house is coming back in now for votes on measures debated earlier today. this is the first day for members after a week-long break. e speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make further crecks in enrollment h r. 2608. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to send to the desk proprivilege red ports from the committee on rules for filing you should the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 214, to extend

the generalized system of preferences and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 419, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h r. 2681, to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achieveable standards for cement manufacturing facilities and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h r. 2250 to provide for additional time of the administrator of the environmental protection agency to provide for industrial, commercial boilers, heaters and incinerators and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h r. 686 by the yace and nays.

h r. 765 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 670 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 156-minute vote. remaining votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop to pass h r. 686 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 108, a bill to require the conveyance of certain land within the boundary os camp williams, utah, to support the training and yeah ed -- readiness of the utah national depards. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the pill bill as amended. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 400 and the nays are zero. 2/3 in the affirmative, the rule is suspended, the bill is passed

and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. s the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to suspend the rules h.r. 765 on which the the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: a bill to amend the national ski permit act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the secretary of agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of forest land that is subject to ski area permits and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house success pepped the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 394, the nay

the boil is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 670 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar h r. 670, a bill to convey certain submerged lands to the northern mariana islands in order to give it the same benefits of submerged lands as guam, american samoa and others have in their submerged lands. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 397, the yeas are zero. 2/3 being in the aaffirmative, rerules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the notion reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. will the members kindly clear the well and clear the center aisle.

will members kindly vacate the center aisle. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the

following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas on monday 10,/3, and tuesday 10/4. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: permission granted. without objection, will the house please come to order. members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order.

the house will come to order. the gentleman from texas. mr. poe spks -- mr. poe: mr. speaker, the palestinian authority has a new face for its movement for statement, latifah audiocassette mood. she is the mother of seven prisoners an the mother of person called martyr. they are in prison for crimes against humanity. rather than mother of the year, it turns out she's mother of all terrorists. one of her sons, the martyr, planned and conducted the murder of an israeli police officer.

her other sons are serving a total of 18 life sentences. they have murdered israeli citizens and been involved in terrorist attacks. this is the person the palestinians have leading the movement for palestinian statehood at the u.n. it shows hate hey tread and bigotry against jews and the state of israel. they need to stop murdering in the name of israel and start noshting. the u.n. should not allow palestinian statehood. terrorists don't deserve a seat at the table. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: -- >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, permission is granted. mrs. biggert: i rise today to celebrate the lamont fire department as it celebrates 150 years of service. in 1886 the town created an ordinance that created a volunteer fire department. there were two company the hose company and the hook and ladder company. since then, the lamont fire department has grown from a handful of volunteers to a force of 85 fire, e.m.t., administrative and support personnel. every day they protect the towns of lamont, darian, boling broke and woodridge, illinois an area that's roughly 40 square miles. in the early years they had to drag equipment to the fires and brave nearly insurmountable

odds to save their neighbors. the bravery that inspired those men to save their neighbors is a trait that has come to the fine the lamont fire department and the men and women who serve in it. the lamont fire department has worked hard to become a pillar of service in my congressional district. i would like to join my colleagues in congratulating them for 125 years of distinguished service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, granted. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to raise awareness about the importance of juvenile diabetes research. approximately three million americans suffer from type one

diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes. more than 30,000 people are diagnosed annually, including 15,000 children. mr. olson: these individuals must take insulin dailyy to stay alive and must undergo multiple injections or have insulin delivered through a pump. the juvenile diabetes research foundation is a leader in type one diabetes research worldwide. the goals of juvenile diabetes research are straightforward. to cure type one diabetes, to develop better ways to treat type one diabetes and to prevent type one diabetes from occurring in those most susceptible. this research means taking scientific developments and translating them into cures, treatments, drugs and therapies. mr. speaker, by keeping our taxpayer investment in juvenile diabetes research one day soon

we'll find a cure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: permission granted. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a great friend and colleague, bob, for his long and distinguished career in the field of agriculture. after more than 34 years of service, bob will be retiring this year from usda where he served as the area director for rural development in northwestern pennsylvania which is home to a diverse array of the commonwealth's agriculture industry. bob has been at the forefront of ensuring agriculture continues to play a key role throughout pennsylvania, especially through rural economic development. he's been a committed advocate for pennsylvania's agriculture and family farmers across our state. like new shoes or hunting boot, i'm sure bob's retirement will at first be stiff and

uncomfortable for a little while but after such a long, distinguished and committed career, it's about time he put those feet up and relaxed for once. thank you, bob, for your commitment to our state, the nation and the agriculture community. congratulations on such an esteemed career and we wish you happiness and the best of luck in future endeavors. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, today is a great day for many reasons. first and foremost, the american worker is going to have an opportunity, i believe, to gain access to new markets in colombia, panama and south korea. union and nonunion jobs are going to be created. another reason it's a great day is that in just a few minutes, led by the distinguished chair of the trade subcommittee of the ways and means committee, my friend from houston, mr. brady,

who has been such a great champion of trade, is going to talk about the tremendous benefits that we're going to see. i see that he's going to be joined at least by mr. canseco and mrs. biggert and mr. smith and mr. davis and mr. boustany and mr. herger and mr. reichert, mr. griffin, mr. dold, maybe ms. jenkins and maybe even angela he willered, for all i know, but -- angela ehlert, for all i know. mr. speaker, we are coming together in a bipartisan way, the president has just hours ago sent up these agreements so that again union and nonunion workers are going to have a chance to have more jobs created as we open up these markets. i wish all of my colleagues were going to participate in this, godspeed and thank you, thank you, thank you for coming together for the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise?

>> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection permission granted. ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. speaker, all of us value constructive conversation and dialogue. in fact, i believe the republican debates that have been occurring are valuable and insightful for the american people. i have no quarrel with the first amendment and one's right to speak as one desires. but i take issue with mr. herman cane's very insulting and demeaning comment on a whole body politic of people, african-americans, when asked the questions why they've made choices, political choices, as they have made. and he chose to suggest that african-americans are brainwashed. i take issue, mr. cane, with your very unfortunate choice of words. because if you look chronologically and historically at african-americans, they voted republican, they voted democrat, they were in love with the idea

of president lincoln who of course is known to have freed the slaves and voted for republican for a number of years . democrats and african-americans both vote their interests, their interest in saving medicare and medicaid and social security, their interest in investment in this nation and relief from the burdensome taxes by the bush administration. so, mr. cane, get your facts right. we're not brainwashed and i am absolutely insulted by your ludicrous interpretation of african-american intellect in choosing their political party. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to please address their remarks to the chair. are there further one-minute remarks? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, is recognized for 60 minutes as

the designee of the majority leader. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. as you know, our economy is in a tough situation here. 2 1/2 years after the recovery supposedly has started, we have almost 20 million americans unable to find a full time job. yet we have companies, ranchers, businesses, technologies, small businesses, anxious to sell their products around the world. but this administration unfortunately has not moved the free trade agreements that would allow us, not simply to buy american, but to sell american in every corner of this globe. i'm pleased to announce that today nearly -- today, nearly five years after america signed a sales agreement, a trade agreement with colombia, that the white house has submitted agreements, has to agreements with korea, clomy and an ma -- colombia and panama to the united states congress and we are going to move quickly and deliberately and strongly to

pass these trade agreements so we can level the playing field and allow our farmers and companies and manufacturers and workers to compete and win around the world on that level playing field. tonight we have a number of distinguished lawmakers who have focused on finding new customers for our companies and our farmers here at home. and i would yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, a member of the ways and means committee and trade subcommittee, ms. jenkins. ms. jenkins: i'd like to thank the honorable chairman from texas for his leadership on the issue of trade and for yielding. in today's global economy it's essential that we make every reasonable effort to open foreign markets to american products. yet today as our country is struggling with the lackluster g.d.p. and stagnant job creation grocery stores in south korea are signing long-term agreements with beef producers from europe, not america.

why european and not american? well, the reason's simple. while this administration has dragged their feet in the approval process of our own agreements, the european union was able to enact their agreement with south korea before the united states could take up our own. therefore the south koreans were able to purchase european goods, most notably agriculture products, at a much lower rate and prices because unlike american goods and commodities they do not have costly tariffs attached to them. the same is true with american goods and agriculture products in colombia and panama. in the first two weeks after the e.u.-south korea agreement was passed, european exports to south korea rose by 16%. we are losing market share and american businesses are losing their competitive edge, all as a result of washington's inability to pass these essential agreements that supposedly have bipartisan support. in fact, since canada signed their free trade agreement with colombia, the u.s. has lost

nearly 30% of our market share and we ex -- in wheat exports to colombia, losing 30% of our market share in a key commodity like wheat has a tremendous impact to a small state like kansas. when it comes down it, this isn't about -- down to it, this isn't about ideologies, this is about american jobs. these agreements can create 250,000 american jobs and yet president obama has sat on them for nearly three years. these agreements have the ability to immediately create thousands of jobs, open new markets for farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and play a pivotal role in growing our economy out of this stag nancy. i would like to thank the president for ending his stall tactics and finally sending me -- stall tactics and finally sending these agreements today and i employ my colleagues in congress to swiftly pass these vital trade agreements. let's have beef producers from kansas or even texas, mr. chairman, signing long-term deals with south korea, colombia

and panama, not europe or canada. let's finally back up this rhetoric with action. let's get americans back to work. i yield back. mr. brady: i thank the gentlelady from kansas for making the point that agriculture has paid a streep price as a result of the delays of these agreements, yet with the to pension -- yet with the potential of these agreements have the ability to sell and bin and compete in these three important growing markets. i'd like to introduce the gentleman from kentucky, one of the key members of the trade subcommittee, with a manufacturing background, who understands the need for america to lead in the global marketplace and i yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you, chairman brady. mr. speaker, i appreciate you organizing this special order tonight, dealing with these critical free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. i'm encouraged that the president sent the agreement to the hill earlier today and we're here to lend support to the

president for these agreements and to encourage him to implement them as soon as they pass the house and senate. passage of these trade agreements is long overdue and critical not just for our national economy, but also for our national security. through the colombia agreement we signal our dedication with strategic and a faithful ally. during my service in the u.s. army, i ran u.s. army aviation operations for the multinational observers, providing direct support and serving with the colombian military in the middle east. in fact, they continue to serve in that same role. they're also serving in haiti, sierra leone and trading across the globe. u.s. leadership in our hemisphere is under threat from competitors and the administration's inattention to latin america is a real challenge that we're facing now. but the colombian agreement signals our reengagement -- re-engagement which is critical to our economic and security future. u.s. exporters share a colombian imports fell 17% between 2001 and 2009 while chinese exporter

shares nearly tripled. the trade agreement with colombia will advance our national security interests by providing colombians with alternatives to the drug trade, colombia is a robust democracy with strong ties to the united states and a region that includes several increasingly antiamerican governments, especially venezuela, we must strengthen these ties and pacify any concerns about america's reliability as a partner, by ratifying this trade agreement. similarly implementing the panama trade agreement will further mark our re-engagement with the region while countering antiamericanism and china's increasing economic prosmnence. the u.s. is the largest user of the panama canal and works with the government to ensure the safety of the canal itself. panama's currently expanding the canal to double its capacity by allowing more and larger ships to transit. this expansion will increase the imports and exports to and from the united states while creating the need for further cooperation between our two countries to enhance regional maritime and port security. south korea also serves as a critical u.s. ally. our alliance with the republic

of korea has grown even closer since the march, 2010, sinking of a south korean naval vessel by a north korean submarine. the u.s. maintains about 28,000 troops in the republic of korea and our military regularly conducts joint exercises. it's important to not only counteract the threat from north korea but also in dealing with china's military ambitions and security in the pacific rim. with elections for south korea's national assembly and presidency scheduled for 2011 2012, it's critical to strengthen this vital relationship. ratifying the south korea trade agreement will demonstrate our commitment to this important partner and help to acted a a counterweight to chinese influence. entering into an f.t.a. with south korea will help the alliance between our nations to adapt to the changes on the korean peninsula and east asia. economic advantages for our country's exports and our position of global leadership. i urge the president to implement the agreements immediately after they clear

congress for the betterment of our national economic health and our military and diplomatic partnerships. thank you again, chairman brady, for holding this important discussion tonight on the house floor and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. brady: mr. davis, thank you for your leadership and for making the point tonight that these agreements, as important as they are for jobs and new customers, they're also important to enhance our security relationships in the growing age of -- asia-pacific region, in latin america as well. thank you for your leadership. i would like to introduce the chairman of the korean trade agreement working group, he's a key member of the ways and means committee, understands and comes from a region that understands exports to imports create jobs in america and i will yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. chairman, i thank you for your hard work, i am a newcomer to the world of trade and a fairly

newcomer to congress, having been here six years. i want to talk a little bit about the frustration that i think a lot of us here in the house have been experiencing, and i think a lot of people, mr. speaker, crossed -- across this country are feeling and that is a lot of frustration, a lot of anger at this congress. the fact that we can't work together. but the good news is that today we have that opportunity. the president has finally decided to send those trade agreements we've all been waiting for for the past four years to congress so we can have a vote on the south korean agreement, the panama agreement . these are important because they create jobs. we know they create jobs. in washington state alone, one out of every three jobs is connected to trade. one out of every three jobs.

south korea is washington's fourth largest trading partner. it is important for the people of washington state to have this partnership with korea, with colombia and with panama. right now, we are falling behind. the european union, as i think was mentioned earlier, signed their agreement, it became final on july 1 of this year. since july 1, the european union has increased their exports to korea by 17%. we are losing market share. we are losing jobs. we must act now. the jobs estimated that we are losing are almost 350,000 jobs as we sit here and wait. 95% of our market is outside of the united states. 95% of our market is outside the united states. we want to sell american. sell american.

that's our goal. yeah, we want to buy american here in the united states, we all want to do that. but we want to sell american. we can create 280,000 jobs by passing these agreements. i think this is a time where members of this congress, both sides of the aisle, and including those divisions within the parties, need to come together. if you want to create jobs and you want to be a leader in this global economy, if you want to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, the time is now. the time is to come together, pass these agreements by a wide, bipartisan majority. show the american people that we are here to lead, show the rest of the world that we are here to lead. and we are here to compete. because america has the best products, the best workers, and the best imagination in the world. i yield back.

mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman for making the point. korea is such a growing market. if america hopes to continue economic growth and have the greatest economy in the world, we must continue and the agreement mr. reichert heads here in the house contributes to that. now i yield to mr. boustany so strong on trade, comes from a state that understands that trade means jobs. i yield to dr. buestawny. mr. buestaw -- mr. boustany: i thank the gentleman. expanding export marks for american farmers, manufacturers, and service providers is essential if we're going to have a strong american economy with private sector job creation. the united states has not acted agreesively enough over -- to

open markets over the past three years urn the obama administration. and now we're falling behind as other nations gain market share. america has had a strong comparative advantage in agricultural production historically. in fact, in my home state of louisiana, the number one export is agricultural commodities. louisiana ranks fourth, fourth among the 50 states, in exports. over 500,000 jobs in this small state a state with a little over four million people, 500,000 jobs in louisiana are supported directly by trade. our rural communities in my state are supported by the strength of agricultural production and access to open markets. the local dentist's office, the local school, the small gas stations, all these things depend on the strength of agricultural production not

only in louisiana but across our country. we need open markets for agriculture products to sustain rural communities in economic go the trade agreements with south korea, panama, colombia, amount to $13 million annual any in new market access. failure to implement these agreements has caused significant loss of market share. louisiana is the third largest rice producer in the nation. louisiana and u.s. rice exporters face prohibitive tariffs in colombia and panama. these would phase out the tariffs. over 1/3 of louisiana exports to korea would see immediate duty relief and a significant advantage for louisiana businesses. the administration's failures to send these agreements over the past three years has had

significant adverse consequences. on january 1 of 2009, colombia's trade agreement with argentina went into effect, giving argentina's farmers a competitive advantage over u.s. farmers. in fact, america's mark share and the colombian market for corn, wheat and soybeans plunged from 71% in 2008 down to 27% through the first 10 months of 2010. a 44% drop in market share precipitously. that was nearly matched by argentina's gain. that's one example of the consequences of the failure to act on this. mr. speaker, lost market share and job loss. we must immediately implement agreements to promptly avoid further loss. mr. speaker, american competitiveness, american credibility and american leverage with our economic competitors is at stake. passing these agreements with

colombia, panama, and south korea are only a start. american -- america needs to move beyond that we need a well thought out trade strategy to allow american farmers and businesses to compete and prosper. an american trade strategy is a critical instrument of american foreign policy pause our economic strength is the foundation of both our soft power and our hard power and american trade strategy is essential for american leadership in the 21st century. i yield back my time to you. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman from louisiana making the key point of how america is falling behind and how it's hurting our local economies, our local companies, our local service technologies and our local ports as well. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, the former chairman after of the trade subcommittee, who comes from a state and district that is rich in institutions and

ranching and technology companies that expert successfully around the world and i would like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. herger. mr. herger: i thank the gentleman from texas very much and i want to thank the gentleman for the tremendous leadership that you've given us in the area of trade, trade which is so crucially important to our nation, to our ability to create jobs, to our economic well being here in our nation. as chairman brady mentioned, i am very blessed to represent one of the richest agricultural areas in the world, an area in the northern sacramento valley of california. just north of sacramento. in our area, we are the second largest rice producing district in the nation. we grow -- we are also one of the top producers of specialty crops.

peaches, walnuts, almonds, dried plums, prunes, are some of our major commodities and the fact is, we cannot both in california and in our nation, cannot nearly consume the amount of products that we grow. we are depend on -- dependent on being able to export. the example with my district is true in every area across the nation. it is true in manufacturing, it's true in everything we do. is that as one of the top trading nations in the world historically, the united states, we are dependent on being able to trade. 95% of the world's markets lie outside the united states. what are the challenges that we have, and why are these trade agreements, these three agreements with panama, colombia and south korea, so very important to not only my

area of california, but to the entire nation? the reason is, is that we have challenges in getting into other countries' markets. we have very low, very low barriers coming into our markets. other countries can trade with us almost barrier-free, but that is not the case with our products going to other countries. other countries, virtually all of them, are very protective, they have high tariffs system of therefore, what is taking place when we sit down with these nations and bargain and come up with these trade agreements, is an opportunity of lowering their barriers so that the district in my area, where we can export to them rice, peaches, walnuts, almonds, dairy products and again our manufacturing goods, without the high barriers and be able to get access to those

markets. it's very important that we d this. what happens when we don't move forward? we can see it. i was in panama just this last year. panama now is doubling the size of the panama canal. they're going to need construction equipment. now where are they going to purchase this construction equipment? they could be purchasing it from the united states but guess what? canada was successful in negotiating in trade agreement with panama before we've had our sign -- ours signed, therefore they have lower rate, lower barriers on getting their equipment into panama, so panama there has had a big advantage of buying from canada , sales that would have come from the united states, we can use these same examples with colombia, the same example with south korea, who has negotiated with the e.u. a major trading competitor, with us, therefore,

we lose out in jobs, we lose out in this market share. it is really a lose-lose for the united states. i want to commend the president, we wish he would have sent these three agreements to us sooner. i'm grateful he's sending them now. it's very important that we pass it. what we have seen is an estimate by a nonpartisan u.s. international trade commission, estimated that by signing these three trade agreement we can increase 250,000 new jobs to the united states. 250,000 new jobs. that's without any stimulus. it's without any taxpayer money going into it. it is jobs that people who are unemployed today, that can be employed, and it will increase at least $13 billion in trade. so i want to urge our congress, i want to urge the house, i want to urge the senate, to

vote for these, pass it, let's get going on these trades again, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. mr. brady: chairman herger, thank you for your leadership on trade throughout the years. i know especially for california but throughout the country, trade means jobs, new customers means jobs. the longer we delay, the more other cupries step in front of us and take our jobs. one of the bright new members of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nebraska, he comes from a state that understands agriculture, understands you can't just survive by selling to america, there are so many customers around the world that need to buy american products in agriculture that is key to survival, key to job creation, like to yield to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and certainly i appreciate my colleague from california talking about agriculture and it certainly

speaks to the diversity of american agriculture when he listed so many products and i don't think a single one of those you listed are actually grown in nebraska. obviously we produce a lot of agriculture products in nebraska and we know what it's like to even po deuce more than we consume in our state alone. california may be slightly different but we know that we've got efficient production across america. i want to take a moment to discuss the impact and benefits of trade agreements to nebraska and certainly the national economy. as our economies continues to struggle we should obviously be exploring every avenue to create businesses and create new jobs. markets around the world present tremendous opportunity because of their size, scope and rate of growth and we've heard a lot of numbers tossed around this evening but we know that beyond the u.s. lies 73% of the world's purchasing power, 87% of its economic growth and 95% of the world's consumers. while the national economic

impact of trade is very important, the increased marketing opportunity for nebraska is obviously tremendous as well. for nebraska this means the free trade agreements will increase exports by more than $123 million per year. that's every year. specifically for agriculture the agreements with panama, colombia and south korea would lead to gains for nebraska's major agriculture commodities including beef, pork, soybeans an corn. new markets create -- and corn. new markets create opportunities for farmers an ranchers along with the food processors and all of the sales and related professionals who support the agriculture sector. i want to make sure nebraska products and producers make the most of the opportunities provided by international sales and to increase exports. there's been enough delay. we certainly know that. and our market share in colombia has already declined because of inaction. the debate is no longer about generating particular export gains but also how to prevent the loss of existing export

markets. thank you. again, i appreciate this opportunity and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman from nebraska talking about the lost opportunities of delayed trade and the jobs opportunities of passing these agreements with korea, colombia and panama. i'm glad at this moment to yield to the gentleman from illinois, a state that understands the importance of competing and winning around the world and who could do so so successfully, i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. mr. dold: i want to thank the chairman for his leadership in trade and certainly this is an important topic. just last month we were actually here in this chamber when the president came down to talk about jobs and comet and there's no doubt it is the number one issue that faces our country today, regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on. the president got up and talked about his jobs package and as opposed to saying, no, we don't want the jobs package, what i

said and a number of colleagues that i know talked about is, what are the areas that we agree upon? let's focus on those and try to pass those because the american public is demanding that of us. certainly top of that list is the free trade agreements. and we talk about the free trade agreements, it's trade promotion. we're actually setting the ground rules with foreign countries. where the united states can actually compete on a level playing field. and if we can compete on a level playing field, the american worker can win. in the 10th district of illinois we've got 650 manufacturers that represent over 80,000 jobs. of those 80,000 jobs, over 50,000 of those jobs rely upon exports. you heard the statistics from some of my colleagues here today talking about 73% of the world's purchasing power is outside of the united states, 95% of all consumers are outside of the united states. just this last week i had a manufacturers round table where part of the topic of discussion was demand.

if we want to increase demand i would certainly argue that we need to be able to have access to markets outside of the united states. just with south korea alone would add $10 billion to our g.d.p. for each additional billion dollars of exports we create 6,250 jobs in america. that is a jobs plan. we can create additional jobs. in illinois we've lost 750,000 manufacturing jobs over the last decade and frankly we need to turn that tide around. we know that in order to be competitive in the united states , the world is not going to sit back and wait for us. the e.u. has signed its free trade agreement with korea, with south korea, colombia, with canada and you've heard from others that the world's not going to wait. we're losing market share. as we speak. each and every day that we don't act. we must move forward. it represents a significant

amount to our g.d.p. and we all know that if we don't act now we're going to lose jobs. it must be putting jobs first and foremost that's going to allow us to move forward for our country. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and embrace what the president has given to us and i certainly appreciate the president sending us the free trade agreements. we told him we would act quickly. he sent them to us today and today we're talking about them on the floor. we're going to act and act swiftly for the american people and for jobs. mr. chairman, i thank you so much for your leadership on this very important issue. it's about jobs and the economy and putting american workers back to work. i yield back. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman from illinois, a state that understands trade means jobs, and i appreciate his leadership and effort in this area. minnesota is also a state that is growing and recovering from this economy because it knows how to sell american throughout the world, especially in in

medical technology and a number of other key sectors. i'm glad to yield to the gentleman from minnesota, a key member of the ways and means committee, mr. paulsen. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding and i appreciate your lip on the trade subcommittee. there's no doubt that washington should be doing everything it can to give our job creators the economic certainty that they need and they lack right now. meaning meaningful tax reform, alleviating government regulations. but the future of economic growth, right now it doesn't only lie in an inefficient bureaucracy or lower taxes, it also lies in giving greater export opportunities to emerging markets that are hungry for american products and our ideas. the simple truth is that increased trade, new sales and new customers, are a proven way to create jobs. these three pending free trade agreements with panama, south korea and colombia will level the playing field for american businesses, aid in our economic

recovery and allow the united states to compete and win. and with so much concern about skyrocketing deficits, increased free trade is a no-cost way to help the private sector create jobs. in my home state of minnesota 60,000 jobs are dependent on global trade. surprisingly it's not just our fertile soil and the ag community or the iron-ore deposits up north that are creating most of these jobs. ironically it's over 90% of minnesota's trade-supported jobs come from the manufacturing sector. that's a true testament to the quality of minnesota-made products and the workers who produce them. now, by passing these free trade agreements, with he will reduce the barriers -- we will reduce the barriers in tree three countries, allowing minnesotas and others the opportunity to find new sales and new customers for their products, giving the companies who employ them the opportunity to expand and start hiring again. now, this is about doubling exports, as the president has stated is his goal. and our governor just led a

trade delegation to south korea with 24 different businesses and in minnesota it's not just about agriculture, as the chairman had just mentioned a second ago i come from a state that has 400 medical device companies. it's these high-valued manufacturing opportunities that are huge opportunities for free trade and increased sales in customers. so, mr. speaker, today is a good day. the white house has formally submitted these trade agreements now, the ways and means committee is going to act swiftly, the house will act swiftly. over the last couple of months there's no doubt that europe has gained an upperhand by passing their own agreements with countries but in doing so we've been leap frogged and now this is our opportunity to get back on a solid footing and every day of inaction that's gone by has been a day where we're falling behind and we're losing our competitive edge in putting minnesota jobs, american jobs at risk. mr. speaker, i am excited to work in a bipartisan fashion to see this come together in the coming weeks ahead and give our manufacturers a boost, give our

exporters a boost and get our economy back on track and i yield back. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman from minnesota's quickly leaping into this issue, recognizing the jobs potential in his -- and his hard work in moving these trade agreements forward. we have another speaker from illinois, a key trade state. judy biggert, congresswoman from illinois, has long been a leader in trade, helping shepherd it through congress, some of the key trade acts in the past that have turned trade deficits into trade surpluses for america. she continues to be a leader who understands if we tear down these barriers for american companies, american jobs are produced. i'm proud to yield to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you so much for hosting this special order and all the work that you have done. you know, given the extraordinary economic challenges that we face, i can't

think of a better or more appropriate topic for congress to be addressing here today than trade. let's face it. the pending free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea should have been enacted lock ago -- long ago and only today after years of delay has the white house finally transmitted the agreement to congress for a ratification. as a result we've been forced to wait while sales and jobs are lost to other countries that do not face the same trade barriers that u.s. exporters face. on many products tariffs would have come down immediately upon the enactment of these f.t.a.'s, giving a massive boost to our economy at a time when we need it more than ever. in my home state of illinois, i visited with businesses like hendrickson, caterpillar and navastar, all major employers holding their breath, ready to export millions of dollars of

u.s.-made goods to new markets opened by these agreements. right now an illinois company like caterpillar has to pay $200,000 tariff for just one heavy duty earth mover going into colombia. while colombians exports come into the u.s. nearly duty-free. that is $200,000 that could instead stay in america with the free trade agreement and supply jobs in my district and nationwide. all told these f.t.a.'s would support an estimated quarter million american jobs and increase exports by $13 million. perhaps most importantly these aren't temporary or low-wage jobs that will disappear when taxpayer-funded stimulus has run dry. in fact, these exporter-related jobs pay an average of 15% to 17% more than other exarble jobs and don't cost -- compareble jobs and don't pay taxpayers a

dime. the benefits aren't limited to manufacturing. u.s. exports and services in agriculture goods service to increase by billions of dollars. passing these agreements is one of the most commonsense, low-cost and economically sound things that -- things that congress, in the president's own words, and i quote, could do right now, end quote, to boost job growth. and yet only today, after years on the president's desk, has the administration finally sent to congress -- sent them to congress for approval. fortunately the end is in sight, with the agreements now in motion the house and senate will at long last have an opportunity in the coming days to pass all three pending agreements. i urge my colleagues to support them and yield back. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentlelady from illinois, both her long leadership role in trade and her remarks today -- tonight. san antonio in south texas, these communities understand a strong economy depends on strong trade.

they're fortunate to have a freshman lawmaker who in arriving in congress quickly realized, if fact, before he came to congress, touted the need to get out, have a level playing field, to compete and win for american companies and ranchers and agricultural interests throughout this country, i'm glad and proud to yield to my texas colleague from san antonio, mr. canseco. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i'd like to first of all thank mr. chairman, kevin brady, for his leadership on trade and for our organizing this very important special order. mr. speaker, right now the number one concern of the american people is job creation. over the past 2 1/2 years the obama administration's solution for job creation has been nothing more than more spending, more borrowing, more taxing. and it simply has not worked.

instead of job creation, all that the american people have gotten is more debt. since the day he was sworn into office, president obama has been sitting on a no-cost jobs solution in the form of our pending free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. together these three agreements have the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs by opening up the markets of our trading partners to u.s. exports which will drive job creation and economic growth here at home. several of my colleagues have already spoken of the importance of these agreements, so i will discuss the importance of these agreements to my home state of texas. while the texas economy is very diverse, an important pillar is agriculture. in the 23rd district of texas that i have the privilege of representing the beef industry