how safe are they? how safe are they from black swan events like we saw in fukushima, where you had this unprecedented tsunami than just cleared the wall that was built to protect these nuclear power plants. host: i am going to jump in here to try to get another voice guest: another problem not easily solved. host: accessibility to essential services like a grocery store -- that makes city's better. we have to leave it there, fred guterl. it is a special issue in "scientific american." there is a copy there. it is the september issue. thank you for being on the show. guest: thank you. host: the house is coming in for morning session. thank you for watching ct as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of

representatives. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. will the gentleman suspend? the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 1632, an act to designate the facility of the

united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant chris davis post office. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman may proceed. mr. jones: madam speaker, thank you very much. i think you will note today from both sides, the democratic side and republican side, there will be those of us that will come to the floor to speak about bringing our troops home from afghanistan. friday of this week will be 10 years since we committed our troops to afghanistan. i would like to quote from andrew, an article two years ago and the title "to die for a mystique," to apply to the long war, the plaintiff squarey that general david petraeus once posed to iraq, and i quote, tell me how this ends. the answer is clear. no one has the foggiest idea.

war has become like the changing faces of the moon. it's part of everyday existence for american soldiers, there is no end in sight. madam speaker, that also applies to afghanistan. 10 years later so many have died, so many have been wounded. i say to the house with humility and regret that i have signed over 10,400 letters to the immediate and extended families of the fallen from both iraq and afghanistan. obviously the majority of letters now are coming from those who have been killed in afghanistan, those letters are going to their families. poll after poll has shown that the american people in large percentages want our troops home now. this number of people continues to grow as the number of dead and wounded increases. mr. speaker, beside me -- madam speaker -- excuse me -- beside me is a post of a young army couple where the husband has lost both legs and an arm.

how many more? how many more have to give their lives, their minds and their bodies for a corrupt afghan leader named karzai? i encourage the people of this country to put pressure on congress, especially republican leadership, by calling their members of congress and telling them to bring their troops home before the 2015 deadline. why do i say 2015? i will quote secretary gates as he appeared before the armed services committee in february of this year, and i quote, retired secretary gates, that is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015 the united states can with minimal risk begin reducing army active duty in strength by 27,000 and the marine corps somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. these projections assume that the number of troops in afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the end of 2014, by the end of 2014

in accordance with president obama's strategy. madam speaker, the problem there is that 2014 becomes 2015, 2015 becomes 2016. how many more have to die? how many more have to lose legs and arms and try to live the rest of their life in that kind of situation? madam speaker, i learned just recently that the chinese are in afghanistan buying copper, and this soldier told me that his unit was notified that the chinese needed protection. how crazy is crazy? and our young men and women are over there walking the roads of afghanistan. the american people joined those of us in congress in both parties. let's bring them home now, not 2015. and madam speaker, as i always close on the floor and i will close today, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, ask god to please

bless the men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms who have given a child dying for freedom in iraq and afghanistan. i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god. and i will ask god to give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people. and i close by asking three times. god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, on sunday newspapers across the country reported that the total number of u.s. military deaths in afghanistan since 2001 is 1,780. this tally may be slightly incomplete because of lags in

reporting. 1,780 service men and women, madam speaker. husband, fathers, wives and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. holes created in families and communities that can never be filled. losses that will be felt for a generation or more. saturday began the new fiscal year, madam speaker, fiscal year 2012. according to the congressional research service, the estimated war funding for iraq and afghanistan from 2001 through fiscal year 2011 is $1.283 trillion. $443 billion of that has been spent in afghanistan. for fiscal year 2012, which began on saturday, we will spend another $113.7 billion in afghanistan. by this time next year our total spending in afghanistan will be $557.1 billion or over half a trillion dollars. and when i say spend, madam speaker, i really mean borrow

because from day one of the afghanistan war and the iraq war for that matter we have not paid for these wars. we have borrowed nearly every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card, let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, help explode our debt year after year for a decade. there has been only one other time in the history of the united states that a war was financed entirely through borrowing, madam speaker, without raising taxes and that was when the colonies borrowed from france during the revolutionary war. i know lots of members in this house believe in the tea party but that's just stupid economics. even if we were to leave afghanistan and iraq tomorrow our war debt will continue for decades. future bills will include such things as caring for our military veterans and providing them the benefit they have earned through their services. it will require replacing military equipment, rebuilding our armed forces and paying interest on the trillions we have borrowed for these wars.

these costs are significant. madam speaker, this friday, october 7, marks the 10th anniversary of u.s. military operations in afghanistan. 10 years, madam speaker. 10 years of support for a corrupt government. 10 years of sacrificing our brave uniformed men and women. 10 years of borrowing money we never had. this war's no longer about going after al qaeda which i voted to do. osama bin laden is dead. instead we're now bogged down in a seemingly endless occupation in support of a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. this is not what i voted for. and the human and financial costs of the war in afghanistan go on and on and on. not just on the battlefields of afghanistan, but in veterans' hospitals and counseling clinics across the country. another $8.4 billion to care for our veterans wounded in both body and soul. we continue to struggle with soaring posttraumatic stress and suicide rates among our soldiers and veterans.

their impacts are devastating our families and closing and buddies. it's hard to explain how we can borrow so freely and casually while the men and women died in the plains and mountains of afghanistan. when the supercommittee makes the decisions on how to handle the deficit and the debt, i say ending the wars as rapidly as possible must be the first item on the table. i also say from this point forward the wars must be paid for. no more emergency funding to get a free pass from responsible funding. i believe that president obama has to bring this to the negotiations and the house and senate members of the supercommittee have to step up to the plate and end these wars. end these wars now. they have undermined our economy and they have undermined our security. 10 years into the afghanistan war, the violence shows no sign of abating. the karzai government shows no

sign of cleaning up corruption and no one is bringing security and stability to all parties. so i say enough is enough. get out of afghanistan. the costs in blood and treasure have been too high. 10 years is more than enough. after 10 years it's time to come home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner, for five minutes. mr. bonner: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: yes, you may proceed. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: madam speaker, while the long-term unemployment is now worse than at anytime since the great depression and americans in growing numbers are becoming more and more concerned about the direction their country is heading, one thing that is uniting americans is the realization that their federal government is unnecessarily getting in the way of the job

creators. both small and large businesses alike. by tying their hands, the hands of employers with bureaucratic red tape and over-the-top unnecessary and often duplicative regulation. a recent terrence group survey found that 3/4 of the american people believe that businesses and consumers are overregulated. another 2/3 believe that regulations have increased over the past few years. americans understandably so are concerned that regulations will create a hindrance to job creation, and most believe that new regulation will either bring more job losses or increased prices. madam speaker, the american people have good reason to be concerned. from higher taxes on workers and businesses to greater intrusion by the federal government into personal health care decisions, there's been plenty of evidence that this

administration wants to grow the size and reach and scope of the government in ways that we have never been seen in the history of america. at any time the heavy hand of big government regulation is bad news for jobs, but during the middle of the worst recession since the great depression. it defies common sense for government to place even more roadblocks in front of struggling businesses. while largely unseen by the public and more times than not even debated here on the floor of congress, federal regulations directly impact jobs and job creation. a small business administration report released just last september, september of 2010, noted that federal regulations cost businesses $1.7 trillion each year. and small businesses in particular bear disproportionate share of these

costs, averaging over $10,000 for each employee. along america's gulf coast we have recently experienced the direct impact of federal government overreach in the oil production industry. the administration's de facto moratorium on new oil drilling has cost our region of the country tens of thousands of jobs, some say as few as 30,000, others as many as 70,000 jobs that have been lost at a time when the gulf coast is still trying to recover from the worst manmade disaster in american history. i visited several large and small manufacturers in south alabama in the alabama's first congressional district that are doing their very best to turn a profit under the mantle of increased federal regulation. in one case, a small manufacture with 28 employees related how they cannot expand their production due to new

federal regulations. in fact, they are now being forced to downsize. incredibly, when e.p.a. visits companies to perform an audit, oftentimes they take away whole file drawers, cabinets full of records. the small business owners pay taxes on company profits from their personal income taxes, and they have to keep a consultant on retainer just to stay in compliance with all the regulations. . a medium-sized manufacturer told me they have plans in other states as well, not just alabama, that the new proposed regulations that they are looking at would cost their company alone over $100 million. $100 million in new regulation. during his jobs speech to congress in this very chamber just last month, the president admitted that government regulations on businesses served to dampen job creation. he even suggested that he would be willing to work with congress to review such actions.

but in the following weeks there has been little evidence to suggest that the president was serious. let me be clear, federal regulations do have their place in ensuring the safety of both workers and consumers. federal laws have contributed greatly to maintaining our clean air and water, as well as the safety of our transportation system, our food, and consumer products to name but just a few. no one is saying we shouldn't have any regulation. but for all the good that a responsible government can provide to reasonable oversight, make no mistake, overzealous regulation can stifle our economy and contribute to a reduced quality of life for all americans. that is why house republicans are working to pass legislation to rein in out-of-control federal regulations that strangle job creation. last week the house passed the train act. if enacted into law, this one bill would prevent the administration from imposing some of the most controversial

new e.p.a. rules which further threaten job creation and the economy. it would also force the administration to review the impact of new regulations before they are applied. and today the house is considering two additional significant reform bills, the cement sector regulatory relief act of 2011 and the e.p.a. regulatory relief act of 2011. i urge that congress pass this and represent put the government on the side of the american workers and job creators not against them. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: three years ago after a decade of deregulation, the repeal of glass steagall, the deregulation of derivatives, wall street, the job creators, gambled our economy into

oblivion. but they never paid the price. remember? george bush, hank paulsen, secretary of the treasury, kind of a stand in because he was the former chairman of goldman sacks pretending to be senth of the treasury. he took care of his buddies on wall street but he was aided and abetted by none other than tim geithner, chairman of the new york fed. intact, in one of the most outrageous moments of this whole scenario, tim geithner, now secretary of the treasury, although he wasn't chairman of goldman sachs but probably in his future, he decided to pay off the gamblers 100 cents on the dollar when the government had to do the biggest bailout in history of a.i.g. now, that was incredible. 100 cents on the dollar. now at the time i proposed that in fact wall street should pay for its own bailout. that is a tax on speculators. reinstituting a tax we had from

1916 to 1966 while we built the greatest industrial nation on earth. didn't hurt investments and capitalism then. wouldn't hurt them now. we rein in some of the speculators, our real economy would be better for it. now there's been this amazing political jew jitzue where -- jujhitzu where somehow the republicans, aided by the coke brothers, who also subsidized the tea party. it was overregulation. overregulation? come on, guys, there were no holes. they gambled our economy to oblivion. you cannot pretend, you cannot pretend that this wasn't wild and reckless. but you have changed the narrative. you took over the house. but now this fall something's happening, something in this land is happening. i call it the american awakening. the occupation of wall street.

which is now spreading to other cities across this country. they make fun of these young people because they are totally focused on what they want, but what's happened is their future has been stolen from them. i saw some fox commentators yesterday morning making fun of them. oh, do you think they got time off from work? they don't have jobs, do they? no, they don't have jobs. what are we doing to create jobs and give these kids a future in this country and rein in the gamblers on wall street, restore the real economy, productive economy of this country? nothing. if in fact, you want to go back to 2008. that was your dream. it is time to begin to deal meaningfully with these problems in this country. and that we have the greatest disparity of wealth in our history, corporate profits are up, jobs are down. c.e.o. pay up, jobs are down.

wall street, six figures. up. jobs down. it's time to rectify this and i think the young people and the others who are joining them on wall street get it. they may not be totally focused, but they know that this isn't a country that gives them a fair shot at the american dream anymore. it's a stacked deck. and it's time for a new deck and a new order, reregulate the reckless gamblers on wall street. rein them in. take steps to rebuild our real economy. give people a future. invest in education, invest in the basics of this country, transportation, infrastructure, and we can be a great nation again. but if we continue down this path or even if they accelerate us down this path with helping the job creators destroy the economy again, there is no hope. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: request permission to address the house and revise

and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: madam speaker, i rise along with others this morning to note the 10th anniversary of our seemingly endless war in afghanistan. this is a war that long ago became much more about money for the pentagon and defense contractors than about any real threat to the american people. and unfortunately just yesterday we authorized spending at a level of $118.7 billion for the coming year in iraq and afghanistan. we have turned, madam speaker, we have turned the defense department into the department of foreign aid. and the american people are tired of it. they want us to stop rebuilding iraq and afghanistan and start taking care of our own people. we have spent and are spending billions and billions, hundreds of billions that we do not have. that we are having to borrow on people who do not appreciate it unless they are on our payroll. i know last yearar die, the

leader of afghanistan, told abc news that he wanted us to stay there another 15, 20 more years. well, he wants our money, but we don't have enough of it and we can't afford this. the publisher of the conservative american spectator magazine wrote last october that, quote, afghanistan has little strategy -- strategic value, and quote, the war is one of choice rather than necessity. he added it's been a wasteful and frustrating decade. general petraeus testified in front of one of the congressional committees several months ago that we should never forget that afghanistan has become the graveyard of empires. the american people do not want nor can we afford endless permanent wars, nor do they want 11 or 12-year wars that last about three times as long as world war ii. charlie reese was a columnist for the orlando newspaper and a few years ago probably in the

mid or late 1990's he was volted the most popular columnist by c-span viewers, over 25,000 people participated in that poll. but he was very much opposed to these wars and he wrote this. he wrote this about the iraq war, but it applies equally well to afghanistan. he said, this war was against the country that was not attacking us, did not have the means to attack us, and had never expressed any intention of attacks us. and for whatever real reason we attacked, it was not to save america from any danger, imminent or otherwise. william f. buckley jr., the conservative icon, wrote this a few years ago, said, quote, a respect for the power of the united states is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. a point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. i want to repeat that.

he said a respect for the power of the united states is engendered by our success and engagements in which we take part, a point is reached when tenacity can face not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. i think the american people long ago reached the point where they felt that these wars should come to an end and we should start taking care of our own country. the conservative foreign policy columnist wrote this a few years ago, quote, americans still change -- strangely complacent about overseas wars being raged by -- waged by minority in their chame. well, inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe. madam speaker, fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this waste and all this spending. i wonder sometimes if there are any conservatives at the

pentagon, any fiscal conservatives at the pentagon. i will say once again, these wars became long ago more about money and power than they did about any real threat. it is a shame what we are doing to the young people of this country both those in the military and those outside the military. just this past sunday i went to a funeral of another soldier, a young 21-year-old man in madisonville, tennessee, who had been killed in afghanistan and i can tell you it's time to stop all the killings of all of our young people and let them have a good future in this country once again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you. madam speaker, i first of all wish to associate myself with the remarks of mr. duncan, mr. jones, mr. mcgovern who spoke earlier. and i intend to address the issue of the war in afghanistan.

this war's got to end. it's got to end because it's making us weaker not stronger. it's a dead end strategy that is the result of decision that is were made that do not treat with the respect they are entitled to the willingness of our men and women in uniform to serve. they will doll whatever it is we ask them -- do whatever it is we ask them to do. our job is to give them a policy that's worthy of the sacrifice that they are always willing to make. this war in afghanistan has been going on for 10 years. it has morphed into the united states military and the united states taxpayer having the burden of building a nation in afghanistan. that can't be done. we know if can't be done. but there is an unwillingness to have a reckoning in this congress and in this country to turn the direction of our national defense into fighting

terrorism in a sensible way, not nation building in afghanistan. so the central issue here is not just the money, which i'll address, it's not just the time that this war has been going on, which i'll address, it's the basic strategy. does this nation building approach over 100,000 american troops in afghanistan, over 100,000 contractors, does that make sense when the enemy we are fighting is decentralized and disbursed, it's not a nation state threat. the answer to that we all know, common sense. you don't have to be a military strategist. the main reason we continue on in afghanistan is because arguments are made that it will look bad, or it will look weak if we leave. mr. duncan said something i think that makes a lot of sense. when you are persistent in the face of facts that show that what you're doing is wrong, it's

time to adjust the strategy. we in this congress owe it, we owe it to the men and women in uniform to give them that strategy that's worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. we went into afghanistan for a legitimate reason, that reason does not exist today. we went in because that was the launching site where osama bin laden planned the 9/11 attacks. and we had a right in our national self-defense to take out the sanctuaries and to pursue osama bin laden. so sanctuaries have been taken out, and now what we are engaged in is a continuation and a stumbling ahead towards the policy of this nation building where we have 100,000 troops, 40,000 international troops, 110,000 contractors where we are throwing money at problems as though these contractors can get something done in the corruption

associated with a lot of that contracting is rampant. there's 286,000 afghan national security forces who are poorly trained and leave at a moment's notice. this has come at an enormous expense to this country, $10 million a month, $2.3 billion a week, $328 million per day, $13.7 million an hour. what is happened is that where the threats of the country is coming from? the terrorist plots that we can identify that have had happened in recent times, recent years, the fort hood shooting, that killed 13 people in november, 2009, that was planned in yemen by anwr al-awlaki. the plan to bring down the airplane on christmas day was planned in yemen by the same man. the attempt to bomb times square in may, 2010, was planned and ordered by the pakistani

taliban. and the october 2010 plot to bomb argueo planes was again planned in yemen. . so the threat is real. terrorism is a threat to this country. we have to address it, but we have to have a strategy that works, and having 100,000 of our troops in one nation when the terrorist threat is dispersed and decentralized throughout the other parts of the world doesn't make any sense and it's time for this congress and this president to call to question, change the strategy which calls us to right size the strategy because that will, a, protect the american people in a better, more effective way. b, it will be a sustainable strategy which has to be responsibility of the policymakers. there's been enormous sacrifice by the men and women in uniform, and the troops from the state of vermont have sacrificed and lost more lives

in the iraq and afghanistan war on a per capita basis than any other state in the nation. and they are entitled to a policy worthy of their sacrifice. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, for five minutes. mr. hurt: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise on behalf of virginia's fifth district, on behalf of the small farmers in central and south virginia who has been impacted by the suffocated regulatory environment. these good people have been so overburdened by an overreaching government that they have been left struggling to make ends meet. unable to expand their businesses and discourage from starting new ones. over the past two months i've traveled through the fifth district making stops from green county to danville, from martinsville to brunswick county. i heard from constituents about the very real effects that unnecessary government

regulations have having on their businesses and lives. just this last week i visited with a convenient storeowner in campbell county who has five stores and 48 employees. he has the desire and resources to expand and build more convenient stores, creating more jobs in the area, but he reports he's unwilling to do so because of the mandates and taxes that will be imposed on his business as part of the job-destroying government takeover of health care. last week i also visited with an owner of an auto repair shop . back then he was able to get hiss business up and running in one day. one day is what took to get him all the permits and licenses and pay all the required fees. after running his shop for a number of years he then moved on to another job. then just recently in 2011 he decided he wanted to reopen his shop and found instead of taking one day to waive wade through the regulatory red tape

it took him five months. if the president and the united states senate want to know why our economy isn't grow this is why. these are the real-life implications for the fifth district virginiaans and those that will be affected by the regulatory agenda. that's added costs jeopardizes the success of our small businesses and destroy jobs. the added uncertainty crashes the entrepreneurial spirit. the federal government strips away our freedoms and our opportunities. so when a diner owner in farmville tells me that washington is taking the breath away from the american people, this is what she's talking about. an ever-growing government that stands the barrier between a struggling economy and a growing vibrant economy that we all desperately want. so as the house continues to lead the way and works to reduce unnecessary regulations it's my hope that we will keep in mind the convenient storeowners, the auto repair shop owners and all the small

businesses and farmers who are relying on us to get this right, who are relying on us to support those policies that removes the federal government as a roadblock to job creation and return our economic recovery back where it belongs, in the hand of the people. i thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you, madam speaker. on october 7, 2001, the united states officially began operation enduring freedom and the war in afghanistan was under way. the last decade of war has cost thousands of u.s. lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. as a member of the house armed services committee and as a representative of thousands of

service members, military families and veterans, i'm entrusted with waning the decision on what the profound effect on our nation's security this war has brought. and on the men and women that risk their lives every day to ensure that security. as we mark the 10th anniversary of the longest war in america's history, we believe it's time for congress to ask some very serious questions about our military engagement in afghanistan. who are we fighting in afghanistan? we entered this war because of the threat posed by international terrorist organization, al qaeda. while al qaeda expands its operations around the globe, our military is tied up on a ground war against the taliban, an afghan rebel group with domestic ambitions. senior intelligence officials have estimated fewer than 100 al qaeda members remain in afghanistan.

yet, we have -- we plan to have 68,000 u.s. troops there in that country through the next year. if we are to defeat terrorism, we must stick to our original strategic mission -- maintaining a laser-like focus on al qaeda and capitalize on our technological and intelligence advantages to cut off their financing, intercept their operations and take out their leaders. the successful operation against osama bin laden epitomizes this targeted approach. where's our money going? afghanistan is widely considered to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world, behind only somalia. and news reports of new corruption emerge every day. billions of u.s. dollars are siphoned off by officials and contractors. carried out of the kabul airport in bags of cash. and even funneled to warlords and the very taliban that we

often oppose. to date the u.s. has spent nearly half a trillion dollars in afghanistan, and that price tag increases by $10 billion every month that we stay there. meanwhile, we are forced to cut critical services at home. in the face of a rising deficit and financial instability. we continue to hemorrhage finite u.s. resources in afghanistan and it makes us less, not more, safe. when will this war end? well, the current timeline commits 68,000 troops through 2013, there are reports backed up by some facts that the ongoing talks with the afghan government about the future of u.s. and afghanistan relationships, the united states is considering having 35,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan until 2025. at an expected cost of over $50

billion a year. the human cost of this war is immeasurable. the dedication and commitment of the american men and women in uniform is absolute. our troops in afghanistan execute their orders that put them at risk because they trust the mission in which they are deployed. that is absolutely essential to our nation's security. this steadfast loyalty is our nation's most sacred resource and thus it is our most solemn responsibility to ensure that it is never squandered. there is no u.s. military solution in afghanistan. a political reconciliation is essential. afghanistan's future depends upon afghans, not american soldiers. by ending this war america can focus on rebuilding the foundations of america's strength and security by paying down our federal deficit,

growing our economy and putting americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. sutherland, for five minutes. mr. southerland: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. southerland: we had an oversight hearing regarding the president's new national ocean policy. an executive order to tell us how we can best use our oceans. thank you. i just hope that i am applauded at the end of my five minutes. yesterday, it was amazing to hear the government, those who believe in this policy, applaud . the use of the federal government bringing stakeholders together. i will say this. this particular policy has been driven from the white house

through executive order. under the auspices of ocean conservation when its actual effects will be far reaching, economically harmful and hurtful to american jobs and businesses both at sea as well as ashore. in spite of this policy, there's something called marine spatial planning. how to best use our oceans. totally ignoring the common sense that the god who created us gave us at the moment he did create us. the background of this goes back quite some time. in 2009 a task force -- i love those here. we have so many. we have councils and task force. you know what, we need to form another committee. had moses another committee they would still be wandering around the desert today. however, that's the mode of operation here. and in these frameworks and

these task force they come out with an effective coastal and marine spatial planning. i believe this is one of the largest efforts of government regulatory overreach in my lifetime. and with the world containing -- being 73% water, what better way, what better way for if we can capture and make sure that we determine what people do with these waterways, what better way to push our policies forward, to rob the american people of job opportunities and the freedoms that i believe they were given at birth? the national ocean policy is less about coordinating fishing activities with other ocean user activities and more about creating new regulatory processes to further restrict fishing opportunities, both recreation and commercial sectors, according to the director of public affairs. in my state of florida, we have

a crisis when it comes to homes, comes to real estate, and yet i know that home builders are going to be damaged greatly because this regulatory push does not just deal with offshore but it always deals, as i stated with onshore. the national ocean policy has the potential to create yet another standards and/or approvals that could impose significant impacts on home builders, private landowners and other businesses while providing minimal, minimal effects. yesterday we heard what this plan does is bring together through an adaptive process stakeholders. well, you know what? we have the ability as stakeholders to communicate now. since when do we need the federal government to tell us that we can talk to each other? have we been so dumbed down? no, we have not. we have the ability to talk now and communicate without forming

another government bureaucracy that robs us from those freedoms. and i appreciate that call of being a stakeholder at the table, but really, really, that would be like the greeks asking the people of troy to help plan the design and construction of the trojan horse. this is nuts, nuts. i live in florida. i lived on the coast. i have spent my whole life on the coast. this is another plan to push onerous regulations upon the american people and to rob the states and to abolish and do away with the 10th amendment. i'm telling you the states should be doing more while the federal government should be doing less. do not be fooled by this. we must not be fooled by this. they say we need an economic analysis going forward. well, how about a constitutional analysis? the balance between the federal government and the state governments. the national ocean policy is something that concerns me greatly, and i really believe with all my heart it would have

concerned in a terrible way our founding fathers. this is an effort to turn our oceans into an aquarium, and it is high time that the american people stood up and said enough is enough. madam chair, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. madam speaker, i rise to defend social security. . we have heard social security derided by politicians lately claiming it can't survive, it is unsustainable, and beneficiaries who earn their retirement benefits need to face hard truth. here are some really hard truths about social security. the average retirement benefit is merely $$14,000 a year.

the meet yum income of senior households is only $25,000 a year. one in three seniors depend on social security for 90% or more of their i -- income. the fact is social security is a critical program for seniors across our country. it is a life line to half of all seniors who make under $25,000 a year. this is a part that shows the various income levels, half of the people of our country who are seniors receive less than $25,000 a year on the program. it is even more important to the 25% of seniors who earn less than $15,000 a year. and for the nearly four million seniors who earn less than $10,000 a year. it is a difference between scraping by or having nothing at all. according to the center for budget and policy priorities, social security keeps 20 million americans out of poverty. it is especially important for

women. women over the age of 80 are the most likely to be living at our below the poverty level. nearly a quarter of women in that age group are officially destitute. pay attention to them. when you are at the supermarket and see them looking at cases and they can't buy anything, give them $5. social security benefits millions of older women. it helps keep them out of poverty. what many people see or choose to forget is that social security is an insurance program for retirement, for disability, and for survivorship. it is not designed to give you higher returns or beat the standard & poor's 500 or bolster your stock portfolio. it is not welfare. social security is an earned insurance benefit designed to give retirees, the disabled, and survivors stable, guaranteed benefits each month for the rest of their lives. it is financed by the taxes retirees paid into their system during their working years matched by their employer.

born out of the great depression, president roosevelt ensured the program would be financed by payroll deductions matched by employers so americans would understand this insurance program is an earned benefit. this arrangement would guarantee, as he put it, that no politician can ever scrap that social security program. and this is exactly why putting people back to work and creating jobs is the best long-term financing solution to ensure social security's long-term solvency. there are 14 million americans out of work and getting the unemployed back to work is the fastest way to inject billions of dollars back into the social security trust fund stabilizing the program for generations to come. with all of the misleading republican rhetoric about social security being broken and the so-called lie they have claim, some have forgotten the other side has always been opposed to the program. in 1935 the social security act made its way through the ways

and means committee but received not a single republican vote on the committee. the ranking republican said at that time he would vote most strenuously in opposition to the bill at each and every opportunity. republicans have opposed the program every step of the way. in 1984 former representative dick armey, now a tea party godfather, described social security as a bad retirement plan and a rotten trick on the american people. he said, i think we are going to have to bite the bullet on social security and phase it out over a period of time. then in 1987 newt gingrich, while many politicians are still afraid to mention abolishing social security, he said, i'm convinced this generation is ready for honest talk and real leadership. these are not retired politicians speaking. one is a leader in the tea party. and the other is a candidate for the republican nomination for president. even today in our house we have members who still are beating the tired, failed statement that

social security is unconstitutional. but the numbers are clear. half of all seniors live near or below the poverty line. and one in three seniors depends on social security for more than 90% of their income. what happens to these americans if we start violating the program they depend on, frankly, for their life? let me close with some comments from americans from ohio about social security. a woman from threat wrote my retiree insurance was canceled last year. i had to get a plan to pay for my medicine, even though i had part d, i still have to pay for my prescriptions because i'm in the doughnut hole. it costs me more than $700 a month. that's half my social security check. her story is the story of millions of americans across this country. i urge my colleagues to stand with me to protect social security and its guaranteed secure benefits for all retired americans, our seniors have earned these benefits. i yield back my remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: this friday, october 7, marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the war in afghanistan. our men and women in uniform have fought valiantly in this war over the last decade at great cost. more than 1,700 american soldiers have lost their lives that they fought to destroy al qaeda and hunt down osama bin laden, 1,000 more have come home with very serious lifelong injuries. when i'm at home in california and talk with veterans and their families, i can see how much our soldiers have sacrificed. i want to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all the men and women in uniform who have carried out their duty in afghanistan. as the anniversary approaches, i am thinking particularly of the army captain john hawlis of

california in my congressional district. he was killed in action in southern afghanistan on august 25, 2009. i was honored to have provided him a congressional nomination to the west point academy. this week all of us should honor the tremendous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform made for their country in afghanistan and our objective in afghanistan has been achieved. osama bin laden has been killed. and few al qaeda members remain in the country. yet unfortunately our troops in afghanistan are now bogged down in an unending and deadly war with the taliban in defending the corrupt afghan government. to this day the government in kabul led by president karzai has not been able to take charge of its country even as it's been able to provide enormous favors for the president's cronies and family. in these difficult times we cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars per month defending a corrupt regime. we cannot afford to continue to provide payments to contractors

who turn around and use those payments to pay off the very same taliban who are killing our troops in afghanistan. but above all, our soldiers cannot be asked to continue to risk their lives for years and years to come. instead, it is time to bring all of our troops home and to invest in america instead. by doing so, we can honor the enormous sacrifice of our troops have made and at the same time ensure we have a strong and prosperous country to come home to. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, for five minutes. mr. frank: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i want to quote from a column earlier this week written by paul krugman who does an extraordinarily good job of presenting the case for a change in our economic policies to deal with the unemployment that plagues not just us but others in the world.

the column is headlined holding china into account. he begins, the dire state of the world economy reflects destructive actions on the part of many players. still the fact that so many have behaved badly shouldn't stop us from holding individual bad actors to account. that's what senate leaders will be doing this week. they did it already. they have begun the process. as they take up legislation that would threaten sanctions against china and other currency manipulators. respectable opinion is aghast but respectable opinion has been consistently wrong lately and the courage -- current issue is no exception. china has an enormous trade surplus with the united states and a significant part of that is due to their conscious intervention to undervalue their currency. now, that comes to some extent that the expense of some in china to the cost of living. on the other hand, it provides employment. there are, of course, other ways

in which china interferes with the free-throw to which -- free trade to which they supposedly adhered when they were allowed to join the w.t.o., a move i voted against. they are manipulating the rare earth situation. restricting exports illegitimately to force companies to come there. we recently had a situation where general motors was told they wouldn't be allowed to sell their electric car in china unless they gave up their technology. again a blatant violation. we should be more aggressive in general, but particularly on the currency issue, the man national park plays by the chinese is quite clear. as mr. krugman points out, to get our trade deficit down we need to make our american products more competitive, which in practice we need the dollar value to fall in terms of our currencies. sometimes a weaker currency means a stronger economy.

the united states can't, shouldn't be equally aggressive to switzerland, but give our economy's desperate need for more jobs, a weakened dollar is very much in our national interest and we can and should take action against countries that are keeping their currencies undervalued and thereby standing in the way of a much needed decline of trade deficit. that above all means china. i'm very pleased to say as mr. krugman notes, the senate is moving ahead on this and the bipartisan majority in the senate is voting for this bill. i was disappointed to see the republican leadership in this body announce they won't take the bill up. it is extraordinary to me that the republican leadership of this body apparently prepares to go to the defense of the chinese economy by not allowing the bill that got bipartisan support in the senate to allow us to respond to chinese unfair manipulation of their curncy. there is one argument against it which is, well, we better be careful. we might make them angry. how do they retaliate beyond what they are doing? the chinese are in violation in

area after area of the very free trade rules they said they were there. there is this view that goes around the world, this country, that almost everybody in the world is doing us a favor by letting them be nice to them. the notion that we somehow will anger china ignores the way the chinese are now behaving and ignores the economics. china has much more to lose in a dispute with the united states economically than we do. they have this enormous trade surplus with us. they buy american debt, it is true, not as a favor to us, because that's the safest place to put their bet. if they had a better place to put it, they put it somewhere else. this is no favor to us. i am for an american role of cooperation in the world. i wish we would do more to alleviate hunger, fight illness. i'm very much in favor to continue to work with the multilateral organizations.

but this notion we shouldn't stand up for our own legitimate interests against a nation like china which is so abusive of the process because they might get mad at us is a total misreading of the situation. so i ask that mr. krugman's column documenting the case for the senate legislation that directs our administration to take action against chinese currency manipulation be put here. and i want america to be cooperative with the rest of the world. i want us to share our wealth in ways that will help people who are desperately poor, but this notion, it comes down to this, that we have somehow taken on this geopolitical law where we are the guarantors of stability everywhere in the world and therefore we should not be too aggressive in our own interest because we might -- we should not ever be putting the legitimate economic needs of our citizens above geopolitical interest. that is wrong and mr. krugman documents it. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for five minutes.

mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, as you know when folks turn on c-span it's not hard to find those things that divide us here on the house floor. we could talk to anybody we see walking around the capitol today and they could talk about those issues that divide us as a nation. but i'm a firm believer that there is actually more that unites us as a nation than divides us. one of the things that unites this house in this time in our nation's history more than in others is that desire to create jobs for american families. we all have those families in our district struggling with foreclosure right now. we all have those families in our district struggling with layoffs. and we have those families in our districts that are the small business owners that actually drive this economy. that's another area of agreement we have, madam speaker. folks know it's not the big businesses in america that hire. it's the little businesses in america. it's those entrepreneurs out there. those folks who think that they have an idea, that husband and

wife team who goes out and says i can do it better. and they hang out their own shingle. but anybody who's talked to those small business men and women these days, madam speaker, knows that folks have a tough time getting access to credit. it seems now in america the only people who can borrow money are folks who don't need money at all. that's he a challenge. that's a challenge, because what makes this economy grow are those folks who say i can use that money better, i can do something more efficient, i can add productivity, if only you'll take a chance on me. . but the regulators, madam speaker, that's what i hear from my bankers, my regulators won't let me lend any more. that's what i hear from my bankers. the regulators came in and said i can't give money out to small businesses so where are we? where are we? what's going to hire our young people, madam speaker? what's going to fuel our economy? what's going to fuel if we can't create jobs?

well, let me talk about something that unites the house and that's h.r. 1418, it's the small business lending enhancement act, madam speaker, and it's sponsored by 33 republicans and 51 democrats. you don't hear that very often when you watch c-span, madam speaker. i know that to be true. about half democrats and half republicans have come together on a small business lending enhancement act that says to our credit unions, those small institutions in each of our communities be a part of job creation. i ran for congress, madam speaker, on the platform it's not that the government does too little. it's that the government does too much. it's not the foundation of america. it's the way we've hamstrung it. for those who don't know credit unions are allowed to lend about 12.25% of their assets to small businesses, to businesses at all, in fact, and they want to do more. folks can't find the money at

banks. they come to their credit unions. they say, can you help? and congress has said no. congress has said no. it's not what we need to do. it's what we need to undo. h.r. 1418 undoes that 12.25% cap, madam speaker, and raises to 27.5%. hear that. every credit union in america would be able to participate in funding small businesses in providing the capital that small businesses need to succeed. you can't succeed without capital. capital's not available in america today. we need to find ways to do that. something else you don't hear a lot, madam speaker. it's where the house and senate coming together on things. seems to find the house and senate will agree on. it's s. 509 on the senate side. and has 20 co-sponsors on the senate. that's about a fifth of the senate is already onboard. 84 members of the house. that's about 20% of the house also onboard. this is something we can do,

madam speaker. something we can do. today it doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel. doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel and frees up capital for our small business men and women. i want folks, madam speaker, to look out over the horizon as you and i do and say, what's going to change joblessness in this country? what's going to do? we have the lowest level of entrepreneurship in this country that we have seen in 30 years. 30 years. and it's entrepreneurs that drives this train. it's not the big guys. it's the little guys. this bill, madam speaker, frees up our money that we have put into our credit unions by removing restrictions that we as a congress have placed on our credit upons to allow them to be a part of job combrothe. we don't need another sfluss -- job growth. we don't need another stimulus bill. we don't need to spend more taxpayer money. as the gentleman from massachusetts said earlier, money we're borrowing from china to spend on stimulus

programs. we can do it simply by undoing those rules and regulations that we passed already in this house, madam speaker. h.r. 1418. it doesn't do it overnight it does it gradually. it requires the regulators be involved. it says only if you have experience in member lending, only if you're well capitalized and only if you have a history of doing it well. let's pass 1418, madam speaker, and let's move it to the senate. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to pay tribute to one of my constituents who spent a great deal of her life bringing joy, happiness and direction into the lives of others. i come today to pay tribute to ms. fay stuart stevens jet and the organization that is in town this week. it has been and continues to be a road to success and a better

life for thousands and thousands of people. for many of them it has been because they had a coach, a mentor or a friend with whom they connected and formed lasting friendships and relationships in their athletic endeavors. one such coach has been ms. fay stevens jet, a physical education teacher and athletic director at the morton school of excellence in chicago, illinois, located in my congressional district. ms. stevens jet is a single mother of two boys and yet finds times to be engaged with a large number of other young people through her coaching of double dutch, cheerleading and pompom teams. ms. stevens jet has been selected by up to us as a coach of the year. up to us is an organization that supports programs that use sports to address critical

issues facing youth in america. it also helps to address serious health issues such as obesity and other childhood illnesses and diseases. ms. jet is a member of my congressional district, and i take this opportunity to commend and congratulate her and up to us for their outstanding work. i also urge support to increase physical fitness as a part of our everyday lives. it is up to us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. farr, for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, madam speaker. i rise to talk about the war in afghanistan. we've been in afghanistan since 2001. what does that mean? i'll tell you what it means.

it means 3,650 days of violence and suffering. it means 1,695 american lives lost. it means $454 billion added to our national deficit. it means that this war's got to end. it's time to apply the republican mantra cut, squeeze and trim to afghanistan war, because the cost is simply too high. also, we can't afford to lose another life in this war. we cannot afford to spend another dollar on it. and if our spending reflects our priorities, then we are' totally missing the point -- then we're totally missing the point. americans don't seek war. 59% of likely voters want u.s. troops brought home from afghanistan. but i tell you what americans do want. they want jobs.

and if we took all the money we spent on the war we could have created almost a million education jobs, 780,000 health care jobs or 364,000 construction jobs. but we didn't do that. we have a 9.1% unemployment nationwide and parts of my district have over 18% unemployment. almost every one in every five persons is unemployed. the unemployment rate among our veterans is almost 2% higher than our civilians. america can do better than this because america is a country about peace and prosperity and opportunity. these ideals don't have a price tag. but they do have a value. so let's restore peace how and let's show what america really

believes, what our values really are, peace and understanding. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker, and thank you for your indulgence. i was in a judiciary committee hearing on the importance of protecting this nation from weapons of mass destruction and then in a hearing on the homeland security committee

which i serve in trying to ensure that we secure this homeland and also respect the privacy of our citizens. and i believe that is a very important challenge. i wanted to come to this floor to call for civility and understanding. those are two conflicting terms. but as a member of the judiciary committee having the privilege to oversee the constitution of the united states, i hold very dear the idea of the bill of rights which allows our citizens the right to the first amendment, the right to association and the right to freedom of religion. but sometimes you have to call upon or to explain or to express your be a horns with ugly -- abhorrance with ugly speech. over the days we had herman cain shouting out about

brainwashing about a certain people, african-americans, who i guess he suggests that we are not educated persons and as different as any other population of americans. the greatness of americans are that we are mosaic, we are diverse. though i may challenge the philosophy of the tea party and i would never suggest that those individuals didn't thoughtfully think about who they wanted to associate with. so, again, to mr. cain, get your vocabulary straight and understand that we have a brain as well and make choices on our interests. then, my good friend, hank williams, who i guess professes to be one of america's great philosophers, and so when he was apposed the question about the president of the united states and the speaker of the house, attempting civility through what a lot of americans

do, playing golf, he chose to use a what i think was both an unhelpful and disgraceful comparison. now, i don't know who he was calling what, but he used the phrase that it would be like the prime minister of israel meeting with hitler. and one would have to argue, am i defending the speaker of the house or the president of the united states? i'm defending the idea that ugly speech should be called out any time it is utilized. mr. williams, you might stick to the pinning of a new hit that you haven't had for a long period of time. although i'm sure you have many fans. for you to characterize any leader as the dastardly and heinous person that hitler was, the dasteredly and heinous and horrific act that he perpetrated on people that were

innocent, from those who happened to be of the jewish faith, to polish people, to people of many different backgrounds that lost their lives in this disgraceful era that was led by hitler during the time that germany was led by the nazis. what a disgraceful statement. so i would ask that we understand that america is a great country because people view us as being tolerant of so many different things. and i conclude by suggesting that those who are watching those on wall street who have gathered now 700 of them were arrested, college students may be out of their classes at 12:00 and i say hooray for people who are standing up or asking the questions, where is my country going? i want to take it back. i do believe in saving medicare, medicaid and social security. pell grants that are on the cutting board. i want a job and i want banks to be able to give access to credit to small businesses of

the five i visited over my time in my district and more that are coming as i go to many others and i hear over and over again, are we going to respond to the needs of small businesses, are banks going to continue the crush the backs of small businesses? people have a reason to upset but we don't have to use ugly talk. but don't judge people because they're out in the streets. i disagree with the tea party because of the strangle hold they have on this congress that doesn't allow us to come together in a civil manner and come together on behalf of the american people. but at the same time i recognize that constitutional rights, recognize the constitutional rights of those that wall street and others have chosen to be arrested because they don't like where we are going in this nation, they don't like we are an obstruction form of government, that we will take to those who need us most and we would use them to balance the budget. i stand for the people who are out in the streets and say you are right and tell hank

williams to try and write another song that will try to get him a hit so he won't have to talk so much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

. .

>> and we're waiting for this press conference to get under way with senate democratic leaders. the associated press reporting president barack obama signing legislation today to keep the federal government running for another six weeks. congress must now finish work on agency budgets for the new fiscal year. the measure was part of an agreement reached by congressional democrats and republicans late last month that averted a government shutdown at the end of the fiscal year on september 30. it provides funding for government operations through november 18 and it gives lawmakers time to combine individual spending bills into one and incorporate spending limits agreed to earlier this year. as negotiations could still go astray. the story goes on to say, if tea party-backed republicans push for further cuts, the president had been expected to sign the law later in today but signed it when he returned to washington last night after appearances in texas. again, we're waiting for senate democratic leaders to come out

and talk about the president's jobs bill. that should be under way shortly. live coverage here on c-span.

and we are just a moment away, we're told by senate democratic leaders. quick programming note for you. on c-span3coming up at 1:00 eastern we'll have live coverage from the national press club. republican presidential candidate representative ron paul, the texan will be speaking at the press club and our coverage begins on c-span3 at 1:00 eastern.

>> 14 million people are out of work in this great country. we have no greater responsibility than to fick out a way to get -- figure out a way to get them back to work. we moved a bill to handle china's unfair manipulation of its currency. we lost two million jobs during the last 10 years and we're told by the experts that we can get this turned around we can get those jobs back very, very quickly.

we also think it's extremely important to talk about a commonsense approach to creating more jobs and that's the american jobs act, president obama's program that we talked about over the last several weeks. we hope to set up that first vote on that very, very soon, within the next few days. the plan vests in things that we need. roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems, to put construction crews back to work building and renovating schools. the average school in america is 55 years old it will give tax cuts to middle class families. it will extend unemployment benefits to people who are unemployed and have been for sometime. this is an important part of what we're doing. this isn't some left-wing blog saying we should do this. it's, for example, the chief

economic advisor for john mccain, in his presidential election, mr. glandy, who says there's no better way to stimulate the business in america than getting the underemployed a check. as i've indicated, middle class tax cuts to families and small businesses. this we're told by the president's inner circle, the office of management and budget, his job program will create two million jobs. and it's interesting to note that independents, democrats and republicans and even the tea party agree it's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair hair of taxes. more than 50% of the tea party and about 75% of other people in america agree we need to do something about this so we're going to propose to pay for this important jobs legislation to ask people who make more

than $ million a year to pay 5% more to fund job creation to ensure this country's economic success. it's time for republicans to stop their partisan games. yesterday what the republican leader did on the floor was really disingenuous. the day the president announced his plan he gave us an outline and he said then and he said -- people said last night, if there's different pay-fors, if there were different pay-fors i would say go ahead and go for them. my republican friend knew that. i don't know if it's an effort to stop the chinese currency bill. i hope not. that's not the case. or an effort to embarrass the president. but the fact is is we're going to move to have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more, a little bit more.

we're going to do everything we can to get americans back to work. even if it means millions of americans have to contribute a little bit more tomorrow than they do today. senator durbin. >> thank you, senator reid. those who heard the minority leader's speech on the floor yesterday when we opened the session heard him call for us to work in a bipartisan fashion on the things we agree on. fortunately we have a bill on the floor that 79 senators agree on to bring this bill up for consideration and had strong pour of many republicans and certainly many democrats. so let's pass it and let's get it done this week and then let's move to this yobs bill where we again are going -- jobs bill where we are going to be called on to work together. i think we recognized yesterday was to put political consideration on the floor. a bill that's not going to be offered directly on the floor, the president's original proposal. as the majority leader said, there will be some variations in it.

nor mcconnell knows that. we -- senator mcconnell knows that. we know that. as soon as we cut china currency. china currency bill is a critical part of america's economic recovery to have fairness when it comes to dealing with that country which is our largest competitor and our largest creditor. i hope we can get this done this week, sooner the better and move immediately to a yobs bill. i just came back from a week in illinois traveling across the state and i want to tell you there were pockets where unemployment is not as high as other places but by and large the american people are frustrated we have not come together on both sides in a bipartisan basis to propose a yobs bill. the president is showing real leadership here. now it's up to all of us, democrats and republicans to do the same in the united states senate. so i urge my colleagues in the senate to join us, pass this bill with senator schumer and senator brown has worked on. let's get this done and move immediately to a jobs bill that will help america get back to

work. >> thank you. and i first want to reiterate the call made by my colleague and friend, senator durbin, that we pass the china currency bill. it was kept religiously bipartisan. co-sponsors, five democrats, five republicans. it's a bill that has broad, broad support and it will send an important signal to china that they can't keep getting away with economic murder. it's as important to the future of america as just about anything else because as american companies, and we're not talking about low-end companies, but high-end companies can't compete because of unfair advantages, currency being number one, we lose our wealth, we lose our jobs, we lose our future. so i would plead with senator mcconnell not to block the bill because he can't get an extraneous amendment on this bill. there will be plenty of time to debate the jobs bill next week and that's what we're here to talk about.

it sort of looks almost like a subterfuge to block a china bill that is very hard to oppose directly because it is so needed substantively and so popular politically. i want to talk about the jobs bill as well. the president's address to congress was a turning point. it moved the issue of jobs. it was one of the president's finest moments. rather than settling for a proposal that had the lowest common denominator style, the president went big and he went bold. it was large enough to tackle the problem. the republicans have been on their heels ever since. the president was out there as recently as yesterday constantly drilling this and the polling data shows it. by more than double digits americans have more faith in the president and the democrats to create jobs than republicans. they ought to heed that message. leader mcconnell has repeatedly

signaled he doesn't support the jobs bill as a whole. he doesn't tell us what he's against. it's no wonder since the president's measure is an assortment of packages republicans supported in the past. will they turn away from payroll taxes, something they always supported? are they going to oppose tax credits for the hiring of veterans? will they turn their back on infrastructure investments, to repair crumbling roads and bridges? these are needed proposals and there's no reason other than politics why they can't pass altogether. urging the package to be broken up is a cynical strategy to slow it down. within the democratic caucus, there's been broad support for these jobs proposals and we believe it is a full full package so we have spent the last several weeks planning how it can win the most votes on the senate floor as one package. we believe we have found the best answer available. these tough economic times call for sacrifice.

shared sacrifice so we believe the best way to ensure this worthy package does not add to the deficit. it's to get rid of unneeded tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. this is a change from the original proposal, but we consulted with the white house on this and they're fine with the idea. in fact, their pay-fors were a trigger and the president from the beginning said he welcomed alternative ways of paying for it. we think we have found the best way to pay for it and we believe this package reflects our priorities and the president's priorities, particularly in light of what he said in terms of millionaires and the buffett rule. drawing the line at $1 million is the right thing to do. in the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. many are not rich and in large parts of the country that kind

of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that's associated with wealth in america. it also would affect too many small businesses if you drew the line below $1 million. there are small businesses that struggle. so we believe the million dollars is the right line because in many parts of the countries there are two-income households that earn that much. it doesn't make them rich. they are firmly in the middle class. same with small business owners in that level. but it is perfectly fair to those -- as those making $1 million a year or more. many of them are billionaires who have done very well over the last decade. the top %, that's the only group -- 1%, that's the only group that's done well in the past decade, to give back their tax breaks so we can invest in our country's future. i believe the addition of this proposal makes it very tough for republicans to oppose the

president's job package. republicans will be hard pressed to explain why they allowed teachers and firefighters to be laid off rather than have millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. republicans will struggle putting off repairs to crumbling schools in order to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of america. this is the contrast that will be on display in the senate next week. we hope republicans will approve this package to put americans back to work. if they don't the public will see they're putting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires ahead of our economic recovery. >> yes. >> you very well know that republicans are absolutely against tax increases. so if this jobs bill in creating jobs is so important, why include something so politically radioactive? >> excuse me. 75% of republicans support this

tax. the problem is none of them are in the senate. so they're going to have to listen to their fwents. their constituents, democrats, republicans and independents and as i already said even the tea party believe their taxes should be assessed on a fair basis. these people, senator schumer mentioned %. it's actually -- %. it's less than % of american people fall -- 1% of american people fall in this category. they can hang on to their mantra, no new taxes. but i would suggest that they're really not keeping in touch with their constituents. >> nor reid -- e

12kr507b8ge7b8gr507b8gr507b8ge7 b8g sdedgee 12kr50e7b8ge7b8g12kr50e7b8gr507 b8g^12kr507b8g12kr50e7b8gr50e7b 8g^12kr507b8g12ke12kr507b8g12ke roogesdroogerooge 12kr50e7b8g12kr507b8g12kr50e7b8 g12kr507b8gr507b8g12kr507b8ge7b 8g rooge 12kr507b8g12ke12kr507b8gr50e7b8 g^r507b8g sdroogee 12ke7b8gr507b8g^ roogesdroogesdrooge 12kr507b8g12kr50e e 12kr50e7b8g esdreegrooge r507b8g roogesdrooge 12ker507b8g rooge r507b8gr507b8g12kr507b8g rooge 12kr50e7b8g12kr50e7b8g12kr50e7b 8ge7b8g sdgsdreeg 12kr50e7b8ge7b8g12kr50e7b8g sdrooge 12ke7b8g e r507b8g eeroogerooge r507b8g eroogerooge e7b8gr507b8gr507b8g^ roogerooge 12kr507b8g12kr507b8g12ke rooge 12kr50e7b8g12kr50e7b8g rooge 12kr50e7b8g e 12kr50e roogee 12kr50e7b8g not now. we wasted months on this. we had one-week c.r., three-week c.r. we were able to fund the government until the end of september. then we thought we were going to be fine. we have a budget deficit

reduction act that we're working on to raise the debt ceiling. that has happened in the past, all of you heard me say this before, during the reagan years, it was raised 18 times. we raised it 18 times but we spent montsd on this. and then we finally -- months on this. and then we finally got the budget deficit reduction pass. it set up the 302-a and b for next year and immediately we're back in the same fix we were in before. they would not allow us to have a short-term c.r. they were locked. it took weeks to get that done because they were trying to place a burden on the backs of people who suffered even more in these storms. and we've really tried to change the tone here, but you have to -- i admire senator mcconnell because he set out with clearly announcing what he

wanted to do and that is do everything he could to defeat president obama and that's what this is all about and it's terribly disappointing, but as senator schumer mentioned we know congress is at a low point, but any poll you'll see, democrats are doing much better than the republicans. >> now that you chosen this, do you think -- do you predict you'll have democratic unanimity, as senator schumer said, this won't be over -- >> i have said and i know you have better things to do than listen to what i say in the opening, i'm looking forward to amendments. i'm confident -- for example, mary landrieu. i haven't talked to her personally but i know that small business committee has done a lot of good things. held some tremendous hearings. for just a few dollars i bet

she'll like to offer an amendment adding more money to bring about the small business -- the small business community in america to do extra -- have extra incentives. as i said this morning, i hope we'll have good amendments. we were willing to do that. just like we were willing to do on the china currency but they didn't allow us to do that either. i'm sorry. let me answer that. i don't know what unanimity means but the vast -- >> i know what it means. >> i don't know if you mean every democrat. i'm told a number in my caucus, could i have permission to go to the bathroom and somebody would say no, but we'll get most all democrats. >> can you guarantee that the president's jobs bill if signed into law will lower the nation's 9.1% unemployment rate? >> yes. >> senator reid, in addition to

allowing the bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire or will it stay -- >> pardon me >> will it come in addition to allowing the bush era tax cuts for wealth ear americans to expire? >> it's a 5% surtax, whatever the radius, for example, today 35% to 40%. whatever the tax is, it's 5%. we've done that. i know this is only in washington, would anyone care? because the c.b.o. that's why we've done it this way to make sure we have a good score on the bill. >> senator schumer, could you support tax increases on families making $250,000 and $1 million? >> our preference, is $1 million. that's the way we think is the better way to go. it pays for the jobs bills. as i said, there are people making $250,000 and $300,000 in many of our states.

they're not rich. they're small businesses struggling. so we prefer the $1 million. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> members are taking a break now from legislative -- from the house. legislative work will resume in about 20 minutes at noon eastern. on the calendar in the house of representatives today, two bills. one requesting the return of some unuse stimulus funds and another that delays e.p.a. rules for cement manufacturers. the house expected to finish both those measures today and we'll have more house live coverage when they gavel in at noon eastern right here on c-span. until then a portion of this morning's "washington journal." we were asking you how you felt about congress. send us an e- mail or tweet, or post on our

facebook page. 14% of the public approves of the job that congress is doing according to the latest poll, lower than the other elections when the majority partner -- party is on the verge of losing power in the house. they asked several questions about the approval rating of congress, with little hope of what that deficit reduction committee could do. when they passed how likely that republicans and democrats will agree on a deficit reduction

plan, 20% say it is likely, a 24% say that it is unlikely. -- 74% say that it is unlikely. they also ask if they could not agree, that is, the super committee, do you support or oppose major cuts from military and domestic programs? 57% oppose that idea, 36% supported. on president john -- on president obama's approval rating, it slipped from 47% before the debt ceiling debate, to 42% now with 54% disapproving, a record low 35% approve of his handling of the economy.

this is a change from september when they were evenly split at 42% each. some republicans say that the comparison between their leaders and the president would not matter once the gop has a presidential nominee. what do you like or dislike about congress? let's listen to john first. caller: the biggest problem that we have is that both sides, conservatives and progressives, socialist, do not feel as though their representatives are listening to them. you have the far left which feels that obama and company had total control and they did not adhere to the european socialist model that mr. obama was trying

to attempt. and the people on the right see that in the last election, we basically had the maturation of the installation of the progress of law through universities, whether it becomes indoctrination or whatever. everyone feels as though the last election left us on our head. what used to be the norm was now of the antithesis. a lot of americans feel that, wait a minute, we're getting away from our founding, from the individual sovereignty to the government controlled model. the citizens and voters are really the boss. so when you feel that your employee is not listening to what you have to say or getting the job done, then you have annexed. you're seeing both sides -- then you have angst.

host: what you mean they are not listening to you? there is a front-page article talking about democrats being inspired by the president's new tone. they like it. if he is appealing to the liberal base, as some are saying is doing now, then the democrats feel like, now he is listening to us. so what does that mean for compromise? caller: it will be tough for compromise. like you said, the left wants to ratchet it up. they're glad to say that obama is starting to ratchet it up. host: do you think the right ones that as well from their leaders? caller: the right wants their leaders to basically require mr. obama to produce these bills. i mean the perfect example is the pass this bill. we have to see what is in that.

for everyone's information that they do not already know, president obama wave to that nice recovery bill in front of everybody and a joint session three the next day after that, lou egol mayor -- louie gohmert filed a bill with the exact same name because president obama had not filed it. there was no bill. when you of a president that basically throws hypothetical out there and has no substance, and that is what i am hearing on the street, everyone is saying that i am telling my congressman and senator, you read this bill. i want this bill to be factual. i want this bill to be in paper and print. when you have this kind of hypothetical out there ginning it up with no substance behind it, how was the public supposed

to get behind congress or the president? host: let's hear from an independent. tom joins us from north carolina. caller: i am concerned about the fact that our congressmen think that we do not pay attention to the reality as shown by the responsible media. that is their generous -- that is their journalistic responsibility to a separate day. let me give you some examples. number one, from our congressmen, i will not mention his name because there is no reason to embarrass this gentleman. he is just a typical congressman. i wrote him concerning the libyan situation, which as you know, it is more less resolved by now. they're just hunting down a

gaddafi. my congressman wrote me a long full-page letter detailing the activities of congress concerning the libyan situation. which just amounted to a bunch of hot air, a party line put out by mr. boehner and his cohort, blah, blah, blah. a party line put out by the democrats and their party line, blah, blah, blah, none of which was relevant at all to the libyan situation. the libyan situation from the point of view of united states consisted of firing off half a billion dollars of a cruise missiles. host: i do not want to get too far down this road. it is your point that you had expressed your opinion about this and they do not seem to be

listening, similar to the last caller? caller: to give a sound bite, which is apparently what you want, i guess. host: from tom parsons, notice the direction of government in the same period. if you want to post your comments on our facebook page, go to facebook. sybil, in louisiana, what is the name of your town? caller: natchez, louisiana. what i like about congress is the fact that -- what i do not like about congresses that there is no fair and balanced compromise between the two parties. one party wants something done, the other party opposes it and would like their particular

entity to be done. it is becoming a big circus in washington, d.c., when we are the citizens or constituents that put and then there to make their unbalanced -- that put them there to make their unbalanced laws to make this country better than what it -- a pair and balanced loss to make this country better than what it is. we are in this position right now with the economy and no one is able to come up with a better decision. one wants one thing and the other wants another thing and no one is coming together. it is even difficult for mr. obama, president obama , if you will, to get some of his legislation passed.

congress and the senate cannot come together in a fair and balanced way. host: on that jobs legislation that president obama has been talking about on the campaign trail, pressing his republican colleagues in the congress and the democratic-controlled senate to take it as well, the poll says that he is struggling with the lowest approval rating on the economy, but republicans in congress have an even lower rating. here is the few wall street journal" this morning. the back-and-forth in the senate yesterday. they blamed congress for allowing the bill to languish. they demanded an immediate vote on the bill.

details of what the senate democrats want to do are not clear yet. san antonio, texas, what you like or dislike about congress? caller: what i dislike of a lobbyist. toy're not paying attention

the plight of the elderly. i am a retired teacher and i have worked with the elderly, many who have parts of their route from, you can see the ground, and no one seems to me deal with their problems. they are too proud that ask for help and i have seen elderly women eating cat food because they are too proud ask for help. as a republican, i have been proud to stand on my own two feed. but what can they do more for the elderly? host: @ democrat from mississippi. caller: the republicans, what i'm saying about the republicans is that they got into office

[unintelligible] those that were elected in the last election, they came in on jobs. now they have turned it around and the people that elected them wanted to straighten up the fiscal situation. that was not what they got elected on. another thing i had to say. they had our governor, haley barbour, on the tv the other night talking about the economy. he is hurting the most poor people in the state of mississippi! host: 75% of the people have no idea going on and they're watching dancing with the stars, from twitter. you can send us tweets at our

twitter page. from the "washington post." judy, a republican in nashville,

tenn., you are next. caller: i have a lot problems with congress. i did vote for obama in the last election. and probably will vote for him again, because he is a constitutional lawyer. this is a government for the people and by the people. but this congress does not give a damn about the people. i did not mean to use a curse word, but they do not consider anything. we have people without jobs, and now they're going to say they are worried about what they're going to give to pakistan? slap pakistan and the hand. give that money to the american people. that way they can start their own businesses, we will explode the economy, and have an army waiting for that trot. take their money away condemn,

give it to us. host: judy, we will leave it there. the house committee will work on bills to date they will implement free trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. we will have live coverage of that hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern this morning on c- span.org. also, are rare hearing on capitol hill with two supreme court justices. justice scalia and to breyer will testify about the role of the court -- the role of the justices and these two are the longest serving members of the current court. they are expected to be asked about our range of topics from personal life to cameras in the corporate we will cover this hearing as well at truth 30 p.m. eastern time on c-span.org.

crag in ontario, canada, what you think about our congress? caller: i was hoping to elevate the conversation a little. i realize that today is complain about congress today. host: we are asking people what they like or dislike. caller: ok, well if it is this light, we will have lots of complaints. but like, well, obviously, there are some middle-of-the-road people who work together and obviously, you know -- i read the national journal article that has a graph that showed who votes on the left and who votes from the right and who is in the middle. but unfortunately people that vote in the middle of the people who who the party dislikes the most.

with warner from the democrats and the various other people from the republicans that are more century, i think the tea party has purged many of them, but they are not in the most favored status category. so we're becoming more polarized as a country, and what do i like about the congress? i guess, a 11% from all the recent polls speaks for itself. host: chris christie is out. here is what the new jersey governor had to say yesterday when he held a news conference to announce that he will not run. >> of the last few weeks, i have thought long and hard about this decision. i have listened to so many people and >> we are going to break away

from this recorded version of this morning's "washington journal." you can watch "washington journal" or other programs at c-span.org. we expect house members to come back today. on the calendar, two bills. one that requests the return of some unused stimulus funds. and another that delays e.p.a. rules for cement manufacturers. we expect votes around 4:00 or 5:00 this afternoon. live coverage now gets under way of the house here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of this

assembly as they set upon the work of these hours of these days. help them to make wise decisions in a good manner and to carry their responsibilities steadily, with high hopes for a better future for our great nation. you have created your people to live in an environment of great diversity of race, color, cede and opinion -- creed and opinion. these differences enrich our human experience but also demand of us the need to negotiate preferences and opinions toward a common goal. please give the members of the people's house in abundance the wisdom, skill and patience to see past their differences for their commonalities in order to forge a strong and secure future for our nation. may your blessing, o god, be with them and with us all this day and every day to come and

may all we do be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell. mr. rigell: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for up to 15 one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, a native of dillon, south carolina, testified before the joint

economic committee. he sadly stated that economic indicators point toward a sluggish job growth and that the so-called economic recovery is close to faltering. chairman bernanke went on to say the primary factor affecting consumer confidence was the lack of job growth. he further characterized the country's long-term unemployment rate as, quote, a national crisis. this follows the president's admission monday that voters are not better off than they were four years ago. with failed policies, the president needs to change course. house republicans have sent nearly 90 bills to the senate for consideration, but only 20 have passed the senate. much of this legislation dealt directly with limiting spending, terminating failing housing programs and encouraging job creation. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i report to the house today on the agreement reached by the ford motor company and the united auto workers and its positive impact on the nation and in western new york. under the agreement ford will increase its work force, its plant in hamburg, new york, not only will they offer to rehire 120 workers who were laid off earlier this year, they will create 400 new jobs and create $136 million in investment in the facility. this is a substantial and generational commitment. how can can did this happen? it was the recognition that western new york has a highly dependable work force with a long history of labor and management working together in cooperation. it is also the result of labor and management working diligently to get a deal done. their goal was business growth and job creation and they accomplished it without the brinksmanship and manufacturing crises that have become far too

common in washington this year. perhaps congress can learn from ford and the u.a.a.w. when two sides -- u.a.w. when two sides sit down at the table and bargain for the common good. that end can be more saving, resulting in new business investment and job growth and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, yesterday i had the opportunity to meet with hilltop resources, a concrete company that has a presence in my southern indiana district. they're here to talk about how the new cement mact regulations would affect their business and their work force. the cobb of production would go up 7% to 10%, a huge hit for any business. they'd have to import materials from china, materials of a lesser quality. and those increased cost would call them to scale back the

american work force. can he want let the e.p.a. impose these burdensome and job-crushing regulations. when we take up h.r. 2681 later today, we have the chance to help an industry that has already been hit hard by the recession. i urge my colleagues to support this measure, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, sir. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize to us the leading sports youth organization to construct activities for youth. up to us supports the national network of nearly 500 member organizations in all 50 states serving more than 25 million youth through traditional and nontraditional sports programs. initiatives that expands opportunities to new players, delivering quality programs in underserved communities, these are about some of the ways

where constructive outlets for our youth are occurring through this organization. mr. mcintyre: also, the men and women serving in the americorps program are helping young people with a passion of sports to go to the low-income communities and reach out to children who may not have someone to be their coach or their mentor. the entire staff of up to us, their volunteers, may god continue to bless them and their successful work for years ahead and in demonstrating we can help our young people in construbtive ways with sports and recreation. indeed advancing the lives of all of our youth is a team sport. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i have the great privilege and really the honor of representing the largest concentration of active duty and retired military members in the congress. mr. rigell: it's a true honor

to defend those who wear our nation's uniform and to speak boldly on behalf of our nation's veterans. today i rise to address the recent decision by the department of defense regarding tricare. the d.o.d. has increased fees for enrolling in tricare prime after october 1, 2011. mr. speaker, this action is nothing less than a breach of trust between this great nation and its veterans. career members of the uniformed services and their families make incredible sacrifices over the course of long careers, defending our freedom. they honored their commitment and exceeded what they said they would do, serve with distinction. we need to honor our commitment to each of them. so i call on the department of defense to reverse this decision and to honor its promise to our veterans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chu: every nine seconds is a woman is assaulted or beaten in the united states. every day more than three american women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. and a staggering 1.3 million women and almost 840,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner every year. for the last decade in october during domestic violence awareness month, i stood up with the shelters and hospitals in my district to support the women and men who escaped their abusers. many of these victims escaped with literally only the clothes on their backs. so together we put on a donation drive of clothing and personal necessary its to benefit victims of abuse. this drive had been going on throughout october and you can support the effort by donating items at kaiser offices throughout the 32nd congressional district in california. together we can and must do

more to stop domestic violence. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the chinese dragon is snorting the fire of intimidation against our ally, taiwan. to defend itself from the chinese dragon's evil intentions, taiwan protects itself with rusty swords, outdated f-16. boeing, the united states has become timid under the chinese dragon. the beijing government doesn't want us to sell new f-16 to taiwan so we don't. the evil intentions of mischief is not limited to taiwan. in the south china sea, the talons of the beijing dragon have initiated confrontation with korea, the philippines, japan and vietnam. china claims sea areas that are in international waters or

belong to other nations. with all these belligerent actions being done by china, it's not -- we can't apiece the chinese dragon. sell them american f-16 c.d.'s. it is in our national interest to help taiwan be armed, to be the dragon sleigher if it needs to be and defend itself against china, and that's just the tway is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey secretary recognize -- recognition? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: mr. speaker, the american jobs act proposed by president obama is a clear path forward for america, by putting americans back to work and providing tax relief to workers. this plan will put teachers, firefighters, first responders back to work to invest in america's schools and infrastructure. it would also provide tax cuts

that puts money in the pockets of american workers and employers so they can grow in their jobs as well as offer job training incentives to hire returning veterans and help unemployed with the pathway back to work. the most critical element of this jobs act is that it requires immediate action to create america's jobs and rebuild our economy. in conjunction with make it in america's agenda, the jobs act will provide the long-term tools for rebuilding america's manufacturing base and create well-paying jobs well into the future. the jobs investment invests in our future and struggling americans. mr. speaker, the number one priority is job creation and the america jobs act is the first step in that effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, 16 years ago congress failed to pass a

balanced budget amendment to the constitution by one single senate vote. mr. broun: back then our national debt was about $5 trillion. today, our debt stands at nearly $15 trillion, and our democrat leadership is showing no signs of slowing down their outrageous spending. imagine what the state of the economy could look like if it weren't strapped down by that extra $10 trillion worth of debt. imagine how much brighter the future of our children and grandchildren could be without the threat of having to repay the money that washington has wasted. imagine how mom and pop shops could be growing, hiring, expanding if looming tax increases weren't a factor in their business plans. enough is enough. missing another opportunity to balance the budget is a mistake we can't afford to make twice. that's why i offered my

balanced budget amendment so we can stop the spending and start paying down our debt. i urge all of my colleagues to become co-sponsors of my amendment which is the most conservative and effective approach to balancing the budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition justice >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: mr. speaker, in my congressional district, the unemployment rate is 17%, and in san bernardino county it's 13%. my constituents need a bold plan of action, not more gridlock in washington, d.c. they want us to come together and take action. the american jobs act provides a clear path forward to put our country back to work. this bill contains bipartisan ideas that will put teachers, firefighters, fire responders and cops back to work. provide tax cuts that puts money in the pockets of working americans right now.

give businesses job creating tax breaks right now and provides a boost to our economy right now. this bill is fully paid for, not adding a dime to our deficit. the republican party has supported these ideas in the past. it's time to put politics aside. let's come to the table and work together. the american people cannot afford to wait any longer. let's act now, pass this bipartisan jobs bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if our colleagues at the opposite end of this capitol, the senate, are serious about getting our economy moving and america back to work, i urge them to do two things immediately. . for first time in 188 days, they should do what every person family and business does and set a budget. 888 days. almost 30 months without a budget. it is not just an abdication of

responsibility, it is a fundamental failure to govern. second, they should immediately take up a bill we set up with overwhelming bipartisan support, the reducing regulatory burdens act. we passed it in march, they've done nothing. if they don't act on it by the end of this month, our agriculture sector will be deluged with a new avalanche of needless red tape. mr. hultgren: i hope that this do-nothing senate will move on both of these issues immediately in order to help both the american people and the american economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the brave men and women who have served our nation and are today members of the american legion, a congressionally chartered organization. mr. altmire: that charter is in need of modernization so that the american legion at their national convention adopted a resolution asking congress to amend the charter to clarify

that the legion members may pay their annual dues and renewals using modern technology such as over the internet by credit card. for this reason i have joined my good friend from florida, congressman rudy, in introducing a bill to support the legion's recommendation. our bill, h.r. 2369, enjoys widespread support, as evidenced by the 350 of our colleagues who have co-sponsored this legislation. hopefully this bill will soon move through the legislative process in order to modernize the legion's charter and make this small but significant change to make life a little more convenient for members of the american legion. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> one year ago last friday marked the tragic day that david hartly was killed on falcon lake which straddles the u.s.-mexico border. mr. gardner: my staff and i have spoke within david's wife, tiffany, on a number of

occasions and pray that she, along with help from congress, can find the answers we are all seeking regarding david's death. david's death is a horrible tragedy and underscores the need to restore safety and security to our borders. our role in congress is to ensure that americans are not in danger when they visit the border. that means we need to act. we need to put in place real and effective measures that keep the mexican drug cartels, pirates and other unlawful activity away from the united states. the drug trade contributes to the all-too frequent stories we hear about crime, kidnapping and murder that occur along our southern border. the time is now to put pressure on the government of mexico to bring their own criminals to justice. my heart goes out to tiffany, along with the hartly family during this time. i will continue to work hard for answers and i will continue to fight for border security so that atrocities like this simply stop occurring. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address

the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: i rise in strong support of the american jobs act which addresses two critical issues facing america today. the need for immediate investments in our nation's infrastructure that will put americans back to work and the need to upgrade our schools to meet the requirements demanded by a 21st century education. mr. speaker, last week i visited adams elementary school in santa barbara, california. this school is well over 45 years old, in desperate need of more classroom space, a new library and technology upgrades. like other school districts around the country, santa barbara has been forced to cut budgets and lay off teachers and struggling to pay for school upgrades which would promote a better educated work force. the american jobs act would help fix this problem by providing school districts with the resources they need to make the needed school improvements. this act would create good, well-paying jobs now and strengthen our future economy as well. the american jobs act is about

jobs, but it's also about our children's education, it's about our nation's future. and we should pass this american jobs act, mr. speaker, and we should pass it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, americans say the national media are biased, untrustworthy and too liberal. mr. smith: according to separate polls released recently by gallop and the pew research center. gallop found that only one in 10 americans now have a great deal of trust in the national media. a majority say the media are biased. and by a margin of more than 3-1, americans think the media are too liberal rather than too conservative. pew found that one in four americans think that news organizations in general get the facts straight. that's a 14-point decrease from four years ago.

and almost eight in 10 americans say news organizations favor one side over the other. mr. speaker, if the media want to restore the public's trust, they should give americans the facts, not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. of maine's coast line, less than 20 miles support commercial fishing and other traditional marine activities. but this small portion of the coast line contributes $800 million to maine's economy and provides jobs for over 30,000 people. as the coast line continues to give away to condos, hotels and other noncompatible uses, these jobs are disappearing. this problem is not unique to maine. it occurs on all our coasts and waterways around the country and throughout the great lakes

region. working water front jobs are disappearing as a result of tremendous pressures communities face from incompatible development. that's why today i'm introducing the keep america's water fronts working act, along with my colleagues from around the country. with a grants program devoted to preserving working waterways across the nation, states will be able to help preserve jobs and communities that depend on them. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, this morning here on capitol hill i stood with other members of congress to receive more than $1.6 million -- 1.6 million signatures on petitions calling for the immediate repeal of last year's huge health care law. we've now had 18 months to find out what's in the bill. and it's only looks worse every day. mr. pitts: we found that billions of dollars in slush funds that the secretary of health and human services controls without any input from

congress, we found a class act, long-term care insurance plan that is so broken that h.h.s. had to stop planning for its implementation. we've seen health care premiums climb faster despite promises that the law would save every american family $2,500 per year. we've seen federal courts reject as unconstitutional the notion that the government can force to you buy insurance. i need much more than one minute to catalog all the ways this bill is hurting job growth and destroying health care innovation, simply put this is a rolling train wreck and the american people know it, we need to listen to them and repeal this destructive and unconstitutional bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california? >> revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you. mr. speaker, my staff has spent countless hours fighting off wrongful foreclosures. many of my constituents have submitted the same paperwork to banks five different times and had their short sales denied difference times.

other constituents were given 24 hours to return a package of 60 documents to a bank that has had those documents for six months already. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i mean, this is just not acceptable. an important step to fixing this economy is to solve this housing crisis. people cannot spend if they are living under the crushing weight of a mortgage payment worth more than their home. three years ago the average consumer spent $100 a day, now the average consumer spends about $68 a day. we need programs to help the 14 million people whose homes are under water. i ask the majority, ma have you done today to help the middle class afford to help keep a roof over their heads? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise to urge the house g.o.p. leadership to

bring the american jobs act to the floor. mrs. wilson: one of the primary reasons, we've got to work together on a jobs strategy, is to modernize and repair schools all across the country. this will create thousands and thousands of jobs, small business contractors, electricians and others can repair our schools. ms. castor: you know, back home in florida, the school districts are having to delay maintenance, teachers are being laid off and schools are unable to invest in the modern science labs that will help prepare our kids for the jobs of the new century. yesterday vice president biden visited oakstead elementary, north of tampa i -- pompa, which is an a school. it -- tampa, which is an a school. it was opened five years ago, they have over 1,000 students at oakstead and even with the overcrowding the school district has had to release eight teachers. that is not smart.

to keep this a grade a school, we're going to have to keep teachers in the classroom, the vice president said. mr. speaker, i urge my g.o.p. colleagues not to block the american jobs act, our small business owners and contractors are ready to modernize schools and parents like me want dedicated teachers in the classroom. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. last week i had the pleasure of visiting small businesses who created jobs and anywhere from doctors who work seven days in their office to companies who could sell anything to anybody to a beauty school that had people who were trying to be independent contractors. they created jobs and i'm going to talk about them in the weeks to come. so i'm begging, i'm begging this bipartisan house to put the american jobs act on the floor. that's because the g.o.p., of course, for 39 weeks has put one

bill after another, one put off or destroyed 700,000 jobs, that was a spending bill. another about the patient bill of rights destroyed 300,000 jobs. but 65% of the americans say we want jobs. they're at first and independence right now, they're at wall street, they're on main street, they're telling us, we want jobs. we want our teachers back, our firefighters back, we want our police back, we want to rebuild our schools, we need payroll tax relief to our small businesses -- so our small businesses can hire someone else. we want jobs, it's a simple point, put the american jobs act on the floor. listen to the american people, the people on wall street that are arrested, 700 of them are crying out in pain. let's respond to the american people, that is our job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- i'm sorry, for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is

recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i was in red bank, new jersey, in my district, outside the broadway diner, talking to the mayor of red bank and several small business leaders about the american jobs act. mr. palazzo: and i want to urge -- mr. pallone: and i want to urge that this house take up the american jobs act as soon as possible. the bill includes an array of tax cuts for small businesses that hire new workers or give raises to existing workers. it also includes a payroll tax cut that puts money into the pockets of american workers. the jobs act will help small businesses do what they do best, create jobs, drive innovation and provide economic security for the middle class. and the payroll tax cuts would save a small business with 50 workers approximately $50,000 a year. on the employee side, each american family would take home an additional $1,500 annually. mr. speaker, when i talk to my small businesses in red bank about the american jobs act, they thought it was a great idea, they thought they would be able to take advantage of it. we also worked with the s.b.a.

to look at possible loans that they were interested in, to expand their businesses. this is what we need to do. pass the american jobs act, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank my friend. i rise today, i visited boeing facility in philadelphia where two years ago only 4,000 people were working, now today 6,000. mr. fattah: they have three shifts working each day, they have a weekend shift on saturdays and sundays. they're working hard and playing a vital role in our national defense. and i wanted to rise today to compliment the obama administration for giving boeing the largest contract in the history of our country. with the tanker procurement program well over $34 billion

which takes american ingenuity, manufacturing jobs to a new height here in america and i want to thank the administration for their hard work on this, this has been delayed for a long period of time and having seen these boeing workers work so very hard and well, it just reminds me of how many other americans who want to go to work and i hope that we have a chance to support the american jobs act, that we bring it up and vote on it favorably so we can put many more of our fellow citizens to work. i thank the house and i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? mrs. roby: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. sewell: to i express my heart felt sympathy to one from

birmingham, alabama, in high esteem. reverend shuttlesworth passed this morning. i know in the days and weeks to come we will celebrate his life and memorialize him in proper form. today i acknowledge his wonderful work and to make sure his family knew that we as americans truly appreciate their sacrifice and his wonderful accomplishments to making this -- this country as great as it can be and making sure that this country upholds its ideals of equality and justice for all. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the additional motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under

clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1343. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman move to suspend the rules and pass as amended? mr. walden: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 149, h.r. 1343, a bill to return unused or reclaimed funds made available for broadband awards in the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 to the treasury of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr.

speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. first off, i want to thank my colleague from new hampshire, charlie bass, who has really worked hard on this issue to bring about greater accountability and oversight of how american taxpayer dollars are being allocated under the american recovery and reinvestment act. especially to make sure that when the money comes back that it's really clear with these agencies that it goes back to pay down the deficit and doesn't end up in some sort of slush fund. and my colleague, mr. bass, has played a real leadership role in both crafting this legislation and making sure it comes to the house at this time. as you know, mr. speaker, the american recovery and reinvestment act allocated approximately $788 million to

two broadband grant and loan programs. now one was administered by the telecommunications administration and the other by the rural utility service. this has been the subject of ongoing debate. there is, however, general consensus on the importance of oversight. as evidenced by the unanimously passed bill, h.r. 1343, out of subcommittee and the full energy and commerce committee by voice vote. i for one want to make sure these programs do not produce some sort of solyndra problem. i want to thank our ranking members, waxman and he shall auto, and their staffs -- eshoos, and their staffs for working with us on this bill. because the ntiu and r.u.s. have awarded all $7 billion, the bill doesn't automatically revoke any money. to do so would not only be unfair to the grant and loan recipients that are abiding by their award terms, it would

also likely cost the government more in legal fees than it would save. the vast majority of the money is yet to be spent by the awardees, however. so what h.r. 1343 does is clarify the responsibility of the ntia and the r.u.s. going forward to terminate failed or failing grants and loans and return to the u.s. freshry any rescinded or relinquished funds. the bill also improves oversight of the broadband programs. among other things, the bill requires the ntia and the r.u.s. either to terminate an award within 30 days of receiving information from their respected inspectors' general or the comptroller general noncompliance with award terms or explain to congress why they don't. it would require the ntia and r.u.s. to deobligate and return to the treasury funds from terminated awards as well as to return unused funds from any relink wished awards. finally, it would require award recipient to have accounting of

funds received but not yet expended. if the ntia or r.u.s. term nates these awards. now the number of awards that have been returned and the fact that 90% of the money the aara allocated for broadband still remains obligated but unspent makes this legislation all the more important. of the 33 rewards worth approximately $1.394 billion, recipients had only spent $480 million through june of this year. despite claims that the stimulus act would focus on shovel-ready projects, clearly it has not happened here. the r.u.s. has issued 320 awards consisting of $3.2 billion in grants and $87 million leveraged for $1.2 billion in loans. yet, recipients had spent $250 million by the middle of july and 28 of the 320 awards worth

$123 million in grants and $35 million in loans had already been returned or rescinded. now, some of my colleagues as they did in committee may say the legislation's really unnecessary. well, i would disagree. the department of commerce's inspector general, the department of agriculture's inspector general and the government accountability office have all flagged concerns with the programs and identified them as high risk. including a testimony of the telecommunications subcommittee at the hearing. another of statutory shortcomings further demonstrate the need for this legislation. for example, existing law leaves the ntia and the r.u.s. too much discretion in deciding whether to deobligate and return funds from failed or failing awards. section 600-i-4 of the stimulus law establishing the ntia programs stipulates only the assistant secretary may deobligate awards in cases of waste, fraud or insufficient performance.

that statutory language provides either less guidance to the r.u.s., remaining silent on the issue of deobligation and return of funds. commerce assistant secretary struckling agreed in an april, 2011 hearing that the bill would create more certainty. that was our effort. well, dodd-frank added rescinded revisions to the r.i.a. it's unclear whether the terms would draw and recapture in dodd-frank have the same meaning as deobligate in section 6001 of the aara leaving unclear how the dodd-frank provision would be interpreted and applied to the broadband grants. now, when congress uses billions of dollars to subsidize broadband and competition with the private sector, especially when 95% of the country already has access, it bears all the more responsibility to police those dollars. for this and all the other reasons that i mentioned, i thank mr. bass for his leadership on this issue and i urge my colleagues to vote for the bill and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 1343, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: this legislation directs the department of commerce's national telecommunications and information administration and the agriculture department's rural utility service to do what they are -- what they are already to a great degree doing, returning deobligated broadband recovery act funds to the u.s. treasury. as mr. walden just said, h.r. 1343 was reported by the energy and commerce committee with broad bipartisan support, and we should always take every step possible to improve oversight and ensure that u.s. tax dollars are spent wisely. so that is a good reason to support this bill. but i think it's also important today not to lose sight of the fact that the recovery act has been a true success for broadband development. the $7 billion in allocated

broadband spending is bringing real economic, educational and civic benefits to communities throughout the country. it's bridging the middle mile gap, bringing high-speed internet to small businesses and rural entrepreneurs. for businesses to grow, they need to expand their market to enhance their real-time capabilities. broadband enables these successes. broadband also connects patients with health care specialists thousands of miles away. and it enables doctors to monitor the vital signs of a heart patient while the patient sits at home. and importantly, broadband brings the world's reference materials to the fingertips of our students in classrooms in big urban cities and in rural cities, both alike. simply put, broadband is no longer a luxury. it is a real necessity. and that's why so many of my colleagues advocated for broadband applicants in our congressional district. from coast to coast, our

colleagues joined us in understanding the necessity of broadband deployment. and there were tremendous success stories. in my home state of california, for example, the digital 395 broadband project is deploying broadband in rural communities up and down the eastern edge of the state. to further enhance -- sorry -- excuse me. we're seeing community colleges expand their learning centers to provide outreach, training and learning support services to increase the digital literacy skills of low-income residents. they are learning the critical skills needed to be full participants in our digital economy. across the country, the large-scale public-private internet 2 project is working to connect 121,000 community anchor institutions to a dedicated national fiber backbone. colleges, universities, libraries, major veterans and other health care facilities as

well as public safety entities are all benefiting from this recovery act broadband project. and as i said earlier, we must make sure that taxpayer dollars are always spent wisely. and that's why to counter waste, fraud and abuse the recovery act built oversight directly into the structure of the law. the two agencies overseeing the broadband program, the department of commerce and the department of agriculture, were provided $16 million and $22.5 million respectfully to oversee an audit program, grants and activities funded by the recovery act. to further enhance the pay-it-back act was passed as part of dodd-frank wall street reform. it makes clear in no uncertain terms that all returned or deobligated funds must be promptly transferred back to the treasury. in fact, the energy and commerce committee heard testimony from assistant

secretary struckling and administer egelsteen that they were already returning deobligated funds to the treasury and they saw no ambiguity in current law that would prevent them from returning to return deobligated funds. current law is clear. deobligated funds must be returned to the treasury. so while i do support the bill before us, i must be honest and say i think it is a little redundant. oversight was built into the recovery act, into the broadband program and reaffirmed with dodd-frank. this bill simply reiterates what the ntia and the r.u.s. are already doing. vigorously overseeing broadband projects and returning all deobligated funds to the treasury. while this bill is not necessarily needed, i do not support it, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and i do reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr.

speaker. i now recognize the author of the legislation, a very valuable member of our committee of science and technology, the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass. such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bass: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend and colleague from oregon for yielding me time. i also want to thank my friend from california for supporting this legislation and speaking in support of it. as a representative of a rural district, i understand the challenges of access to broadband internet service. . we have many, many communities that suffer economically as well as culturally from lack of access to broadband and any effort that's undertaken to improve that access is a good effort. at the same time, however, congress must act to protect the taxpayer and provide oversight for the nearly $7.2 billion in funds appropriated by the 2009 american recovery and

reinvestment act. i would only note that a significant percentage of the obligated funds are being expended by recipients who have little or no experience in the business of designing and building broadband internet. and that in and by itself just fice the passage of this legislation -- justifies the passage of this legislation which would provide much-needed oversight for the broadband stimulus funds and ensure that the law is definitive and would be quick to he will claim funds if there is reason -- reclaim funds if there is reason to perform an award. it does not revoke funds, as my friend from oregon and from california mentioned, any mr. ayotte: ward that has already been -- any award that has already been granted. the g.a.o. and inspectors general have testified that the size and complexity of the programs and the short turn

around time provided by ntia and r.u.s. to award the money has created substantial risk in these programs. and thus far nearly 30 awards and grants worth about $200 million have been returned to the treasury. many have returned the awards because they recognize that they won't be successful. in those cases we want to assure that the taxpayer exposure is minimized and prevent throwing good money after bad for projects that should be terminated for waste, fraud or insufficient performance. now, during committee hearings, the administrators testified that the decision to deobligate funds for awards that give rise to reason to terminate is discretionary according to the recovery act language. i emphasize discretionary. the inspectors general said the stimulus bill does not make clear whether or whether the ntis or the r.u.s. must deobligate funds for troubled projects. this legislation removes that ambiguity and makes clear such

problem awards must be terminated and deobligated. moreover, the inspectors general said currently laws do the -- does not ensure that -- law does not ensure that ntia and r.s.u. will be responsive to their oversight recommendations. this will provide important sunlight by requiring the or respond with their reason for not acting. while i wasn't in congress for the recovery act's passage, now that the funds have been awarded, i think it's commonsense -- common sense that congress should require an accounting of how these funds are being spent and what the american taxpayer is getting for these expenditures. mr. speaker, i urge the congress to pass this important piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time to my friend from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i continue to reserve my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserve hearse time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield to the gentleman from florida, in stearns, who has done extraordinary work in looking into these programs, not necessarily on the broaden band side here but on the energy side where there has been a problem. i look forward to his comments and support -- in support of the legislation and i yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the oversight and investigation subsubcommittee, mr. stearns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: thank you, mr. speaker. and let me first of all say my colleague from new hampshire, you weren't here when this passed. i am sure glad as heck that you're here today to provide this legislation and give respectful oversight to the taxpayers and help them out with trying to save money and be accountable. so it is a credit to you and your initiative to get this bill and i thank the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee for his initiative getting this on the floor. it's something that i think we've wanted to do for a while but between the leadership of

mr. bass and the leadership of mr. walden we've got this. i obviously support this bill, you know this so-called stimulus package, we hear this all the time, we're going to have a stimulus package. it said to the national telecommunication information administration, which is ntia, they said, you have the responsibility for overseeing about almost $5 billion of broadband technology opportunities, giving out this money. and they tasked the rural utility service with overseeing about $2.5 billion. of broadband initiative. altogether that's a whole lot of money. and all the awards were made by september 30, 2010. but, my colleagues, the nationwide broadband map was not launched until february 17, 2011. think of that. they gave out all this money but they didn't even have the map in place until, you know, october, november, deast, january, almost

five months later. it seemed to me they shouldn't have done anything until they at least mapped this out so they know where the places to put the stimulus money. many of us in congress, including the chairman, warned of the danger of spending the money before mapping was done. and that alcathe funds before maps -- and that allocating funds before maps were in place almost guaranteed that the money wouldn't be used effectively. some cable and phone companies believe awards have been issued for projects that substantially duplicate, duplicate their existing service areas. remember, this is stimulus money. any time that much taxpayer money is given away so quickly and subject to political pressure, vigilant oversight is required. h.r. 1343 clarifies the obligation of the agencies and keeps congress informed to ensure taxpayers' interests are protected when problem awards are identified. otherwise, as was the case, as

the chairman mentioned, with solid dra, red flag -- solyndra, red flags are ignored and congress is told all along that everything is fine. today's bill clarifies the responsibility of ntia and the r.u.s., going forward, to terminate failed or failing grants and loans and to return the u.s. treasury any rescinded or relinquished funds. that's good. this is a responsible bill, necessary. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has eight minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: ok. we may have one other speaker on his way. and so if -- i would go ahead and yield myself, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to thank my colleague from florida who's

made some terrific comments regarding this legislation, about the importance of oversight. i know my colleague from new hampshire, mr. bass, has been very keenly involved in the oversight efforts as well. let me just say as chair of the communications and technology subcommittee that we will be doing oversight on how this program is working. we hear some reports that there have been problems getting access to fiber because of the earthquake in japan. that may have slowed buildout. we understand that some of the smaller companies may have run into all kinds of problems working their way through rights of way issues that have delayed the buildout of getting this broadband buildout into many of our communities, especially those who don't have broadband today. and so i think it's incumbent upon us and i won't presume to speak for the minority, but i assume they would gray as well. we need to keep an eye on this just to see, how's it working? and what impediments are we running into and are we going to see in this broadband actually get buildout as it was envisioned? the grants have been issued, the

money is obligated, hasn't been spent. so looks to me like we have two tasks here. one is to make sure we get what we're paying for as the american taxpayer and the money that isn't going to get spent comes back or if there's any kind of fraud developed, all that money will come back. that there's a very sure fire method, without question, that it comes back to the treasury. and then also to take a look at what are the impediments to building out, and i think i know we run into it where i'm at, that we do have problems sometimes getting these permits, getting through the various regulations that really impede our opportunity. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: still reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. walden: it appears, mr. speaker, that our other speaker isn't going to be able to join us so i yield back the balance of my time and encourage my members of both sides of the aisle of the house to improve this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i am also prepared to yield back the balance of my

time and encourage my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1343. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 134 as amended -- 1343 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill spassed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> pursuant -- the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the claire declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 268 . the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of preside over the committee of the whole.