60,000 jobs in the united states right now because of hyundai and i cana's investment within our borders. we look at a market, a global opportunity, we have got to pass these trade agreements. we've got to pass it. why? because it's good for america. in addition to all these jobs, and the possibility of 250,000 additional jobs in the country that's looking for a job almost every day, these jobs are there. they're available to us. we have got to get on with these trade agreements. in addition, let me also state that hyundai and hyundai dealers have raised over $43 million in the fight against peedatic cancer, which is over 10 times when what this congress has invested in that fight against peedatic cancer. the opportunities are outstanding right now. the opportunity is now. and what better time to pass these agreements than when we're hunting for the job that we need the most for our people. and also, with allies who have stood shoulder to shoulder and arm in arm with us in every

single battle, i would urge every member in this house to please pass the agreements, let's move on, let's get america back to work. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. kind: thank you. i thank my good friend and colleague from the committee for yielding the time. many have been rising throughout the course of the debate talking about the merits of the three pending trade agreements before us and why it's important for us to move forward on them. the goods, products, services being made here in america, a system of rules that all countries have to abide by who are parties of this agreement. according to the national labor and environmental standards included in the body of the agreement, fully enforceable with any other provision, the protection of intellectual property rights and on and on

and on and that's why i'm supportive of the three bilateral agreements before us. to be honest to the american people and as long as trade remains a two-way street, there will be adverse of impacts of trade and workers and companies here in america. when that occurs the workers of that business should not just be left on their own. that's why the re-authorization of the trade adjustment assistance is important, to move forward hand in hand with those trade agreements so those workers will upgrade their skills, to go to school, to have a better match in the job market and find placement as quickly as possible. and since 1962 the t.a.a. program has assisted those workers who lost their position as a result of international trade. helped them retrain and acquire skills needed for them to be competitive in the global marketplace. in wisconsin alone in 2010, we had an estimated 10,359 workers who were covered by this program. and my state's not alone.

in fact, the three largest states are michigan, ohio, california. in 2010 in wisconsin, 52% of the t.a.a. participants were successfully employed within three months of leaving the program, and 88% of those participants continued that employment over the next few quarters. the benefit of this program not only helps workers in my state but also those specifically western wisconsin that i represent. in 2010 again, when chart energy in la crosse moved some of the production line to china, approximately 200 people were laid off but they received training services under the federal t.a.a. program. when northern engraving shut down in lacrosse they too found assistance so they could get back in the regional economy. there are many examples of that throughout wisconsin and i'm sure throughout the country and that's why it was a bit

discouraging that it took so long for us to reach agreement on t.a.a. authorization when there's wide bipartisan support and great support on the outside. from the chamber of commerce to the afl-cio saying this is the right and decent thing to do for america's workers. if we are going to moving forward in a pro-active trade agenda. i want to thank the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, for the work he did with senator baucus in order to get the t.a.a. re-authorization in the place it is today. i think it was additionally helpful. may i have 30 seconds. mr. mcdermott: the gentleman is extended 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: as i mentioned in the markup, i think the ways and means should have jurisdiction, were to hold some hearings as we move forward on ways we can improve the efficiency and the outcome of the t.a.a. program. any program is worthy of change and for improvements. i think this is right for that. my concern is this is only a

three-year re-authorization. i hope we can contain -- continue bipartisan support to continue this beyond three years so it's not having to be linked to other trade agreements but i think our committee has some work to do to improve a very successful program. i encourage my colleagues to support it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i would reserve. i would just say i have no other speakers so i'm prepared to close so i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you for the ways and means committee for their excellent work on the trade agreements and most importantly on trade adjustment assistance. i agree with the comments with the comments of my colleague from wisconsin. the bottom line is t.a.a. and the trade agreements themselves are part of figuring out how to help american workers and the american economy compete in a

very, very difficult global economic situation. the amount of skills that our workers need now are vastly beyond what they needed in previous generations and the need to update this constantly in order to be competitive and continue to be employable are a significant challenge for american workers and this program is one way to give them help, to help get them the training and skills that they need to continue to be employable. and it is incredibly important -- the number of workers who have benefited from these countries, but i also submit to you that it's critical for our economy. our economy needs a skilled work force and abled in order to compete. trade adjustment assistance is one way to help our workers get the skills they need. certainly it helps them but it also helps our businesses and the overall economy. i and my colleague from wisconsin, i support all three trade agreements. i believe trade is important to growing our economy as well and it's simple math. 95% of the people in this world

live someplace other than the united states of america but the united states is responsible for 20% of the world's consumption. if we are going to grow we need access. korea, colombia and panama is good steps in that direction so that our businesses can have the possibility of growing their businesses and taking advantage of the growing economy. it has been asia and other parts of the world that are growing the most. we need access to those markets. trade agreements like this give us this opportunity. but as i have said for the entire 15 years i have been in congress, that alone is not sufficient to protect american workers and our economy. access to overseas markets on its own isn't enough to take care of our workers as they should be taken care of. they need training and we need the enforceable -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? i don't know if you have any more time, jim. mr. mcdermott: if the gentleman would like an additional minute, go ahead.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: for the first -- not the first time. actually we did it in peru. thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin and mr. rangel and others, we have enforceable workers rights in all three of these agreement. there have been justifiable criticisms, for instance, in colombia for workers to collectively bargain. but this agreement will give us the enforceability ability to do. if colombia and any one of these countries don't live up to the standards and requirements, this agreement now gives us the ability to use trade sanctions to make sure they do. that is an incredibly important step forward to protect the workers in this country. it needs to work together. access to overseas markets through trade agreements and adequate protections for our workers so they can compete in that environment, with t.s.a., i believe that all three trade agreements and this t.a.a. bill will do this.

i thank the ways and means in making this happen. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. mr. camp: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's recognized for four minutes. levin letch i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. levin: i rise in strong support of this proposal, this bill. it restarts t.a.a. and the g.s.p. program. you know, this should have happened long ago. the republican decision to let it lapse was over eight months ago was very wrong and as a result, and we're not sure of the exact numbers because that isn't public, but hundreds of service workers who were

completely shut out, fewer manufacturing workers became eligible and those who did qualify for t.a.a. received less assistance and support. so now we are taking action that's long overdue. i heard from someone that the trade agreements are being held hostage because of the t.a.a. program. they got it 180 degrees wrong. it was the t.a.a. program that was being held hostage to trade fwrements and that never should have happened. -- agreements and that never should have happened. well, now we can act, and i just want to say some people look upon t.a.a. as kind of the teaspoon of sugar to make the trade agreements go down.

that could not be more incorrect. what t.a.a. does is to help those who are thrown out of work because of trade. through no fault of their own. and if we're going to have a competitive work force, people need to be able to be retrained , and interestingly enough, if you go to any place where t.a.a. operates you see a wide variety of people who have become eligible and who are being helped. so i very, very much support this bill which prefers -- which preserves the integrity, though not all of the t.a.a. program, and the 2009 reports. and i close by saying i also support the g.s.p. provisions

in this bill. i think there's a misconception. it does help indeed developing countries who rely on the g.s.p., but as our ranking member knows from all of his work, it also benefits american companies and the workers they employ. in fact, the majority of g.s.p. imports are inputs used to support u.s. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components and machinery and equipment. so not only did failing to extend g.s.p. hurt developing countries, it hurt american businesses and their employees. a wide spectrum supports this bill, and i hope all of us on this side of the aisle will vote in favor of it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve? mr. camp: i believe the

gentleman has yielded back the balance of their time? the speaker pro tempore: no. mr. camp: then i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 5 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has 13 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker and members of the house, i think that it's important that we're passing this t.a.a. today. but it is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems faced by workers in this country. i think that the -- we are picking one group and saying, well, if you can qualify for having lost your job because of international trade adjustment at one time or another you're eligible for some benefits, but i think that in the much larger sense the house faces a problem. we're seeing it in the streets. we're seeing it down wall street. we're seeing it on my central

plaza. we're seeing it here in washington, d.c. we're seeing it in atlanta. the workers of this country are very upset, and there is a long agenda that's sort of dealt with here for one small group of workers that ought to be available for all workers. now, we are going to have to extend unemployment benefits at the end of this year unless like last year at christmas time we'll be saying to people, you know what, we don't care about you, you're done, because we don't have any -- we haven't extended unemployment benefits. we ought to be doing it right now. it will be caught in the crush of all of what happens at the end of the year but it needs to happen. foreclosure relief. we continue to have foreclosures in this country with no way out for the workers of this country, including these -- we didn't do anything for foreclosure problems for somebody who's lost their job because of trade. we make no adjustment.

we don't say you can lower the amount of your loan or the banks must negotiate. we didn't do anything for people who are struggling with foreclosures in this country. health care. health care in this bill does a -- it makes it possible for people to get health care coverage, but there are thousands and thousands and thousands of workers, 14 million of them, walking around in this country with no health care, and we are not really -- we've done nothing this session to implement the affordable care act. . there is one last issue that needs to be thought about. what happens to a worker who who training or not, exhausts all the unemployment benefits and they have a family and they have a house? now, in the 1930's, what people did is back the car up to the house, put the fortunate tur on top and drive off and get a job

in california. you have millions of people today who are tied to a house in flint, michigan, or toledo, ohio or a thousand places and can't drive off to florida and get a job or to california. they're stuck. and so they find themselves with no access to any kind of way to pay their mortgage. they are going to get foreclosed. and then they can leave, of course, or we have to find some way to make it possible for workers in this economy as it recovers to somehow get by. if we don't care -- if we just care about the workers who are lost because of trade, that's nice, and we ought to do that. we're doing the right thing. but we ought to be thinking much broader than that if we're serious about coming out of this problems we've got in this economy at this point.

i urge everyone to vote for this bill and begin the drum beat for the unemployment insurance extension and a couple of other things. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: madam speaker, i support h.r. 2832, the bill which renews the general system of preferences and also contains the trade adjustment assistance called t.a.a. this bill really is the cornerstone of the carefully crafted, bipartisan and bicameral agreement that then prompted the president to send the three trade agreements to the congress last monday. this has allowed us, this legislation has allowed us to move forward on a long stalled trade agenda. the bill renews g.s.p., which the house passed last month and that is the largest trade

preference program which is estimated to account for over 82,000 u.s. jobs that are directly or indirectly related to that program. the second portion of this bill, the bill that re-authorizes trade adjustment assistance is absolutely critical, because it is one of the core items that has allowed these trade agreements to come forward. and this legislation really does ensure smaller government and less spending on an important program in these difficult economic times where we have a growing debt and deficit. this program was streamlined and scaled back and i will note some of the highlights. there is no t.a.a. for public sector workers. the number of weeks was reduced from 156 in the 2009 law down to 117 weeks. also there is no double-dipping.

these benefits run concurrently with current unemployment benefits and the health care subsidy was reduced in this legislation. we also eliminated half of the allowable justifications for the program's training waivers to ensure that those eligible for t.a.a. are in those training programs with only limited exceptions. and we also consolidated and reduced the expenditures and reduced it for firms and enhanced performance measures. no worker will qualify for this unless certified by the department of labor. and this is an important attempt to bring some reform and integrity to our unemployment programs, particularly by strengthening the job training provisions where 80% of the waivers were used to waive people out of the requirement that they job train.

this is an important reform and going to be an important reform in this bill to make sure we implement it so as we move forward on the unemployment insurance debate as the gentleman from washington state alluded to, we have a track record on some of these items and can see how they are beginning to work. i urge my colleagues to support not only three trade agreements, but also what really was the cornerstone for bringing the three trade agreements to the floor, h.r. 2832, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 425. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion that the house concur in the senate amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. those in favor will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the order of house today, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 3078 will now resume and the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 156, h.r. 3078, a bill for the colombian trade agreement. mr. levin: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. levin: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. levin of michigan moves to recommit the people h.r. 3078 to the committee on

ways and means and report back to the house with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, add the following, title 7, currency reform for fair trade act. section 701, short title. this title may be cited as the currency reform for fair trade act. section 702, clarification for definition of counteravailable subsidy, a, benefit concurred, section -- mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with and i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? if not, without objection, pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes and the point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. levin: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. levin: thank you. i want everybody to know what this is.

this is a bill on currency. this is the opportunity for people to once again stand up and be counted. this is the bill that passed last year 349 to 79, with 99 republicans supporting it. this is the house bill that has 225 co-sponsors, more than 60 republicans. you know, it's clear, china's currency manipulation is a major cause of hundreds of thousands of lost manufacturing jobs. and imports from china are about half of that. so we are talking about one million jobs at the least, which is clear that the manipulation of currency kills the playing

field in favor of china, at least 25% and it's not getting better. china's currency manipulation isn't the only cause of that deficit or loss of jobs, but because it's not the only cause doesn't mean we should address it. it's a major one. it's clear we haven't been effectively confronting china on this issue and china pushes ahead. in a few words, the time has come for action. eight years of talk have yielded very meager results. this has broad bipartisan support. and to make it utterly clear, last night the senate passed a bill on currency by 63 to 35, 16

republican senators supported it. this will not kill the bill. it will send it back -- it will not send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately go to passage. as i said, now is the moment for all of us to be counted to stand up and be counted. no excuses. as robert samuelson said in "the post" last weekend, there is a trade war between them and us, and only one side is fighting. now we'll make sure that that both sides are in this effort. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from pennsylvania who is so active on this issue, mr. critz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. critz: i appreciate the gentleman from michigan for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

as the chamber closest to the people, the house works best when it is allowed to work its will. those aren't my words but direct quote of speaker boehner. since china's 2001 entry into the world trade organization, we have lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs and our deficit with china has grown to $273 billion. our manufacturers are hurting. the american people are hurting. we were sent here to lead. here is our chance. we're talking about creating over two million american jobs and reducing our annual trade deficit by over $70 billion. the speaker talks about a trade war. you want to talk about a trade war, ask steel tubing, tires and solar who have lost their jobs because of china's unfair trade practices. at some point we have to stand up and do what's right for the american people. you gain respect through strength. this is our moment of truth. this bill has broad bipartisan

support. we must send a strong message that the united states will not stand by while foreign currency manipulators destroy american manufacturing jobs. it's time to stand up and be leaders for the american people to defend their interests over all others. at any rate, madam speaker, it's time to stop being part of the problem and becoming part of the solution. lead, follow or get out of the way. and as the speaker said, let the house work its will. i urge my colleagues to stand up for america to level the playing field with china. support this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 15 seconds. mr. levin: that's all it will take. the issue is clear. act. act. you must stand up and be counted. this is the moment on currency

for every member of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: madam speaker, i withdraw the point of order and rise to oppose this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the implementing bill before us reflects a carefully negotiated agreement that involved the white house, u.s. trade representative and bipartisan staffs and members from both ways and means and finance. all four offices were consulted at every step of the process and all sides were fully involved. this provision was not part of that negotiation. in fact, it was not even raised during negotiations. and this threatens to undo the carefully negotiated terms of this compromise and set our trade agenda back. this motion is a true poison pill. any change, even moving a single

comma would strip the bill of fast track protections in the united states senate. thus, this motion really isn't about chinese currency practices, but an effort to kill the colombian free trade agreement. in fact, the irony is the only reason the minority is allowed to offer this motion is because then speaker pelosi took the unprecedented step of turning off the clock on t.p.a. three years ago on the colombian free trade agreement. passing this would reward that decision to put our trade agenda on ice, it hurt our economy and cost us jobs as farmers and exporters lost out on opportunities in that fast-growing country. with respect to the substance of this motion, everyone agrees that china's currency is undervalued. it must commit to allow market supply and demand determine its value, but at the same time we need to recognize that currency is not the only barrier to u.s. -- that u.s. businesses face in

china and that legislation on currency is not a silver bullet. i plan to hold a hearing in the ways and means committee this month on all of these issues, including currency, but this is the wrong vehicle for such legislation and would kill the very important colombian trade agreement. i therefore urge defeat of this motion and passage of this portrayed agreement and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . and the question is on the motion and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the gentleman from michigan asks for the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by

five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 3078, if ordered, passage of h.r. 3079, passage of h.r. 3080, adoption of the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2832, and a motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2433. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 192 and the nays are 236 and the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 262 and the nays are 167 and the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 3079 on which the yeas and nays were ordered and the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 157, h.r. 3079, a bill to implement the united states -panama trade promotion agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 300 and the nays are 129 and the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table and the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 3080 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 158, h.r. 3080, a bill to

implement the united states-korea free trade agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. electric elected this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 278 and the nays are 151, the bill is passed. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2832, offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2832, an act to extend the generalized system of preferences and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion and members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] 6

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 307 and the nays are 122. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the motion is adopted. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion from the the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2433 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to make certain improvements in the laws relating to the employment and

training of veterans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418 and the nays are six. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? ohio rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor from h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 2944, with the senate amendment thereto and concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and report the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 2944, an act to provide for the continued

performance of the functions of the united states parole commission and for other purposes. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the senate amendment is concurred in and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 -- 9:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate and 11:30 a.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 822. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2250. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the chair declares the house of the committee in the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2250. will the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2250, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide additional time for the

administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers, process heaters and incinerators and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, october 11, 2011, the amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, has been disposed of. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is a very simple amendment, should get unanimous support here and it simply requires the environmental protection agency administrator to consider increases in

illness-related absences from work when establishing appliance dates for the boiler rule. last week i offered similar language as an amendment to the cement sector regulatory relief act which unfortunately didn't pass. i don't think it was clearly understood by both sides of the aisle. however i believe my amendment is more applicable to this legislation since boilers and incinerators pose an even greater health threat to the american people. in fact, e.p.a.'s analysis demonstrates that for every year this rule will be in effect, it would prevent up to 320,000 missed work or school days. during the debate on my amendment last week, the majority conceded, which i appreciated, that the amendment would do no harm. because the majority thought that the language was already in the bill. that it would be duplicative and unnecessary. the reality is that there's nothing in the underlying legislation that requires the administrator to consider illness-related absences from work when setting a compliance

date. now indeed it should have been there there and i can understand why the other side thought it was in there because it should have been in there but it wasn't and that's why offer this amendment. this factor is critical in that any establishment of a compliance date that does not consider the health of the work force is inadequate. as the majority stated a last week, the e.p.a. already knows how many days will be missed. so my amendment will not hinder the e.p.a.'s decision making process. additionally as the majority admitted last week, at worst my amendment does no harm. or as kind of the nba rule, no harm, no foul. however, as best my amendment ensures that e.p.a.'s decision is based on a more complete analysis of the economic impacts of the rule. and given the economic consequences of 320,000 days of missed work or school a year, it's imperative that e.p.a. factor this information into its compliance date decision. i ask the majority to recognize the united states is going to

retain its status as the world's economic engine, that we need to have the world's healthiest and most productive work force and children. but that will not happen if we continue to let polluting boilers an incinerators undermine the health and well-being of millions of american workers and children. i encourage my colleagues to understand the importance of a healthy work force and support my amendment. on behalf of the millions of american workers and school children who have been forced to miss work or school because of sickness incurred by breathing toxic pollutants from boilers and incinerators, mercury, no less, which interferes with young people's ability to think, i ask that you support my amendment. it's time to put partisanship aside, work together to strengthen the american worker and the american school child. i urge passage of my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. whitfield: i want to thank the gentleman from tennessee for offering this amendment and he always does a great job of articulating his position on these issues, some of which are pretty complicated. and in this amendment he would add illness-related work absences to the considerations when e.p.a. is setting the compliance deadline. and of course that's one of the main purposes of h.r. 2250, is to allow additional time for universities, hospitals, industries in complying with these rather complicated boiler mact rules and in the legislation we set out six or seven specific items that e.p.a. must consider in setting the

compliance deadline. they do have to set it within no sooner than within five years. but the e.p.a. administrator has additional time after that. and the section of the bill that i'm talking about identifies specific issues relevant to a facility's ability to comply, simple yen sures that in setting these compliance -- simply ensures that in setting these compliance dates, plant focus considerations are taken into account. now e.p.a. already has the responsibility for considering health impacts and setting its standards. and it's unclear exactly how this amendment would be implemented different from what the act already required the e.p.a. to do. so i'm going to respectfully oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated. however, if we end up having a vote on this and if it is defeated either by voice vote or by record vote, if we're

successful in getting this into a conference with the senate, i would specifically make a commitment to the gentleman from tennessee that i would work with him sincerely in trying to address his concern. and i might say that we've had a lot of amendments and that's i guess the only time we said we'd really be willing to do that. but i know you're trying to address an issue that's of concern to you and while i oppose the amendment here, if we are successful in getting to conference, i'd look forward to working with the gentleman at that time and so for that reason i would formally at this time oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the amendment is not adepreed to. mr. cohen: mr. speaker. i'd like to request a vote by that, the anse. roll call. the chair: a request for a recorded vote? mr. cohen: yes. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. . the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the chair: the committee having had under consideration h.r. 2250 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house has had under consideration h.r. 2250 and has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy

january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i have been appearing on the floor of this house now for quite a while talking about regulations. but information has come to my attention from a report that was prepared by a group of people in the texas government about problems that are way beyond anything that many people are perceiving considering what is going on between the border of texas and mexico and the ongoing immigration crisis we have in america and quite honestly, it is so concerning, i'm going to

talk about it and be joined by some of my colleagues to talk about the actual crisis that is going on in a -- with the criminal element that has gathered across the border, with the drug cartels in mecks key. i'm -- mexico. i'm going to have possible ters to talk about -- posters to talk about some of these things. we have an issue that is going to have to be eat addressed by this congress and that issue is not only the legal immigration needs to be worked on and fixed so we can have an immigration policy that actually works in this country, rather than one that seems to be haphazard and in many ways subject to people's personal opinions rather than

the rule of law and immigration for our country. this whole issue of illegal immigration is compounded by the fact that massive illegal drug cartels have gathered on our border. first remember, and i think all people that have dealt with criminalology will tell you, when you create a criminal environment, you have to expect that environment to grow. at some point in time in the recent past, the cartels that deliver drugs to basically the entire western world decided to move their operation from south america upright to the border of the united states across the border with mexico. and these cartels have been battling each other in warfare

to determine what cartels will dominate the illegal importation of drugs and people into this country and those people brought in for illicit purposes, such as prostitution. the most recent count that i have heard is approximately 44,000 mexicans across the board have lost their life in this war that is going on in mexico. that is a number, when you look at the 10 years of warfare our country has been involved in in other places around the world is astronomical and to think that is happening in texas and to think there is a war going on in an area where most residents of

texas, where there was peace upon the board, those residents need their lifetime. now they are no longer our friends, but our enemies, and they are enemies of mankind because they are bringing poison into our nation and in every form and fashion and killing each other for the right to do so. now, one of the things that has concerned members of our texas delegation and other members of this congress is lawlessness spilling over into the united states of america. the report that was done by todd staples in the department of public safety and others in texas tells us that not only will it spill over into our country, but it has spilled over into our country that there is a

n plan by these cartels to seize control of every border county in texas that boards on the rio grande. that's a big project. and actually, i would say, it is a plan for the invasion of the united states of america. this is something we honestly have to address in a serious manner. we have a lot of legislation pending. one of the bills that i have is a bill that will add further assistance to the border sheriffs in their war against the illegal element on the border. our board -- border patrol has grown to an enormous body and

they are involved on this war on the border. currently, the texas rangers have a task force on the border. they are the elite law enforcement officers of texas and they are the task force which is working up a counterplan to stand up to this plan that is coming out of mexico to start to infiltrate our counties along the border and ultimately through intimidation, kidnapping, beheading, murdering and bribing and all the sfuff of illegal -- stuff of illegal activity to buy and intimidate their way to control these counties. some of these counties have large populations and some have a lot of land mass along the texas border. and it is a real concern when

you are talking about 1,200 miles of border between the united states and mexico that someone would have a plan to invade our country and take control of those border counties that are bordering on mexico. and first question you would say, with them to fight to establish their base, why would they cross the border? the report that was given -- and i'll talk to some of the people who were involved in it but i don't have it in front of me, but was done with the aid of two former united states military generals and looked at it from the point of strategic and tactical planning. what countermeasures we would take in this country and others. and one of the countermeasures that would fall upon the people

of texas is that we would need to be using every law enforcement officer we could to a maximum benefit and therefore we have done to enhance border sheriffs in the past and need to enhance border sheriffs in the future, but we have a bill that will add to that enforcement and that is the tip of what is going to be needed if these people get serious of trying to come across the border and create criminal counties along the texas-mexican border on the texas side of the border. and here's the man with my materials and bring them over here. that's almost beyond our conception of what will truly happen. this is a copy of the plan -- you want to hand one up there to judge poe. he has read it and might want to have it as a reference.

texas border strategic military assessment prepared in september of 2011 and some of the folks -- this was by todd staples, commissioner of texas, department of agriculture, assisted by the department of public safety and four-star retired general barry mcafterry and retired army major robert scales, both of which looked at this from a unique and strategic assessment as they would do with a military project. these knocks -- these folks -- general mcaffery was a former commander of u.s. troops in central and south america.

scales is a graduate of army war college. they have taken the intelligence that has gathered by the texas department of public safety, the border patrol, the texas department of public safety special group called the texas rangers and others, to discuss this criminal element on the border. now, why would we do this today? well, it's because of what's on this poster right here. we have had an event in our country where these blatant criminals from the cartels have at least been -- they have been sole is edited -- sole edited our enemies of iran to commit an assassination bombing here in

washington, d.c., on behalf of iran. they tried to hire mexican cartel members to do this heinous event here to attack the saudi arabia and israeli embassies here in washington, d.c., to kill ambassadors from those countries. i have a particular interest in this. having dealt with law enforcement with for many, many years. one of these guys that tried to make the deal has a home in my hometown. this has just come out recently. i haven't seen what neighborhood yet, but i haven't seen it on television but i'm going to call my son and he knows everything that's going on around ring rock and he will know where it is. but this is serious business

when you realize there are people trying to set up assassination plots that live in your hometown. and we are the most law abiding county in the state of texas and one of the most law-abiding counties in the nation and to think stupid enough to choose williamson county to conduct operations for terrorist behavior is beyond my belief. but it seems to me from indications in the news, that one of these people owned a home in williamson county. it shocks me to come up here and admit that about my hometown, but i can promise you, anything we can do in williamson county, we'll take care of the boy. i assure you that, but that's another story. look at these characters and we live 200 miles from the mexican

border and the operations are being planned by people from a foreign country, iran, an enemy of our nation, part of the axis of evil as former bush talked about, these guys are trying to make a deal with this criminal element across the border. so that, coupled with the texas border security act is a huge eye opener that this issue we have talked about now for the entire 10 years -- almost 10 years that i have been here in congress is a lot more serious issue from a national security standpoint than anything we ever imagined. and i think that's something we really need to start thinking about. i'm joined by another law and order judge from the state of texas. judge poe and i both served on the bench and put bad guys where

they belong and did more than our share and i yield to congressman poe whatever time he may wish to consume to discuss this matter. . mr. poe: thank you, judge carter. i think this event that has occurred should tell us a lot of things. one, that the country of iran is so bold that they believe they can commit a crime of terror on the soil of the united states and get away with it. that the united states wouldn't do anything or there wouldn't be any consequences. whatever. but they believed the government, i believe the government of iran was in the middle of this, was so arrogant to hurt and kill americans that they were willing to do this on our homeland. and i think that we have a responsibility to treat this

just like had it actually occurred. i mean, had they carried out the assault on the embassy here, killed -- killed the ambassador at a restaurant, apparently, killed the israeli ambassador, killed the two ambassadors of the two countries in argentina, which was discussed, we should be very concerned about that and not -- and not give it a pass because law enforcement did a good job. but also they're willing to recruit the zata cartel to bring explosives into the united states. i wonder whether this is the first time they thought they were dealing with the zata cartels. we don't know. but the zata committee are the worst of the worst drug cartels. they reminds me of the old show on television back years ago

where he had his card, his business card read, have gun, will travel. and that's what the zatas are. they've got guns and they'll travel anywhere to assassinate people, to make a little money. so you got iran on one side of the world, the drug cartels in mexico, two criminal enterprises working together, one for political reasons, one for money reasons. to cause harm to the united states. now, that brings us to a question of the real problem which is the border. the u.s. border with mexico and its ports is a national security issue. it is not an immigration issue, that is a completely different issue. it's a border security, national security issue. last year from the, i believe the same report that you have provided, there were 663 individuals from special interest countries that were

captured by our law enforcement. now, special interest countries, those are countries where terror organizations originate. saudi arabia, pakistan, afghanistan. that's where these 663 people were from that were captured by our law enforcement, trying to come into the united states. and they weren't coming over here looking for work that americans won't do. they were coming over here for mischief reasons. and that's because the boarder's open -- border's open. the world knows, if you can get to mexico, you can get to the united states and that was the plan in this bold endeavor to commit terror in the united states. recently they did a border forum in brownsville where we had a primary, law enforcement and people who lived on the border testify about violence on the border. there are some places on the border that aren't violent on the united states side. but there are other places that are. it's not -- it's not all peaceful and it's not all

violent. it depends on the area of the border. and one of the cattle ranchers, excuse me, one of the cattlemen that's a ranger for the cattlemen's association testified that he was so concerned about cross-border travel and crime coming into the united states on ranches and nothing was being done about the crime that was being committed on these ranches by people crossing into the united states, primarily drug cartels. that the cattlemen, since they don't feel protected, may end up taking the law into their own hands and we don't want to get into that situation. you mentioned trafficking, human trafficking. that's another tremendous problem that the united states needs to be aware of. that young people, young women, girls from all over the world are being smuggled to mexico and then smuggled into the united states and then trafficked throughout the united states for sexual crimes.

and it's an awful, awful scourge, but they cross the border because it's open in so many places. and our judiciary committee a couple of weeks ago we had testimony that the number of -- number one threat to the national security of the united states is not al qaeda but the criminal drug cartels that operate in mexico. the number one national security threat are the criminal cartels, drug cartels that operate in mexico. that should give us really a warning that we have -- we really do have a tremendous crisis on our hands because those people are at war, not only with mexico, but they're at war with the united states. and lastly i wanted to point out that there are several things that are being done but the problem still exists. people are crossing into the united states. border patrol is doing the best they can, of course local law enforcement, the sheriffs are doing as good a job as they can and they mentioned the problem

that you have talked about, about how the drug cartels want to infiltrate this side of the border and actually control regions. it's pretty simple what they do. they own land on one side of the rio grande river in mexico and they want to buy or steal or confiscate land in texas side of the rio grande river, that way they can move their drugs and smuggling operation from one land they own to another land they own across the river. and when we get in that situation where the drug cartels are owning land on both sides of the border, we've got ourselves a real problem. and it's not just drugs. it's this problem right here. it seems to me that we need more people to protect the security of the united states. that's one of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, is to protect us. and the one piece of legislation i've offered is to put the national guard on the border.

not behind the border, but on the border. 10,000 troops at the request of the governor, supervised by the governors, paid by the federal government, but put them on the border. right now our policy seems to be, since we can't have enough people on the border, we have them behind the border. and we try to catch them if you can. that's people coming into the united states. everybody. the good, the bad and the ugly. once we catch them they become our problem, our financial problem, and then we have to deal with them and try to send as many as we can back. if we have the national guard on the border. they're not going to cross into the united states if we have that presence. and i think it's come to that where we need to do -- actually need to do that and talk about the role of federal government is national security. with that i yield back to my friend. mr. carter: reclaiming the time, thank you, judge. i also have a bill and i'm a co-sponsor of your bill, i also believe that we need the national guard on the border and, you know, if there is a

strategic -- as this report indicates, you know, you fight wars tactically and strategically. strategically are big, big issue plans. tactically is how you do the fighting. well, they seem to have a plan that has been worked out strategically to seize the texas border, as much of it as they can gets and then tactically, how to go about doing this with all sorts of criminal activity so they control some of these very rural, very large, rural counties, but i'm sure they're even going to try for some of those urban and -- urban counties alongside the border with the whole intent that it would enhance their ability to move their product. there's an he can dote in this bill that i think you need -- antidote in this bill that i think you need to dish need to read it. this is what one rancher observed. but the border patrol, i can tell you that their hands are tied about a lot of stuff. they have to call washington.

even if they're having a gun fight, they're on the phone. they have to call washington. the border patrol have boats on the river, they patrol the river, but they're not allowed to pick up anybody that's in the water unless they are dead. if the drug guys are loading drugs all they have to do is step out or wade out into the water and the border patrol can't touch them. they are not allowed to go into the water. they can't do anything about it. well, if that's the policy of the country and that's what's going on, then they're looking at a way to avoid law enforcement and this is what this plan goes on to say. on both sides of the border, if the texas authorities are chasing a carload of drugs in texas, drive out into the river. and they can't come after you. if the mexicans are chasing you, then you drive out into the river on the mexican side. it gives them a getaway to get

into that international zone. as long as that's the policy and i'm not sure the legal ramifications of that, it's always been my understanding that the state of texas owns to the middle of the river, but there seems to be some policy that says, once you're in the water you can't make an arrest of these people unless you get your hands on them, without going into the water. i don't know how you do that. if that's the policy, then that's a getaway zone on both sides of the river. they can run right back in. and if they get this control of law enforcement and other things, which i'm not in any way besmirching these guys that are working nights, weekends and holidays down there trying to stop this invasion, but, you know, look at what they've done to law enforcement across the border. i mean, i think the life expectancy of a chief of police in new mexico is about six hours before they either kill you or behead you, set you on fire, burn up your family or do

something to you. these are evil people. and the zatas, they're the worst of the gathering of the evil people over there. and they do it for money. and they'll do anything for money. almost anything. obviously they didn't do this. but only by the grace of god and good intelligence and quite honestly good law enforcement work down there did we prevent this and we just -- it's almost arguable that we got lucky. because there's so many people they could have contacted that we wouldn't have known about this. it's kind of frightening. another comment by another person who lives on the border, we see a lot of things but we keep our mouth shut about it. we don't want to be on anybody's hit list. i keep to myself, the people that are doing what they're doing, they keep to themselves. if i see something, i ignore it. i look the other way. but there is a problem. it's really bad.

here on the river you see a lot of stuff and you don't pay attention to it, you walk away and you try to stay in an area where they see you so if somebody gets caught, they don't say, well, in an area where they don't see you so they don't say, well, somebody call, so you try to blend in and not create any waves. this is a citizen. i can tell you that one of our citizens owns land on the border and he's told stories of armed 50 caliber machine gun armed toyota pickups drive all loaded up with cartel members telling dear hunters to get off the ranch because they're hunting there that day. which means they're bringing a load of big load of drugs across the river. there's antidote after antidote from the citizens of texas who talk about -- and one of the things i think is very important

that we explain to people and everybody that might be paying attention to this, there's one very difference between texas, new mexico, arizona and california. and that is in texas we retained our public lands when we came into the united states. under treaty. so the land that they cross the river onto is not federal land. it's individual human beings' land. the people -- people -- people water their cat until the rio grande off of their ranch and that rio grande is one border of their ranch. they own the land right up to the river. which is different in arizona. it's diven in california. -- different in california. in most instances they're butt up against federally owned land. in the other states, all land not owned by the individuals is owned by the federal government. as part of federal lands. but in our state, our land, we have no federal lands, we have only state-owned lands and lands

owned by individuals. so, it's our actually state-owned land or it's individual land with the exception of the big ben national park. that's the only exception we have. mr. poe: will the gentleman yield for a comment? mr. carter: i will yield. mr. poe: thank you for yielding. i just want to point out one other statement made by texas rangers and i think they're -- texas rangers are the finalest law enforcement organization in the -- finest law enforcement organization in the world, next to scotland yard, they're the two of them. but lieutenant arthur barera who i met three weeks ago grew up on the border, he knows how the life has changed and here's what he says about what's taken place on the texas-mexico border. people in washington, d.c. who live in never-never land need to listen to a law enforcement officer who's been there for a long time. he says, we are in a war. we are in a war and i'm not

going to sugar coat it by any means and we are in a war and it is a war and we need to understand that. and that's exactly what's taking place. mr. carter: that's exactly right. when they have a plan to seize american soil, that's an invasion. if it's happening in texas, it'll happen in other states. i've had the pleasure twice now to go to the border in the great state of arizona. to be honest, at least we have a river between us and them. with the exception of some of the fences being built in arizona, i've seen the old fence and it was a two-strand barbed wire fence that a hung her -- that a young her calf can walk through without any problem at all. we're joined by congressman franks of arizona. he wants to tell us a little bit about his view of this

serious problem on our border from the standpoint of our friends in arizona. i yield you whatever time you may wish to use here tonight. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman very much. i know that texas and arizona are kin in a lot of different ways. i appreciate the good work that you do and certainly mr. poe. i suppose it's important for us first to just restate the obvious, that the president's most fundamental duty is to protect our country and this recent attempted attack that could have resulted in an act of war if they'd been successful, i think it reveals two very glaring examples of president obama's abject failure to fulfill his responsibility to protect our southern borders and to respond to a terrorist regime on the verge of maintaining nuclear weapons. the main terrorist attempting to organize these attacks on

our soil sought to hire members of the mexican drug cartel known as zetas, partly because of their seemingly unfettered access to weaponry. it's an astonishing irony to me that it was the obama department of justice that was allowed in allowing just such weaponry to be walked across the border into the waiting arms of mexican drug cartels. yesterday's foiled plot underscores the serious nature of operation fast and furious. i think it's appropriate that attorney general holder has now been rightly subpoenaed. the number one reason why this momentous event establishes more than -- beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that iran is committed enough to attack, to try to foment an attack upon the united states. there's really only two

fundamental components to any threat to our national security. one is intent and the second is capacity. if this doesn't clarify once again in the starkest terms iran's intent, i don't know what it would take to wake this administration up. but the frightening part about it is that this same regime has gone on unabated for years now, inexorably and inevitably pursuing knew leer weapons capability and this administration has been asleep at the wheel and i can't express to you how dangerous i believe that is last year, general david petraeus announced that iran was assisting al qaeda and general odeer noah said the army was funding and training insurgent groups in iraq and furthermore a report last september said the tall pan was funding efforts to kill americans in afghanistan. this is a pattern here. if they are committed enough to

try to foment an attack and literally try to blow up the israeli embassy here or to try toe kill the saudi arabiaian ambassador to the u.s., let me suggest to you that the intent is so clear that our entire focus now should be upon dealing with the capacity. and this -- and this administration should have the courage now to take this moment to stand up and say to the whole world that america will not let iran gain nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire human family, even if it means a military response on the part of the united states. they need to make that very clear and this is the moment to do that. i would suggest to you that there's an effort by iran to create a hegemony in the middle east that's causing a lot of middle eastern companies now to flock to irap's side out of absolute sniveling terror that iran will gain nuclear weapons capability. let me say to you, if iran does

to this, not only will it change the history of humanity, not only will we all be stepping into the shadow of nuclear terrorism, but history will record that this president was the one that stood by and allowed that to happen. i would suggest to you that that is a complete abrogation of presidential duty. perhaps this president would do better if he were able to focus on the threats of our nation without being so busy apologizing for america at every opportunity. it's been reported that the state department under secretary of state hillary clinton, that they called to express condolences to the family of al qaeda prop began dist who was killed in the same attack. it's a difficult thing to say or ask, but i wonder if the obama state department called all the victims of the victims of the terrorism these two men fomented in the world, especially those who perhaps

died at fort hood. so i just -- i'm astonished that this president is so busy apologizing to the families of terrorists that i don't -- i wonder if he has time to defend this cupry. we have an administration that not only refuses to enforce our immigration law bus then allows weapons to pass to the very criminals from whom they are given charge to protect americans from and then they sue the states who step in like arizona and try to enforce immigration laws themselves. meanwhile, mr. carter, i just suggest to you that it is just astonishing that we have to sit here and have this conversation while the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, iran, is drawing closer an closer to building a functional nuclear weapons capability, that they could pass on to their terrorist proxies, some of

which are believed to be operating near the same unsecured southern border. just the fact that iran was willing to try to bring in mexican drug lords, the zeta gangs is proof that they're willing to try to pass some of their deeds off to proxies. now if that becomes a nuclear weapons capability, then the world is in trouble. there's no way i can conjure words strong enough to describe the insanity of this administration's lackadaisical, irresponsible approach to national defense. i wish i could. mr. carter: reclaiming my time for a moment, you paint a pretty severe picture, which i agree with. think about this. part of the contract they were tiing to make with the zetas was to bring into this cupry explosives, supposedly to set a plant -- to plant a bomb in a favorite eating place here in washington, d.c. and blow up

that place in order to kill the ambassador. now, just -- let's just assume for the seak of argument that something like c-4 they were going to smuggle in here. if they can smuggle c-4 across the border in from mexico an transport it across the country to washington, d.c., once they develop a tactical few clear weapon in iran, what's to prevent them from smuggling a tactical nuclear weapon into the united states? i would argue, nothing. mr. franks: if the gentleman would yield, i serve on the stratenalic forces committee, i'm familiar with the designs of nuclear war heads and this is open source material. the fact is, a couple of people in a large red wagon can pull a w-88 nuclear warhead across the border if they wanted to. people say, how could they ever do that, how could they bring a nuclear warhead across the

border? and the remark that i think clearly ill sfrates the significance of the possibility is maybe they could hide in it a bail of marijuana. that would help them get it across. so the fact that terrorists are beginning to move in this direction where they're getting so bold that they're willing to try to foment attacks on american soil, let me suggest that it's very late in the day, mr. carter. you know, i think maybe we missed one other point. that is in blowing up the israeli embassy, that would be an act of war against israel, that would be israeli soil in terms of our architecture for diplomacy, yet there was no hesitancy on the parts of the terrorists to try to foment exactly that outcome. again, if it had occurred, if they had been successful, it would have been nothing short of an act of war on the united states and yet this administration is strangely quiet and i just -- i wonder

what this body should do to try to wake up this administration. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. i think that what we will hear, what we've heard before in the past, this is a law enforcement matter being handled by the f.b.i. and law enforcement and it will be handled accordingly. that's what i think we will hear if the administration. but this is a threat to the national sovereignty of this country, potentially the national sovereignty of our friends from israel and our friends if saudi arabia. this is -- this could have been the major incident that set off a chain reaction and could have done who knows what to the future of mankind and these crazy people would do that using a criminal element that is smuggling horrible drugs and people for illicit purposes into our country every day and

you're talking about the marijuana loads, they pack hundreds of backpacks across the border loaded with marijuana almost daily. and they march right on into texas and arizona and in your case they go off into the federal lands, into the reservations and up to the highway and off to the east coast, the west coast. in our case they come across the border, walk through ranches, get up to the highway, east coast to west coast. we are the major dispersal route for all this illegal and illicit poison they're selling and that's who they would hire to deliver a blow against two of our allies. that's frightening what could have occurred. mr. franks: i agree, if the gentleman would yield. mr. carter: i yield. mr. franks: i was in israel not long ago, i have to say to you, i know a lot of us, and i know

you, congressman carter, believe israel is our most -- our strongest ally in the world. yet they're under siege because they feel this administration has not helped them. because they've had more words of criticism for israel building homes in their own capital city than for ahmadinejad and others. mr. carter: there's no reason for us to scare people, they can draw their own conclusions but if you're contracting, this guy who represents iran, contracting with this creep who represents the zetas, that's frightening to think lawlessness, being directed by a nation state to attack innocent people in our country

and when you blow up a -- an area in washington, d.c., how many americans are going to get killed besides the israelis or the saudi arabiaians that are attacked? we don't know. and then the thought of nuclear -- a nuclear element, it's frightening. i yield back. mr. franks: if you would yield. i think that sometimes it's very easy for all of us as americans, we are grown so used to being the most secure nation in the world, we owe that to the greatest military and greatest men and women wearing the uniform that any thation could ever have. but we've grown complacent. we have, i think, forgotten the seriousness and the reality of nuclear weapons. and we're living in a world now where countries like pakistan have a major arsenal, if there are -- if there's some sort of breakdown in the hire ararky in pakistan or if iran gains nuclear weapons, there's a lot of dangerous circumstances

facing this country. i think that somehow the lack of priority frightens me because this administration seems so focused on so many other things, rather than doing what's necessary. i haven't heard the outrage from this administration, even related to this iran-mexican drug cartel effort. i haven't heard the stringent outrage that you hear on a lot of other issues that they put forth. i just suggest to you, congressman carter, that i hope that people -- i hope the people of this country will somehow let their members of congress and their president understand that the first responsibility we all have to offer them is security. i know we're all focused on the economy in this country and jobs and i certainly regular reck -- recognize the significance of that and the importance of that but do we realize what would happen to our civil laws, to our liberty,

do we realize what would happen to our economy if we had a major nuclear weapons attack on this country by terrorists? i don't think any of us would ever sleep again and the damage that could be caused is just almost beyond my imagination. and yet this administration seems focused on other things. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. if that happened i would argue that we would have the same kind of mental strain that the people of israel have been living with since the creation of their country. that any day, any minute of any day could be the day when the rocket lands in your house or when the terrorist blows your house up or shoots you. we'd have the same feeling in this country. and it would -- you think we got economy problems now, i mean, who's out there to pick us up? we've picked up countries around the world after wars and put them back on their feet. for no other reason than because it made good sense.

but there's nobody out there that's going to pick us up and put us on our feet. so it is a crisis. and let me -- i he don't know if you're aware of this, but there's been a study made, texas border security study, a strategic military assessment, here's an executive summary of the 150 pages, it's much more detailed but just to read this very quickly. during the past two years the state of texas has become increasingly threatened by the spread of mexican cartel organized crime. the threat reflects the change in the strategic intent of the cartels to move their operation into the united states. in effect the cartels seek to create a sanitary zone inside the texas border, one county deep, that will provide sanctuary for mexican law enforcement, at the same time enable cartels to transform the texas border counties into narcotics transshipment points for continued transport and distribution into the continental united states.

to achieve their objective, the cartels are relying increasingly on organized gangs to provide expendable and unaccountable man power to do their dirty work. these gangs are recruited on the streets of texas cities and inside texas prisons by top tear gangs who work in conjunction with these cartels. so in addition to this threat from iran, i mean, if you have a plan to seize a part of the united states of america by force, i would call that invasion. and i would argue that if that is a true statement, texas has already put together a task force under the leadership of the texas rangers, they are setting up stations along the border with the goal of setting up an intense communication system, to be prepared for what may be coming from across the river. but they are just a small body of very effective law

enforcement people. this could be a major, major intrusion on the united states. add that to their partners, iran, trying to make a deal with these criminals in the zetas, it's frightening. we learned a long time ago in law enforcement that when you create an environment of lawlessness it breeds more lawlessness. quite honestly, that theory is what cleaned up new york city. under rudy giuliani. they're using that theiry, they said, we're going to go into neighbors and we're -- neighborhoods and we're going to take the street lawlessness out of the neighborhoods so that the big lawlessness will move someplace else. because if there is a lawless environment, it only enhances lawlessness and it worked and they cleaned up the streets of new york and it's a much safe place for a person to go these days than it was 20 years ago. and it's all because of the concept, lawlessness breeds lawlessness. because we were allowing laws to be violated on our border from

brownsville all the way to san diego, then we basically created by our own efforts, by not enforcing immigration laws, not enforcing the sovereignty of our country, we created a lawless area before the cartels got there. so when lawlessness breeds lawlessness, why wouldn't they go there? it's already people not obeying the laws in that area. why not go in there and make it official? and they did. it's frightening. i yield to my friend. >> i couldn't agree with you more. we have to realize that the criminal element reads our intent. mr. franks: terrorists across the world don't really believe that barack obama is serious about doing what's necessary, not only to identify clearly the difference between freedom and terrorism, i mean, they're calling the war on terror now

overseas contingencies. they're using all these euphemisms. i wonder, maybe now they'll say that the drug cartel are just merely unlicensed pharmacists. you know, something along those lines. when we use words that don't reflect the truth and reflect the reality, we are undermined from the very beginning. and my concern is that iran doesn't take this presence seriously. they have put explosive form penetrators in the war in iraq that has killed many of our soldiers. they've sent weapons to afghanistan. now they're sending, trying to send drug cartels into our country to help blow up our embassies and this administration allows them to continue on this march to gaining nuclear weapons. i just want to tell you, i'm afraid something tonight that -- again, it frighten mess like a lot of other things -- frightens

me like a lot of other things that we've talked about tonight and that is i'm afraid this administration has embraced the notion that it's too late to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons and that they're going to go ahead and allow them to do that and then pursue a policy of containment. when they do. and i cannot find the words to express our dangerous that policy is. and how it will damn this and future generations if we allow that policy to take hold. if iran gains nuclear weapons capability, history itself is divided because for the first time a jihadist rogue nation will have its finger on the nuclear button and whatever challenges that we face in preventing iran from gaining nuclear weapons, whatever they are, and i know that they are myriad and significant, but they will pale in insignificance compared to the problems we will have after iran gains nuclear weapons. it will change the world for all of us and i would just join with you and call upon the administration to refocus their efforts on the central duty of the president of the united

states and upon this government which is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of our citizens and that starts with national security and whether it's a border or allowing a country like iran who is -- whose leaders have made it clear that they intend to do everything that they can to destroy israel and ultimately the united states, we need to do everything that's necessary, again, including military response, to prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons and the sooner the president makes that clear, the better chance that there will be that we won't have to have a military response. but right now the iranian administration, the iranians' leaders are simply not convinced that this president intends to hold them accountable and keep them from gaining nuclear weapons capability -- capability and i think it's up with of the most dangerous things that we face in the world for that reason. mr. carter: reclaiming my time. i agree with everything you said and want to say this further.

it is the duty of the president of the united states and the executive branch to enforce the laws of the united states, to protect the borders of the united states against intrusion, it's the duty to protect our nation from those who would wreak havoc and harm across our nation, wherever they may be located. iran being the primary example on the face of the earth today as a threat to our country and quite honestly, the jobs that are very important in our country, and once we get the government out of the way, we'll get some jobs started. but it's time for this administration to do something on the border of this country, to protect citizens on the border. there's no reason why a landowner who lives on the border has to get assassinated like the landowner in arizona or has to get run off his land by armed men as our landowners in texas are doing, without the protection of the federal government. we are the united states of america and when they attack one state, they attack all the states of our union.

and when they attack our border, they attack every state in this union. and by the way, there are many americans who realize that today. i had sheriffs from the state of north carolina and the state of maryland and maybe one other state, i don't remember where it was, but those two i know, were in my office today telling me, hey, this violence is all the way in maryland, it's all the way in north carolina. they showed me pictures of an assassinated cartel member, shot in the back of the head, found right outside a town in north carolina. so these guys in their terror tactics that come from across that border are all the way up here on east coast dealing terror in smaller doses but just as serious for the future of this country. meanwhile we've got iran contracting with these -- this criminal element, which is ruthless criminal element and saying, we want you to do our bidding our our behalf and

here's the money and -- on our behalf and here the money and you'll travel and kill whoever we want to you kill and blow up whoever we want you to blow up. and any form or fashion that we see fit. how about a deal? and they're making the deal. that ought to scare the pants off of everybody and it ought to wake the obama administration up that there are serious things being overlooked by their cavalier idea that everything america does is bad and everything other countries do or is excusable. that seems to be our policy to the point where they're willing to let an agency of the united states government become the biggest gun runner in the history of mexico in fast and furious which we are investigating right now in the halls of this congress. these are things that people ought to wake up and say, my lord, this is insane. what is wrong with us? where are those people who stood up for americans and stood up for freedom and fought for the right ideas?

they seem to have disappeared. i'd yield back to my friend for his comment. mr. franks: well, mr. carter, i just think that we forget had we talk about the economy and jobs -- forget when we talk about the economy and jobs that the most important thing we can do for the economy and jobs is to make sure that this country is secure and that productivity is allowed unfettered, that it is a secure environment in which to flourish. if the government would get out of the way, this economy will flourish. it will go forward. but if we fail as a government to do what is our duty, which is the national security, there's nothing that could damage our economy more. i remind everyone that we lost $2 trillion in our economy when two airplanes hit two buildings. it's very easy to forget the cost of war. someone said that, you know, that war devours everything that peace gives. and we need to make sure that we defend this country and make sure that the people who are investing in this country and are trying to work in this country and be productive know

that they can do so in a fully secure environment. it is the most important thing that we can do for our national economy. and i would suggest to you that it's important for us to start asking this administration some key questions. number one question is, where do they put the national security of the united states on their priority list? secondly, what are they willing to do to clarify this dangerous jihadist ideology and start terms where everyone can understand what we're dealing with and that we're willing to do whatever's necessary to prevent terrorism in this country and protect the american people? and, third, what is mr. obama willing to do, what is he willing to do to prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons with which to threaten the peace of mankind? and with that, mr. carter, i will yield back for the evening, sir. mr. carter: mr. franks, i appreciate you being here, trent. you're a good friend. and i value your opinions you've

given here tonight. this is a problem that has risen its head because of this event. we could talk for days about this because it is so serious, future of the welfare of every american citizen. and to think that any enemy of our country is contracting with a criminal element that has a track record thus far of killing 44,000 people, many of whom were just bistandards, just in an event -- bystanders, just in an event, an ongoing event of driving their illegal operation, if they get involved in international terrorism, heaven help us. and i hope heaven will and i hope this administration will take a hard look at where they're going to be willing to draw the line and say, we're not taking this anymore. and i would argue, at least it ought to be at the borders of our country and to those who would develop a nuclear weapon,

they could devastate -- that could devastate mankind. i thank my friend, both of them, for coming an joining me tonight. and i thank the speaker for his time that he's given me and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker, and for our hard working stenographers, it's late into the evening, we thank you for the work you do reporting our words, many of which are worth listening to and having written town an some of which are probably not. i want to thank my colleagues from across the aisle for bringing the issue of securing our borders to our attention tonight and along with it the issue of immigration. i would just like to repind them that the current administration has done more in the last two and a half years to secure our borders than in the previous eight years of the george w. bush administration, putting more border patrol to work, significantly more, and also putting on the borders members of the national guard.

it remains a difficult and in very many places a dangerous situation but nonetheless a great deal is being done. i would also like to remind my colleagues from the republican side that they control this house and when a certain piece of legislation came here with regard to appropriations, they actually proposed to cut the men and women that are there to protect the border so i'm not sure i understood all of tonight's debate from their side. also, i would remind them that if immigration is such a big issue, they should bring a comprehensive immigration bill to this floor so we have a rational immigration policy in the united states but i guess it's easier to talk than it is to take action. i'd like to spend tonight -- what i'd like to spend tonight talking about is putting americans back to work. let's go back to work. this is one great country. we're america. we're the people that make things. we're the people that can do

things. we're the people who want to go back to work and this government wants to put people back to work. the president about a month ago proposed the american jobs about -- act, a comprehensive program that would put americans back to work. i want to spend the evening talking about the critical and most important elements of that legislation he proposed. unfortunately, our friends in the senate, maybe they're not america's friends, they killed the american jobs act. when it came up for a vote this week, they chose to not allow it to come to a vote. they did one of their little filibuster routines over there with every republican voting against putting americans back to work. i don't know exactly what they have in mind. i guess they'd like the economy to stumble along with millions of americans out of work. they couldn't possibly want that.

they couldn't possibly want a situation where men and women are desperate for a job when there's an opportunity, and i'll explain in a few moments how many people will be able to go back to work if this american jobs act were actually to become law. but they voted not even to allow it to come to a vote. they did one of their filibuster threats an every republican lined up, sufficient in number to block the bill from moving forward. i must say two of my democratic colleagues over there also voted on the wrong side of putting americans back to work but i'll let them explain that to their constituents. so what is the american jobs act? let's start with the foundation. the foundation of any economy is the infrastructure. it is that part of the structure of an economy that is the foundation. it is the transportation system.

infrastructure are the sanitation and water systems and modern communication systems. in the president's american jobs act is $50 billion in addition to what we were already spending to build the bridges, to repair the roads, to add to the transportation systems, the light rail, the heavy rail, the am track systems, to move americans and also to move communication. modern communication system. $450 -- 50 billion. what does that mean to my state of california? it's $4 billion right up top, $-- it's 51,500 jobs that could begin the day after. this house, the senate sends to the president the american jobs act. $50 billion, 51,500 jobs for california. building the foundation of

economic growth. in addition to that, the president proposed a $10 billion capitalization of an infrastructure bank in which pension funds from around the nation cowl then invest in that infrastructure bank, more money for those projects that are not earmarks, not political, but rather jobs an programs that are actually needed in communities, that have the ability to repay the loans that the infrastructure bank would make. another key element, let me just put up a couple of things here that really build an economy. this issue of making it in america, before i do that, i want to point out these are the key elements in creating an economy. we talked a moment ago about

the infrastructure. it's down here at the bottom, not for any reason other than that's the foundation. so the infrastructure. the other thing that's in the american jobs act deals with this education. now education is the most fundamental investment that any society must make if it's going to have future economic growth and social justice. so what is the -- what does the president propose in the american jobs act for education? how about putting 280,000 teachers back to work the tai after this bill passes this congress and the senate and signed by the president. 280,000 teachers. in the classrooms, teaching our children, preparing them to compete in the world's economy. 280,000 teachers. for california, $3.6 billion and 37,000 teachers in the

classroom immediately. now my daughter is a teacher. my son-in-law is a teacher. their class size went from 22, 24, to 35. a very difficult situation for any teacher in the second grade. to be able to adequately prepare those children. however, my daughter is a great teacher and she's hanging in there but this is tough. this is a very, very difficult situation. what would it mean to her if there is one additional second grade teacher in her school? it would mean her classroom size would come down and her ability to bring those kids along faster would very, very much be in play. 280,000 teachers. that's the education piece of it. let's talk for a moment about the classroom itself. we know, we know here in congress, all 435 of us, we go back to our districts and we see our schools.

parents out there, they know, their schools need to be renovated. they know that many of the bathrooms respect working, they know the playgrounds are in disrepair, they know the paint is peeling and the roofs are leaking. in the president's bill, 45,000 schools across this nation are going to be renovated. 35,000 schools in california. that amounts to 2,800 schools being rehabilitated and 36,000 jobs. this is a big deal. if a kid takes pride in his school, he's going to be a better student. if a kid sees his school and it's in disrepair, bathrooms are not working, he could just lose interest. so let's give them a good environment in which to learn and so the president has proposed $25 billion, 35,000 schools across this nation. this is a big deal for

education. teachers, better schools, renovation and for community colleges, there's also money in here for community colleges. $5 billion to upgrade the plant, the laboratories, the science facilities for community colleges across this nation. let's go back to work. let's put america back to work. let's pass the american jobs act. the senate, you haven't helped. in this house, the house of representatives, the republican leadership refuses to even bring this bill up for a vote, even bring it to a hearing in any of the committees. they simply say no. so what's their solution? what's their solution for putting americans back to work? well thus far, it's been to cut budgets, to lay people off across the nation. how is this going to get paid for? it's fully paid for. this is not going to be borrowed money. this is not going out in and

borrowing money to create jobs here in the united states. fundamental investments that we need to grow the economy. this american jobs act just under $500 billion is fully paid for. it's paid for by fairness. finally, some fairness in our tax policies. no longer are the super rich in this nation going to be able to skip out of their share of carrying the burden of america. no longer are we going to see situations in which the top 1% of america continue to acquire more and more wealth at the expense of the rest of this nation. the president and the senate democrats and i credit them with this, positively credit them with this, have said that, let's allow the millionaires to share in putting americans back to work. they certainly have benefited

significantly over these years. they will have their opportunity to pay their fair share and put americans back to work. now on tax policy, there's another thing here. some with are -- some are going to pay more. those million their who was more than $1 million of an qule income, yes they'll pay more. however, the working men and women of america, the 160 million working men and women in america are going to get a tax break. they're going to see one half of their payroll tax reduced. about $1,500 per person. this is a big deal. to have an extra $1,500 in your pocket, you'll be able to pay your mortgage, buy food for your kids, be able to go out and maybe replace that refrigerator that's broken.

$16 -- 160 million americans will get a tax break when their payroll tax is reduced. what about the businesses in america? we hear a lot of talk from our republican friends about protecting small business. the american jobs act provides 98% of the businesses in america with a 50% reduction in their payroll tax. a 50% reduction in their payroll tax. that's more in california, 710,000 businesses will see a 50% reduction in their payroll tax. that's a big deal. that's money those businesses can then use to hire new workers. and if they hire a new worker, guess what? the president has proposed that if they hire a long-term unemployed worker, they will

have a $4,000 tax credit. a tax credit. that is money right off the bottom line that they don't have to pay to the government. a reduction in their taxes. and if they go out and they hire an injured veteran coming home from the wars in afghanistan or iraq, they'll get another tax credit. and if they hire a long-term unemployed person similarly, very strong incentives in this legislation for ememployer -- for employers to hire the unemployed, to hire our heroes who are returning, returning from the wars. some injured. giving them additional incentive to hire those people. let's understand that they do come back with skills, not just skills in war but skills in communication, skills in repairing machinery. these are vital skills that most businesses in e