the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 172. the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: on that vote i request the yeas and nays. roll all vote. the speaker pro tempore: record the vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device, this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 267. the nays are 144. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.r. 13890. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chabot: thank you. mr. speaker, i further ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary have until 5:00 p.m. on thursday, october 20, to file a report to accompany h.r. 822. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chabot: mr. speaker, in addition i also ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. on tuesday,

october 18, 2011, and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on friday, october 21, 2011. and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday, october 24, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chabot: thank you. mr. speaker, i would finally ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. all members please take their conversations off the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. chabot: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thank you. mr. speaker, on october 5, civil

rights legend, fred shuttlesworth, passed away while residing in birmingham, alabama. from 1961 until 2007, the reverend lived in cincinnati when i first came here in 1995 i had the distinct pleasure of representing him here in congress. reverend shuttlesworth defied death numerous times while fighting against haven't segregationists, even surviving the blast of 16 sticks of dynamite planned by unknown assassins. so devoted to this cause that he pledged, to quote, kill is he greg gation or be killed by it. from freedom rides and sit-ins to pastor and founder of the southern christian leadership conference, reverend shuttlesworth was a tireless and fearless civil rights hero who not only talked the talk but walked the walk in places where few others were willing to go. the enormity of his achievements and contributions to american history cannot be overstated. .

even martin luther jr. referred to him as the most crakeous civil rights fighter in the south. let us forever remember the great man of faith and the legacy he leaves for america. god bless you, reverend shuttlesworth, may god bless the shuttlesworth family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this weekend marks the 100th anniversary of the university of missouri's home coming celebration. in 1911 the university of missouri athletic director chester brewer invited missouri alumni to come home to campus for the football game against the university much kansas. the game was cap by a parade and spirit rally to celebrate the coming home of so many alumni. thus started the tradition of

home coming at the university of missouri. an event that has served as a model for home coming celebrations across the country. mr. carnahan: each year thousands of students and alumni come home to celebrate one of the university's greatest traditions. homecoming has gone beyond school pride and football. through this event, mizzou has broken the world record for the largest peace time bud ride on a college campus and has organized other large community services. moreover the university of missouri's home ing celebration was named the best homecoming in the nation. my wife and and three generations might have family are fortunate to be alumni of the university of missouri. i'd like to congratulate the university of missouri and generations of alumni on this milestone of 100 years of coming home to mizzou. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. mr. landry: mr. speaker, it is with great sadness that i rise

today in memory of one of louisiana's great public servants, mrs. cindy may duron. as a passion which i grew up lays her to rest today, it is notable to recognize that she grew up at a time when a woman's place in the south was culturally in the home. she pioneered her way into a male-dominated oil and gas industry. she constructed and then walked proudly through the door that many women of south louisiana would soon follow. during the 37 years she devoted to the oil and gas industry, she found time to serve her community, again leading women into politics locally by becoming the first woman to preside over the consulate and then becoming first woman to be elected to serve as the district 46 state house representative where she served for 16 years. her passion involved health care where she chaired the house health and welfare committee and served on many other national and state boards that dealt with the health care needs of

children. while she will be missed by all, her work and legacy will continue to have a positive impact on the great state she leaves behind. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we need to follow the senate's lead in passing legislation that will pressure china to stop their unfair monetary policy. mr. murphy: china's manipulation of their currency has cost us jobs in kentucky and around the country. our workers and businesses deserve a level playing field and this bill will help ensure that. since china joined the w.t.o. our trade deficit with china has rose from $84 billion to $270 billion. in that same period of time, kentucky, my home state, has lost 31,000 jobs and our country has lost 2.8 million jobs. 1.9 million of them in manufacturing. companies throughout kentucky are demain -- connecticut are demaining -- demanding that we

finally do something about these unfair practices which subsidize chinese exports. everyone from the manufacturers that i have surveyed to the people i run into in grocery stores understand that china is cheating on their currency. and with more than 160,000 people in connecticut out of work, it is long past time for the leadership of this house to allow a vote on this floor, on legislation to take china to task for their unfair practices and to strengthen american workers and businesses. let's pass this job-creating legislation now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor lieutenant colonel robert bearclaw. retired from the united states air force in 1968, his record of service is impressive. during world war ii, bearclaw was a pilot flying missions over germany-occupied territory. these long and dangerous bombing

missions had high casualty rates. between mechanical problems and enemy ground fire, nearly 26,000 airmen lost their lives in the mighty eighth air force during the war. however, after switching out of the b-24 liberators and into the b-17 flying fortresses, bearclaw flew 32 missions in the 490th bomb group, in the 8th air force and was made group commander. perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments was that his leadership resulted in the lowest casualty rates of all the squadrons and groups in the 8th air force during the entire war. keeping his groups rotated and rested, flying in tight formations to concentrate fire power, german observation plans could not find an easy plan of assault on the formation. today i honor lieutenant colonel bearclaw and i thank him again for his dedicated service to our country. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: to address the house

and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very honored to say that i'm born and raised in the city of detroit and i currently represent the great city of detroit and its suburbs as a reptive in congress -- representative in congress. i also represent the detroit tigers. this d stands for the detroit tigers and you know, they may have had all the odds against them, but they kept on fighting. they represent our city's spirit. this d represents democracy as in the arsenal that detroit built in world war ii that saved this country tanned saved this world from fascism. you know, our city is going through some tough times right now. but we're not going to give up. we can actually create jobs again for this country. we just ask this congress, allow the city to keep its federal tax revenue, place it in a protected

trust fund and invest it in the city for five years, we can create jobs not only for detroiters but for millions of americans. if you want to create jobs in this country, invest in detroit. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, this week in commemoration of hispanic heritage month, over 100 distinguished hispanic american civic, business and community leaders from south florida traveled to washington, d.c., to receive congressional distinguished service awards from myself, senator rubio, congresswoman ros-lehtinen and congressman diaz-balart. these hardworking and patriotic americans of hispanic descent represent the positive contributions that hispanic community has made to this great nation. whether serving in the military, creating jobs with small

businesses or simply pursuing the american dream, hispanic americans like my constituents are deserving of recognition for their accomplishments. two of those honorees who came to the capitol this week, mrs. nelly morales, and mr. gustavo, prepared statements for the occasion and without objection i ask that their statements be accomplished in the congressional record. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. kildee of michigan for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. rokita: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize and salute an exceptional hoosier, dr. edward b. mcclain. sadly we lost dr. mcclain on september 12. i wish to express my condolences, thoughts and prayers to his family. he was an inspiration on my path to serving the people of indiana and his teachings have become my primary motivation for seeking to reduce the size and scope of government here in washington. he was my college professor, my counselor and my friend. but more importantly, mr. speaker, he was exactly the same person to countless men who associate with with a bush -- wabs -- wabash college in indiana. i believe we were put on this earth to love one another and make the best of the gifts our

lord has provided. we are all blessed to live in a country that allows us to experience liberty, the opportunity to learn, and the chance to succeed. not every nation, mr. speaker, can say that. as a professor of political science since 1968, dr. mcclain challenged wabash college students, faculty and alumni to think critically and encouraged all to be life-long learners. he gave us that chance to succeed. moreover he taught me the critical role of the individual in a free republic, if indeed the republic is to remain free. and how such a system is philosophically and practically superior to the elitist and collectivist systems that have been tried throughout history but which of course as we all should know have failed. they collapsed ultimately under the weight of their own tyranny. a point dr. mcclain repeatedly made. and at every turn he taught

young men that our rights are derived from our creator, not democrats, not republicans, not any president or any congressman, but they came from god himself. and as a result our rights are inalienable. as our declaration reminds us, and as men like cicero and st. agusen to discovered for us. in a secretary sense, our rights are part of natural law, as mcclain always taught. perhaps most importantly he taught wabash men, professors and others all over the world about the worthy ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals and how it might practically be achieved. mr. speaker, for the congressional record, i would submit the following facts. a masterful scholar, teacher and lawyer, mcclain demonstrated his rigor for teaching and pursuing his own level of education by earning his doctorate from indiana university in 1975. he managed to be an effective

teacher, attorney and deputy prosecuting attorney in montgomery county. in 1972 he received the mcclain -- no relation -- excellence in teaching award. since 1980 dr. mcclain was most closely associated in administering the goodrich lecture series. he was active in local and state politics, he demanded that students think critically in his constitutional law and political philosophy classes. dr. mcclain was both loved and feared as a man who challenged students to hone their critical thinking skills. he used the method to assist students in recognizing an correcting flaws in their arguments and somewhere along the line he earned the nickname, fast eddie. dr. mcclain was elected to the board of directors of the liberty fund, an indiana institution, that has a global outreach. he serve there had until his death. founded by peter goodrich, the son of one of indiana's great gofpbler, the liberty fund is a private educational foundation

with the mission of encouraging a deeper understanding of requisites for restoring and preserving a society of free and responsible individuals. just this morning, mr. speaker, i pulled up a series of emails that ed and i exchanged once. they span the time in which i was running for the seat i now hold, until shortly after my election to this seat. you see, i was asking in the emails if there has, quote, ever been a nation or civilization that reversed its slide into collectivism or socialism, thereby rescuing itself from the ultimate loss of economic and political liberty? unquote. sadly and months later he replied, as he was in and out of hospitals at the time, that he could not identify historically the type of reversal i had described. and went on to remind me, perhaps obviously, that the, quote, desire for more power, motivates agents of the state.

unquote. many men today are responsible for individuals thriving in a free society because of dr. edward mcclain. unfortunately it is now a society that is stepping away from liberty due to the irresponsibility of the individual, aided by a unanimous j state willing to do things for the individual which are rightly his alone to do. . and the endless quest, as he said, for expanded power by government and its agents. so i use today not only to give this tribute to a great hoosier, but also to, as part of that tribute, profess my continued and renewed commitment to reverse the current and hopefully temporary course of this great nation. as it really is the last best hope on earth for man. for once i want to prove ed

mcclain wrong. we can reverse this course and by so doing show the world yet again how exceptional america is. we can and must halt the march of statism for our children and grandchildren and for the idea of liberty in the world. in this case ed himself would hope to be proved otherwise. everything ed mcclain did he did for the men of roy bash college, his community, and his country. i would like to thank his wife, maria, and sonny and for sharing dr. mcclain with us. for all he provided this world he will be truly missed. mr. speaker, 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 texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. so much going on today, this week, we have been for one thing trying to take up trade agreements that should end up creating new jobs in america. i know there have been concerns by some, gee, don't we give away sovereignty each time we enter a free trade agreement? i read these free trade agreements. i wasn't here when nafta passed. i'm not sure that i would have voted for it because it seemed like we did give away too much of the autonomous nature of this country. but with regard to the colombia free trade agreement, free trade

agreement with south korea, panama it doesn't appear from my reading that we are giving away any autonomy. we are giving away any of our powers to govern ourselves. and in fact the u.n. is far more of a threat with the concessions, particularly this administration has given, to the u.n. as far as us controlling our own destiny. since the u.n. has become so incredibly anti-israel, i think it's time to look seriously about getting out. we should not be accessories to the kind of anti-semitism and the anti-israeli feelings, the hostility from those members of the u.n. that have so much more control it appears than we do

who encourage basically the wiping out of israel and of the jewish population. in the meantime on the home front we have people still claiming that the president's tried and failed methods of helping the economy should be tried yet again. there's an old story that says, somebody came up and said why do you keep hitting yourself in the head with a hammer? he said because it feels so good when i stop. for heaven's sake, it is time to stop hitting ourselves and hurting our own country, hurting our own economy with the crony capitalism that has come to bear here in this country. and it does not serve as a defense that paulson started it

under george w. bush. that's not a defense. it was wrong for paulson and it's wrong now. and especially the longer this country struggles to get back on its economic feet. and any time you engage in crony capitalism where those closest to an administration reap the biggest benefits, you hurt the economy. so when you have a company like general electric, electric that is so close to this administration, head of g.e. certainly has the president's ear as the trusted advisor, and that advisor has caused thousands and thousands of jobs to be sent overseas, then you can anticipate that with him advising the president we are going to have more and more jobs being sent overseas. and then we keep being told, yes, but the true answer is in green jobs.

green jobs are our future. how long is it going to take for us to stop hurting this country in the name of green jobs? we have sent thousands and thousands of great union jobs overseas in the name of greenery. and yettle it shouldn't take anybody -- and yet it shouldn't take anybody that when you send manufacturing jobs from this country to china, south america, latin america, where they pollute so many more times doing the same job than what the output was here, that the world would be better off with those jobs here. pure and simple. and then of course we have been treated to the fiasco that is solyndra and as a former judge

who saw cases where people acted against the interests that they were hired and sworn to protect, we call that fraud. and so it sure sounds like we are having the beginning of a fraud case emerge potentially against people in our own government because we know that the law said that these loans could be given to these so-called green companies, but there could not be another lender that had priority over the federal government and -- being lent that money. well, that means that if someone within this administration,

which appears to be what's coming out, actually advocated and actually made sure it happened that the united states taxpayers, the united states government, that they were hired to protect, subverted the position as first lender to solyndra to the detriment of hundreds of millions of dollars, somebody ought to be going to prison. i had people come before my court having committed felonies, pull a gun, rob somebody, maybe they didn't get $100, and they went to prison. how about somebody that causes the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars? well, we sure have to look at it. and just when people thought it

couldn't get any worse, then we get word this week about a new entity called sun power. another one of these wonderful green companies that we are -- were going to set the world ablaze with power and light with their clean green energy. this article from biggovernment.com, they bragged about giving a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to sun power, a politically connected solar energy company, to create, quote, 10-15 permanent jobs, unquote, raising critical questions as to if california sun power is the next solyndra in the ongoing cronygate scandal? unlike solyndra which went bankrupt after receiving a loan

from the government leafing the taxpayer on the hook, sun power's deal is more complicated. many questions are being raised about how the company was able to obtain the loan, and what they did after they got the money. questions include, how could the department of energy give a loan to a company that was under a shareholder suit alleging securities fraud and misrepresentations? this says the representative george miller from california was paid $178,000 to lobby on behalf of the company, represented sun power as a lobbyist. why did he tour the sun power facility which is outside his congressional district? and what other official action did representative miller take on behalf of the company represented by his lobbyist son? did the companies have political contributions to the obama campaign and dccc play a role in the deal?

did u.s. taxpayers help pay for a company to open a facility until mexico after the announcement of the loan? was the u.s. government aware that company executives were in the process of selling a portion of the company to a french company, an action undertaken two weeks after the loan was awarded? did the loan allow insiders to cash out leaving other investors holding on to the stock that has dropped by more than 60% since the loan was awarded? in 2009, the year before the d.o.e. awarded the loan, investors in sun power filed a class action lawsuit against the company alleging sun power and a certain of the company's executive officers were in violation of federal securities laws. the lawsuit alleged the company knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose or indicate the following. one, that the company made unsubstaniated accounting entries during the class bid. two, as a result the company's

financial results were overstated during the class bid. three, that the company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principals. four that the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls, and five, as a result of the above, the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. despite the questions about potential violations and federal securities law, the department of energy approved the loan guarantee in 2010. all to create 10 to 15 permanent jobs. that's not only some silly estimate, it's what the department itself thought would result from the billion dollar loan. you do the math, it's around -- our department of energy intentionally invested over $1 billion in order to create 10 to

15 jobs. at best that's around $80 million from our government to create one job. now, there are a lot of folks in government that have never been in business, but i'm betting just about anybody in this body could do a better job of creating good-paying jobs if they were given $80 million to create each job. i bet if we auction that off we might even get as low as $50 million to create one job. and for those in washington, i found that don't understand sarcasm, i am prone to sarcasm. very tragic. at a time when this country can ill afford to be squandering

vast amounts of money, that's what we are doing. it's also no comfort that in the president's so-called jobs bill there are numerous references to wanting to get more money to these green companies to help out our country. and when you see that the president's so-called jobs bill, it's not about jobs at all. there's only a tiny fraction that goes for infrastructure. forget about all your bridges being fixed. it's not about that at all. it's about more government control. in fact, as we have seen since this president took office, especially the first two years under control of speaker pelosi and leader reid, it seemed like most everything we took up was all about the g.r.e., the

g.r.e., the government running everything. and you look at the president's so-called jobs bill and you find in there the american infrastructure financing authority, so, again, we need to stop beating ourselves to death with the same tried and failed policies so fannie and freddie wasn't bad enough, now we are getting into investing and guaranteeing billions of dollars for each financed operation. instead of hundred thousand dollars or so for homes. . yes, we've done squtch such a great job with fannie and freddie nearly bringing us to the brink of ruin financialy, wouldn't you next suspect that we should get into financing all the infrastructure needs of the country as a federal government? but those who are suspicious and

think, gee, maybe this is more about the government running everything than it actually is financing infrastructure there would be evidence to support that idea because the board of the american infrastructure financing authority, appointed by the president. and since the president, current president has an affinity for appointing people who have never been in business, never made a payroll, he actually put people on the auto task force that didn't own cars and most of them had never had anything to do with the auto industry. so we can anticipate that if he stays true to form we'll have people on the american infrastructure financing authority that will be spending billions and billions of dollars just like they have on solyndra, on sun power and who knows how many other companies like that, they'll be doing it for

infrastructure. crony capitalism to the max. and i've struggled as we've seen these groups occupy wall street, there's a little group down the road here, down pennsylvania, most of them very young, i'm guessing perhaps many of them still rely on their parents for living, making expenses. i know some of them have indicated that. and it remind me of the female comedian on television that said, gee, there's a study out that says our generation may be the first generation that doesn't live as well as our parents. she said, that makes no sense, it can't be because we all still live with our parents. so that doesn't make sense. well, apparently it's given some people time on their hands,

since they're not working, to go create public nuisances in new york city, here and other places. and it really is intriguing to find out they don't really have a centralized firm position on anything, they're just out there to protest. but as a history major trying to think through history, certainly i can never recall a time in history in this -- history, in this country's history, when the president of the united states ever told people to take off their bedroom slippers, put on their marching shoes, let's get out there and then encourage them. yes, it's wonderful, they're getting out there, they're standing up, these are great rank and file grassroots folks. encouraging protesters. i can't find another time in this country's history, so the

president can be proud of this, when the president of the united states encouraged protesting the country he was leading. most presidents would never have had the nerve to do that because they knew they were in charge and to encourage people to go out and protest meant you're encouraging protesting the country that you're in charge of and you're leading. so if things aren't good it must mean you're doing a rotten job of leading. so why in the world would you encourage people to go out and protest? for those who say the president had a great jobs bill and congress ought to do something, well you find out when you look at the real facts, this president and leader reid never had any intention of passing the president's jobs bill. never. the president never anticipated this congress would pass his jobs bill. he didn't anticipate it, he didn't help it happen, he has

still not helped it happen. it's why it went for to -- for so many days before anybody bothered to file that bill. and when harry reid filed it in the senate he knew the rules. he knew that under the constitution any revenue-raising bill, as the president's bill raises taxes, any revenue-raising bill must originate in the house. it's a part of the constitution. he knows that because in order to get obamacare through, when it didn't originate in the house , he took a house bill designed and passed here in the house to give veterans a tax credit when they bought their first home, stripped out every word and put in obamacare. he knew the constitutional quirment and yet he didn't do that -- requirement and yet he didn't do. that i was shocked when i told my staff after i heard he had filed, i said go find out what house bill he stripped out, because he's playing that game again like they did on obamacare, and, yes, i know republicans have done it. it doesn't make it right.

doesn't mat who are does it, it isn't right. that was never what was intended. but it's the game that's been played and leader reid never has, even when he filed his amended president's jobs bill that he himself amended, he didn't bother to strip out a house bill and go through the facade, the game that has to be played for a bill like that that raises revenue to become law. he didn't even bother. he just filed it as it was. i told my staff, he knows, he's done this before, he has to strip out a house bill, delete every word beginning with line 1, page 1, deleting every word thereafter, substituting therefore the whole bill. he has to have done that. and if he really wants it to pass, then that's what he's got to do. well, since he didn't do that, we know that the president and leader reid never intended for the president's so-called jobs bill to pass.

well, then for what reason would the president have gone on the road after condemning us in here for not passing a bill that didn't exist, going on the road, demanding we pass a bill that didn't exist, and then when it did exist, not even bothering to pick up the phone for days and ask somebody to actually file the bill, that's why i filed the american jobs act. you can go online to the clerk's office, mr. speaker, and find out american jobs act, it's mine. and it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. if mine were passed. and as i've said here on the floor, i'm open to negotiation. i'm not married to zero as the corporate tax rate. i think it would be best. i think it would create more jobs. and of course those left wingers that enjoy seeing billions of dollars go to country -- companies like solyndra and sun power, enjoy seeing their friends being enriched and engorged with taxpayer dollars and chinese dollars we'll have

to pay back with interest, they enjoy that. they also said, ge ex, i must be in the pocket of corporations. no, i'm in the pocket of the american people. and i want to see jobs and i have seen the devastation from people from all walks of life, from manual laborers to the airline pilots to the engineers who have said, this is killing me. i never dreamed of losing my job and not being able to find one. and all this administration's doing, it puts forward a disengine white house bill it -- disingenuous bill. it didn't go create more jobs. and when you see the public safety broadband corporation, what job does that create? the board is going to be appointed mainly by the president and the board will appoint that he appoints will appoint some others. that's not a job creator. but it is about the government running everything. the g.r.e. public safety broadband

corporation will be able to protect every american citizen from what they may want to look up or see through broadband because we'll then have the president's own public safety broadband corporation that this president is pushing in this bill. that's not a jobs bill. and when he says on the one hand he wants to go after excessive profits of major oil and then you look at page 151 through 154 of his bill and you find out, this doesn't hurt major oil. it -- the things in there will devastate and drive out of business the independent oil and gas producers. those are the people that don't have their own company sections that go in and do everything necessary to drill a well. they go out and hire people to help with the mud that goes in the well, they help with the wire line stuff, the people that will do all the -- even feeding the people that work there.

they hire independent contractors all over the place, many of those people stay in hotels, they eat at restaurants, they drive the economy. and yet this president, as we've heard from people from the gulf of mexico area, this president's moratorium did more to cause people to lose jobs than the horrific deepwater horizon explosion. that was so tragic. it was so needless. why in the world would this administration have allowed british petroleum to continue to operate in the gulf of mexico, putting this nation at risk, when we find out after the fact, though exxon was found to have i believe it was one willful egregious safety violation, sunco had two violations,

willful and egregious. the president's friends at british petroleum had 760 willful egregious safety violations when others had one and two and the administration looked the other way. we've had hearings on that and i brought it up to the director of the m.m.s. for our natural resource committee, what safeguards did you have to make sure that investigators were doing the proper job, the inspectors, the offshore rig insp -- reg -- rig inspectors? because see, to me, when you're an offshore rig inspector, you're a bit like the military. you stand between us here on the continental u.s. and devastation . so i was surprised to find out that they didn't have any problem with having unionized

offshore rig inspectors. well, if you're comfortable having offshore rig inspectors being unionized then next you can expect the military will probably be -- you'd be comfortable with the military unionizing. why not? they're standing between this nation and disaster. if the offshore rig inspectors can be unionized and negotiate their hours or whatever's all in their union contract, then why wouldn't the military be next? the trouble is there are some professions that are so important to national security you can't have contracts that limit hours. a soldier can't have an agreement that he won't work more than eight or 12 hours and get time and a half. it doesn't work that way. they stand between us and disaster and they, god bless them, they serve as they're

required to serve to protect this country. i was quite concerned about our united states military in the four years i was in the army after vietnam. there were times i would see what some of our troops were doing, couldn't read, couldn't write effectively, smoking lots of dope and i would think, if the rooskies ever attacked, we're in big trouble. but i get around the fine men and women of our armed services now, they're the best that's ever existed in the history of the world. but we can't allow them to unionize. well, interior department had no problem. and so when the director of the m.m.s. replied, well, we do have a safety valve, we have a means of making sure that our offshore rig inspectors are doing their

job, we send them out in payers so they watch each other and if one of the rig inspectors didn't properly do their job, we know the other would report them. because there have been stories, rumors, things alleged by some rig operators providing benefits of all kinds and services of all kinds to rig inspectors to have them look the other way. so i was curious, what do you do to safeguard that that doesn't happen? and the one answer, the only answer the director had was, we send them out in pairs and that ensures they're doing their job. she apparently was not aware that i knew that the last two, the last pair of inspectors that were sent out to the deepwater horizon rig to inspect it were a father and son unionized team.

some had wondered, why in the world wouldn't the administration immediately move to force b.p. to close that thing up? and we find out later that actually leaders of british petroleum were meeting with key leaders of congress, senate, figuring out when they would come out and have the great day over which the president and the democratic leaders in the senate would rejoice and which they announced that they're a major oil company and they were supporting the president's cap and trade bill. after it was realized how serious deepwater horizon was, eventually, the president, the white house and the senate and democratic leaders had to finally accept the fact it wouldn't be good p.r. to have b.p. be the one major oil

company that came in and embraced the cap and trade bill that was attempting to be shoved down america's throats like obamacare. then we hear the president say, there are more people protecting our southern border than ever before. this story from yahoo news, brand new story, well, wednesday, october 12, drug smugglers are endlessly creative when it comes to ways to move marijuana, co-tain and other contraband from mexico to the united states. in the latest innovation, smugglers in the border town of nogales, arizona, were bringing drug into the united states for the cost of a quarter. the parking meters on international street which hugs the border fence costs 25

cents. smugglers tunneled under the febs and urn the metered parking spaces and carefully cut neat rectangles out of the pavement. their confederate ops the u.s. side would park false bottom vehicles in the spaces above the holes, feed the meters and wait until -- wait while the underground smugglers stuffed the cars full of drugs from below. when the exchange was finished, they'd use jacks to put the pavement plugs back into place, the car would drive away and only those looking closely would notice the seams in the street. our u.s. border patrol agents found 16 tunnels leading to the 1 metered parking spaces on international street. it's now riddled with neat, symmetrical patches. it's unbelievable, nogales mayor told abc affiliate kcen.

those are the strides these people take to get drugs across the border. other methods of smuggling include catapults to launch barrels of drugs. the smugglers have tried everything, said garino, and this is one of the most ingenious meths of all. the city agreed to move the parking meters, they will lose $80 million in revenue plus parking citations. the president, i know he wouldn't have said it if he didn't believe it was true. it's not the most people we've had on our southern border, not at all. in fact, you can find this, wikipedia, regarding general pershing and other far more detailed accounts. in january, 1914, pershing was

assigned to command the army brigade in texas responsible for security along the u.s.-mexico border. under the command of general frederick funston, he led the eighth brigade on the failed expedition into mexico in search of revolutionary leader pancho villa. he met him in 1913 when he invited him to fort bliss. that's all it says. if you do more tigs you find out, actually, after pancho villa and his cut throats had come into the united states proper and killed some americans, woodrow wilson ordered american troops led by pershing to go into mexico to pursue these murderers and end their killing spree and make it clear that there would be dire consequences for coming into the united states illegally.

one report i read said there had been as many as 100,000 or more national guard troops put on the u.s. southern border, pershing went in, depending on the account you believe, 10,000, 14,000 troops inta mexico, pursuing pancho villa, kill manage of his lieutenants, never got pancho villa, but it ended for a long time anybody coming illegally into the united states to commit a crime on u.s. soil. woodrow wilson was not really considered a warmonger. as a university president. but he understood when the nation is under attack, whether it's from pancho villa or drug smugglers today, we took an oath, we must follow. and supporting and defending

the constitution means providing for the common defense. and if people are bent on the destruction of this country, we must take such steps as are necessary to defend ourselves. mexico is in deep trouble. we can help mexico, we can help ourselves, simply by defending ourselves and reestablishing the rule of law along our southern border. it's critical. in the time i have left today, this is the last day of this week, at least for about 10 more days when we come back into session, one of -- i want to take up an issue, my late mother thought i should have been either a doctor or a college professor. i do enjoy history. i love teaching. i enjoy math.

so despite my parents' disappointment, i did go to law school. and anyway, as i told my dad, who said, you know, there are just so many lawyers that are hurting the country, caused me to do some soul searching. i explained, i've thought about it, read about it, wrestled with it. the law is a tool. like a hammer. you can use it to build up or you can use it to tear down. it's all in whose hands the hammer is hitting. the law is a powerful tool. but as so many of our founders laid out, unless we serve and govern a moral nation, this form of government is entirely inadequate to protect us. and i know our fine president has said, we're not a christian nation and i will not debate that issue, there's plenty of

evidence on both sides of that issue currently. i don't think we are anymore. but for those that continue to persist and say, we were never a christian nation, who refuse to note that a third of the signs of the declaration, over a third, weren't just christians, they were ordained christian ministers, people like peter mullenberg end up with a statue down the hall, was a minister who washington made a colonel, unbeknownst to his flock and his church. his statue depicts him taking off his ministerial robe to reveal a uniform underneath, even with a sabre on. he was peaching from ecleese yasstees, there's a time -- for eccliastes, there's a time for

every purpose under heaven, when he got to verse eight, there's a time for war, and a time for peace, he took off his robe and said, now is a time for war. recruited men from the church to join him, recruited men from the town to support them, he became a general by the end of the war. all of that while a christian minister. but i think it's helpful to go back and look at some of these who were intimately familiar with our founding and of course i've read so often from washington here on the floor, from john adams, i thought i would read from john quincy adams to start off with, john quincy adams, our youngest diplomat, washington appointed him to serve briefly as a diplomat at 11 years of age. smart guy. put at the age of 77, in 18 4, john quincy adams was not only a u.s. congressman, but he was also the chairman of the american bible society.

these are john quincy adams' words. he said, i deem myself fortunate in having the opportunity at this stage of long life drawing rapidly to its close to bear out at this place, the capitol of our national union, in the hall of representatives of the north american people, in the chair of the presiding officer of the assembly representing the whole people, the personification of the great and mighty nation, bear my solemn testimonial of reverence and gratitude to that book of books, the holy bible. the bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and redemocrats of man and discloses to him in the infant born at bethlehem, the legislator and savior of the world. on the occasion of his 80th birthday, he said this. i enter -- this is john quincy

adams' words. i enter upon my 80th year with thanksgiving to god for all the blessings and mercies which his providence has bestowed upon me throughout a life extended now to the longest term allotted to the life of man. with supplication for the continuance of those blessings and mercies to me and mine as long as it shall suit the dispensations of his, capitalize his, wise prove nance and for resignation to his, capitalize his, will when my appointed time shall come. that's john quincy adams. and one of the most powerful closing arguments of any case was given by john quincy adams in the amistad case just downstairs in the old supreme court chamber. toward the end of his argument, when he was so concerned that he might be losing and if he lost the argument, he lost the case, he was representing -- in

which he was representing the africans who had been captured, had chains put on them, they were able to get loose, take over the ship, ultimately ened up in the u.s., so the -- ended up in the u.s., so the lawsuit was over, they were free -- -- were they free people who could go where they want or were they slaves? he called every up with of the justices that had been on the supreme court by name and said where are they? where is the solicitor general that argued against me last time i was here? in the course of the arguments, about three days in the amistad case, one of the judges died one night. that kind of throws a crimp in your closing argument. but when they resume the case, he was asking, even the jum that started the case with us

isn't in here he concluded by asked -- even the judge that started the case with us isn't in here. he concluded by asking, where have they gone? they have gone to meet their judge. and the big question about their life, he said, did they hear these words, well done, gd and faithful servant? the question was -- the message was clear, when you die, do you want to meet your maker after having a decision that allows these free africans to be drug out of here in chains and bondage? he won the case. the africans, as they should have been, were free. they should have been. and it is an embarrassment that slavery was ever allowed in this country. but if you look at the founding, they were led by christian founders. you look at the greatest developments in civil rights, abraham lincoln felt called by god to run for office and bring

an end to slavery. john quincy adams was a mentor to him during the two brief years he was in the house of representatives. adams had a massive stroke during that term, but young abraham lincoln, despite the difference in age, was an honorary pallbearers. adams thought a will the of lincoln. after lincoln was president, he said the most memorable thing that occurred in his time in the house of representatives just down the hall here was john quincy adams' powerful sermons on the evils of slavery. because john quincy adams, as a christian, believed he was being called, after losing the election for a second term, he believed he was being called to come into congress like william wilber force had done, with whom he had corresponded in

england, come into congress as william wilber force had come into parliament, to fight for slavery. every time he was called on one of his bill he preached a hellfire and brimstone speech about how can we expect god to keep blessing america when we continue to treat our brothers and sisters by putting them in bond amming. only person to have ever done this. after being president, he lowered himself to run for congress and serve in the house. of course he told some folks he was more proud of being elected representative after being president than he was being elected president. that seems like such a strange thing until you realize what it meant was, after he was president, his neighbors still liked him and that is not often the case. we know that some of the greatest debates that have occurred in the house of representatives and the senate

were participated in by henry clay. he and daniel webster had some powerful debates. henry clay said this, in 1829. he said 1800 years have rolled away since the son of god, our blessed redeemer, offered himself on mount cavalry for the salvation of our species. and more than half of mankind still deny his divine mission and the truth of his sacred word, when we shall as soon we must be translated from this into another form of existence is the hope that we shall be -- behold the common father of the whites and blacks, the great ruler of the universe, cast his all-seeing eye upon civilized and regenerated africa, it's cultivated fields and cities, adorned with towering stembles dedicated to the pure religion

of his redeeming son. i want to make clear, the reason that we have more religious freedom in this country than any other country in the world is because we were founded on christian principles. that jesus taught. any nation that is based on shari'a law and follows true shari'a law, they will not have freedom of religion. so this is the freest country that any muslim can ever worship in. you don't have to believe exactly as the radicals do about the coran's teaching. but you have that freedom here in this country. and we just read this week that after we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, over $1,7 -- over 1,700 precious american

lives, to rid afghanistan of the taliban and unfortunately try to create a central government that won't work, we now find this week that there is no longer in afghanistan a christian church. not one. we also find out this week there is a report, there's home one jew left in afghanistan. after 10 years of battle, hundreds of billions of dollars, precious american lives, we see what we've done come to this. not one christian church, war declared upon christians, christians killed, imprisoned, a jihad against christians there. and a country that we saved? we're losing some of our freedoms here because some say we should do -- have more law

that follows shari'a law. the only way shari'a law will be completely and freely followed and worshiped, not by some radical islamist view of it, but by all muslims who freely can have different interpretations unless they're in a radical islamic society, they can only have that here, where we were founded on christian principles. and thank god we work. people, i was a history major, i didn't read it until after i was out of school. christopher columbus wrote in this his own words. it was the war that put into my hind, i could feel his hand upon me, the fact that it would be possible to sail interest here to the indies. there is no question that the inspiration was from the holy spirit. because he comforted me with rays of marvelous lume nation

from the holy scriptures. a strong and clear testimony from the 44 books of the old testament, from the four gospels and from the 23 epistols of the blessed apostles, encouraging me continually to press forward and without seizing for a moment you this know -- ceasing for a moment they now encourage me to make haste. columbus said, our lord jesus desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the indies, to comfort me and all people of god. of course that's evidence that god can use somebody to create a miracle and the person being used doesn't even know what he did. of course there were those who say columbus is the perfect example that you can be a huge success for all of time, even if you don't know where you're going, don't know where you are when you get there and don't know how you got there, so long as you can get the government to pay for it.

unfortunately there are too many in government today who believe that's the key to all success. get the government to pay for it. frances scott key, he was there on the ship in chesapeake bay, september 14, 1814, prior to the war of 181, when the british unmercifully bombed that small fort mchenry and in the morning light he saw a flag, the fourth verse of what is now our national anthem is, o thus be it ever when free men shall stand, between their loved home and the war's desolation. blessed with victory and peace, may the heaven rescued land praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation. then concur we must when our

cause it is just. and this be our motto. in god is our trust. and the star spangled banner and triumph shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. i want to conclude with one other historic reference from the supreme court itself, back when the supreme court did not believe that the constitution was a living, breathing document that would be subject to the whims of people appointed who brought their own biases to the supreme court and twisted it and turned it into whatever document pleased them. and i'm also thankful to god that we have had some incredible justices on the supreme court who believe the document called the constitution was exactly as the founders intended.

it is not a living, breathing document that can be molded like silly putty around somebody's finger and whims. but in 1892 supreme court said this in the church of the holy trinity vs. the united states. no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. this is historically true from the discovery of this continent to the present hour. there is a single voice making this affirmation. the commission to christopher columbus recited that it, quote, is hope that by god's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered, unquote. he goes on to say, the first charter virginia granted by king james i in 1606 commenced the grant in these words. in propagating of christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness, language of

similar import maybe found in the subsequent charters of that colony. in 1609 and 1611. and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. in language more or less empathetic to the establishment of the christian religion, declared to be one of the purposes of the grant, the celebrated compact made by the pilgrim and in the may flour, 1620, besides, quote, having undertaken for the glory of god an advancement of the christian faith, avoids to plant the first colony in the northern parts of virginia. the fundamental -- unquote. the fundamental orders of connecticut you understand which a provisional government was instituted in 1638, 1639 commenced with this declaration. quote, and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of god requires that to maintain the peace in union there should be an orderly and decent government established according to god. to maintain and preserve the

liberty and purity of the gospel of our lord jesus, which now profess of the said gospel, which is now practiced amongst us. unquote. supreme court went on and concluded that there are so many other matters that might be noticed at a volume of unofficial declarations to the massive utterances, this is a christian nation and may not be now. but it started that way and, mr. speaker, just as martin luther king felt a calling as a christian minister and just as lincoln did in ending slavery, we owe so much to the religion of christianity, that everyone can worship or not as they wish. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the spoo the speaker's appointment, pursuant to 22 u.s.c., 6913 and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following member of the house to the congressional

executive commission on the people's republic of china. the clerk: mr. minnesota. -- mr. walz of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment and to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following member to the house to the dwight d. eisenhower memorial commission. the clerk: mr. bishop of jm. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 100 of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2003, public law 107-306, as amended by section 701-a-3 of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2010, i am pleased to appoint the following individuals to the national commission for the review of the

research and development programs of the u.s. intelligence community. the honorable rush d. holt of new jersey. mrs. rive etch of clark, new jersey. mrs. rive itch is appointed as recommendation of speaker john boehner to ensure there is an appropriate ratio of republican and democratic appointees serving on the commission. thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i intend to talk about the federal reserve, but preliminaryly having listened to my colleague from texas, i did want to note a little bit of a dissent. he cited queen isabela of spain and king james of england for

having decided what kind of country we should be. now, the question of the religious nature or not is obviously a legitimate one to debate, but i was a little surprised to be told that i was to be anyway bound by what queen isabela or king james said hundreds of years ago. i thought one of the purposes of the american revolution was to tell european monarchs that we would here in america make our own choices. but i want to talk today about the federal reserve and particularly, frankly, about my disappointment in the debate i guess i've been having, been kind of one-sided because he never spoke to me, with mr. george well. i know it's common advice to members of congress to other political leaders not to get into an argument with people in the media. i think that's a great mistake.

i think that respect for openness and democracy should make this a two-way street and the notion that responding to criticism in the media that's inaccurate is somehow inappropriate or is a great mistake. while i would have looked forward to is a debate involving mr. well and others, over the federal reserve. i did file legislation last april to change the structure of the federal reserve open market committee which votes to set interest rates and it now consists of the seven appointees to the federal reserve board of governors who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. people selected in that democratic way. but with 14-year terms to guarantee some independent -- independence, so they are presidentialy pointed, they are confirmed by the senate but they serve for 14 years so there is not, presumably, the chance for one president to get everybody. that's built in some staggered

terms there. but there are also five votes that are cast by regional presidents of the federal reserve banks. these five people, it's on a rotating basis, the new york president always gets it, four others out of the remaining ones go on periodically, these are people helping set the most important public policy in america. monetary policy, interest rates. but they come with no -- nothing remotely resembling public participation in the process. . they are governed by the brds of directors, and those boards, not surprisingly, are largely people more than anything else in the financial community. it's important for people in the financial community to be represented and i'm glad that the regional presidents come to the meetings and should be allowed to speak, encouraged to

speak. but having people who are appointed by bankers who then appoint new bankers to appoint new people getting five of the 12 votes in monetary policy violates democratic norms and gives a bias against the mandate that congress has given the federal reserve, that's not been changed, to worry equally about inflation and unemployment. because, and the record shows this, the regional bank presidents tend to be concerned more on the whole about inflation than unemployment, they don't regard the two as equal. that's not surprising given who they represent. that's an argument for debate. i filed legislation last april to leave the regional presidents on the -- in the position of speaking but not voting. mr. will differed with that, and i look forward to a debate. he does not agree with mr. bernanke's policy of trying to

respond to our economic troubles by increasing the availability of money, the quantitative easing, mr. will is probably on the side of people who have been proven quite wrong factually that this leads to inflation. his policies have helped alleviate the crisis though not nearly as much as he'd like because there are limits to what monetary policy can do. they have not cost the federal government money, haven't led to inflation. i would be glad to debate that with mr. well but instead he engages in a kind of snarkiness i found unbecoming. i thought he would be someone who would be committed to intellectual debate but that simply wasn't there in his approach. let me say, and i'll document this, that his response, in his column, and then in the follow-up column, basically seemed to me to be a sad

combination of blatant factual inaccuracy, of loming call confusion, and sadly, i must say, of intellectual dishonestly. -- dishonesty. and finally, great inconsistency. let me begin with the factual inaccuracies. mr. wills' thesis in his column is that i filed that bill largely because i did not agree with the vote last summer of the federal reserve open market committee, 7-3 in favor of mr. bernanke's policy. it's true, i differed with those three. i agreed with the policy, 7-3, and i differed with the three. and here's what he says. frank says he has, quote, long been troubled, unquote from a, quote, theoretical democratic standpoint, quote, but the unano, ma'amly affecting

economic policy being made by persons with no public scrutiny or confirmation. that's right, i do think there's a shocking lack of respect for democracy when we are talking about fundamental powers given to people who are neither elected nor appointed and confirmed by other elected officials but are selected by a small, self-perpetuating group of people in one economic segment. i'm ready to debate that. here's what mr. will suggests, basically, that i was not bothered by that. notice that he is sort of denigrating my formulation here. what he says is, quote, it was not, comma, however, comma, that this affront to frank's democratic sepsabilities became so intolerable he proposed a legislative remedy. there's a snarkiness about democratic sensibilities, but here's his point. we shouldn't be given a self-selected grup of private

citizens governmental power that that was sort of a cover he is suggesting because they didn't do anything about it until august when the vote had taken place. there's one problem with that, mr. speaker. i did it in april, not august. the bill had been filed in april. and i publicized it in april. it is true that in august i put out a statement noting that the -3 vote was an indication of what i thought was the result of having an undemocratic element but mr. wills' fundamental refuteation of my position was that i wasn't really concerned about democracy and public participation or having a kind of guild socialism that i would have thought he would have been opposed to, having the guilt of bankers being the ones who set public policy for the banks. he said it wasn't until august that i did this. but i did it in april. he was flatly wrong. now, he didn't know that i did it in april instead of august

because he didn't talk to me, he didn't think it was necessary given his lofty philosophical position to do any fact checking, he was simply wrong. he was not just wrong about it being april unstead of august, which is not a minor error, it's fundamental. by the way, i said intellectual dishonesty. i wrote a letter to "the washington post" that while april an august both start with a, they are several months apart and it was hard to argue i did something in april because i knew what would be happening the physical lowing august. he was wrong -- and that was central to his argument. here was his acknowledgment of error. it's a correction note to a recent column. he says, quote, in a recent column i sugg je -- suggested that representative barney frank's legislation was introduced in august when in fact it was introduced in april. he suggested it? here's how he suggests things. quote, it was not until august

that he proposed a legislative remedy. he said i said it. even more important, the fact that it was april, not august, was a central flaw in his argument. he doesn't acknowledge that. in his dishonest correction, he says, i suggested august, it was really april, as if that was almost an incidental error. it wasn't incidental, it was fundamental to his misreading of my motives. what was also an inaccuracy was his beginning the column by saying, fond of diversity in everything but thought a certain kind of liberal favors mandatory harmony, e.g., campus speech codes. in other words, he began, and that's when he led to saying i did this in august because i was so upset about this vote and that's the only reason i did it, not because of any concern about democratic input. he is saying that this was an

indication of me as one of those liberals who is supposed to free debate for campus speech codes. in fact, you couldn't be more wrong on that one either. i've been one of the members of this house, i'm proud to say, most supportive of free speech. i have opposed campus speech codes. this looks clearly like the example of the kind of mentality that leads to campus speech code. i said hate speech is not a reasonable concept as far as crime is concerned. there shopt be restrictions on it, shopt be any laws against it. i'm very proud, along with my colleague from texas, mr. paul and our departed colleague, mr. wu, we voted against legislation that would have prevented one of the great ranting homophobes of our time, the reverend fred phelps from

holding up vicious and obnoxious signs at the cemeteries of men and women killed in war, as long as he did them so he wasn't right in the cemetery grounds. we thought that was a free speech problem, the supreme court agreed with us. so mr. will is again factually inaccurate in accusing me of being one of those people who is for stopping dissent. once again, if he asked me about it, i would have told him no, i have a record of opposing campus speech codes and that had nothing to do, disagreement with dissent had nothing to do with my position here. that leads me to his logical conclusion. those are his great factual error, his description of me as being for campus speech codes and curtailing speech and his deciding i did it in august when i did in it april, which invalidates his thesis bt -- thesis about my motive but more

shocking to me was this fundamental misstatement, he conflates two separate points he said this is an example of my not supporting diversity of speech. i'm totallyfish diversity of speech. this is not a case of free speech or diverse expression of opinions. this is a case of exercising government power. i did not say that federal regional presidents shouldn't be allowed to talk about federal reserve monetary policy or anything else. there was no restriction on their speech. the bill says that they shouldn't be given a vote on public policy. i am frankly very surprised, as i said, that mr. will confuses the two. and tries to denigrate my move to keep them from voting to make public policy as an example of being opposed to free speech.

this is really quite surprising and an example, i think, of his just deciding he would use any argument he could against me. as a matter of fact, the federal reserve presidents are all invited to the meetings and can speak, even those who don't vote. i'm all for that. so this notion that this is somehow an example of liberal opposition of free speech when i'm someone who has a good record on free speech and when i am not in any way impinging on their right to speak is a further disappointment. mr. will clearly disagrees with the policies mr. bernanke is following. he in the letter, in the column, suggests that my concern for protecting both sides of the federal reserve minnesotadate, unemployment and inflation, is misguided, doesn't say it exactly, but he says, he actual language of the mandate speaks of promoting,

quote, maximum employment, unquote, which is problematic. maximum means the highest attainable, this depends on ignoring the other half of the mandate. he's justifying people ignoring the mandate by saying the only way to support it is to ignore the other half. that's not true. that's not supported by the record. that's not supported by logical analysis. i'm prepared to debate with mr. will whether or not we should do what i think he wants to do, go to a signal -- a single mandate on inflation, another of my colleagues wants to do that here, amend the humphrey-hawkins act and do away with the fed's concern about unemployment. i think that would be a mistake. i admire mr. bernanke, he's preached to us about the dangers of unemployment and pointed out that a decision to cut the budget quickly right now rather than defer it for a later time in the 10-year period exacerbates the unemployment. he's called it a head wind for the economy. i welcome the fact that mr.

bernanke has been so diligent in worrying both about inflation and unemployment and mr. will -- mr. bernanke has pointed out, we have in fact been more successful in holding down inflation than in combating unemployment and that i think is an appropriate thing. i'd be willing to debate that with mr. will. but the tactics he uses of trying to denigrate my motives, of falsely imputing to me an opposition to free speech, as i said, is disappointing. i would have preferred to talk about this on the merits. mr. will also is sneering in his reference to cheap money. he talks about mr. bernanke's policy about cheap money. that's,ing of, one of these pejorative ways of talking about something you disagree with. in fact, cheap money suggests that you are devaluing the currency, that hasn't been the

case. i am prepared to debate whether or not what mr. bernanke has been done has been good or bad. i think it's been good and those who have within crit -- been critical of it have been proven wrong, factually. it hasn't cost the government money, hasn't led to inflation but mr. will won't do that. it is again falsely setting up this notion in which i'm an opponent of free speech and that's why in august i decided to do this. i have been a great support of free speech, i did it in april, not august and this isn't about free speech it's about public policy. as i read the column in which mr. will wholly inadequately acknowledged his mistake by treating it as if it was almost a clerical error that he said august instead of april, i reread the column and it struck me what a terrible inconsistency it is. this is a column in which he's talking -- attacking elizabeth warren. he criticizes ms. warren on no

basis, factually, once again. i don't think he's had much to do with her, as i read this caricature of her, but he says, in here, many members of the liberal inteligentsia complies a malleable, vulnerable herd therefore the herd needs kindly paternal superare vision by a co-heart of protective herders. and he says, because such government must presume the government's incompetence it owes minimal deference to people's preferences. this convenient theory licenses the enlightened vanguard to exercise maximum discretion in yielding the powers -- in wielding the powers of the regulatory state. he described the process by which bankers get to pick the federal reserve presidents to serve on the open market committee. i don't know many people who believe that. that's mr. will's defense in

effect he writes one column criticizing me, sneering, in a way, my objection to there being banker-selected votes on the open market committee on the grounds, among others, that this is in my judgment a violation of democratic norms, that's clearly not my real reason and it's almost as if he doesn't understand why anybody would think that. here's mr. will who on the one hand says these premises are not really theirs. this convenient theory licenses the enlightened vanguard to exercise maximum discretion. tanned says that the public should not be able to do this. so here's mr. will denigrating and attributing to liberals this notion that an enlightened van guard aught ought to make decisions as opposed to the public, that's what he thinks. here's mr. will on in defense of the system on which that happens and i'm trying to change.

heavy representation of the economy's financial sector in the gornance of the central bank does not -- governance of the central bank does not seem bizarre. oh, yeah, i think it is. in the governance. in the discussion of the input of policy, so mr. will is critical of me because i did not think that the banks ought to be picking the people who vote on policy that is so central to the banks. that's his position when it comes to the federal reserve. but when he gets a chance to attack elizabeth warren unfairly he takes exactly the opposite position. on the one hand he is defending a kind of corporate disposition that, as he says, heavy representation of the economy's financial sector and the governance of the centralback, he's for that, -- central bank, he's for that. as opposed to my view. preferably not those directly elected but with 14-year terms

so you get the independence. so i'm for a system in which if you're going to vote on monetary policy, if you're going to regulate the banking system, you have this overt democratic input. he says, no, let's have heavy representation of the economy's financial sector in the bank. but then when it comes to consumer protection, he is accusing liberals of being the ones who are against the preferences of the public being contained. he says, we are -- we the liberals believe that we owe minimal deference to people's preferences and instead governing should be from an enline thed van guard. an enlightened van guard in the case of the federal reserve are the bankers. so to make his ridiculous conservative point, i wish he simply said this, that he does not think, because i think this is what he believes, it sort of comes out here, he doesn't think we should have the federal government, the federal reserve equally concerned with

employment and inflation, a number of conservatives think that. i think that is wrong. i think ben bernanke has been hopeful with the argument is if you're worried about employment, you'll sacrifice inflation. the fed says the other way around, not a sacrifice but we've been more successful in finding inflation with regard to employment but that's a debatable issue. wroo you should have quantitative easing, whether at a time of severe economic slowdown the monetary policy ought to be eased, mr. will thinks that's, quote, cheap money and he sides with the three federal reserve presidents, apparently, who inaccurately predicted it would be inflationary. again, those are legitimate policy decisions. but that's not what mr. will has done. he has just summarized, inaccurately described my position as that of a liberal who is against free speech. i am not. i have a record of which i am proud in defending free speech. and free speech means, by the

way, you defend the right of obnoxious people to say hateful things. if you're not that, nobody tries to shut you up and i do believe that free speech means that people should be able to do that. people should be able to say offensive things. and i've got a record of supporting it. but he claims that it's because i don't like dissent in the sense of free speech that in august, after a certain number of votes on the federal open market committee, i introduced my bill. so he's wrong about my views on free speech, he's wrong i did in april instead of august. and he was forced to acknowledge that, not by saying, oh, i made a mistake by making this assumption of his motives, simply throwing it off as if it was a kind of clerical error. then he in the whole article confuses free speech with government policymaking power. i am very much in favor of free speech. everyone has a right in this country to unrestrained speech. everyone does not have a right to exercise governmental power. to me governmental power should

be rooted in the democratic system. mr. will disagrees with that with regard to the federal reserve because he wants bankers, he thinks it's fine for bankers to have that great role in governance but when it comes to attacking liberals in general he reverts to the opposite position and denigrates those who are not ready to respect the people's preferences and is critical of those who want an enlightened van guard to go forward. i should add that he's not the only defender there who said to me he won't stand with arguments. there is a former federal reserve governor who is very critical of my position that president to the regional president of the federal reserve ought to be able to speak on policy but not vote on it. and what he says is, among other things, that this will cause a loss of prestige for the federal reserve system and you won't get good people to be there. i am shocked at the denigration

of people in the federal reserve. he describes a being president of a regional federal reserve bank is a very important job with significant regulatory powers, none of which i would diminish. then he says, because they couldn't vote every couple of years on the open market committee, they wouldn't have enough prestige for them to serve. he cheapens them, it seems to me. he also claims that i'm trying to undermine independence and subject them to short-term considerations. i want to stress again, the people in whose hands i would leave monetary policy are appointed by a president, confirmed by the senate, hardly an easy process, as we know these days, and appointed for a 14-year term. these are not people who are subject to short-term whims and of course a 14-year term goes over three presidential terms. we then have mr. fisher, one of the regional presidents, who in a particularly arrogant way, here's what he has to say. we are being attacked, we the federal reserve, from the right and from the left. and i don't see much difference

between the certain congressman from texas named ron paul and a certain congressman from massachusetts, barney frank. he doesn't see any difference tweep myself and ron paul. mr. paul and i work together on a number of things. we both think we are way overextended military. that we should be bringing the troops home from afghanistan and iraq. we both oppose restrictions on free speech and we think that people ought to be able to gamble with their own money on the internet. but we disagree fundamentally on economic policy. we disagree on the federal reserve. i have been a friend of quantitytive easing, mr. paul is against it. those are legitimate issues for debate but you get this sneering certain congressman here and a certain congressman there, and he doesn't see any difference. if this man really can't see any difference between the positions i of myself and ron paul on economic matters, then he's hardly competent to be doing anything, much less voting on open market committee policy. once again what we get is a refusal to debate the merits and there are debates to be had.

should we have an equal concern at the federal reserve with unemployment and with inflation? i think we should. has the policy of mr. bernanke supported by many others from both appointees of both presidents and some federal reserve regional presidents to increase the money supply in the face of in this terrible slowdown that we've been dealing with, has that been a good thing or bad thing? it's been a good thing. that's debatable. but they won't debate it. instead we get this collection of illogic, of inconsistency and of rallying around the notion of the federal reserve system as being unassailable . too many people made that mistake when mr. greenspan was in charge and we should not be making it again. so, mr. speaker, i will continue to press forward and i hope on the part of those on the other side we can now debate whether or not it's appropriate in a democracy for us to do as mr. will proposes and to give the banking, financial community,

such an important role in the governance of their own industry or whether we should go for a more appropriately democratic one, whether mr. bernanke's policy has been good or bad for the economy in terms of quantitative easing, and whether or not we should abolish the mandate of the federal reserve to care equally about unemployment and inflation. i look forward to debating those but i hope in better terms. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes, for 30 minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate you yielding time and i'd like to pay tribute to a group of young men that won the 1949 baseball championship in

texas and overcome many, many obstacles and overcame the odds that at the time existed and when i read their story, you'll appreciate their accomplishment. this is from a story written by alexander wolf from "sports illustrated" that appeared in the june 27, 2011, edition. and it's entitled "the bario boys." in el paso, a team of poor hispanic players came from nowhere to win texas' first high school baseball championship. the article reads, for a ball you'd beg schools of thread from the textile plant. enough wrap to create a wad that

you could seal with carpenter's tape. you'd go back to the factory for cloth remnants to sew together for a glove which you'd stuff with a couldn't you'd picked at the ranch on the fringe. that's what you did as a kid of a mexican blood -- of mexican blood in el paso during the 1940's. to play that game, more than anything else, the traditional american game which would make you an american. baseball. but to become a champion at that game, to beat allcomers in a world that belonged to them, how could you possibly do that? borders are shaped, shifted things. sometimes barrier, sometimes membranes, stimets overlooks from which one peoples take the measure of another. if you were to transport yourself to the el paso of 1949 and take up a position as far south as possible, by the north to shore of the rio grande, in a

netherland not wholly of the u.s. but not of mexico either, you'd be a cutoff throw from the high school. the only public secondary school in the u.s. then dedicated to educating mexican americans. the people of south and east el paso dealt every day with two kinds of border. the geographical one at their backs, reminded them of their mexican american heritage, the aspirational border just to the north which was an east-west highway through downtown and was a tantalizing gateway to their country of choice. andy morales, a member of the 1949 high school baseball team used to walk the eight blocks from his home up the local stretch of u.s. highway 80. the artery that ran from san diego, california, to the georgia coast. beyond the avenue lay the anglo's turf where a mexican american would think twice before entering that space. instead they focused on the

road. and he says, my friends and i, we compete counting out of state license plates on the avenue. morales says, i set the record one saturday counting 39 in a two-hour period. plate spotting gave morales and his buddy cans a chance to glimpse the energy of a country ready to burst after the end of world war ii, a place where they gradually came before they belonged. they would owe the awakening in large part to have the game that they loved. the high school didn't field a baseball team until 1946 when a wirey, energetic man of not quite 5'6" tall arrived from san antonio. at which he started the first team. three years later the team, including morales, the wise cracking second baseman who never took a book home from school because there simply wasn't enough light to read in his home, javier, the pitcher

with a knuckle ball that was so crazy that nobody would play catch with him, jose rocky galarza, the smoky-eyed third baseman to whom they dedicated year book pages and ramon, the catcher whose hauverages came to him in his dreams. despite this poverty that made them scrounge for equipment and wonder if they'd ever have enough food to eat and despite discrimination that subjected them to the slinging slurs and other indignities from anglos, these boys and the other 11 players on the 1949 would win the first texas high school baseball tournament ever staged. bowie high sat in el paso's second ward, or segundo barrio, home to the city's leach field and surege treatment plant. a smelting operation, stockyards and a meatpacking company further fouled the air.

nowhere in the u.s. did more babies die of diarrhea. the barrio had no paved streets, much less sidewalks, streetlights or parks, and 50,000 people packed themselves into less than one square mile in this part of el paso. about -- this is about twice the population density of new york city. those not living in adobe hovels were warehoused in presidios like the ones in which camarillo and bowie first baseman tony lara grew up tenement buildings, with one communal cold-water commode --serving each row of two-room apartments. he said it was like another country. one might have expected bowie's 49ers to be cowed by their mohr

affl umbing ent, better equipped anglo opponents, but, lara says, "we were so dumb, we didn't know how to be intimidated." this obliviousness was carefully cultivated. bowie's baseball coach made sure his players didn't wallow in want and ethnic victimization, diverting them instead with such requirements as daily classroom attendance, executing the hit-and-run and mastering the nuances of english by speaking nothing else around him. with nemo, there were no heros, says gus sbano, a shortstop on the 1949 team. he was the leader. his message was simple. you have leadership, you follow and we were the followers. william carson "nemo" herrera, was a fronterizo, a child of the borderland like his players, and he probably knew them better than their parents did. he was born in brownsville, texas, in 1900. his father, rodolfo, had immigrated after losing his landholdings in the political unrest that would lead to the

mexican revolution, and his mother, carolina, had roots in in the canary islands. the family moved to san antonio when nemo was 7 and by age 13 he had become the bat boy of the san antonio bronchos of the texas league. he steeped himself in the game. his speed and tenacity served him well in basketball as well as baseball while he attended at brackenridge high school. he would excel at both sports at southwestern university in georgetown and play during the summer. he coached at beaumont high school. before joining gulf oil subsidiary in tampico, mexico. there he progressed from pipeline work to the payroll department while playing second base on the company team. herrera wound up in the town's

american hospital. within a month he had married the head nurse on the floor, mary hatch, an angelo -- anglo from on loosea, louisiana. he would spend 18 years, including all of the depression, with his basketball team's which rarely had much size, that so much so that he introduced what later generation would recognize as a full-court press. only we called it man-to-man all over the court defense, one player would say later. herrera would say five times his team reached the final four winning titles in 1943 and 1947. herrera acquired much of a reputation for texas a&m to offer him its basketball coaching job. however, he turned it down for

the stability of public schoolwork and in 1946, bowie high school came calling offering a better salary and the benefits of a desert climate which mary leona, which suffered from hay fever, and bill, who also had asthma, benefited from. herrera's new high school was part of the segundo barrio. when they expanded, a complex of athletic fields, griddled by cottonwoods and elms bloomed in the floodplains of the rio graunda. -- grande. they walked them through phonetics and dipthongs. i asked for a piece of paper in

spanish and i got suspended. that was the first and last time you will be guilty of speaking spanish. la bowie, as it was called, was a temple of assimilation. when president franklin d. roosevelt federalized the all-hispanic company e. of the texas national guard 141st infantry regimen late in 1940, half of the soldiers had been bowie bears. 40 former bowie students gave their lives in world war ii, mostly members of company e, whose ranks were steadily thin. from solerno to san pietro to the slaughter of the rapido river, german soldiers killed, wounded or captured virtually every g.i. not swept to his death by the current. at the outset of the 1948-1949 school year, bowie dedicated its memorial to its fallen 40 and an rotc color guard

concluded each day lowering the flag that flew above the school. herrera worked to make baseball one of bowie's tools of americanization. he set up a summer league in the barrio and placed kids on american legion and commercially sponsored teams. then he bird dogged the games to go out for bue eye versity the following spring. after boun vs. board of education forced el paso to close all-black douglas high school, he had a bilingual african-american kid to enroll at bowie. this was the future hall of fame basketball coach. el paso was a military town, much as it is today, and he took teams to play where they offered performed their older

and bigger and stronger host. we went out there on the field not knowing any better, says morales, attributing many of the victories to herrera's enforced obliviousness. always the bears ate at the mess. and he said those were the only days we'd get three square meals. the school newspaper, "the growler," could have taken its name from the sound in a bowie student's stomach. mary leona herrera would pack her husband off to work each day with extra sandwiches and burr eatos, which he left in plain sight so they could be stolen, quote, stolen, by his familiarished boys. as their stomaches filled up so did their heads. molding his baseball team in the image of basketball squads, herrera played small ball before it, too, had a name. we used to work on some place

for hours and hours, said morales. we won games on details, not because we hit the ball out of the park. herrera spent saturday mornings chasing down truants. he'd say to me, i'm gonnet kick their butts if they're not back in school, remembers bill herrera. but back at bowie, nemo would just as doggedly plead the cases of those same kids to principal frank politt. he'd pick stray peblet off the infield and he encouraged teasing for its democratizing affect. one day, -- effect. one day first baseman lorenzo martinez showed up at practice with a new glove which he bought across the river in juarez. it smelled like a dead salmon,

morales recalls. you paid for that? it made him a better player. nemo had a wide nose with huge nostrils and when he got mad he looked like a raging bull. he used to joke we should get -- we should all get toreador capes. one day, as the bowie bears nursed beers in a juarez canteena, herrera walked in. they figuratively reached for their capes. nemo in typical fashion said, i'll tell you the truth, boys. i'd rather see you guys drink beer than soda pop. soda pop will ruin your health. if a bear took only one thing away from his coach, it was a credo that became an incantation. and it read, "it's not who you are or where you come from," nemo would say. "it's who you become." the last of those words synced with striving -- synced with

the striving of the postwar generation, with the american dream, with all those cars whizzing east and west on highway 80. a san antonio sports writer noted the wonderful spirit of the bowie baseball team the way the pitchers fell down are reminiscent of the old st. louis gashouse gang. "the aztec," the bowie yearbook, had already gone to press by the time the bears edged el paso high school. there they won the district title. so beneath a team photo the editors of the "aztec" had written, good luck to you team, and when those aztecs reach you, may you have lived up to those early season forecasts. there they reached lamesa, texas, for the best of three

bidistrict playoffs against lamesa high school. the kids remembered, you'd think the circus had come to town, sambrano recalls. some people made cracks like, why don't you speak english? and remember the alamo, while others called the players hot tama lmbing erving s and greasy mexicans. tables and chairs were hastily set up in the kitchen. they rarely brought up the discrimination that his voice faced for fear they would use it as an excuse. he regarded prejudice as the problem of the prejudiced, sambrano said. bowie's ruben porras three-hit lamesa to win the series opener 9-1. the next day trini guillen

scattered five hits in the 8-0 shutout that clinched the bidistrict title. those guys were big, he said, but we had something they didn't, speed. the bears made a racetrack out of the diamond. in the first inning of each game, bowie scored a run on the lone hit and either an error or a walk. by sweeping lamesa, bowie earned a trip to austin for the single elimination quarterfinals of the state tournament. if memory serves me right, lara recalls today, there were eight teams and we were rated 10th to win it all. large odds by anybody's calculation. racial segregation still prevailed in texas during the 1940's, but mexican americans confounded the easy dichotomies of black and white. in lubbock, where the team made a rest stop on the way to austin, a sign in one window read, no dogs or mexicans. i remember seeing two drinking

fountains, one marked colored and the other marked white, morales said. me being brown i didn't know which one was for me so i asked a husky anglo guy which one i was supposed to use. he said, i don't give an expla tif, he took it as permission to use the white one. in austin, while most of the other visiting teams stayed in hotels, the bowie team had to sleep in army cots that were set up in the stands at memorial field. they had to go across the way to use the bathroom. but to their naive boys, the unusual accommodations only heightened their adventures. the lined the cots up and ran races. when social organizations back home sent telegrams of support, the bears delighted in seeing the spectacle of a western

union messenger driving his motorcycle up the stadium ramp for deliveries. one day four players ventured downtown to see a movie and they were bewilledered when they were told mexicans have to sit upstairs. so what did they do? they waited for the usher to turn the corner and then they scrambled into the seats of the orchestra in the dark. they recalled that they watched "the streets of laredo," with william holden. facing stephenville high school in the quarterfinals, bowie made another display of first inning resourcefulness, scoring three runs on two hits. the press had expected herrera to start his ace, guillen, who was 7-0 for the season. one reporter wondered why the bowie coach instead gambled with his number two pitcher. . he said number one, number two, who can tell. leaving unsaid that guillen was

in the hospital. and there was a strike out for six and limited stevensville. and it became clear the next day in the semifinals against waco high school. the game held up until the fourth when waco. and there was relief. with the score tied in the sixth, rodriguez sprinted home on the long fly ball. i would have scored easily tagging up and that would have won us the game, but me, like a dummy, forget there was only one out. the ball was caught. nemo almost strangled me, he was so mad. he always reminded us, keep your head in the game, pay attention to details. the score remained tied at 2-2 when waco loaded the bases with nobody.

nemo yelled out in spanish, watch the guy on third, he is going to steal. there was a call for a pitchout and picked the runner off. it was the only time that any 49er of the bowie bears can remember herrera addressing his players in spanish. there was another cut down on a runner trying to advance to third and during the rundown, the next batter was trying to steal second. bowie septemberer fielder gomez, back to home plate ran down a long drive with a catch that his teammates would recognize later as willie mays world series play five years later. waco took a 3-2 lead on a double and morales error. and he delivered a reversal of

fortune. the bears on second and third, morales hit a grounder and alluded the second base man to tie the game. and the account was with rodriguez and it dropped into short center field to send gomez home with the game winner. neither of el paso's newspapers sent a reporter so they followed bowie's progress that there was a call placed to the local radio station. his boys he said in his call after the game just don't know when to quit. they are eating well and batting that ball and that wins ball games. it is one of the few times that a coach has credited a victory to eating well. in the final, austin had the tournament's number one seed. they enjoyed more than a home field advantage. the maroons hadn't lost to a

single high school all season, even beating the longhorns. there was a gind score of 36-1 and they eliminated another. the boston braves would soon the ace, right-hander, jack brinkley to a $65,000 bonus. he allowed one hit in his quarter finals start, a 2-0 win over luck ock. in the final, herrera pitched to guellen but before game time he asked one for his thoughts. arguing that the knuckle baller would keep the maroons off balance. there was a confession that he volunteered guillen because he had dreamed that the bears could win the title with him on the mound. and there was a pitch of 15

innings in two days. he would get the hook if he became wild, when you've got one left herrera would say later, that's who you pitch. austin's half of the first inning, each maroon hitter returned to the dugout with the same verdict, he was just a good batting practice pitcher as one told his coach, according to the austin american statesman and said we'll get him next inning. next inning came and the next and the next and austin couldn't get a hit off of him. bowie got the 1-0 lead jumping on a first couple of errors. after there was a walk in the fourth, herrera was true, lifting leftey for guillen. a right fielder tripped and two infielders allowed both bears to

cross and put bowie up 3-0. austin finally kindled to life. brinkly, the pitcher led off with a single hit and advanced to second on a walk. guillen struck out but there was a slow runner leaving runners on second and third. the next austin hitter sent a single to right to knock in a second run and as the maroons third base coach waved the final run home. that's when all of bowie's preparation, the hardshipping on details, the repetition and military teams around el paso paid its biggest dividend. guzman had the ball on the line. the cut-off man fixed the tag on the maroons base runner for the second out. on the play on the plate,

another maroon representing the tying run made his way to second base. infield hit edged him to third where the next austin hitter slapped a sharp ground ball. at least some of the fans there that night must have wondered what the bowie short stop was thinking. dropping to one knee, he simply explained, i was ready to block it just in case, rodriguez said. i said, this damn ball is not going to go through me. he caught the ball clenal stood up and whipped it across the diamond, crad willing it safely in the borrowed glove and they were the lords of all of texas. true to form, there was no celebration when it was over. morales recalls, we took it as part of how nemo raised us. we picked up and walked out of there. the bowie players don't recall ever shaking hands with their opponents, their opponents walked away from them.

and although the bears received the trophy, i mean it must have been about three foot high as one recalled later that night. there was no formal presentation or other official act recognizing bowie for having won text' inaugural baseball championship. the bears won the final and typical texan it must have seemed that an alien team had won by alien means. he reacted as if poncho vea. they took it wednesday night through a weird assortment of hits, which meant that bowie won three to austin's two. after the bears had packed up

and for the ride home, much to their surprise, rocks hit their bus. there were two cops who didn't do anything. when a restaurant near forth stockton wouldn't serve the bowie party, herrera got food from the restaurant to the bus. around noon the following day as the team rum bled along highway 80, a sheriff's deputy on a motor cycle flashed his lights to pull the bus over and one player thought they hit somebody. the officer informed the driver and the students that bowie students were affixing state champs banner to the side of the bus and he would be providing a state police escort to the terminal. as the bus approached downtown, there were people lining both sides of the streets.

latta remembers that a lot of anglos were cheering for us as well. they threw a party and the bears were feeded with several bank quiets. we can't give them anything, but we can sure feed them. still the bears sense in their hometown they were given a second-class celebration. instead of the mayor meeting them at the bus station, another alderman met them. morales remembers when el paso's austin high won the district in football, their coach got a brand new car. none of the players stopped by the terminal baggage room to claim luggage and i know that -- time's up, mr. speaker, if i would ask unanimous consent to enter the rest into the record

and finally say that i wanted to read the story of the 1949 bowie bears into the record to celebrate hispanic -- this is the end of hispanic heritage month and i thought that would be an appropriate way to end the month. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman for a motion. mr. reyes: i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on tuesday next.

>> in 1928, he became the first catholic nominated to run for president. even though he lost the election, he is still remembered by the alfred e. smith memorial dinner, a fund-raiser for various cap but charities and a stopper the two main president for candidates every election year.

he is one of those featured in the new weekly series, "of the contenders." light from the state assembly born in albany, at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> i have to get up every morning and tell myself i can do this. >> residency in neurosurgeons , homeless illegal migrant farmworker. >> every time i go in the room, i have every -- have someone's life in my hand. i responsible for getting them through. i walk a fine line between confidence and arrogance. "sharing his life story sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> c-span radio is another way

to keep up the politics and public affairs offering in mix of the most relevant events from the three television networks and exclusives like repairing the sunday news programs. if you are in washington, d.c., 90.1 fm, xm 119, and iphone and blackberry apps. c-span radio, and other public service created by the nation's television industry. >> to any lawyer says currency manipulation costs more than 1 million jobs. he and other house democrats urged house republicans today to take action on the currency manipulation passed earlier this week. the imposed sanctions on china for engaging on currency manipulation.

by a ranking member of the ways and means committee. we're very pleased to have them here. we are here to talk about the chinese currency legislation which is pending -- pending and passed the house in the last congress overwhelmingly with the 99 republican votes and a very large bipartisan support on tuesday. the senate sent us a bill that would help american workers and businesses facing unfair competition as a result of other countries manipulating their currencies. it passed with strong bipartisan support in the senate. house republican leadership has refused to bring it up for a vote even though it passed the house last year by a wide bipartisan margin, as i said, with 99 of those votes being

republican. right now, millions of americans are out of work. it is in no small part because other countries are artificially week against the dollar. the manipulation of currency seeks to make goods available broad sold cheap and goods trying to be sold into a country more expensive. this is a result of unfair tactics and it leads to the outsourcing of american jobs and more expense of american products in foreign markets. currency manipulation costs us more than 1 million jobs. i want to emphasize that. it is estimated currency manipulation costs our economy over 1 million jobs. taking steps to address that problem, which this legislation would do, is a key component of

the make it in america agenda. it is about creating the right conditions for businesses to innovate here, make their products here, and create jobs here. that is why addressing currency manipulation as a critical part of our plan. american businesses can compete against anyone anywhere anytime if they are competing in a fair playing environment. that is what this bill aims to do and will do if we can pass it. as we said, the senate has passed this with a comfortable margin with 16 republican senators. next week we will be entering into a district work period. i expect they will hear a clamoring for action on jobs and to put business on a level playing field with global competitors.

one of our concerns as democrats that we have articulated over and over again has been that we have not brought jobs legislation to the floor. again today, we are addressing on the floor of the house of representatives a bill to simply undermine the protection of clean air and clean water. mr. bruce bartlett indicated in a column just the other day. he is an economic advisor from the reagan administration and first the bush administration. he said it would have been minuscule effect on jobs. this legislation we believe would have an effect on over 1 million jobs. i urge republican leadership to put the currency. on the floor of when we return to session and to start working with democrats to create jobs and move our economy forward.

i am very pleased to be joined off by one of the real leaders in this effort, the sponsor of the bill along with tim ryan and betty's son -- betty sutton. he has been leading the effort on a discharge petition so we can get this to the floor. i am pleased to yield to my friend and our leader on the ways and means committee, senator levin. >> this is all the more reason to screen the currency build from the curtain and sometimes iron curtain that has been put up by the house leadership. they do not want this bill on the corp. for one reason, because it would pass. the argument is that currency is

not the only issue. the problem with this argument is that house republicans have not acted on any other issue relating to our trade imbalance with china. that should not be an excuse if it is the only issue. let's have a vote. the constitution says the house has primary jurisdiction over trade and currency is a major ingredient of our trade imbalance. if we should act. it should be freed by the house republican leadership. next, i think will be tim eliam from ohio. >> thank you. when we started this, i think seven or eight years ago, dealing with the chinese currency, it was duncan hunter and dii. then the chairman, the

negotiations, took this bill to the next level. this has always been a bipartisan bill. this was one issue we could all agree on. a level playing field around the world making sure that we were not losing manufacturing jobs in ohio, all throughout the industrial midwest, because china was manipulating currency. you cannot look at what has happened in ohio in the last 10 years since 2001 when we have lost jobs. the have directly been related to unfair trade with china. this is affecting our communities back, and we need to address it here in washington, d.c. having this signals to the world that not only do we enforce global rules that in the united states we want to reclaim manufacturing. let's make it jobs that pay

more, have better benefits, jobs that spinoff intellectual property and patents that meant -- than many other industries. it is critical this bill comes to report front. i will say as i said, on these trade agreements and other things are a sideshow compared to what devastation has been brought upon the united states because of the chinese currency bill. go down the ohio river. go down to youngstown, akron, toledo, anywhere in the industrial midwest. go to detroit. go to indiana, wisconsin come at any of these states. you will see devastating effects because of the trade with china and guenther trade practices. this bill addresses it had gone and i want to encourage the speaker of the house from ohio to pass this bill.

this will not be dead on arrival when it gets to the house. >> my partner in summit county, betty. >> thank you for your leadership. every week i go back home to ohio and then meet with countless men and women who just want to get back to work. they are ready to prove something that we already know, the american worker is the most productive and most innovative in the world. there is something that stands in their way. the good news is that it is something that we can fix. right now there are thousands of americans who could be put to work, and millions if the estimate is right, who would be put to work if we held china accountable for manipulating their currencies. by cheating the system and giving their manufacturers and unfair advantage, china has placed a road block in our economic recovery. thankfully, our friends in the

senate have acted on this and passed a bill to hold china accountable to give us a level playing field on which to compete. if house republican leaders are serious about creating jobs, then they will bring the bill to the floor. a house republican leaders are serious about helping our economy recover, and they will bring this bill to the floor. this is not a difficult call. what will it take? how many people have to be out of work in this country until the republican majority will focus on jobs and getting people back to work? last congress, the democratic leadership put this measure on the floor and it passed on a very strong bipartisan vote of 348-79. 348-79. the question comes down to this. speaker john boehner, are you

going to stand up for fairness and thousands of ohioan is to give them the opportunity to get back to work by letting us vote on this bill? or are you going to continue to stand idly by and allow china to continue to cheat and help add to the unemployment dirge that a high winds are facing? it is up to you, mr. speaker. and this point, i would like to introduce a wonderful leader on this bill. >> thank you, betty. i think most people have said everything that needs to be said. one thing that i can do as the last speaker is just to say that we will not rest. this bill, this issue is too important to the american people for us not to talk about this day in and day out.

but my colleagues, i urge the speaker of the house to bring this to the floor. we will not let this die. we will continue to fight for the american people. i just want to read you a quick quote that came from the lips of speaker brainer. as the chamber closes to the people, the house works best when it is allowed to work. what that means is that the reason that this country is so strong is because we do not rule from the top down. we did not tell the american people what is good for them. we allow them to tell us what is good and we follow their lead. i urge the speaker to let the house markets will. if this bill passes, as it did last year with 99 republicans, they have 62 republican co- sponsors. if this passes the house, so be it, because it is good for america, good for the american people. our manufacturers are hurting.

let's step up to the plate and in this country as we have been elected to do and help the american people by targeting a manipulator of currency that is harming this nation. since china has entered the world trade organization, america has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. $29 billion trade deficit in one month against china. obviously, the playing field liens their way, but we are also talking about deficit reduction. passing this bill and allowing these issue to be brought to the forefront could lower our deficit by $70 billion per year and, just over a decade that is $1 trillion. this is something that is needed that we need to do. we need to lead for the american people which is why we are here. speaker john boehner, let the house work.

>> i want to make two points and then i will yield for questions. we talked about the chinese currency because they are the largest trading partner with which we deal and our largest deficit. there is no doubt that they have manipulated their currency. i want to make it clear that this bill is not china-specific. it mentions any of our trading partners come if they manipulate currency to enhance an unfair trading advantage to be impacted by this piece of legislation. this is not solely directed at china although we think they are the biggest violator and therefore the greatest consequence to our american workers. secondly, we have made sure that this bill was compliance with

our international trading goals. what it says is every trading partner ought to play by the rules. if you play by the rules, all workers will compete and we will make things in america and sell them to you. if you have goods and you are on a level playing field, the new cans sell here. we will play both sides by the rulings. surely the majority of republicans who voted on this bill to pass it through the house of representatives will pass it through congress. surely they still believe that every one of our partners ought to play by the rules. that is therefore our american workers, businesses, and for the american tax payers. let me yield to questions and i

have some real experts here behind me. i will yield to them if i cannot answer or you want a specific answer from them. >> how will this create a large number of jobs in a short period of time when the statutory regime that is setup requires companies to go in and prove a specific product in a market have been manipulated and victimized by the chinese currency? these investigations can take up to six months and even up to one year. >> i will yield to sandy levin for that because he would be the expert on this issue. i will just say in the short term that if you are talking about passing anything tomorrow that will make a difference, perhaps that is not the case, although psychologically it will make a difference tomorrow in

terms of people deciding that we should play by the rules are there will be adverse consequences. i will yield to sandy levin, the ranking member of the ways and means committee to try to specifically address your question. >> if you are right. this case is to take a while. but the reason that the chinese are attacking the senate and house bill is because they realize that if these bills are passed and they become law, it will immensely increased the pressure on china to act now. the history of this is that when there has been pressure, china has acted. that is the history. this will have an immediate effect because it will increase the pressure not only from the united states.

we have been talking to other countries, and i just want to emphasize that the chinese officials just today said that china was worried about protectionism. when expert has labeled the chinese currency the most protectionist action in decades. the way to end that is for us in the house to send this through the congress and it will be noticed. it will have more impact than any particular case that is being brought forward because of the realization that it could be brought. >> i realize you probably do not watched the presidential debates. >> we do. when the ball game is not on. >> mr. romney said he would

cite china for currency violations. do you think that statement may have an impact on the leadership or some of the republicans that would like to sign the discharge petition? >> i think should talk to mr. boehner and suggest a move that. >> hopefully they will. >> clinton told the economic club of new york that would be appropriate, fitting, and timely to challenge them on their foreign exchange policy. as the white house given an indication that this bill is the appropriate way to do that? >> i do not think we have discussed with the white house whether it is the appropriate way to do this or not. i would welcome the secretary of state on that. i think everybody here would agree. however, we believe this is the appropriate action for us to take. we took it in the last congress

and passed it overwhelmingly. it has now passed the senate and we have more than a majority of sponsors in the house. tim ryan, betty, mark cook, sandy levin, they have all been working very hard on this and we clearly think it is the ability of the house to work its will favorably on this as mark has pointed out than they ought to do some, but we certainly agree with the secretary's statement. >> we had a case before the itc on oil country tubular goods and they stepped up with a tariff on those products coming in from china, anti-dumping, and since then we have had $2 billion in investments in the united states for those types of manufacturing facilities. that is due in large measure to the tariffs that were put on. the administration has acted in

that regard also on tires so they're starting to recognize the benefits of job creation and benefits coming in, so i'm hopeful they will move on this as well. >> that is such a good question. the answer is that the house should do its work. the house should do its work on trade. we have the primary constitutional responsibility and it is a matter of pride that the speaker should let the house work as well. it is a matter of our function. why are people here? why block action by the house and what is our responsibility? the speaker's position in that sense, if he maintains it, is irresponsible. irresponsible. >> i just wanted to say that to

put a face on the story tim just talked about in terms of oil country tubular goods come after the case was worked and it did take a long time to go through the itc did get this decision to put the counter-veiling duty on them, but the good news is the news that tim brought, that we are getting more work because of that decision. the bad news is that china turned around and then started dumping in subsidizing another hike they make at a plant in my district and we had to start the cycle over again. that is why the urgency is upon us and we cannot wait. the system is broken and this will help us in great measure to get us started in fixing it. >> last question. >> i just wanted to shift topics. today's the day committee

recommendations are due. one of your colleagues introduced a bill to do away with the super-committees and the 12 members are meeting in secret. how much concern is there among democrats that this smaller group of members will be able to come up with something in just a few weeks on such a big issue? >> there is a concern about success of the super committee. the have been given a very large job to do. as you have heard our leaders say yesterday, we hope that they will produce a package that is big, bold, and balanced. i have shared that view. i do not know who introduced that bill. why would not support that bill. i think this committee's work is extraordinarily important and i wish them a great success. i share the leaders view and in view of many that they need to follow the example of time number of the commissions that

have met and made reports. we have a fiscal problem in the consensus and we can solve the problem for have the courage and will to do so. we can do so in a way that protect the mothball marble in our country and demands that everyone pays their fair share towards bringing down our deficit and debt while continuing to invest in growing our economy so we can make it an american to out bill coming out to innovate, and out educate our competitors. i, for one, believe the work of this committee is very important and that they can accomplish their objectives within the timeframe and i hope that they will. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the senate on tuesday approved tariffs on goods from china and other countries that essentially undervalue their currency. next come a discussion on the legislation and potential action in the house. this is 40 minutes. >>

guest: what is interesting about this bill is that it does that name china in the legislation. it talks about any nation whose currency is misaligned and that would be by the treasury and a misaligned currency would be subject to tariffs. it is a lower bar than currently. the have to prove that a nation like china, that they have to conduct a willful manipulation of their currency. it is a lower standard and a stricter punishment. host: in all fairness to china, are there any other countries that manipulate their currency the way that this bill wants to go after?

guest: there are some other countries where you could make the case to have a manipulated their currency. -- make the case they have manipulated their currency. because of the size of their economy and the importance of exports from china and how they compete with the united states, they are the obvious and clear target. the trick is getting this to the floor. republicans have said that they do not want to do this. speaker john boehner has said he does not want to introduce this legislation. erick kanter says he fears a trade war. -- eric cantor fears trade war. host: what does he see on the

horizon as the passage of this bill? guest: it would levy tariffs undoubtedly on china which would mean that china would levy tariffs on our goods. you have the making of a classic trade war. tariffs on one side escalating on the other and this is what they fear. you could argue that this is a kind of paper tiger. china is the export-driven economy here. a trade war could potentially hurt them a lot worse than at them hurting us. host: speaking of us, in the long term, how would this affect people on main street? guest: there are a number of manufacturers pushing for this like steel producers because they feel like their goods are unfairly valued in the marketplace. nobody is arguing, by the way, whether china does or does not manipulate their currency.

it is expected that they do. they are gradually letting it rise 6%-7% per year, but they do keep a artificially low. the estimates range from 25%-40% that they are the value. that means our goods are by that percentage much more expensive in the marketplace, not only in china but around the world where they compete with us. host: we are talking with elizabeth williamson of the "the wall street journal" about the senate bill passed earlier this week and is now on its way to the house. if you want to get involved in the conversation, give us a call.

before we get to phone calls, we want to listen to what speaker john boehner had to say at the washington idea up from warning of a trade war. >> there has been a concern from my part and a lot of corners here in america about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there has been every effort you can imagine from our treasury department over the last seven or eight years. for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is arguably very difficult to do, i think, is wrong and dangerous.

you could start a trade war. a trade war, given the economic uncertainty here and around the world is very dangerous and we should not be engaged in this. >> your thoughts? guest: he weighs out the classic argument, and their goods are less competitive, and the administration and republicans are actually aligned in this in that they favored diplomacy and favor quiet persuasion. beijing says this is working, despite the fact that they have internal pressures, not to let their currencies rise. it goes up about 0.5% a month. it is a question of what would be the inflation rate that people would like, and what is

>e way to achieve that host host: our first call from baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. i had more of a comment and a question. china is a communist country. they do not appreciate democracy. i still do not understand how we have friendly relations with china, in it that they manipulate their currency. it is a recipe for failure. i am trying to think of that term. i was just wondering if the journalist would say something.

guest: it is important to look at the broad picture. you have a bigger deal political picture, and this is what the administration points out, that the chinese are an important ally in the region, we have worked on things with them like number 3, and we have tried to cement relations with korea with a free-trade agreement concluded yesterday. it is important to see the broader geopolitical things and not just in terms of exports and trade. host: next out, niagara falls. caller: god bless you for c- span. we are in a trade war and it seems we are losing. we have been losing -- it has not gotten better in the last seven or eight years read what

do we do in the future of the congress that will make it any better? they have the advantage and they will keep it. host: the chinese have the advantage? caller: the devaluation ofthei their currency -- their goods are cheaper here. they have the advantage and they will not give up. i would not give it up if i had that kind of advantage. host: elizabeth williamson, we can go back to the house and senate and the white house, but what is truly the incentive for the chinese to raise the value of their currency? guest: it is important to remember that the chinese not only sell goods, but they buy from us. australia comes to mind.

australia has a trade surplus with china because they are selling them so many raw materials. china has an enormous appetite for raw tematerials. it is a complicated relationship. t who we have this tweee writes, is china undervaluing its currency in order to avoid paying fees guest: they are doing it to sell more. our trade surplus with china 20 years ago was $10 billion. we are a nation of consumers. we are one of the wealthiest markets, and we consume a lot of these goods. they aren't cheap, but if they were not as cheap as they are, we would still consume them.

host: james on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i'm calling because a lot of people fail to realize that the nature of china, 1.4 billion people, you have to feed those people, educate all those people. everything from family planning to military intervention and maybe even stealing secrets from other nations -- they're taking inventions in some other part of the word and, and turn it into something cheaper and better. they are undervaluing their currency -- it is another effort to avoid a long-term vision they have because they themselves realized they are on the road to implode. i do not see -- and then having

an advantage of less -- over us. [unintelligible] this trade war everybody talks -- to survive. recently they were complaining that -- thing that was going up in price, a major staple of the chinese, and they cannot even feed themselves. guest: once again the caller points out the fact that this is a whole basket of issues that the united states has with china. china has its own pressures. 1.4 billion people, you need it and poor -- to provide a constant employment, the state is under pressure to deliver its own forms of innovation, to keep

innovating, to make its goods competitive. we have a lot of issues with china. i.t. comes to mind, intellectual property issues. our government considers it progress that of the software used by the chinese government, 92% of it is pirated from u.s. companies. that is down from 100%. that is seen as progress. currency is that of the iceberg when it comes to issues we have in the trade with china. host: another tweet who write china is doing the same thing every country with a central bank does, devaluing its currency, controlling its market. is that true? guest: china has more means of doing this as a command economy. they are able to pull all the levers in a way that a free market economy does not. host: on the line for democrats

from texas. caller: ok. good morning. host: robert, are you there? caller: yes. host: you have a question or comment? caller: i would like to speak to the young lady. host: go right ahead, she is listening. caller: i do not think americans have to be afraid -- can you hear me? host: we are going to move on to florida. robert seems to be having problems. caller: hello, and good morning. i just got back from china, and what i saw all is absolutely mind-boggling. the building and construction

that is going on in that country, all paid for by our deficits, the buildup of their 3.5 million individuals under the armed forces, compared to our 1.5 million, the development of their aircraft carrier, which is an absolute -- it is beautiful. it is a catamaran, their anti- aircraft carrier submarine, and the formosa problem, it is absolutely scary. i am a retired marine pilot, and i do not want to go over there and have to shoot down their aircraft or sink their new carrier. host: were you there on business? caller: as a tourist, and what i saw -- it was mind-boggling. review look, there's

construction of major, major construction. one person told me -- i did not know how he got the information -- he said that half the construction trains in the world are in shanghai. host: elizabeth williamson, your response? guest: construction market is huge. we talked about the need for raw materials and the fact we sell a tremendous amount of raw materials to china, as did many of our allies. on the fact that china is the arbiter, that really touches on what is the sensitivity here. the administration knows and the chinese government makes this point when they see that government, that if we go over there and start preaching to them about their currency, it will not fly with her own public any more than if they were to come to us and say we are your bankers. you have got to fix this and this and this at your account,

and you need to adjust the way you sell your products . you can imagine that cry in the united states if they would come here and do that. there is this dance that goes on to try to get with the united states wants and needs from them, and vice versa. host: earlier this week to harry reid was talking about unfair currency manipulation by china and its impact on jobs in the united states. this is what he had to say. >> it is clear that china undervalues its currency to give unwarrantedorts an advantages. this cost americans jobs by unjustly tilting the playing field against american manufacturers. the trade deficit has blown up to $27 billion today. to many of the lost jobs came

from the manufacturing sector. american businesses cannot need special advantages to compete. they just need an even playing field. host: does this legislation even out the playing field? guest: hard to say because the jobs argument is a tricky one. i thought harry reid was doing well when he talked about lots of jobs being lost, undoubtedly. lots of jobs are being lost in the manufacturing sector the to the the valuing of the currency. but to put a number on that is really hard because there are so many factors that have contributed to the decline of the manufacturing sector. host: an article in this morning's "the wall street journal," they write the u.s. trade deficit with china hit a record in august, which is likely to be seized upon by those in congress who want to punish the asian nation before its credit policy. the u.s. deficit in

international trade of goods rose to 28.9 $6 billion, up from 26.9 $6 billion, even as the over all trade gap budged. break down those numbers for us. is the gatt getting smaller or larger or how is this working? guest: what you are seeing as we begin the slow economic recovery in this country and consumer spending increases, we will again see that gap did. what the currency the violation does is make goods cheaper. as americans start to spend more and feel more optimistic about the future and we know this is a slow process, they will buy more from china, and so consequently that the set and

the surplus will grow. host: if the chinese inflate or adjust the value of their currency and it starts to go off, it will benefit us here in the united states. what does it do for countries, their neighboring countries, in the opposite rim, and is there something the president can say to the south korean president when he goes back to south korea that may help the overall situation? guest: concluding the trade agreement with south korea was an apparent stab. one dimension will be knocking down tariffs in both countries and easing the flow of goods, making our goods much cheaper come up to 45% more cheaper and south korea and making their goods cheaper here. winners and losers there. there is a geopolitical element there, in that south korea could be a counterweight to china in that region, not only

economically, but geopolitically. host: david, you are on the line. caller: could you tell us with the top three sectors of our economy parks that are impacted -- that are exporting to china, and had they increase the their lobbying efforts against the legislation as measured by the amount of money they had been spending, or is that information not available? guest: i will go off the top of my head here, but i would say manufactured goods, steel, and then electronics would be the industries that are most but by this devaluation. the steel industry supports this kind of legislation. they feel china is hurting them by undervaluing the currency, and in raw materials, because he did not have value added. you see it in a stark white. on some of the other industries,

they have other fish to fry. the electronics industry is concerned about intellectual property. they feel if we engage in a trade war with china, when he might ultimately get is nothing on the i.t. front, and you will just fighting on tariffs and currency and not adjusting the very important issue of intellectual property theft. host: our president and the south korean president are going to michigan today. does the automotive industry benefit from raising the value of chinese currency? guest: somewhat, but the thrust is obviously that korea free trade agreement. korean cars are popular in the united states. what they negotiated in the agreement work more favorable provisions for u.s. auto makers over there. whether that results in a surge

of popularity remains to be seen. host: any mail from new jersey this morning was sent, and rights, if i were to travel to china today, would i find as many made in u.s.a. labels there as we have made in china products here? in your opinion, do you think the new trade agreements will help substantially lower the unemployment numbers prove ?es guest: the first question, no. that is a direct result of the currency manipulation. on the other, trade agreement and to move jobs around. it is hard to quantify the impact of these moves in terms of raw numbers of jobs.

host: back to the phones, akron, ohio, on the line for democrats. caller: what i was calling about is wages are around the world. china and india, the middle class is -- are able to buy a car. fiat montauk -- viet nam -- how are they going to mix enough money -- make enough money to buy a car? we just had a trade deal with colombia, panama, and south korea. marijuana, drugs -- terrorist organizations. i want to say people are stupid,

but they do not care, but it is all about money. how in the world are those people going to buy our products? they do not make any money? guest: wages are also -- cheap labor in china is another reason their goods are cheaper here. currency -- tackling currency issues is not a panacea for cheaper goods coming in from china. host: earlier this week, " washington times," boehner announces dangerous legislation. it says the bill presents a thorny problem for president obama. many his base want to take steps to punish china for its economic policies. presidents try to keep as free a hand as possible in the conduct of foreign relations and having a possible -- policy dictated

from capitol hill could be problematic. what is in the bill right now that the white house would want to see changed? guest: they are not specific about this, and this has happened in the senate. it was interesting when they were considering this in the senate republicans were saying let's add amendments, why don't we go ahead and do this every man at administrator harry reid said it no. what mcconnell is proposing, he said let's vote against it. with an election year coming up, nobody wants to vote against a legislation like this. the idea is if it does not get there, they do not have to vote against it. host: back to the funds.

the next call comes from palestine, texas, ann. >> yes, i would like to have a few things to say. host: go-ahead. caller: i would like to say a few things. first of all, the president -- he is a great person, do not get me wrong. there are so many jobs that he has tried to create for people, and he is forgetting about a small-town spirit we have places here -- a large towns have plenty. just think about the small towns, and some of the people running for president, one of them cannot even run texas. what makes you all think he can

run the world? i am not being rude. as far as children are concerned, please think about them. they are trying to graduate and they only have two years to graduate. why cannot the spanish people -- what can them get two years of english to graduate? host: for the small business people, what effect might this have on them if this bill were to pass? make goods more competitive. small manufacturers are making component parts, and business is booming for them, because the assembly is what is done in china. component parts are still made here.

those individuals say they cannot find enough skilled workers. it is a need to, but they would be more insulated, i think. host: an op-ed in this morning's "the washington post" was written by mitt romney. how much of this is going to be discussed during the upcoming campaign, or is this something that is being dealt with right now? guest: if you look at the 2010 congressional election, bashing china was an enormously popular thing to do. china, india, outsourcing, moving jobs overseas -- the other thing that you have got on the jobs front is the fact that companies -- american companies to move operations to china, not the only because they're closer to serve that market, but because they have cheaper labor there. that is another part of this puzzle. this will be enormous in 2012.

bashing china is very popular, which is one of the reasons why none of the folks running for re-election was running for the election is in wanting to go on the record for having voted against this measure. host: back on the funds. caller: how're you doing today? i have a business. energy saving business. the biggest problem we have with that is 99% of your lights are made overseas. the quality is not as great and the lights that are made here -- what happens is they check up the price so high that people cannot afford to buy them.

there is absolutely no reason to check them out. what they are doing -- i know people are telling the this -- because of tax rebates and everything else they get credits. people say when they sell it to you we will sell it to you for $30 for it when you get the credits from tax rebates and government credit, then you get your money back. that is wrong because with that is ripping off people. we believe in a low profit and high volume. i was the victim of the 1970's with foreign competition. i hate buying overseas. most of your led's are made overseas, and i think that is ludicrous. we have an energy commission in the united states. we had contacted the governor of florida two years ago, never got

a response. guest: i think there are two things -- jack underscore support we made earlier that assembly is what is done in china on the manufacturing side. it is not necessarily manufacturing of component parts. the labor costs increased, and there are many in the business community that would argue u.s. regulations governing things like leading are what jack up the proice. host: back on the phone. caller: i can hear you fine. i do not know what the problem is with the other people. expending on the last caller, we have the most powerful weapon that we could use, which is our free market. we are such a huge market that the united states consumer,

people in the united states, can force these companies the come back. not so much union label, like america, but take for example the tv market. we are a 11% of the population, but we buy 24% of the tv's. if some organization to get the people behind them and say we are not to buy a tv until we get those that are made in america. manufacturers will think if i am the first one to get a factory opened it in america and i will go to the bank. that is one example. whoever moves it over, sunday, will say i cannot let others come back. i will come back. this is going to continue.

the businessmen make more money. china makes more money. the only people getting killed is us. guest: makes an important point. the reason these goods are selling so well here is people are buying them. they are cheaper. many would argue that quality is not as good. that depends on the sector and the type of item and the supplier over there. there is some manufacturing interestingly moving back here because just the distribution -- if you have an american product that you are disturbing in the united states, to get it back from china adds to your cost. there is manufacturing moving back, but many would argue the key item is innovation. what might happen is we make some other type of textile goods, maybe from an innovative fiber. there are manufacturers working

on that date the answer is to make a difference now strap and a better one. host: we have another tweet. guest: the idea -- this is a good question. the incentive is the buy american products. and to make the cost differential not so much. it is a balancing. host: port orchard, washington, line for republicans. caller: i would like to say i agree with most everything the guest is mentioning except the last point he just said about things are not coming back. i think there is a propaganda. i am not accusing you of same propaganda, but i think silicon valley, when we hear phrases like jobs are not coming back or we do not want to start a trade war, i agree with many callers on this issue.

we had been in a trade war for a long time, and i'm sick of politicians or anybody standing up to the microphone saying that if we cut back on this ratio of and stop the trade deficit, that will cost american jobs. it is just the upper echelon of wall street, goldman sachs is the serial job exporter. they are at the top of the food chain. i do not understand what the federal reserve needs to buy all the bonds through goldman sachs. i just want to say this to make a point how corrupt our government is. guest: the reason these measures come down the pipe in advance of an election year is politicians are aware of how angry people are with the loss of jobs, and people are looking for a reason, and some would argue for a scapegoat. host: where in the process are

we with the house version of this bill? guest: it is crafted. there is support from fully of the house. chances are the leadership is pretty certain that this is not on to come to the floor. host: butler, pennsylvania. caller: this has to do with nafta. host: turn down your television. caller: president bush implemented plans to the blind can that -- to combine candida, the united states, and mexico.

he called it a prosperity back in 2005, and would was claimed did this because nafta was not taking off. all the corporations went to mexico and they realized when china was more feasible because of the hourly rates, ssp, working through groups in the department of commerce, decided we are going to be turned into a north american union tomorrow after the european unit where we will be borderless. we will need roads going through from -- host: do you have a question? caller: shine out wants to go down into mexico, and instead of us having our ships could along beach and los angeles, they would go through mexico. host: with the current situation

with the chinese currency valued the way it is, is it easier for them to do business with smaller countries like mexico? are they even concerned with that? is it mostly manipulating things? guest: because we are all so glibly collected, there will be a knock off the fact on anything we do with china or they do with us. this is something that opponents of this legislation point out. we do not know about unintended consequences. if this legislation were ever to enter force, what would happen is china would first off lot complete with the wto, that case would drag on for years, because that is what happens. one thing this at ministers and has done is clear that backlog of cases. that is why we have seen action against china for importing

unfairly cheap tires, or their efforts to protect their energy business at the expense of american companies over there. the obama administration is trying to tackle these issues and trying to crack down on china on trade issues in ways other than the currency. when they argue against this bill, that would point that out. host: elizabeth williamson, thank you very much for being on our program. >> 20 years after anita hill's testimony, a forum looks back. what the needed help case means the day and the effect on the future. we also hear from her in a keynote address at 2:45 eastern. tomorrow, all they, like here on c-span. >> i am delighted but not surprised by the final repeal

of the 18th amendment. when this matter was properly submitted to the rank and file, they would readily see it has no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times, and in 1928 al smith became the first catholic nominated by a major party to run for president. although he lost the election, he's is still remembered today by the alfred e. smith memorial dinner. al smith is one of the 14 men new weeklyn c-span's series. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> find the latest releases for your fall reading list this weekend. jacqueline kennedy's

conversations on the life of john f. kennedy. september, 1957, hazel blryan and elizabeth eckford. find the boat tv scheduled this weekend online. every weekend on american history tv, people and events that document american history. tenures ago, dna -- 10 years ago, dna history alleged that hemmings had a child by

thomas jefferson. look for the complete we can schedule c-span.org/history. >> a look ahead at home heating costs for the upcoming winter. energy factors and the growth of s.newable host: what is the energy information and what does it do, and where did you get your data from? caller: the administration is a

statistical arm of the u.s. department of energy. we provide impartial energy information to promote sound policy making. unlike most agencies that only collect the debt and provide it, we have a large program of energy analysis and forecasting, and winter fuels out what is part of that. we get our data by collecting information from energy suppliers, a wide range. we collect data from oil, natural gas, coal producers, electricity generators, renewable energy. the most critical data is collected every week on oil and natural gas stocks. we collected at monthly and

annually. we collect data from energy consumers, from homes, commercial buildings, and manufacturing establishments on how they use energy. we provide complete picture. host: joining us is carol warner. tell us about the institute. guest: our organization is a nonprofit organization that was armed in the mid 1980's by bipartisan group of members of congress who were concerned by energy and environmental issues and wanted to have an organization that could provide more information to policy makers. we do a lot of work with providing information through congressional briefings, looking at different kinds of policies, trying to build consensus around different kinds of policy solutions. host: what is the forecast for

this coming winter regarding the consumption of energy in order to keep our homes and businesses warm? guest: compared to last year, we expect higher average fuel bill s. projected average x messages for heating oil users are at their highest level ever. 10% higher heating oil prices. the increases are moderated by a slightly warmer weather forecast for the northeast, midwest, and south, although we expect it to be colder in the west. we did not generate that weather forecast. we get it from other government agencies. host: a graphic shows winter

weather is forecast to be warmer than last year, except in the west. it is 1.5% warmer in the midwest, 5% warmer in the south, warmer in the northeast, but 3% colder in the west. carol werner, what is it that consumers and homeowners are going to be based -- faced with in order to keep their homes warmer and also to keep the environment clean and safe? guest: there are concerns that many people have with regard to this forecast. the good news is on average in most parts of the country things will be warmer. in areas like the northeast, what we are concerned about in terms of thinking about consumers is the fact that heating oil prices are going up

so much, and with the economy also continuing to be a bit in the doldrums, this does create enormous problems for so many americans who are facing very high heating oil prices, which have steadily climbed the last few years. and that they do not have much of a choice in terms of fuel changing. it is important find ways in which people can reduce their energy come s nsumption. host: this map shows a significant amount of homes are being heated by natural gas, with the exception of the south. guest: the reason is in the northeast, there is a much larger concentration of heating oil users, so the people who use

heating oil, most of them are located in the northeast region of the country. it is a very concentrated pockets. i think it is about 80% of the heating oil users are located in the northeast. that really creates a huge heart chip for a lot of people as we look at prices -- are shipped as will look at the prices. they have gone up up to 30%. when you look at high unemployment rates and people whose incomes have not been able to keep peace -- peace with that, you're looking at extreme problems. there is a a lot of concern by folks in the northeast and by the congressional delegations about the adequacy of low- forome energy assistance an

low income households. host: talking about the winter energy outlook. we would like you to get involved with our conversation. if you want to give us a call, the numbers -- you can also get in touch with us e-mail, twitter and bass boat. -- facebook.

where does the information go and who does it help? guest: it goes to policy makers. we do not set policy. we stay away from policy. markets look at it closely, so when we release national -- natural gas storage inventories every week, you will see markets at just -- adjust. a lot of the information is aimed at the public. we have a website where our information is out there. we try to provide information that is important to the energy wonks, but also to the public at large to help understand some of the key issues. host: talk about the incentives, tax incentives, for homeowners, business owners, while keeping their houses and this is a green, to also be

environmentally conscious. guest: are a variety of opportunities, tax credits that are available for homeowners and for businesses with regard to energy efficiency improvements. many of us are very concerned about what is happening on that front because the tax credits are expiring. there are also tax credits to put in grenoble energy. this have a longer time. in terms of how long people are eligible, people putting in solar, for example. those tax credits go through 2016. the efficiency and tax credits have a shorter life and there is a question whether this congress will extend for people to have them available next year. in some states there are tax incentives, but you have to think about if there are low- income households, many times

they do not have the income to be able to use tax credits. the more efficient would become, the work we protect our environment, and also improve the comfort of our buildings and our houses. all these things do go together. host: the first call comes from castle rock, washington. caller: good morning. we have just gotten news where they raise the rates by 9% in january, and we got news they are raising it by another 18%. that is 27% that the p.u.d has raised our rates in one year. i remember when obama was running for office, he said under his administration, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket, and we have all these -- and so much of energy comes from coal around the

country, when regulations can we get rid of to get our energy prices back in line, because they are sky rocketing who what can we get rid of, and what new regulations are coming down the line, and what more can we expect, and how high you think prices will go? guest: those are enormous price increases. however, i would caution you that it is important to look at what is really driving those price increases, and i would suggest it is not regulation that is driving those price increases, that there are a number of other drivers looking at the kind of -- what kind of energy is actually being used to produce your electricity, because if you were referring to the p.u.d., and you are talking

about your electricity supply. in washington state, a lot of the electricity comes from hydro, prices have been coming up, but with regard to coal and with regard -- as we look at all fossil energy prices, they're all coming up in price, which creates a lot more volatility, which is one of the reasons why so many people and organizations like ours field it is so important to invest in energy efficiency, to help people reduce consumption, reduce emissions, it is healthier all the way around, and it can be really good economic sense. of course the more we can do to bring greater supply of rubles into our port for low, the better off we are, and there is a lot of work going on on this across the country. guest: i would say throughout

the country as a whole, electricity prices are increases at a fairly moderate rate. d.c. electricity prices are only about 1% over last winter. one of the things it to getting to that is the situation in the natural-gas market. natural gas prices are quite moderate this year, and that is having a favorable effect in many parts of the country, but not everywhere, on electricity prices, because there are many parts of the country where natural gas is the source of electricity that affects the price. it provides 25% of our total electricity generation in this country. host: another graph we got, from the usdia, it shows the prices compared to last winter in blue, natural gas up.

every one has gone up. then when you compare the prices on a five-year winter average, the price of natural gas has actually gone down. electricity and heating oil, way out, and propane, up. why has natural gas gone down as opposed to the others? guest: we have seen a tremendous increase in production of natural gas in the united states, particularly from what is called shale gas resources. that boom in production has helped moderate prices. natural gas prices, and like will prices, reflect -- will prices reflect what is going on in the world, balance of supply and the man, but natural reflect supplies in the united states. prices today are much lower than in europe or asia, and much

lower than prices were a few years ago. again because of the tremendous increase in supply. host: falls church, virginia. caller: though, thank you for taking my call. i want to ask the callers, alternative the energy and efforts to increase energy supply investing in alternatives, you rarely hear the immediate impact on localities that might be affected, like the people in nebraska who are concerned, but you rarely hear about the secondary effects, like the expenses of the people in the northeast, the hardships. is there a way to -- those things, like the way we defend the lanes in the middle east to the people have a broader understanding? host: how do you heat your home

and have you seen your prices go up or down? caller: they have gone up moderately in virginia, but i have a lot of family members in the northeast, and i understand what the guests were talking about with respect to heating will be a major source of feel there and the expenditures there are considerably higher in the last few years. guest: well, the country uses about 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, rough numbers. if the price falls by a dollar, that is on to save the country $24 trillion. there is an unbaked between what happens in the price of natural gas and what consumers and up paying. in residential national --

natural gas prices, the price of the commodity is only one part of the price. there is the price of the transmission of the gas from the producing area to where you use it, and a big part of the price is the cost of running all of the solution pipes to your house. for fuel oil, the cost of the commodity, the cost of wholesale oil, is a much higher share of what the end user householder is going to pay, and it is the case that as this crisis change, as they go up and down, the dealer will be passing those through a lot more quickly than the nitro -- natural gas company, which is a regulated utility. it is a combination of more of the fuel oil costs and the cost of the wholesale oil itself, the fact that the will dealer -- you

will see a more immediate impact as the price changes on the price of the householder pays. there are a myriad of factors, but what is going on in oil prices reflects the balances of world supply and a man, and we have seen a lot of growth of the last few years in the van from developing countries, china, other asian countries, and that has had an effect. very recently, oil production in the u.s. has also been rising about again, it is the world balance of supply and demand that is driving prices, and that is pushing prices up. bradenton, florida. caller: first of all, there is a misguided opinion between oil and natural gas. you say we do not have to import oil from overseas.

the politicians and the environmentalists are holding us backs. why don't we open up like the one in alaska and look at the senate and congress building these highways and digging oil and natural gas there. it is the democrats who will not do that. why don't you open all the oil, andhere there is a will when you are looking at the water where the oil is, is where revenue is. host: address the concerns about why we do not drill where here in united states. guest: there is drilling going on in united states, and there are also permits that have been

issued for places for oil companies to drill. and as howard indicated, the numbers with regard to will that is produced in the 96 had been going up. i would just remind our caller, as we all think about these huge issues, it is really important thing about all a long-term ramifications as well. it is important for us to develop a really balanced portfolio in this country, and it is very important for us to become cleaner in terms of our energy use, because that has enormous impacts upon public health, the environment, and our environment is very important all of us and for our children and our future in terms of what

that means for our ability healthy crops lost our ability to produce healthy crops and clean water. those are terribly important questions that we must ask, and we should not forget that this country is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy or services that we should also really be looking at just as seriously as what people have been talking about oil and natural gas supplies. host: we have another chart here under the headline, where does our oil come from the chart on the right of the page shows sources of u.s. net petroleum imports. as of 2010, we have 24% of our petroleum imports from africa, 49% from the western

hemisphere, 18% from the persian gulf, and 9% from other sources. the next call comes from baker city, oregon. caller: ms. werner, my question is epa just got their hands spanked for the house of representatives who put down a bill on the mission control that is supposed to go into effect in 2013. it now goes to the senate. my question is, we have a town here, 9000, 10,000 people, and the line plant has put in $20 million to help the mission control that controls 98% of the missions that come out. they want to put more

restrictions on. we have 116 people who work down there, down to 9000. it will affect 2000 people. you people want to close it down so you can import things from china, cement and stuff from china guest: there has been a lot of

oversimplification of the bill that just passed the house of representatives. a couple of things i would encourage you to remember. the rules that have been proposed by the epa that are being delayed -- they have been in planning for a number of years. the industry has been aware of them and has been in consultation with the agency in regard to that. obviously, it is important to look at how it can improve our industry. it is important to make sure we maintain and grow manufacturing in this country. we feel strongly about that. we need our manufacturing industry to be as efficient as possible. that will enable them to improve their productivity and to be more competitive globally.

that is critical in terms of maintaining a healthy economy. i would think you would be concerned in terms of wanting to make sure that we do what makes sense in terms of protecting the public with regard to the missions and thinking about things like mercury, which are toxic and are connected with such plants. we all can do better. thank you. host: our next call comes from northfield, new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. he said it was not policy driving up energy costs. during the bush administration, it is $1.85 per gallon. it is now $3.45 a gallon. it is the administration.

the oil supply is being sold to venezuela. they are tapping into it and selling it to us versu american companies keeping it in america -- versus american companies keeping it in america. there is a new agenda. i am not against it. it is 20 years off. we have oil in the earth that has been put there from nature. guest: thank you for calling in and expressing our concerns. i would disagree with your premise because it is important for all of us to understand what is happening with regard to oil. the administration does not really have a significant role

with regard to the prices for oil. oil is a global commodity. its prices are dependent on what is happening with regard to that the global demands. we can talk a little bit more specifically with regard to the package we have been seeing with regard to oil prices and what has been happening. it is important to understand that this is really driven by what is happening internationally. it is a global commodity. that is what is at stake in terms of setting the prices. host: howard dean, go ahead. guest: we are projecting that oil prices will be down a

little. is in the neighborhood of 100,000 barrels per day. the u.s. produces about 5.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. and earlier caller mentioned the growth in places like north dakota. in august, north dakota oil production got up to 460,000 barrels a day. a few years ago, it was only 100,000 barrels a day. oil production is up. natural gas production is up. i would also point out that oil is not important as a fuel for electricity generation. it is so expensive and there are other ways to generate electricity. only 1% of our electricity is generated using oil. future electricity production uses coal, nuclear, and hydro. it is the fastest-growing source

of electricity generation. the renewables other than large scale hydro power are still only about 3% of our electricity. it is growing, but it is still quite small in the overall electricity supply picture. host: with regard to the winter energy outlook, the oil produced here in the united states, is it the kind that can be refined into heating oil? if that is the case, is most of his staying in the united states or is it being exported overseas? guest: the united states does not export any significant amount of crude oil. the oil produced here is refined here. because the world oil market is an integrated market, in some

cases we export some of the products we we find, particularly the heating oils and diesel fuel. the world market there has been strong. we have been exporting growing amounts of those kinds of the walls. host: our next call comes from twentynine palms, california. caller: i would like to make a comment a little closer to home and the price of utilities. i live in san diego. there is a san diego gas and electric company down there. their rates are high. they put forth this program where we could insulate our homes well and use less energy. that program went really well in

that area. san diego gas and electric went to the public utility commission asked for a raise in rates because their profit margin went down. how do you win in a situation like that? this is what i see on a bigger scale. they sound good, but they are $80,000, some of those cars. how can people afford to live like that? that is my comment. host: how word -- howard, how is he going to live like that? guest: there is no question that investments in insulation, energy efficiency, better windows, more efficient equipment can reduce consumption. that is one of the reasons we

focus on the percentage changes in fuel use, because of how much energy each house uses will depend on those actions. i think he is also right that some of the new technology is quite expensive. carol talked earlier about the many tax credits and government support. eia cannot take a position on whether those are good or bad. in our projections, without continuation of those types of support -- we do not assume they will continue. we take current laws and regulations. we do not see rapid penetration with things like the electric cars. host: our next call comes from tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

to both of your guests, i would like to say something. i am a 9 1/2 year that trend of the -- veteran of the coal mines. this administration is breaking the back of the miners. i run a boat machine. i went into these places. it is like taking a shower every time you go through. there is as much water running through the middle of this mountain as there is outside of it. this administration came into office. our miners could not go back in any other direction. we could not back up and go forward.

this administration has closed two coal mines down. it is one of the things that drives this country's electricity grid. host: carol werner, is now the time to be closing coal mines down, particularly in the winter? guest: thank you for calling in. the question that has been raised with regard to the coal mine situation is very local in nature. i would think that in terms of thinking about the question our caller has raised, there are issues around safety and it missions -- and emissions that have to be taken into account in

terms of the situations. i had not been aware that there were coal mines being shut down unless there were extreme safety violations. people should be concerned about those situations. i think coal mining and coal production has been increasing. i am happy to look into the situation that you described. host: the house goes into session in about 10 minutes. we have about 10 minutes left. howard, you wanted to weigh in. guest: i would point out that one of the things going on is being competition between coal and natural gas. with the increasing production of natural gas and the price of natural gas coming down, in some areas of the country, we are

finding more dispatching of natural gas power plants. the coal industry is a big industry. there are changes in how much coal is coming from the west versus how much is coming from the east. it's complicated. host: we have a chart from your organization that shows most of the natural gas consumed in the united states comes from domestic production with canada being the main supplier. one of the things that is interesting is that between 1917 and 1985, the production lines and the consumption lines seem to parallel each other. then around 1987, consumption starts to separate and moved at a faster pace than production through the year 2010. what is the explanation for

this? what does this mean for this winter and coming winters in terms of being able to heat our homes and businesses with natural gas? guest: i would focus on the end of that chart where you can see production from 2005 rising rapidly and closing the gap with consumption. even though consumption is also still going up. that reflects this increasing production from shale gas. none of our gas came from shale in 2005. this year, is running closer to 30%. there is a tremendous resource of natural gas that has been unlocked. there is some controversy surrounding it. we rely less on imports. the imports we still rely on come from canada.

we have had attractive prices and benefits for electric and consumers of natural gas. we heard from one of the callers about coal mines in tennessee having a hard time with competition. this is a success story in terms of domestic production of energy. host: back to the phones. cleveland, ohio, you are on the line with "washington journal." caller: i have a question for carol. i was wondering if she could comment on cap and trade and its effect on fuel prices here. if we export coal to china, are they regulated by the same cap

and trade rules? guest: as you probably know, there is no national cap and trade legislation in the united states. there is a regional program in the northeast. california is starting a program. europe has a program in terms of cap and trade. there is no national program. right now, we are dealing with a situation in terms of prices for fossil fuels going up. there are a variety of reasons. the situation is becoming more and more competitive in terms of how expensive is to produce various fuel. we have seen the price of coal commodities up over the last decade as well as the price of oil. host: we have nancy on the line.

caller: i want to comment on the prices of energy. it is going up about 18%, which will cost the consumer about 20 more dollars -- $20 more on their light bill. i do not know how many people have had their electricity cut off. without a job, you have to have money. i agree with taking care of our ecology. these environmentalists go to bank far. -- go too far. host: where do you get your power from? duke power?

do you expect your costs for keeping your house warm this winter will go up dramatically? god they made a comment yesterday of -new- -- caller: they made a comment yesterday that it will be going up to cover all of the regulations on them. host: is that something we will expect to see around the country, that prices will go up to cover some of these green agenda is? guest: electric generators that use coal are facing some changes in environmental policies. there is a rule that has been passed, the cross state air pollution rules. they could potentially have some effect.

we take the ones that are final and we build them in to our projections. the ones that are pending, we do not look at. to the extent that the rules take effect and they require retrofitting or other investments, that would be reflected in the cost of electricity. it also depends on whether you are in an area where there is a regulatory system for setting electricity prices based on average costs. in some areas of the country you have that. in other areas, you have a competitive, wholesale market. that is different when these regulations take effect. the caller raises a legitimate issue. how that plays out in different areas of the country is complicated. host: next up is a caller from charlotte, north carolina. caller: i would like to make a

comment and then a question. for howard, i would like him to elaborate. a few months ago, the republican house passed a bill in which they thought natural gas prices were to cheap. they passed a bill to put natural gas on the open market to drive up the prices. for carol, i would like her to please elaborate on how much an actual effect natural gas prices cahoot between regulators -- cahoots place in the prices.

guest: natural gas prices in the united states are lower than in europe and asia. there is interest among natural gas producers in exploring the possibility of exporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas. it is kind of ironic. before the increase in production, many folks had been looking at huge imports of liquefied natural gas to the united states as being necessary to address the gap shown on the chart we looked at earlier. we are still in the early stages as to whether or not that might happen or not. one plan to build a plant has been talked about. licenses being approved does not

mean the project will get built. it remains to be seen. significant exports are a long way off. right now, we are exporting a little bit from alaska. we still import a small amounts of liquefied natural gas. some of that, we turn around and export after we imported. domestically, and natural-gas exports is a few years off. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you both for being on the program. >> saturday on "washington journal," a discussion of young adults in the occupied wall street protests. and lenny curry talks about the role of his stake in the 2012

primary process. and a look at the president's jobs, so with the present in ceo of the organization for international investment. "washington journal" takes your calls and e-mails every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> some exclusives. the re-air of the sunday news programs from the major networks. across the country on xm satellite radio and on our iphone and blackberry applications. c-span radio, created by the nation's cable television industry. we are now in our 15th year. >> and look at our prime-time schedules.

"the contenders" continues with the a la-- a look -- a look at the life and career of al smith. at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, the house foreign affairs committee meets on potential threats from iran and syria. >> i am the first one to admit every day. i have to get up in the morning and tell myself there is no one better to do this. >> a residency in neurosurgery. a professor in narrow surgery and oncology. a homeless, illegal migrant firm worker. i have to believe that every time i go into the operating room, i have someone's like in

my hands and i am capable of getting this person in and out of the operating room. i want that kind line between confidence and arrogance. >> sunday night on c-span's "q & a." >> jacqueline kennedy's taped conversations. caroline kennedy presents her mother's recordings followed by a panel discussion. september 1957. they are linked forever at the little rock senior high school. elisabeth and hazel. and the impact the oil industry has on the environment. find the book tv schedule online at booktv.org.

>> today the house, energy and commerce committee looked at the solyndra loan guarantee. you can see the hearing in its entirety in our video library and on our companion network, c- span 2.

>> president obama may claim that hindsight is 20/20, but investigations tell a better story. there is a long chain that shows numerous members of the obama administration, from the most senior levels in the west wing down to the career professionals at omb and d.o.e. -- knew that solyndra was a bad bet that was destined to fail. the obama administration may not have had a crystal ball, they had financial models from august 2009 say that solyndra would run out of money in september 2011. they chose to ignore it. in 2010, solyndra informed d.o.e. that the situation was dire. d.o.t. began negotiations to

restructure the terms of the loan -- d.o.e. began negotiations to restructure the terms of the loan to keep solyndra above water. i and other members of the subcommittee have continually questioned the legal basis for this unprecedented decision. 1702.3 of the energy policy act clearly states that when d.o.e. makes a long, the obligation shall be subject to the conditions that the obligation is not subordinated to other financing. there were numerous concerns within the administration regarding the financial and political impact of the restructuring.

what the latest round of e-mails show is that senior officials within the obama administration had significant concerns about the legal basis. those concerns were simply ignored. in august of 2011, discussions about a second restructuring were under way. -- underway. one member of the administration's stated that since july, treasury has asked the a week -- one member of the administration stated that the only information they have received was through d.o.te. she goes on to note that treasury's legal counsel believes it statute states that the guaranteed loan should not be subordinated to any other

debt obligation. in february, treasury requested in writing that d l e seek dept. -- d.o.e. seek department of justice approval. to her knowledge, that has never happened. the assistant secretary seemed almost resigned in stating that while she respects loan subordination cannot occur without treasury consultation, "i wanted to correct any impression is that we had acquiesced in the steps." the assistant secretary is unable to join us today to discuss her correspondence with d.o.e. or her department's role in the solyndra preview. hopefully those here today can shed some light on the decision making process. one of our witnesses, the chief

financial officer at the treasury department's financing bank, e-mail can he d.o.e. officials after hearing about -- e-mail officials at the only after hearing about the restructuring. he raised the prospect of seeking department of justice approval, which never occurred. judging from these e-mails, it is clear that senior officials at the department of treasury were not consulted about the restructuring. when they offered their opinions and warning signs, they were ignored, like so many others along the way. it should be noted that the final rules issued by d.o.e.

specifically requires d.o.e. to consult with the secretary of treasury before granting a deviation that would constitute a substantial change in the financial terms of the loan guarantee agreement. there is no exception allowing d.o.e. to ignore those who disagree with this course of action. i look forward to understanding why the department of treasury felt so strongly prior to restructuring the loan guarantee. with that, i recognize my distinguished colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if we want to know the legal basis for the subordination of this long, wouldn't it be nice to have d.o.e. here.

there is an e-mail in which a treasury official raises questions about whether the subordination of the loan guarantee was appropriate. the treasury official expresses the view that the restructuring might require department of justice approval. it is important that this subcommittee conduct that gathering related to this document related to the solyndra loan guarantee. if we went -- we really wanted to have a fact-finding hearing, when we bring the department of energy in to see what they thought when treasury told them that the department of justice needed to approve this long? the treasury comments raise definitely a double-definite questions about the department of energy -- about the department of energy loan

guarantee. the treasury e-mail makes the department energy reasons a central issue for this hearing. how can you have this hearing just bringing one side in without having the other side to respond. i think we need to have a full and fair gathering of the facts on what happened to the solyndra loan and the restructuring so that we can decide how we proceed further with solar energy and other types of energy loan guarantees and other types of support. despite that, the majority has refused to be minority requests to invite the department of energy officials to the hearing. the majority has rejected the minority request to release the august 2011 memorandum that was produced to the committee. in that memo, the department of energy council provides a

detailed analysis of their view of the restructuring issue and position.. the department of energy has also given this committee 65,000 pages of documents to go through. it should go without saying that the department of energy legal analysis of restructuring should be a component of today's discussions. we are having our hands tied behind our backs. that we talk about this memo. on august 17, 2011, the assistant secretary of treasury said in an e-mail, the regulations require that the guaranteed loans should not be subordinate to any loans or other debt obligations. she also says department of energy regulations say the department should consult with

treasury before any deviation is granted. the statute she is referring to is the loan guarantee program, which the department of energy uses to determine energy regulations. the department has interpreted the subordination language of the statute in the february 2011 memo i referenced. the department also interpret what constitutes a deviation from the title 17 rules. i am looking forward to hearing more from the treasury regarding what the treasury official meant by her august 17 e-mail. if we really want an understanding of what is the restructuring constituted a deviation as defined under the department of energy regulations, we need to reduce the department of energy memo and have the department officials here to ask questions

about their rationale. treasuries suggested in february that it be all it -- the d.o.e. needs approval. the indications show that a conversation between treasury and department energy officials occurred in 2011. to more fully understand what happened on both sides, the committee needs to hear from the department of energy as well as treasury. the majority may argue that the subcommittee will provide an opportunity to question the department of energy at a later date. that approach only serves to ensure that only half of the story is heard today. it makes this hearing appear to me to be more about generating headlines and engaging us in that finding. i hate to say that. i say it with all due respect. let's do a whole investigation.

let's get all of the facts out there and figure out what to do. >> i thank you, ranking member. it is self evident that we will have the department energy people out here. we intend to have them up here, as well as the people who signed the documents so we assure you that we will have this happen. with that, i recognize the chairman of the full committee, my distinguished colleague from michigan. >> a months ago -- 8 months ago, we asked the chairman to turn over documents regarding solyndra. the administration claimed our request was too burdensome. it is now apparent that was not the case. we asked the treasury department to turn over similar documents

and they responded immediately. they began to turn over the requested documents in less than a week. the department of energy ignored treasury after signing off on a $535 million loan guarantee. the documents revealed the department of energy more taxpayer cash and gave it to solyndra with complete disregard for the alarm bells that were coming from treasury. the department of energy apparently stonewalled treasury, failing to turn over information related to solyndra's restructuring. in one exchange in 2011, it was noted that, since july 2010, treasury has asked the department of energy on briefings on solyndra's financial conditions and any restructuring terms. the only information we have received is from omb.

the department of energy has not responded to any requests for information about solyndra. this seems to be a clear violation of the energy policy act of 2005, which says it prominent energy sell consult with the department of treasury before granting -- which says the department of energy must consult with the part of treasury before granting any deviation -- with the department of treasury before granting any deviation to the loan terms. in february of 2011, the department of energy restructure the terms of the agreement and take two private investment terms -- arms priority over the case that in bthe

solyndra declared bankruptcy. they had an inability to contribute to an agreed upon reserve fund. the department of energy continue to push millions of additional dollars out the door in a futile attempt to save solyndra. six months later, as predicted by the department of energy's own financial model, solyndra went belly up. today's witnesses will hopefully help us understand treasury's involvement in the solyndra loan guarantee. d.o.e. should have consulted with d.o.j. if they had responded to

treasury's request for information, with something have been different? with some of the taxpayers' money have been saved? unfortunately, we also have to ask how many more solyndras are there? were there other warning flags that were ignored? today, we focus on the startling development of one cabinet level agency concerned that another's actions were in violation of the law. this investigation will continue until taxpayers get the answers they deserve regardless how high in this administration be faxed take us. in regard to the minority request of the department of energy witness, it was received less than two days ago before this hearing.

there was a dump of documents from the white house prior to the start of the three day federal holiday weekend. we intend to hold further hearings on this topic. department of energy officials will be included in the testimony. >> will be chairman yield? >> i yield. >> the department of energy witness was the first witness we had. we ask him this very question. we would be glad to have other witnesses from the department of energy. he has resigned. >> i think our time is expired. we are going to go to be minority and recognize mr. -- >> this hearing was noted last friday and there was a three day

weekend because of the federal holiday. the majority did not tell us until tuesday who the witnesses would be for this hearing. at that point, we asked for our witness. i want to clear that with the chairman. we can yield now for mr. waxman. >> i think we agree. >> the chairman is the way it we only ask for the witnesses two days ago. that is because we only found out about these witnesses three days ago. >> thank you, mr. chairman. after the subcommittee's last hearing, ranking members requested the committee hold hearings on the effectiveness of u.s. policy in promoting clean energy. we asked the committee to examine what steps our nation needs to take to make sure we do not cede the clean energy market

to china. no such hearing has been scheduled. the chairman told the media last week that the united states " cannot compete with china to make solar panels and wind turbines." i cannot disagree more strongly with the chairman of's statement. between -- the clean energy economy -- i can i disagree more with the chairman's statement. the clean energy the economy is the economy of the future. there are some anti-jobs views from those who oppose clean energy. the republican-controlled house is doing everything possible to maintain our addiction to fossil

fuels and cripple renewable energy companies. republicans voted against putting a price on carbon, which would have created market opportunities for clean energy. republicans voted to slash funding for research and development into new clean energy technology. now republicans are opposing government investment in solar wind and other clean energy companies. this addendum may be good for the oil companies. may be good for the -- this agenda may be good for the oil companies. maybe good for the coal companies. it is terrible for our economy. this hearing is on what did the department of energy had legal authority to subordinate the government's loans to solyndra when the loans were restructured earlier this year.

the chairman has invited witnesses from the treasury department, who raised questions about the department of energy's legal authority. that is a profit. members should have a chance to hear from the witnesses and why they have concerns. we should also have a chance to hear from the department energy. the energy department disagreed with treasury. they are not being allowed to testify. we are going to get only one side of the story. that is no way to run an investigation. it gets worse. the committee has received a six-page document from the department of energy that explains the department's legal rationale for subordination. we asked last week if the majority would object if we released this document so the public could understand the

department of energy's rationale. the majority objected. they did not want the public to see the department of energy's explanation. they will not have a witness today who can talk about their explanation. on wednesday, the democratic staff asked the republicans that if there would be any objection if we included a discussion of the department of energy's legal memorandum in the background memorandum we provided to democratic members. again, the republicans objected. they asked us to withhold this critical information, the department of energy's legal rationale for its actions, from our own members. yesterday, the republicans said they do not believe this memo should be made public at this time. this investigation is beginning to resemble a kindle court. -- a cadle will -- a kangaroo court.

now the republican majority is withholding exculpatory information from the public. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. >> the gentlemen is entitled to be heard. >> now the republican majority is withholding exculpatory information from the public. i do not object to a -- sinnto an -- instigation -- i do not object to an investigation of solyndra. i have repeatedly said that i support a fair and thorough investigation. if mistakes were made with taxpayer money, we should understand them and take steps to prevent them in the future. our investigation needs to be

fair. preventing the department of energy from testifying is not fair. suppressing exculpatory evidence is not fair. mr. chairman, i believe you are a fair man. you are not conducting this investigation clearly and in partially. i hope you will reconsider. -- you are not consult- -- you are not conducting this hearing fairly and impartially. >> there is a lack of environmental safety regulations. the united states should focus on where we have a competitive advantage. >> you have spoken out of turn. i would like you to yield to me for one minute. >> i do not agree with a lot

of the ranking member's -- >> we are not going to welcome our two witnesses. >> mr. chairman, are we through with opening statements? >> we are through with opening statements. you will have a chance to extrapolate. >> we are going to let what the ranking member said go -- >> they have the opportunity to make any outrageous -- >> i do not have a problem with ms. diana degette's opening statement. >> the committee is holding an investigative hearing. we have the privilege of taking testimony under oath. do you have a problem testifying

under oath. >> no, sir. >> do you and by -- the desire to be advised by counsel today? >> no. >> do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. you may now give a five minute summary of your written statement. please begin. >> chairman and other members of the committee. thank you for inviting us here today to talk about the treasury also role in the department in e.g.'s loan guarantee program. i am be that the secretary for financial -- in the department

of treasury's loan guarantee program. i have submitted a written statement for the record. i will not read a lengthy opening statement here. in the way of introduction. i will say the treasury have two -- the treasury has two distinct roles. as a consultant and as a lender. as a consultant, the statute requires the secretary of energy to consult with the department of treasury on the terms and conditions of loan guarantees. we provide input on that basis. when the department of energy decides to make a 100% federally guaranteed loans -- they make a 100% federally guaranteed loan and it is the federal financing bank that issues the loan to the private sector entity. we have a role as a consultant

and a role as land -- in lending, which is operational. >> i understand your colleague does not have an opening statement? >> saturday, a discussion on the world of young adults in the wall street protests. our guest is the co-founder of president of our time. lenny curry talks about the role of his stay in the 2012 presidential process. and we have the ceo of the organization for international investment. after that, 20 years after anita hill's testimony for the confirmation of clarence thomas, we will bring you a forum looking back. legal scholars will discuss what

happened, what the case meets today, and the affect on the future. we will also hear from an era hill in a keynote speech. all of that coming up tomorrow morning at 9:45 eastern here on c-span. >> a small group proposed a memorial to honor dr. king. what the official dedication of the martin luther king memorial. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state hillary clinton spoke today in new york city on the world of economics in foreign policy. she called on and then seeing the american mission as a central issue in the diplomacy. she took questions afterwards. this is one hour.

>> today, we welcome our secretary of state. what is strategic is economic. hillary clinton has been a great advocate for american leadership and for investing in and promoting the sources of our strength. she knows what it takes to compete in the 21st century. she understands the relationship between economic strength of the united states and america's standing in the world. that is her tireless daily work in the past few years. she has flown 60,000 miles.

ladies and gentlemen, hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. it is absolutely wonderful to be here in new york and at this distinguished historic new york economic club. i want to acknowledge the economic club president. i must say, it never gets old being a woman president of anything. [laughter] i am especially pleased to be here under your tenure. i appreciate andy setting the scene. some of you might have wondered,

why is the secretary of state coming to the new york economic club. i can see the treasury secretary or the commerce secretary or the chair of the xm bank. but why is the secretary of state here? it is because of the economic -- because the economic is strategic and the strategic is economic. it is true. it has been true and it will always be true. there is an urgency to that formulation in this early parts of the 21st century that has century-- early part of the -- early part of the 21st century.

president truman understood that if america wanted to shape the post war world, america have to lead, not just diplomatically or militarily, but economically. so we marshalled our economic strength to rebuild friends and former enemies. we led the charge to create new international borders. we made the investments we needed here at home to advance our ideals and promote shared prosperity. today, it is just as true. our foreign and economic relations remain indivisible. only now, our great challenge is not deterring any single military foe, but advancing our global leadership at a time when power is more often measured an

exercise in economic terms. here at home, it is no secret to any of us that these are difficult times for americans. families across our country are struggling to get back on their feet after the worst economic downturn in my lifetime. the protest are a reminder that we have a great deal of work to do. the challenge is how do we get on the american team? how do we work together to help our country continue to advance and meet the expectations of the american people? this is not happening in a vacuum.

we have seen revolutions that have swept across an entire region. yurt faces arguably the most severe economic test since the second world war. -- europe faces arguably the most severe economic test. i see countries gaining influence less because of the size of their armies then because of the growth of their economies. i don't think i need to tell a room full of new yorkers that we still face serious threats. we always will. we must position ourselves to lead in a world where security is shaped in board rooms and on trading floors as well as on battlefields. simply put, america's economic strength and our global leadership are a package deal. a strong economy has been a

pillar of american power in the world. this gives us the leverage we need to exert influence and exert our influence. this gives other countries the confidence in our leadership and a greater stake in partnering with us. it also underwrites all of the elements of smart power. robust diplomacy and development and the strongest military that the world has ever seen. rain now, the challenges of a changing world and the needs of the american people demand that our foreign policy community as the late steve jobs put it, think different. our problems have never respected dividing lines between global economics and international diplomacy and neither can our solutions. that is why i have put what i call economic statecraft at the

heart of our foreign policy agenda. economic statecraft has two parts, first, how we harness the forces and use the tools of global economics to strengthen our diplomacy and presence abroad. second, how weak it that diplomacy and presence to work to strengthen our economy at home. following the speech tomorrow, i am issuing updated instructions on statecraft and every embassy are around the world. to we have made this a court diplomatic mission to enhance our leadership in the world and to drive economic renewal. under president obama's leadership, our national security leadership has been shoring up the sources of our strength. economic recovery is mostly a matter of domestic policy,

political will, and the willingness of the american people to really keep focus on tomorrow. while our efforts must begin at home, they cannot and there. today, i want to talk about how we are monetizing our economic statecraft. we simply have to get this right. despite all of the problems, the world still looks to america for leadership. in nearly every country that i have been to, i see what is missed among all the noise in washington, i see the fact that we have a very strong presence, we have an amazing amounts of good will and admiration. we also have doubts, doubts

about who we are, about our staying power, about our willingness to lead economically, politically, and every other way. when i think about the power of our examples and the work that we do in every country and on every continent, i am reminded that we still have the best economic model that remains the single greatest engine of growth and shared prosperity that the world has ever known. the events of the past week offer a powerful reminder of what is its stake at the intersection of economics and foreign policy. on tuesday, the senate passed a bill signaling their concern about misaligned exchange rates around the world including in china.

the congress has passed three trade agreements with three critical partners. throughout the week, our european allies have been in urgent negotiations to stabilize the eurozone. this is having a major impact on some of our most important strategic relationships. this is the fourth in a series of speeches and i have been given on the economic statecraft. i explained how the policy and develop it contributes to our own economic policy. in hong kong, i laid out our expectations and that those that work with us must follow the rules of competition. i want to talk about how our foreign policy priorities and capabilities are evolving to

meet challenges that are both strategic and economic. first, we're updating our foreign policy priorities to include economics every step of the way. march you powers put economics at the power -- center of their foreign policies. when their leaders approach an economic challenge, just as they do when they approach an economic challenge, how will this affect our economic growth? we need to be asking the same questions not because the answer will dictate every one of our choices, it will not, but this must be a significant part of the equation. there will be times when we put costs aside to keep americans safe or to honor our principles. for the last decade, our foreign policy has focused on the places where we have faced the

greatest dangers. this week brought a fresh reminder that responding to threats will always be central to our national security. this cannot be our foreign policy. our foreign policy must focus on the places where we have the greatest original opportunities and often those will be economic in nature. as we end the war in iraq and the began bringing troops back from afghanistan, we are making an important pivot. this is shifting east could to we are focusing more on the asia-pacific region. one of the great successes of the past century was to build a strong network of relationships and institutions across the atlantic, an investment that continues to pay off today. one of our great project will be due to the same across the

pacific. our commitment to the trans- pacific partnership, the demonstrations that we are not only a resident of military, and diplomatic power, we are a resident economic power and we're there to stay. of course, asia's tiger is not the only large cats out there. we are making it a priority to engage with the latin american jaguars, if you can call them that, which grew by more than 6% last year. our free trade agreements move us closer to our goal of a hemispheric partnership reaching from the arctic to the tip of argentina. we believe in the power of proximity to turn growth across the americas into recovery and jobs here in the united states. we are also committed to

strengthening the economic dimensions of our closest relationships. together, america and europe account for half of the world's economic output but just 1/3 of global trade. we should be trading more. at the trans-atlantic economic council, too often week we litigate differences when we should be resolving them and avoiding new ones. this frustrates companies on both sides of the atlantic. the trans-atlantic economic council is the forum where we try to resolve these differences and i believe harmonizing regulatory schemes between the united states and the eu is one of the best ways that we can both enhance growth, at enhance exports, and avoid costs. if you spend weeks arguing about

the price of a jar of baby food, there is not the potential for payout that comes from resolving these issues to forge an ambitious agenda that is every bit as compelling as our security corp. of brown the world. in every region, we are working to integrate the economics into our diplomacy. even in the relationship dominated by politics and security, we are now focused on helping russia joined the world trade organization and we are putting a special premium on protecting freedom of navigation and a rolls based approach to places like the south china sea and the arctic ocean. of course, you cannot talk about our economy without talking about energy. with a growing global population and a finite supply

of fuel, the need to diversify our supply is urgent. we need to engage traditional exporters and emerging economies like to bolster security and insure the country's national wealth results in inclusive growth. we are establishing for the first time in the state department aide bureau of energy resources to make sure our relationships included dancing our vital relationships and a clear source of energy. i plan to address these issues also in a later upcoming speech but it is important to point out that when we decided after i commissioned the study about what we were doing well, what we needed to do better. what we can afford to drop, energy stood out as an area that

we had not focused on in all of its complexity and importance. as we embraced economic statecraft, it is not just our party is changing. the way that we pursue them is evolving as well and this is my second point. we are honing our ability to develop and execute economic solutions to strategic challenges. a belief in the strategic power of economic forces is not new in american foreign policy. what is new is the reach and complexity of global markets, expertise, sophistication, and create a corporation needed across the hall of government for us to remain effective. consider the transitions under way in egypt, tenacious, and libya. we want to see democracy take root and we need to help them

design economic systems. we know that aide alone is not enough. we need a sophisticated effort to promote investment and to assist in economic modernization. i have been urging congress to support the economic proposals that the president laid out. the arab political awakening must also be an economic awakening. we are supplying similar tools in afghanistan. we are looking to stabilize the country and give their neighbors a greater stake in their success through regional trade and immigration. and our development efforts in africa and elsewhere, we are insisting that they reinforce,

not a substitute for what markets can achieve on their own. we are aiming for the same creativity and sophistication in addressing security challenges. we are responding with more targeted and hard-hitting tools not only sanctions against leaders and generals and more sophisticated measures to cut these regimes off. also the shell companies that they depend on. we're committed to raising the economic costs of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it possible. if sanctions are among our more powerful sticks, our culture of entrepreneurship is one of our

most effective carrots. this is an often overlooked element of our economic statecraft and a source of american power. add a time when there are compelling visions for the future of the global economy that are competing visions, this is a part of the american brand that speaks to people and winds them over to the values they promote around the world. the free markets, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas. that is why we created a global entrepreneurship program that builds network and innovators and strategic locations around the world. we are aware of the fact that we are not only in a political and economic competition, we are in a competition for ideas. if people don't believe that democracy and free-market deliver, then they will be looking elsewhere for models that more readily respond to the

daily needs. we happen to believe that our model is not only the best for us, we think that this embodies universal principles, human aspirations, and proven results that make it the best model for any country for people. there can be variations on how it is implemented that we are in this competition to win. we want to make clear that it is not only good for america but also for the rest of the world to pursue democratic and economic reform. we are modernizing our agenda on trade, investment, and commercial diplomacy to deliver jobs and growth for the american people. i can imagine that some of you know that we have our work cut out for us there because what is the connection but twain --

connection between what we do in the state department and what is happening in the york or anywhere else in the country? there are some who believe that america should turn inward. you cannot call timeout in the global economy. our competitors are not taking a timeout and neither can we. what we can do is fight to build and enforce a system of rules that apply equally to everyone. of course, no nation is perfect, including our own, but we don't fear a system that is open, free, transparent, and fair because we know american companies will thrive when the plane filled was leveled. a level playing field is not just a time warner rhetorical device. countries that benefit because we honor our commitments should know that we expect them to

honor theirs. a cornerstone of our approach to economic statecraft. -- that principle must be a cornerstone of our economic approach to statecraft. all who benefit from the rules of the global economy have a responsibility to follow them. enough of the world's commerce now takes place with developing nations that exempting them would render the whole system not just unfair and unworkable. that would end up harming everyone. one example of just such an unsustainable approach is china's currency policy which does in fact cost american jobs but it also cost brazilian jobs and german jobs and other jobs. it denies the chinese people full fruit of their labor. china has been gaming the system

to give their companies a leg up. their company has appreciated but not enough and this is just one unfair practice. president obama has made clear that whatever tools we put in place in response to must actually work and must be consistent with our own international treaties and obligations. at the same time, we need to be assertive in securing the wind when economic relationship we can and should have with china. -- win win economic relationship wakeham and should have with china. -- we can and should have with china. our ambassadors are leading whole of government efforts to drum up new business and fulfill a goal of doubling america's exports by 2015. under secretary -- is

coordinating with the import export bank to support our investors and exporters in emerging economies. by passing the trade deal with panama, colombia, and south korea thanks to the leadership of ron kirk, we are proving that even in today's washington, leaders from both parties can come together to deliver results but also to send a message to the rest of the world. these agreements will allow us to compete in important emerging markets, creating tens of thousands of jobs for the american people. these victories also give us new momentum to take on a broader agenda of promoting fair competition are around the world and updating our economic tool kit. we are working for it in negotiating a cutting edge free trade agreement called the trans pacific partnership. our goal is not only to lower barriers but to raise the standard of economic competition

from vietnam, new zealand, peru, and many places in between. we'll continue to use the economic form which president obama will host next month in hawaii to push the envelope on the open free transparent and fair trade across the pacific basin. we have to be nimble and created because we are confronting new barriers that are confronting behind the borders and the nine companies a chance to compete on their merits. this is a challenge for our diplomacy around the world. for example, when governments impose a so-called tollbooth that forces on fair terms on companies just to enter or expand in a new market, we pushed back. for me, it is clear that when countries turn a blind eye to

piracy or other problems, we have to demand that they protect intellectual property and our embassies are there on the front line. we stepped in when we see corruption, red tape or bullying of these businesses. when companies want to compete, countries must open up their government contracts and not just expect us to open hours. we are pushing the procurement, the international procurement standard so that this is not just a again a one-way street. when american companies are not given a chance to compete fairly, that costs us jobs at home. just as the wto eliminated the most formal terrace of the 1990's, today we need institutions that can provide solutions to these new market distortions that go beyond tariffs.

countries that share the same economic values need to create and force new agreements and mechanisms to guarantee fair competition. let me speak about one barrier that we need to address and that is the participation of women in the global economy. according to the "economist" women's increase in the global labor market in the developed world accounted for a greater share of global growth and china's. this is about all of us to keep tearing down these walls that prevent business and individuals from seeking their own full potential. this is not just enough for us to defend against bad behavior and barriers that block people and companies from global competition, we have to get

better at playing offense. every year, the population of the world's cities grows by 65 million people. that is the equivalent of seven chicagos. the idea of a new world order with seven major rahm emanuel is should get enough to make us moving. there is opportunity to build new ports, stadiums, and highways, and to shape the sustainable cities of the future. i have asked the assistant secretary to help companies compete where growth is the fastest. it is not enough for us to promote the flow of goods and services, we also need to promote the free flow of capital as well. investment is vital to creating growth and jobs here at home. last year, a kentucky based

company that owns kfc and pizza hut actually made more money selling money -- selling fried chicken and pizza in china than in the u.s. this creates jobs in louisville and in china. when tom friedman warned that the chinese will eat our lunch, i am not sure that is what he had in mind. we expect fair treatment for our investors overseas. we have to welcome foreign investment and america. we are focused on attracting billions of dollars of new investment to create american jobs. the state department and the u.s. trade representative's office will also lead to negotiations on a next- generation of bilateral investment treaty. this will protect and encourage

investment. i am pleased to announce that we will soon resume technical elections of discussions tossed technical levels of discussions with india. -- technical levels of discussions with india. we have to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules. too often national favorites enjoy preferential access to government resources and special protections from competition in their markets. that gives these companies, whether they are wholly owned or partially owned by a government, and unfair it damage and harm for competitors and local entrepreneur is alike. we're working to include a chapter on state owned enterprises in the trans-pacific partnership and to finalize new guidelines. our premise is simple -- the

rules must apply equally to all companies. we call this competitive neutrality and we promote it all over the world. these challenges to our economic interests are not the whole story. my fourth point is that we confront a special set of strategic challenges from the growing wealth in state hands today. governments are entering markets directly through their cash reserves, natural resources and businesses they own and control. they are shaping these markets not just for profit but to build and on behalf of the state. there is nothing new about forcing others to bend to their will. today, the resources at their disposal are unprecedented and

interconnected global markets present new avenues to deploy them. a decade ago, the governments of emerging nations added a combined $100 billion a year to their reserves. in 2009, they took in 1.6 trillion dollars. sovereign wealth funds control 12% of investment worldwide. increasingly, state owned and state-supported enterprises operate not just in their home markets but around the globe. sometimes in secrecy, often lacking transparency and accountability that would come from shareholders and regulatory screams and boards. we also see hybrid companies masquerading as commercial actors that actually control by states and acting with strategic consequences. the dividing lines are not clear anymore. wednesday's participate in

markets directly or through the companies they own and control, their behavior is often the ninth. they're doing what they say they're doing, making an investment. sometimes, it is even beneficial like when they work with energy suppliers to stabilize global markets. national oil companies tightening gas supplies in the dead of winter. or they restrict access to critical minerals after a dispute. the ways states deployed their cash, companies, and national resources is of critical concern to us. i hope it will also be to you. we need to develop international rules and norms that set the boundaries, police bad behavior, and require

transparency so that state owned entities earlier about their intentions and their actions. as we respond to this challenge, we must not respond in kind. the international community is worried about sovereign well funds. the institutions came together to agree on the santiago principles, a code of conduct designed that -- designed to insure all institutions act clock and the plea. this is an -- act cooperatively. we have to make sure the government is on the right footing to get it done. after 9/11, we realized we had to break down the silos between our agencies that kept them from working together. many of these possibilities of

economic statecraft are split between agencies. under the legions -- under the leadership of the president and the white house, we are taking hold up a genuine effort. the state department has tireless diplomats engaged in out of reach around the world. at every level, we are trying to up our game. we are creating a new undersecretary of economic growth, energy, and in climate and appointing the first chief economist at the state department. we will also train our diplomats to understand economics, finance, and markets and more to promote those who do. we should be aiming for economic literacy and widespread expertise. we need to be in a department where more people can read foreign affairs and a bloomberg

terminal. for all we can do beyond our borders, the choices we make at home will be the most crucial to shoring up the source of our leadership. it is not only choices by our government and our political leaders. it is also choices by our businesses. we need to recognize that our dependence on imported oil and our national debt are foreign policy challenges, not just economic ones. in the short term, they create a volatility and give others leverage against us. in the long term, they pose a generational challenge to our global leadership. we are working to response to new thinking and a new sense of common purpose to modernize our infrastructure and bring down our debt. as we do, we must resist the temptation to slash our

investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development, but also in diplomacy and development. the 1% of our budget we spent on diplomacy and the element is not driving our deficit or our debt. either we invest now in what keeps us say and secure, or we should expect to pay the cost of living in a more dangerous and economically more challenging world. i do not think that is a choice we can afford. washington has to end the culture of political brinksmanship, which raises questions around the world about our leadership. when i was in hong kong, i was barraged about questions -- with questions about what i expected to come out of the debt ceiling situation. i was able to insure all of the

business and government leaders that we would get to a solution probably at the end. like winston churchill said, we have the best system. we did not get to a solution until we had exhausted every other alternative. american democracy will always be a little messy. that goes with who we are. that messiness cannot outweigh the imperative of delivering results. we have to recognize every decision we make now -- that every decision we make now is followed around the world. when they see that we cannot make decisions about whether the united states of america will default on our debt, you have to know it raises questions in their minds about where we are headed as a nation.

our businesses also need to lead. many companies are sitting on large cash reserves. in many countries i've visit, leaders asked me, where are the american -- i visit, leaders ask me, where are the american businesses? why are they not competing for this business opportunity for this deal? we are working to create an environment where american companies at home and abroad have the tools and the confidence to go full boar. it is up to all of you to hire, and best, take the kinds of informed risks that have always been essential to america's success. yesterday, i sat with a group of american businesses that do business in korea. we started talking about this. one of the business leaders

said, there is a lot of risk in the global economy today. we have to eat body weight those risks. we owe our shareholders a well thought through investment policy. he said, there is also a new element. we feel we are competing not only with other companies. we are competing against countries. it is the obvious countries that we all know. state enterprises and hybrids are out there competing. there are also other countries that are much more on the same team between business and government. we need to be back on the same american team. we have to work together to address these challenges. in the 1990's, businesses used their supply chain to take on the problem of child labor in the developing world. it was american businesses that

begin to change the terrible picture of five, seven, nine year old children in forced labor. today, i am encouraged that a new coalition of america can -- american companies are coming together to keep america free of pirated software and counter fofeit goods. nobody outworks us. nobody out innovates us. we have to be competing in what we do best. the challenges that face our overnment and our people are sizable. we have to be prepared to get out there and fight hard for what we know we can achieve. we have to overcome our adversity at home and around the

world. i believe confidence is a commodity. we need to remember that back at our best, america remains the opportunity society. a place of idealism, a possibility, and pragmatism. a company where an idea hatched in a college dorm or a garage can grow and flourish into a multibillion-dollar business. our diversity is our greatest strength. no place shows that better than new york. america today is as well- positioned as any nation to amid and dry of bids -- all of this change. we can help others succeed as well. somewhere in new york or elsewhere in america today, somebody is creating a business

with an idea that could be a billion dollar company in a bad idea can find its way into the marketplace. -- that idea can find its way into the marketplace. i know that in some of the places we are falling most carefully in the news -- the middle east and north africa -- we have to help create that culture of entrepreneurship that will give people a belief in themselves and the possibility that they can have a better life. everywhere across this country, we have hard-working, talented people who are ready to be a part of this country's recovery. it is my commitment that our economic statecraft will help people live up to their potential and spread that

opportunity broadly. america's believe that everyone should have the chance to succeed is what we have come closer to meeting that any country at par. we cannot afford to lose that. in the century ahead, we need to make it true that every american and hopefully, at the person around the globe, we are going to build a stronger economy that will provide more prosperity more broadly. we will rise to this challenge. we will answer the questions being asked around kitchen tables and cooking fires. we will ensure that american leadership will be there for decades and decades to come. not only will that be good for america, but it is my conviction that it is absolutely essential for the world we want to let in. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, madam secretary. as is our tradition. , we in beit two of our members to pose a question to the east -- we invite two of our members to pose a question to the secretary of state. they will each ask a question of the secretary. >> andrew, thank you. good morning, madam secretary. thank you so much for joining us today and for providing what was an extremely forward-looking, thoughtful, and comprehensive review of these critical issues. it was so comprehensive that what i would like to do is drilled down on just one of the

topics you raised. specifically, the expectancy -- effecacy of the -efficacy -- efficacy of the american model in enhancing democracy and freedom. one of the elements of the model has been a focus on three markets. what we see in the environment today is that many u.s. companies have already begun to respond to the global rebalancing with faster economic growth being seen in places like asia and latin america. or at the companies in the s&p 500, 40% -- for the companies in the s&p 500, 40% of their revenues are being derived

outside the united states. can you give us some idea of how you would use this " restraint to benefit -- use this corporate strain to benefit the creation of jobs? >> i want to put it in a context and i will certainly be spot. -- i will certainly respond. there is no argument with american business is growing around the world. we are 100% behind that. we want to be out there to open doors and not down barriers. we do think there is an absolute connection. it is not as though american companies go invest in china, india, or brazil and there is no benefit back home.

this is. the amount of the benefit and the durability of the benefit depend upon decisions we make here. as to how we think about our competitive stance in this new, challenging environments -- there is an important discussion that needs to take place. i wish it could take place now in our political system with the involvement and the support of american business leaders about what it is that we need to do to change the tax code, to provide incentives, to work toward the ability to capture some of those resources, reserves that are offshore. how do we bring small and medium-sized businesses to the table more effectively? most of our exports come from larger businesses.

we have not crack the code about how we opened the door for smaller and medium-sized businesses. business is a political and economic discussion. i think we are in a standstill in that debate at home. i deeply regret that. i do not think we have the time to be quite as caught up in our own political arguments. there are certain economic realities. underlying goals are the rules of the arithmetic. there are certain decisions we could make that would benefit american businesses, didn't fit our long-term challenges on the debt and the deficit. it was not 100 years ago. it was the 1990's, after all, when we had a booming economy and ended up with that years up a surplus in our budget. i well remember being on the

budget committee of the united states senate as your unit -- your new york senate where a debate was going on where how lowering the debt, even delaminating the debt, would not be a good idea. who could it have that conversation today? it is not a political statement. i truly am out of politics. eful that as a rule f admission that we are doing this to ourselves. it is so important that we rebuild that team america spirit. does the corporate tax code have to be revised for a more competitive 21st century global environment? yes. let's talk about what will work and what will not work. do we have to begin thinking more about how we try to enlist

our businesses in an effort to change codes of conduct in international rules that will benefit them and the united states? i think so. this us versus them mentality that i see too much up in our country today had to give way to a much greater understanding of what we need to do to benefit all of us, particularly children and grandchildren to come. there are a lot of answers. i look out into this audience and there are a lot of answers about what we can do and should do. the thing we cannot afford to do is remain paralyzed by ideology and partisanship. we need to roll up our sleeves and sit around tables where people have sat around in the past in our country and make these tough decisions. it is an age old debate about

how best we do it and how we will debate and incentivize the market. let's have that debate on the facts and what adds up and what does that add up and what we know from the past. i will end by saying i am bullish on america. i am convinced that our system will stand the test of time present it is in during -- is enduring. i do not want to have to hedge my bet. i want to make sure our political and economic interests are working in tandem, that they are continuing to generate more ideas that will been a bay -- that will benefit us here as well as abroad. there are thousands of jobs in

america today, right here in new york today, that go on filled -- go unfilled because we do not have the work force with the skills to fill them. it is a common dilemma. see some of that we will- we will see- -- see some of that coming out of the super committee. other presidents balanced our economic interests. i hope that we can do the same. >> i know i can speak for this group in appreciation for you coming here. i know your schedule is so busy. thank you very much. i will join abby.

it was an excellent speech. i am bullish on this country as well. i would like to have a question. i would like to have many questions, but i only have one. i would like to ask a question that goes down the road of unintended consequences. this group is fairly gloomy. your speech may have picked them up a bit. there is a lot of worried that we are like japan. there are some worries about the 1930's, unfortunately. in fact, there is worry about protectionism. in that light, i would guess that in the thirties, they did not realize that what they were doing might have a calamitous impact. i was wondering what the administration's view, the

legislation on the chinese currency manipulation is and how we can limit it from leading to a trade war. >> i think people are anxious. that is understandable. we have gone through a rough couple of years. i like to remind myself that we are by far the largest economy in the world. we have the most productive workers in the world. we have the capacity to continually reinvented ou our economy because we have the youngest workforce in the world. that has been fueled by immigrants, which is why our immigration debate should not be carried on apart from our economic interests. they are closely linked.

we have all these incredible assets going for us. we do seem to be more worried than i think is merited assuming we start to act like americans again, that we start actually solving our problems and working together and realizing the opportunities that lie ahead. that does not mean we cannot afford to look out at the global economy and not realize a lot of things have changed. other countries are major players on the global economic scene. we should welcome back. we welcomed the rise-- which -- w2e should -- we should welcome that. we should welcome the rise of the bric countries.

we have a big investment in the growing these economies and seeing middleclass is developed and see consumers develop. -- does seeing -- we have a big investment in growing these economies and seeing the middle- class development and consumers develop. chuck schumer is a staunch defender of new york's economic and death. you have to ask yourself, why is senator chuck schumer leading the charge on this? in part, it is because it is not only distorting the market. it is not only making our exports more expensive. it is now beginning to impact on other countries as well. it is not the united states ilan saying china needs to rebalance.

-- saying china needs to rebalance. there is nothing wrong with standing up and asserting ourselves. i do not see that leading into the kind of protectionism that you want about from the 1930's. the obama administration has said about the chuck schumer bill that anything we would do needs to be consistent with our international obligations, including dubie t l -- wto obligations. we also do not want to be taken advantage of. it is one thing to see a country rising to a certain level where they are highly competitive and they are sitting on more cash reserves that any entity has

ever had in the history of the world by our best assessment -- that they continue to try to game the system to their advantage and our disadvantage. right now, they are dependent on us and our markets. we still have leverage and a certain ability to influence the future of it since -- of event. -- of events. it is appropriate and timely for us to be standing up and say, this is not acceptable. we need a rules based reciprocity system on border barriers, its tariff barriers, currency options and all the rest of it-- bor -- border barriers, tariff barriers,

currency barriers and the rest of it. we cannot be protectionists in a 1930's since. we have to make sure everyone plays by the same rules. we have to put together an international coalition of countries that have the same economic stakes that we do in a wills based system that will protect economic growth and to make it possible for us to continue to compete in the ways we can wherever we can. i believe this is the beginning of a discussion, even a negotiation. as i said to you earlier when we were waiting to come in, if you are china, you are going to do what advantages china. look at the remarkable success they have had. but we are america.

we need to take care of what is going to put us in the strongest position. that means taking care of our own business here at home. that is really where we are giving it away to everybody else who wishes to compete against us. it also means working for a new set of global rules that take into account the changes we have seen in the last several decades. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you for everything you do every day for the united states. to my fellow members of the economic club, to paraphrase what the secretary said, go out and create a business. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, the c-span series, "the contenders," the series on political contenders who lost. tonight, a delight al smith of -- the life of al smith. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs. offering a mix of the most relevant it beds from the three c-span television networks - some- relevant -- relevant events from the three c-span television networks. c-span radio. c-span radio.