hand in celebration or not. we look at the next cycle. we keep on moving because until these members changed, from 17% to 51%, we have our work cut out for us. that is what we focus on, and nothing else. >> thank you for coming in this morning. in this morning. >> watch super tuesday results tomorrow. while you watch use our page to see social media reports and reporters and a public forum for your tweets and those of other viewers. you can also monitor our c-span blog. use a laptop or tablet to expand your feeling at our new web page may exclusively for our super tuesday coverage.

>> the house is coming back in for debate. live on c-span. the united states postal service located at 401 old dixie highway in jupiter, florida, as the roy schallern road post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, will each control 30 minutes. mr. farenthold: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i ask that all members have five ledge it -- legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. farenthold: hmple r. 3637 would designate the facility of

the postal service at 401 old dixie highway in jupiter, florida, as the roy schallern road post office building. the bill -- rood post office building. it is altogether fitting we name this post office for roy rood as aer is vabt to his local community and vet ran who served in world war ii. i had the honor to present the silver star to a world war ii veteran from my district who fought, for him and roy rood and all those who served, thank you. whether we present medals or name post offices to honor our courageous veterans, these are small thanks, the very least we can do for those who sacrificed

so much for our nation. i would like to yield as much time as he should consume to mr. rooney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized to con -- for such time as he may consume. mr. rooney: i rise in support of the legislation today designating the u.s. postal service -- united states postal service located in my district at 401 old dixie highway in jupiter, florida, as the roy rood post office building. he was a longtime resident and founding father of my hometown in florida. he was born in 1918 on a farm in jupiter, florida, one of 11 children. roy's childhood was spent working on his family's dairy farm where he learned the value of a hard day's work and fostered his love of he outdoors. the rood farm was also home to

the town's first post office. rood joined the u.s. navy in -- fol throwing aattack on parole harbor. he -- on pearl harbor. he was stationed on the u.s.s. hollandin; a, a jeep aircraft carea that was part of the fleet that participated in the battle of guam. by the end of the war, he had risen to the rank of aviation mate first class and was an acting chief petty officer. following the war, he returned home to florida where he started a landscaping business that continues today. before his death in october of last year, roy rood helped found the american legion post 271, of which i'm a member, the first bank of jupiter and the jupiter christian school. his hometown has seen a lot of changes and has grown due to the hard work and dedicated

lives of people like roy rood. he was a fixture in my hometown and in many philanthropic organizations along the coast. we are all lucky to call roy rood our town's founding father. it would be a fitting tribute to his life, legacy, and the service to name the post office in jupiter in his honor. over the last several years, i got to know mr. rood and his wife personally and i can honestly say there's no better, gentler, kinder man than mr. rood. he was truly -- he will truly, truly be missed. i yield back. mr. farenthold: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: on behalf of the government and oversight reform minority of the committee, i

rise in support of h.r. 3637, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 401 old dixie highway in jupiter, florida, as the roy schallern rood post office building. the measure before us was introduced by my good friend, representative tom rooney, on december 12 of last year in accordance with committee requirements. h.r. 3637 is co-sponsored by all members of the florida delegation and was favorably reported out of the oversight and government reform committee by unanimous consent on february 7 of 2012. h.r. 3637 honors the life and legacy of ray rood, a navy chief petty officer and business pioneer from florida. shortly after the attack on pearl harbor, he elected to

join the fight for freedom by enlisting in the u.s. navy in 1941. during his tour of duty with the u.s. navy in world war ii, he served with dignity and honor as a trained instructor and aviation mechanic. he was stationed on the u.s.s. hallendia c-97, which participated in the second battle of guam. after his service, he returned to his home in south florida where he started a successful landscaping business that continues to operate and thrive to this day. as the founder of the town of tequesta, florida, he's been a valuable member of that community. that said, mr. speaker, those -- let's honor the service and life of this fine american by renaming the post office as the roy schallern rooth post office building.

-- rood post office building. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i have no more speakers. mr. crowley: we have no more speakers on this subject. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? mr. crowley: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we can never do enough our our -- for our veterans, men like roy rood who sacrificed and risked it all in the name of freedom. while it's been over 60 years since world war ii, we must never forget the sacrifices made by these people and so many others in that time. to those who have fought and served, to those who protect and defend our great country chear day, thank you. remember, mr. speaker, freedom is not free. i urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill,

h.r. 3637, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3637. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i would like to ask for the yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3413.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3413, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1449 west avenue in bronx, new york, as the private isaac t. cortes post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, h r. 3413 introduced by the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1449

west avenue in bronx, new york, as the private isaac t. cortes post office. h.r. 3413 was reported favorably by the committee on oversight and government reform on february 7 of this year. mr. speaker, private isaac t. cortes was born and raised in the bronx and joined the army in november of 2006. while at one time, private cortes had aspirations of becoming a police officer with the new york city police department, his desire to protect and serve his country as a soldier soon won out. according to his brother, private cortes was proud doing what he did. he wanted to continue serving in the army and serve to fight against terrorism. in september of 2007, private cortes deployed to iraq to support operation iraqi freedom and served as an infantry squad leader in the 10th mountain division based out of fort drum, new york.

sadly, mr. speaker, less than three months later, on november 27, 2007, private cortes died when his vehicle that he was riding in was struck by an improvised explosive device. he was just 26 years old. for his bravery and courage, mr. speaker, private cortes was awarded the -- awarded the purple heart and the bronze star. it is altogether fitting and proper we name this post office in honor of private cortes. this man made the ultimate sacrifice fighting to protect the country that he loved he put his own life in harm's way so we could remain the land of the free and for that, mr. speaker, i am truly grateful. the least we can do, mr. speaker, is to honor him and his brave service to our nation by naming this post office after him. i urge all members to join me in support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york rise? mr. crowley: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my colleagues, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3413, a bill i authored to rename the united states postal service facility at 1449 west avenue in the bronx, new york, in honor of private isaac t. cortes, who tragically lost his life outside -- in iraq on november 27, 2007. private cortes lived his life with the simple motto, go bilge or go home. -- go big or go home. which could also be used to describe his decision to join the army. certainly, there can can be no more fitting instance of following the words he lived by than his decision to serve his country at a time when our

country was fighting not one, but two wars. isaac joined the army in part because he felt it would help him achieve his dream of one day becoming a member of the new york city police department. but quickly discovered that the army was his true calling. private cortes loved the army and loved the feeling of pride for country and community he felt when he wore the u.s. army uniform. a pride so strong that private cortes intended to make a career in the army, a career in the service of his country. unfortunately, that dream was cut short on november 27, 2007, when private cortes, his humvee, was hit by an i.e.d., killing him instantly. while private cortes did not get the chance to come home, his memory and spirit lives on

through the love of his family, friends, country, and community. the only -- they all -- they recognized his service by awarding him the purple heart, the bronze star, the global war on terrorism service medal, and the army service medal and others. known for a big heart and his loving ways, his family honors his memory by hosting blood, clothing, food, and toy drives. today, we have the opportunity to do our part to contribute to his legacy by passing this legislation which will ensure his courage, integrity, and sacrifice will live on to inspire future generations to live up to his example. there is nothing the goth can do that will ever live up to isaac's go big moment or erase the burden felt by his family, especially his mother, emily,

who i know is watching the proceedings now. but by passing this bill, at least this congress can do something to help ensure that his memory survives. i think it only appropriate that prior to passing this bill, we honor the service of a world war ii veteran, showing the link between that great war to preserve democracy and freedom throughout the world and the sacrifices that have been made and continue to be made in a part of the world, in the mideast, iraq, and afghanistan torque preserve those same freedoms we hold dear that private cortes held dear. . and as the emof the bronx hold dear. i sent a note, mr. speaker, my colleague was talking about bronx, new york. only three parts of the world that begin with the, the bronx,

the hague and the vatican. many sons and daughters paid the ultimate sacrifice in wartime and this is unlike any other, continues to sacrifice as do the sons and daughters of new york city and new york itself. in recognition of private issac cortes' commitment to the bronx, to new york city, to new york state and to his beloved country, i ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the life of this brave soldier but supporting the passage of h.r. 3413 and i reserve the balance of my time and wish emily torro and the entire cortes family our regards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. farenthold: i continue to reserve. mr. crowley: i have no further

speakers and i relinquishing the balance of my time. the chair: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back. mr. farenthold: i urge all members to honor the service and member of private issac cortes and the sacrifices of his family including mrs. torro and service to his country and the bronx. by naming this post office in his honor. with that, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the remainder of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3413. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate bill 1710. the clerk: senate 1710, an act to designate the united states courthouse located at 222 west 7th avenue, anchorage alaska, as the james m. fitzgerald courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. den ham and the gentlewoman from district of columbia will control 20 minutes. mr. denham: i ask that members have five legislative days to include extraneous material on s. 1710.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is so recognized. mr. denham: senate bill 1710 would designate the united states courthouse located at 222 west 7th avenue as the james m. fitzgerald united states courthouse. the subcommittee on economic buildings, marked up the house exanchion bill and i want to thank representative young. james m. fitzgerald had 47 years experience as a judge both in the state of alaska and on the federal bench. he was one of the first judges appointed to the superior court in alaska when alaska became a state in 1959 and appointed to the alaska supreme court in 1972. in 1974, president ford appointed judge fitzgerald to the u.s. district court for the

district of alaska until he remained until 2006. it is more than fitting that a federal court house in anchorage bear his name. i support passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbiaize? ms. norton: mr. speaker, i rise in support of s. 1710 and pleased to speak in support of the bill of renaming the united states courthouse at 222 west 7th avenue in anchorage, alaska as the james m. filts gerald united states courthouse. judge james fitzgerald is considered one of the founding fathers of law in the state of

alaska and dedicated his life to public service and well respected throughout the community. judge fitzgerald was a world war ii veteran serving in the u.s. army and u.s. marines and awarded the distinguished flying cross and air medal for his military service and honorably discharged in december of 1946. after his military service, judge fitzgerald earned his l.l.b. and b.a. simultaneously and graduated in 1951. soon after graduation, judge fitzgerald was appointed as an assistant u.s. attorney in alaska and anchorage, alaska, willing to take on law enfoirment and corruption. he was appointed by the governor of alaska as legal counsel for the state and was apointed as the state's first commissioner of public safety. he was

mr. latham:er appointed as a superior court judge. and in 1975, judge gerald ford appointed judge fitzgerald as the first district judge for the district of alaska, nine years later, judge fitzgerald was appointed chief judge of the district of alaska where he assumed until he assumed senior status in 1989. judge fitzgerald continued to serve as a judge in alaska and on the ninth circuit until his death on april 3, 2011. in total judge fitzgerald spent 53 yorse on the bench. because of judge fitzgerald took on his first judicial appointment in the same year as alaska achieved statehood he had a unique role in shaping alaska's jurisprudence. because of his service as a

member of the u.s. military and contribution to the legal community, it is appropriate to designate the united states courthouse located in anchorage, alaska, as the james m. fitzgerald united states courthouse. i commend my colleague who sponsored this bill for his recognition of the judge and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia resevers the ball reserves the balance of her time. mr. denham: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: mr. speaker, i do thank the gentleman for yielding. s. 1710, this legislation has been mentioned by both speakers will name the federal court house in anchorage after the

late james m. fitzgerald. he served alaska from 1959 until 2006, first alaska superior court bench and alaska supreme court and u.s. district court for the district of alaska. judge fitzgerald was an honorable man and represents the best of alaska's earliest years as state. from his service for his country during world war ii until he served on the state's highest court, he put his country and state first. from 1959 until his retirement until 2006, he served as state and federal judge and unanimously praised for his brillyeans and sense of justice. in addition he was a deck indicated world war ii marine veteran, prosecutor, alaska's first commissioner of public safety, initiator of what would later be the alaska troopers and public safety officer program.

i'm proud to have champion this legislation and rename the james m. fitzgerald united states courthouse. he was a great man and will ensure his life of accomplishment in my state. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i resevere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. >> i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1710. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 6:30 p.m. later today.

>> i know it is very popular to want to create a cyber security

organization. >> we talk about the advanced persistent threats. >> cyber security executives on how to handle the threats to government and business communications networks. tonight 8:00 on c-span2. >> nato secretary-general discussed the situation in syria and called the burning of the koran and unfortunate situation. attacks and protests have left dozens dead and hundreds wounded. the secretary-general also answered questions about nato's future relationship with russia. this is half an hour. >> thank you very much.

the secretary-general will start with a short opening statement. we will be happy to take your questions. people have died, others have been wounded by regardless of whose fault that has occurred. so there's no more people moving to camp liberty because of the conditions in camp liberty. and to my knowledge as of today, no one has left camp liberty to go somewhere else in the world. and so sincere as i can possibly be, i'd like to know from you a couple of things. first, is the united states prepared to take any people from camp liberty? does the fto designation that they still have affect that in iny way? and i'd like to preface that question with one other situation. the last time i was in iraq, i

i spoke to president karzei last week. i encouraged him to take all necessary steps to ensure violence comes to an end to end to protect personnel from attacking and he gave me reassurances in this regard. it is important to remember over the past two weeks, thousands of afghan security personnel have gone into action at considerable risk to themselves to prevent attacks on bases. across the country, afghan soldiers have risked and sacrificed their lives to protect their partners. such attacks are cause for great concern, but they do not define the relationship between the

afghan forces. they do not change our determination to succeed. we all want a safer future for afghanistan so that we can all be safer in our streets and in our homes. we all know the only way to achieve it is to work together. at our chicago summit in may, together with our partners, we will not out the next phase of the transition to full of canned security responsibility between now on the end of -- afghan security responsibility between now and the end of 2014. as i told president karzei, we intend to make clear our enduring commitment to afghanistan beyond 2014. last week, the north the atlantic council -- to prepare

for the summit. it is less than 12 feet away. we discussed the transformation of our alliance, how to make sure we have the necessary capabilities for the challenges we face in the 21st century. [speaking french]

[speaking french]

smart defense is about lining up national requirements and data's requirements -- nato's requirements. it is about setting clear priorities and specializing in a deliberate way by design, and not by default, and cooperating between allies and with the european union so that every effort to counts and nothing is wasted. i expect that in chicago, we will make smarts defense of the new way we do business. and apply it to immediate projects, longer-term projects, and strategic projects. first, an initial package of

more than 20 multinational projects that will address critical capabilities. we already have nations assigned to these projects and we have confirmed participants. second, we will look at a number of longer-term projects that are already in the pipeline. missile defense, ground surveillance. it is a model for solidarity and a practical example of smart defense. we will target an number of strategic projects through 2020 and beyond. as a properly -- operation and libya showed, we face some strategic capability gaps.

we know that we will need stronger cooperation across the atlantic and in europe to fill them. in chicago, i will look for a commitment to make sure this is what we deliver. smart defense is about building capabilities together. we also need to be able to operate together. that is why i have launched the connected forces initiative. it puts a premium on education and training exercises and better use of technology. operations have given a boost to nato transformation and we must make sure we keep the lessons we have learned, even when those operations anend. we get to where we need to be at the end of this decade and

beyond. chicago will mark an important chapter in this journey of transformation, but it will not be the end of the story. i would like to comment on the good news from the western balkans. i welcome the agreement between belgrade. this is a step forward. it shows the way for roads is through dialogue. -- forward is due dialogue. this is a sign of progress and a driver for progress. it is a result of reforms and a driver of more important reforms which can only bring benefits.

to serbia and the whole region. ultimately, i would like to see the whole of the western balkans achieve their goal of integration into our euro- atlantic family. with that, i am prepared to take your questions. >> you can pick up the microphone from next to your seat. general,mr. secretary- >> mr. secretary-general, we just had elections in russia. if you have any comments to make on the selections -- and if it will affect the relationship between nato and russia. my second question is on libya.

the commission has just published its report on the violations of human rights in libya. the violations of human rights on gaddafi forces and opera does -- opposition forces. there is also a demand for an investigation. is nato aware of this report? are there any plans to to have an investigation? thank you very much. >> on the presidential elections in russia, the result of the elections are not yet final, but i have noted that preliminary results and the

concerns voiced by the council of europe election monitors. from what i have seen from initial reports, the outcome is likely to be continuity in russia's leadership and russia's policies, and i would expect that continuity to include a continued engagement to in positive dialogue and cooperation. since our summit in lisbon, we have made important progress in an portent areas. we have enhanced cooperation on afghanistan, counterterrorism,

counter narcotics, counter piracy, and i hope we will be able to move forward in other areas, especially on missile defense. i think both russia and nato would benefit from such cooperation. we decided to develop a partnership between nato and russia and i hope to see progress in that respect. on libya, yes, i am aware of the reports from the international commission. as far as the concrete figures, i do not have any comment because i am not able to verify these figures. i welcome the commission's conclusion that nato conducted a

highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties. the commission also recognized nato's objective to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties entirely. based on the report from this independent commission, i can also clearly state that nato was not in breach of international law in the way we conducted the operation in libya. we conducted operations in libya in full accordance with the united nations mandate and with international law. of course, and a complex military campaign, the risk to civilians can never be zero, but we did everything we -- to

minimize it. >> just a follow up about russia. are you not concerned about all the problems -- what about nato and russia summit? >> as a politician, i am used to hearing many things during election campaigns. what counts is the concrete steps that are taken wants the electorate has made its decision. as i stated in my previous

answer, i would expect to -- i would expect continued progress in the cooperation between nato and russia. obviously, we do not agree on everything. we have our disputes, we have our differences. those differences should not overshadow the fact that in many areas, we do share security concerns because we are faced with the same security challenges. this is the reason why we should cooperate also on missile defense. the second part of your question? >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, yes. as far as a nato-russia summit in chicago, it is premature to

make any assessment. i think we will have the nato- russia meeting if we can reach an agreement on missile defense. if we cannot, there will not be any meeting. it is as simple as that. maybe there will not be a meeting, but as i said in another context, chicago and will not be the end of the story. we will continue talks, negotiations, with russia beyond our meeting in chicago. >> [inaudible] putin is going to become the president. everyone knows his position -- he is against expanding nato

near russia's borders. will this take some influence by nato? >> no third-party can make decisions on behalf of nato. nematocides -- nato decides on our open door policy. nato's door remains open. that will be redirected in chicago. nato's door remains open to european countries that are in a position to contribute to the treaty in the north atlantic's region and countries that are in a position to further the principles on which nato is based. this is clearly stated in

article 10 of our treaty. that still stands. it is for nato to decide on the open door policy. as far as georgia is concerned, i would like to recall the decision we took in bucharest in 2008 at the nato summit. according to which, in georgia will become a member of nato provided that georgia fills the necessary criteria and that we cooperate with the georgia within the nato-georgia commission. and to make progress in that direction. >> "financial times" -- >> thank you very much.

if i could get back to the opening question about the libya report. it is not completely complementary [inaudible] the characterization of four or five targets were the commission found civilian casualties' is not reflective of the evidence at the scene or witness testimony. " it does now know whether the civilian deaths occur because they were military targets. do you anticipate any follow-up to provide the commission with the information they are seeking? [inaudible] thank you, sir. >> let me stress that we have fully cooperated with the commission. we provided them with -- a significant amount of

information. most of which has had to be declassified. you can read the reports we send to the commission because you can see them. the commission concluded that we conducted a highly precise campaign with demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties. as far as nato is concerned, i can tell you that we have looked into every allegation of harm to civilians, of which has been brought to our attention. this has involved a thorough assessment of all nato records, from target selection to any other data after the strikes. this review process has confirmed that the targets were struck were legitimate military

targets selected with the united nations mandate. great care was taken in each case to minimize our risk for civilians. i can tell you that no target was approved or attacked if we had any evidence or reason to believe that civilians were at risk. i can also inform you that hundreds of possible targets were passed up and others were aborted at the last minute to avoid any risk of civilians -- risk to civilians. we have done everything we could. >> associated press. >> [inaudible]

>> may use the one next door. >> -- maybe use the one next door. >> secretary-general, you have addressed the issue of syria several times. he said nato was not planning to get involved. do you have any other comments on that today? >> the bottom line is the same. obviously, we all follow the situation closely. it is absolutely outrageous what we're witnessing. i strongly condemned the crackdown on the civilian population in series of -- in

syria. i urge the leadership to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the syrian people. introduce freedom and democracy. in the long run, no regime can neglect the will of the people. neither in syria nor in any other country. >> i am from the kuwait news agency. my question has to do with the burning of the holy koran incident. what steps are you proposing to take to avoid such incidents in

the future? thank you agreed >> -- thank you. >> this is a very unfortunate incident. i can also clearly state that the preliminary results of the investigations by the been initiated reveal that this incident was unintentional. the facts show that there was no malicious intent to mishandle and their material i' commanders in afghanistan will make decisions about the appropriate next steps to avoid

such incidents in the future. having said that, let me also stress that what has happened will not change our strategy and our way forward. the transition to leave afghan responsibility will continue according to the timetable we all lined out our sense -- we outlined at our summit in lisbon in 2010. the transition is on track and we will also reaffirm our enduring partnership with afghanistan. >> "defense news." >> secretary-general, on the connected forces initiative, could you give any more information on the new training

and education activities you have in mind? i noticed in your minute speech you talked about opening -- munich speech, you talked about opening up new facilities. are there any new specific technology and should test -- and it's a test? initiatives?y and shoul >> i have launched the initiative, we are working on this. to make it an integrated part of a defense package to be adopted at the summit in chicago. i see it in the context of smart defense. smart defense is about acquiring capabilities.

the connected forces initiative is about making these capabilities work more closely and more efficiently together. in broad terms, the connected forces initiative is about stepping up our training and educational activities. it is about reinforcing the nato response force. that is a very important part of this. the united states has decided to invest more in the nato response force. the nato response force is an excellent leader for connecting european forces and north american forces.

of work willides of warwicand focus on technology in particular. in more technical terms, how we can use what is called the doctors -- adapters to make sure that different weapon systems can work more efficiently together. that is what i can tell you about it at this stage. we are now working on a more detailed plan to be integrated in the defense package to be adopted in chicago. >> thank you very much. i am afraid that is all we have time for today. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we are expecting the house to comment about half an hour. for one vote on naming a post office in florida. later this week, one measure dealing with developing hydro power facilities. later on today, republican presidential candidate rick santorum told a campaign rally in ohio. ohio, along with nine other states, will hold republican primaries or caucuses tomorrow. you can see that at around 6:45 on c-span2. tomorrow morning, the president of the business roundtable looks ahead to president obama's

speech tuesday night to the nation's top ceos. "washington journal" is life every day at 7:00 eastern. >> i know in washington, it is very popular to create a cyber security organization. i think that is folly. the adversaries we are dealing with today are more committed, better resources, and becoming more sophisticated. we talk about the advanced persistent threats. >> how real is the thread? cyber security executives on how to handle the threats to government and business communications networks. tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> watch super tuesday it

election results tomorrow night. you is our second screen -- use our second screen web page. you can also monitor our c-span blog. use a laptop or tablet to extend your viewing. cops on this morning's "washington journal, we look at the history of income tax and various arguments for changing it. we will watch this and to allow live coverage of the house. -- we will watch this until our live coverage of the house.

i think all the republican plans are completely unrealistic. they're all talking about huge tax cuts, especially for the rich. that is not a viable fiscally. it is a big part of the reason why we have a budget deficit because revenues are too low. we need higher revenues, not more tax cuts. there is no evidence, whatsoever, that tax cuts are stimulus tiff. otherwise, we but have a huge burst of growth after the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. there was nothing of the kind. i think obama's plan is more

serious, but it is also more limited. he is talking about reducing the corporate tax rate, but he is also talking about having a special extra low tax rate just for manufacturing. that moves us in the opposite direction of where we want to go in terms of tax reform. we want to try to level the playing fields and stop giving special deals to special industries. >> when you look at the current income-tax system, how does it treat americans if you are wealthy persons those who are not -- you pay the payroll tax as well. for a relatively mild -- if you

are very wealthy, the bulk of from dividendsmes and capital gains. we tax at a rate of 15%. the payroll tax does not apply to that form of income. unless you are an exceptional person with a very high salary, you are probably paying a lot less taxes warren buffett keeps telling us that his secretary pays less taxes than he does. that sort of thing is quite common.

ron paul is running for the presidency. we take for granted a lot of terminology that its turnaround very commonly. without having an entirely clear idea of what we mean by it in, or what we mean by tax. sometimes you see studies that look only at the federal income tax or others include the payroll tax. you did while the different numbers and the concept of an, is very fluid. if you are wealthy, you have income from capital that might

have an influence on your tax burden. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. let's get to the telephones. this is a democrat from chicago. caller: i am happy to see that you are on this morning. i'd been waiting for c-span to bring someone that does not agree with the common conservative views.

i have heard you and diana also -- i encourage you -- i have heard you, it is good to see that you have enough intelligence, despite your party position, to acknowledge -- this will not work. it is good to know there is someone out there that still has some common sense. i give you a lot of credit. what we really believe is -- guest: thank you very much for those comments. i did not hear a question there. i want to correct the caller

about one thing. i no longer consider myself to be a member of the republican party. i consider myself to be an independent. i do still consider myself to be a conservative. not a member of the conservative movement. that may sound contradictory, but that is my position. host: to are you most aligned with the? -- who are you most aligned with? guest: the closest person was jack kemp. i think he would be very distressed by a lot of the things that he hears from his party. he was very concerned about the problems of the poor. i think he would be very upset about this talk about slashing spending. i do not think he was like that at all.

host: you worked for ron paul. this was a while ago, 1976, a legislative assistant. what do you think of his run for the presidency? >> i am not endorsing ron. a long time ago, we went off in a different direction. i do think he has some important things to say, particularly about the war and the war on drugs. i think some of his ideas about abolishing the federal reserve are eccentric, at best. the interesting thing is that he has not changed one iota in the 35 years i have known him. he still talks the same way about exactly the same issues. if you just picked him up out of 1976 and brought him to 2012, you would see no difference between the two. that is a source of strength to

him because his followers love the fact that he is absolutely consistent. it bothers me a little bit that somebody in his position has not changed his mind about anything. were grown intellectually in all that time. i see it as a two-way soared. -- sword. caller: i have a question. based on what you said about ron paul being -- i am not sure i understand. he worked for him at one point. can you elaborate more on that? guest: i like him very much personally. i think he is one of the few people raising issues about the efficacy of war and having -- for example, in the previous panel, they were talking about bombing iran. it is utterly ridiculous. ron is the only one running in

the republican primaries u.s. is skeptical view about that. i agree with him about that. i also agree with them that the board on drugs is a terrible travesty. -- the war on drugs is a terrible travesty. i think some of his economic ideas are under elastic -- are unrealistic. guest: i know they both involve very significant cuts in tax rates for the wealthy. they have said they would pay for these tax cuts by base broadening and loophole closing. to my knowledge, neither one of them has ever put on the table one single actual loopholed they are willing to close. it is all very vague and then

determined. i think this is because they are afraid. even if they are combining tax cuts with loophole closings. you asked about the bush tax cuts. i think it is a very strong case could be made to allow all of them to expire. we need the revenue and it is fair that everybody ought to contribute to that. the odds of that happening are very low. even if we had a booming economy the rest of the year, people will still be concerned about the fragility of the economy. it is very -- everybody on both sides will consider it too dangerous. my guess is they will kick the can down the road and extend them for another year or two. fear the you have a

economy would contract? guest: i think it is possible. it is unlikely for the simple reason that for tax increases to slow the economy, he would have to believe the tax cuts that are expiring have to have a stimulus to the fact. i see no evidence of that. there was a very good congressional study that came out in late 2010. they looked very carefully at the economic effects of the bush tax cuts. they could not find any positive effects at all. i am not necessarily saying we should do that, i would like to see as do a tax reform would different tax cuts and

substitute all of those for the bush tax cuts. i see no possibility whatsoever that the republicans and democrats will agree on anything before the election. host: deputy assistant to the treasury secretary for economic policy 1988 to 1993. he contributes to political and is an author. -- "politico" and is an author. this takes us through some of the things they want to see. mitt romney would cut the individual tax rates, bringing the top rate to 28%. santorum would propose creating two tax brackets.

, a flat tax. newt gingrich would allow individuals to choose between falling the current system are paying an optional flat tax of 15%. the president would raise the top rate on households earning more than $250,000 a year. michele tweets -- guest: value added tax is a type of sales tax that anybody who's been to europe or canada is familiar with. it is different from our retail sales tax that we have at the state level here because it is collected in parts along the distribution and production process. so it is embedded in the price of goods rather than collected all at once at the end, at the retail level.

this has proven to be a very effective way of raising revenue. i estimate we could raise about $50 billion per percentage point for the value added tax, and some european countries have raised 20%. there is $1 trillion per year of additional revenue that could be raised. i am not suggesting a $1 trillion tax increase, but i am saying this is money that could be used to reform the tax system. we could, for example, abolish the corporate income tax. this would greatly increase the competitiveness of american companies. one of the values is the value added tax applies at the border. we are seeing a large trade deficit. more of the tax would apply to imports than is rebated on exports. it would be very clearly an improvement in competitiveness, and clearly abolishing the corporate income tax is better

than just cutting the rate. there would still be plenty of revenue left over that we could make the bush tax cut permanent, permanently fix the alternative minimum tax, and fix quite a variety of other things in the tax code, and there would still be enough money left over where we could come up with some kind of deal. i don't know specifically how this will be done, but it would compensate those with low and middle incomes so they would not suffer a huge increase in their tax burden. on the other hand, there's something to be said for the idea that everybody ought to contribute something to the general operations of government. it's not realistic that you would get the 50% of people who now file federal income-tax returns and pay no federal income taxes to now start paying income taxes. a value added tax is a way of

spreading the burden around and making sure that everybody, including illegal aliens and visitors to our country, pays something. host: michele contends it is regressive on middle income. guest: i agree. something ought to be done. i just don't agree on what that way should be. in some countries they exempt certain goods such as food. that's a bad idea because it creates distortions. you want to have a single rate that applies as much as possible to everything. we will just have to create some kind of rebate mechanism or something to tell those people. host: bruce bartlett is our guest. let's see what erin has to say, a republican in louisiana. caller: my question, i have a disability. why am i getting that cut? why is this? host: do you have a question related to taxes?

caller: yes, my house taxes, why is it so expensive and i cannot afford it? that's what i'd like to know. host: property taxes. guest: property taxes are levied by local governments, states and localities, by and large. it does not have anything to do with the federal income tax, except that property taxes are deductible against your income taxes. but that is all controlled by local governments and vary a great deal from state to state. the operation of your property tax varies from state to state. toimply don't know how respond. host: sarah, democratic caller, virginia beach. caller: thank you. i have a quick question regarding your comment about the positive effect of the capital gains and dividends rate, leaving it as it is versus

raising that, because why not tax the wealthy taxpayers? why not tax their bonuses for companies share options more heavily versus the capital gains and dividends, which is the main avenue for those of more modest means to even accumulate wealth in this country? to me that is a positive effect of capital gains and dividends. guest: the vast bulk of all capital gains and all dividends are realized by people at the very top of the income distribution. something like only 6% of all capital gains and dividends are realized by those people in the bottom 95%. so the idea that having very light taxation on the ultra rich will somehow help people of

modest incomes is nonsense. the only way it could help them is if it led to more saving and investment that lead to faster economic growth, that lead to more capital formation, that led to more jobs. but as i pointed out, we now have almost 10 years of experience with very low rates of taxation on capital gains and dividends and there's no evidence that has stimulated growth at all. it was just a giveaway to rich people just because they are rich. i think that is not justified and economically not necessary. we had a top rate of 39.6% on dividends in the 1990's and we had a boom. so the idea we would suffer tremendously to go back to the same tax system we had under bill clinton is just nonsense, it's just wrong.

host: roger joins us from huntsville, alabama, independent caller. caller: good morning. thanks for this opportunity. my question is, all of the people out there right now that are trying to start small businesses and the taxes that they have to pay in order to get their businesses going is just outrageous really. it is where low-income people are trying to start a business and have such a hard time trying to get that business to go. i think that my main point is for everybody that is starting a small business, please call in. it is just way too hard to try to make it day by day. you have a business license,

insurance, you put everything -- and high gas prices -- you put everything on the table for small entrepreneurs trying to get into business. it's almost impossible anymore. host: are you speaking from personal experience? caller: personal experience. it is absolutely almost unable to even do it. host: have you started a small business and had to give up on it? or are you managing to get by? caller: no, i am still struggling. i am not going to give up on it, because i have no other choice but to try to keep going. just take for instance, we started off 10 years ago and we are still struggling at the bottom just like we did when we tried to take off 10 years ago. host: let's get a response on what you brought up. guest: there's no question that starting a small business in this country is very difficult. but the idea that taxes is your biggest problem is complete nonsense.

none of the things that the fellow mentioned, talking about insurance and things like that, that has nothing to do with taxes. very few small businesses pay any taxes because they don't have much in the way of profits. they have to pay payroll taxes on behalf of their employees, obviously. but they hardly pay any federal income taxes or corporate income taxes. the vast bulk of those taxes are paid by big corporations and wealthy people. if you look at the studies that have been done by small business groups such as the national federation of independent business, they make it very clear that the number one problem of small businesses is a lack of sales, a lack of customers, which, in my opinion, is a lack of aggregate demand. there's no problem that any small business has that cannot be solved by having more customers and more sales. that is the core problem.

any discussion about taxes is just a red herring. host: conversation going on, on twitter right now. listeners and viewers can join that conversation. laura says -- arnold responded -- guest: that ought to be up for discussion. a friend of mine has a book out about this in which he suggests, let's get rid of the personal income tax for all except the very wealthy and just collect all that revenue from a value-added tax. i think that is a very good idea, one worth talking about. the problem is the right wing in this country is adamantly opposed to a value-added tax under any circumstances, because in their fevered imagination we would all become tax slaves, we would be living in a gulag just like the people in germany do.

i hear a person at the cato institute say this all the time, as if everybody who lives in europe is some kind of slave just because they have a value- added tax. that's nonsense. that is a lie. the main thing that they use the value added tax for in europe is to pay for health insurance. we don't. we pay out of our own pockets. our employers pay for it and then it comes out of our wages. we would be a lot better off if we had the federal government take care of this, pay for it with a value added tax. then every business would be on the same level. the previous caller was complaining about the cost of getting into business. one of them is providing insurance for your employees. how about if he did not have to do that, if the government was taking care of that for you and

you're paying for it with a tax that does not even fall on businesses, it falls completely on consumers? we really need to have a more sophisticated debate about these issues and not just dismiss them. host: jeanie is a republican in washington state. did you participate in the caucus there? caller: i definitely did. for the first time. i supported romney. it was the most interesting thing i have participated in. host: can you tell us more? caller: sure. host: why was it so interesting? caller: i understand the caucus for the last president was 13,000 people in our state and it was estimated at 55,000 this time. so there were a lot of people in there. it was great.

it was really interesting. i had never done it before. i might do it again. it was good. host: thanks for telling us. go ahead and make your question or comment. caller: i will do my best. i am pretty much bewildered by everything that he has said since he has been on the air. bewildered. guest: buy my book. caller: i am bewildered because if i could address the vat tax. what that means is every time it is cut from one supplier to the next, every single time it's taxed it is hidden. nobody sees it at the end of the line that this has been taxed over and over again.

they don't know 50% of that item has been taxed already and then they are taxed when it goes to sale. i think that is a very difficult thing. guest: something you may not understand about the value- added >> the house is coming in now for a vote on a post office from florida. mitigation measures, to promote river values. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 570, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2842, to authorize all bureau of reclamation conduit

facilities under federal reclamation law and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3637 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3637, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 401 old dixie highway in jupiter, florida, as the roy rood post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house support the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 353 and the nays are 2.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 361, the nays are 2. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended --

the speaker pro tempore: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 362, the nays are 2, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's desk senate concurrent resolution 35 and ask for its

immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution to establish the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies for the president-elect and vice president-elect on january 21, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: is there consideration -- objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. lungren: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's desk senate concurrent resolution 36 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 36, concurrent resolution to authorize the use of the rotunda and emancipation hall by the joint congressional

committee on inaugural ceremonies in connection with the ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the president-elect and vice president-elect of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: last week, border protectors spotted drug smugglers trying to move narcotics into the united states. the agents found themselves under attack from the mexican side when the narco terrorists unleashed gun fire and the agents returned gun fire. this sounds like a scene out of the western movie, but this is real life on the texas border. the legal ports of entry may seem safe but it is really the wild west. law enforcement is outmanned, outgunned and outfinanced. we have troops protecting other borders, why don't they protect ours? texas has to protect itself. texas d.p.s. has now six gun boats that will patrol the rio

grande. why does texas has to send its own navy? because the federal government refuses to do its job and someone has to protect the homeland. and that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: the slaughter continues in syria. mr. speaker, last week i visited the head of mission at the syrian embassy and delivered letters that indicated that mr. assad, president assad, must go. and that there must be an establishment of safe houses or safe places for women and children and that at that time the bodies of those deceased journalists should come out. and as well that the red cross and international red cross should be allowed in. then there was a protesting and suggesting of the rebels. but we now heard from a journalists that was able to get out that those journalists were actually murdered and now

today we're reading that the syrian authorities friday blocked an officially sanctioned red cross convoy laid within food and medical supplies from entering a devastated neighborhood and home, one day after the army overwhelmed the rebel strong hold, here after a months' long siege. no rebels, just syrian despots, people who want to kill their own people. mr. assad needs to go. we need to get women and children safe. we need to be able to get justice for the dead journalists and now the world needs to rise up and i look forward to the syrian resolution passing but something must be done. mr. assad, you have to go. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to rise today to congratulate eden prairie boy's

swimming team and diving team on wipping the minnesota state championship recently. the eden prairie eagles earned more than 100 points over their two closest competitors that tied for second place. a key relay team of aaron greenberg, maverick, mike and breist also set a new state record in the 200-yard freestyle relay and they took home first place in the 400-yard relay. these student athletes have absolutely seen that teamwork builds character, confidence and self-worth. it also teaches our young people the importance of working together to find common ground lessons such as playing competively while also having respect for your opponent, a life long and will make for absolutely strong successful adults and future strong leaders. mr. speaker, congratulations to the eden prairie boy's swimming and difpking team. -- diving team. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. polis: i rise today to urge this body, the united states congress, to join my constituents' call for comprehensive immigration reform. my constituents across the ideological spectrum from those on the right who decry the rule of law, the undermining of the state of law and the affront to our sovereignty, to those on the left who decry the tearing apart of families and the injustices of the inhumane stream -- treatment of people in our immigration system, we are calling out to fix our immigration system and replace it with one who works. there are upwards of 10 million to 15 million people residing this this country inillegally -- in this country illegally. we owe to that there are zero people living here illegally and pass comprehensive immigration reform as both president bush and president obama have called for on a bipartisan basis. my constituents demand action now. i call upon congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? >> request to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. daniel j. maybin, world war ii veteran, korea war era veteran, passed away this afternoon in pennsylvania. he was a father, cap grandfather, great-grandfather and a loving husband of his wife sheila and was proceeded in death by his beloved son sean. dan was a member of what has been called the greatest generation any society has ever produced and he certainly earned that distinction by defending this country through two conflicts. sheila was his english war bride whow brought to america and settled in pennsylvania. when he left the service, dan worked hard to support his growing family, often working several jobs. mr. fitzpatrick: dan was someone who loved his country and cared deeply about its future. during his life, he served his community and worked to better the lives of those around him. he imparted these values to his

children who have gone on to contribute greatly to their communities as well. i had the honor and the pleasure of knowing dan. he left a lasting impression on those he touched, may his soul rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today in nevada a funeral service is being held for william j.. when you think of nevada public service, his name tops our list. when you think of legislative leadership in the silver state, bill's name tops our list. when you think of self-made individuals in nevada, bill's name once again tops all lists. it is with sincere sorrow that i ride rise on the floor of the

united states house of representatives today to memize a native son of the state of nevada, a husband, a dad, a community and statewide leader, a role model and a friend with whom i had the honor and privilege of serving the people of nevada with for many years. mr. amodei: my condolences to bill's daughters and to his wife. god bless you, bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, america has no better friend on the face of the earth than the people of israel. israel is the only nation on earth that can say they've stood by america 100% of the time for 100% of their existence. and it's so important today that america, that our president, that this congress stand behind the people of israel at this moment of sue people are peril, when the iranians are building a nuclear weapon as fast as they, can that the iran irans have said they're going to use it.

america must stand by israel. there should be no doubt in the mind of every israeli, of every friend of israel around the world that america will stand behind her best friend, 100% of the time, just as they have stood beside us 100% of the time. mr. culberson: we will be there for israel, to defend her safety, her security and her prosperity against any enemy, any time, anywhere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of new york for today, mr. danny davis of illinois for today and thursday, march 8, ms. moore of wisconsin for today and march 6 , and mr. reyes of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king,

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege and honor to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives, in this borled's great deliberative body. and taking it from the top, as i listened to the statements that were made tonight in the one-minutes, i think of the gentlelady from texas and her statement about syria. i'm not here, mr. speaker, to defend president assad and syria. in fact, i think he needs to go. and i believe that all people of the world have a right to self-determination and they should not live under tyranny or despotism. i think back when some of us objected that the former speaker of the house, mr. speaker, and that was nancy pelosi, as she took over the big gavel, she set up a diplomatic tour and mission and one of those places was syria. and i remember the president of

the united states whom according to the constitution is in control of, and i'll say according to the interpretation of the constitution, is commander in chief, but also controls the foreign policy. it's implicit and it's more than a two-century practice that you have to have the president of the united states as conducting foreign policy. and the president of the united states was george w. bush, who asked the then speaker of the house, please do not go to syria. do not seek to negotiate with president assad, do not upset the diplomacy that's taking place between the united states in syria, or the lack of that diplomacy. and i think about that time when nancy pelosi, as speaker, crossed that line, even though it was requested of the president of the united states, the commander in chief of armed forces, and the individual who's in command of all of our foreign policy, had asked her not to go. now we see what's going on in

syria and i listen to the comments and i just think that if, you know, if the gentlelady from texas had spoken up at that time when i did, it might be a little bit easier to hear tonight than this particularly was. but, mr. speaker, there's many things in front of us in this congress. and among them, of course, are economics and national defense and our national security. right now as i listen to the gentleman from texas talk about the israelis, and there's an event going on tonight that brings together about 12,000 people, some israelis, many people of jewish origin here in the united states, and all that will be sitting there at the apeck dinner will be strongly supporting an independent israel that is in control of defending themselves, the sovereignty of israel. i'm a strong supporter of israel. and i look at the country of israel, voubded by their enemy, to -- surrounded by their enemy, formed in 1948, and for most of my life i've watched

israel develop and defend herself and i've watched how they are the most stable and reliable democracy in the middle east and for a long time they were the only democracy in the middle east. they would be the only place for a long time where an ash could get a fair -- an arab could get a fair trial, out of all of the middle east. today we're seeing the dialogue take place from iran, well, from iran, not with iran, and israel is the stated target of ahmadinejad. now, they've been working in iran, as you know, mr. speaker, urgently and feverishly to develop a flirke weapon and a means to delelf -- and nuclear weapon and a means to deliver it. when i came into this congress i sat down then with the ambassadors to the united states from germany, france and great britain who were seeking to convince us here in the congress that we should encourage our president to open up dialogue with the iranians

and perhaps be able to talk them out of their nuclear endeavor. that was in september of 2003 that that meeting took place. over in the rayburn building, mr. speaker. and as i sat in on that meeting and weighed in on that meeting, i have kept hearing the message come back about open up dialogue, they wanted to open up dialogue. and so when it came around to the opportunity where i had the floor, i asked those three ambassadors from each united kingdom, france and germany, what is your long-term agenda here? what do you propose to do? and they said, well, we want to open up dialogue. and my answer was, well, if we open up dialogue with iran, what is the next step? they said, we're only here to talk about opening up dialogue. but if you open up dialogue with iran, there are other steps alodge the way. if we just talk with them and they are you if a fuse then to shut down -- and they refuse then to shut down their nuclear

development within iran, what are you prepared to do? i watched these diplomats get nervous. when you talk to diplomats about action they start to get nervous. so what are you prepared to do? what do you mean? we all i think knew what was coming. well, are you prepared to go to the united nations with us and ask for a resolution rejecting iran's nuclear endeavor? are you prepared to bring about sanctions and if the sanctions don't work, are you prepared to bring about a block aid? and if the block -- blockade doesn't work and there's a line in the sand that says, if you vie late the blockade and if you continue on your nuclear endeavor, are you prepared then? if they cross that line, that we might draw in the sand, are you prepared then to go to the desert and enforce the very things that are being started in this dialogue here? and of course they weren't prepared to do that. they weren't even prepared to talk about that. but, mr. speaker, when you start down the path of diplomacy and you think that the only tool you have is

diplomacy, there's nobody out here operating as a sovereign nation in the world that's just kind of dumb or duped that doesn't understand that there has to be a force, there has to be some kind of threat, there has to be a consequence, an or what? or otherwise we would go to the iranians with our hat in our hand and say, why don't you be some nice guys for a change and shut down your nuclear endeavor? and what kind of luck will we have with that? as they believe, as they seem to, that they're called upon by the entity that they worship to annihilate israel, the miniature satan, and then turn around and annihilate the great satin, the united states of america, that's their stated purpose, mr. speaker, and their stated purpose is target one, tel aviv. tel aviv, because it's the city that was created after the origins of israel and it's predominantly of jewish population. so they would target tel aviv.

now, any nation that would take that position and we would think that somehow we would say to them, even though your goals are to annihilate israel, and to annihilate the great satin, the united states, would you just please be a nice guy and stop developing your nuclear weapons? i mean, how naive could we be to go to ahmadinejad and make that kind of a request under the guise of dialogue and think somehow that that's going to get the job done? we should have known then, i'll tell you, mr. speaker, i knew nen -- then that dialogue was not going to solve the problem. you never win on dialogue alone. you always have to have a leverage point or they will look at that, they'll look you in the eye and decide, they mean what they say, it isn't worth it any longer, the juice is not worth the squeeze. i'm going to back off and stop developing the nuclear. but of course that didn't happen. the three countries that were here asking us to engage in dialogue, good people and good friends.

and very respectable ambassadors each and i have personal admiration and respect for them. but when you start down the path of dialogue, you must also understand there has to be a consequence at the other end. that consequence in sequence was, go to the united nations for a resolution of rejection and disapproval, make it clear in the international world that the iranians were violating the nuclear nonproliferation agreements that were established, make it clear that there would be sanctions and if that's the case, then there would be an embargo and there would be a blockade and on the other side of that there would be action to take out their nuclear capability. . now the president, our current president, said he takes nothing off the table, but when you say you take nothing off the table, that doesn't mean everything is on the table. it's a little bit of that

language we've learned we have to look at carefully and understand there's a loophole in that. if you didn't put iten the table in the first place, and you take nothing off the table, he may have already taken military responges off the table and we don't know that. i was watching the news over the weekend, i heard gretchen carlson on fox news say that the the president of the united states and president netanyahu had made an agreement that israel would not strike iran's nuclear capability before the election. i'm amazed that isn't all over the newspapers and all over the floor of congress. i'm amazed that story hasn't been picked up and pasted about the blogs with americans up in arms, i'm amazed that's not going to be the central discussion taking place at the dinner tonight, i'm amazed the

president of the united states can give his address to apac as he did last night, to such great applause and report as was reported in the news. i'm amazed. i'm amazed because if the president of the united states -- first of all, was the fox story true? my experience has been that you don't have news out of there that's unbased or unfounded. i haven't chased it down to see where the original story came from but it disappeared from the media. but if the president is thinking in terms of he would play nuclear showdown with iran by calculating an election date as part of that equation, it is an appalling concept to think that it could even be reported in the news as fact that the president of the united states

would conduct his negotiations and manipulate the foreign policy, especially when it comes down to an armageddon type of policy, based upon an election dade for -- date for his re-election. i can understand the motive, mr. speaker. but to think in terms of, if something bad happens between israel and iran that might risk the president's re-election, that at least it's reported in the news that he would have had the incentive to negotiate with israel and say, do not mount a military strike to knock out iran's nuclear capability before the election. i will tell you, mr. speaker, i don't believe we have that much time. i think we count this time in weeks, perhaps two or three months, but i don't think we count this time until after the november election. and furthermore, when you get into the point where you have these kind of crises coming forward, and we have the

president who has announced the iraq war is going to be finished on such and such kate, the afghanistan war will be finished in 2014, and by the way, time out iran on your nuclear endeavor here until after my re-election; then will be a lot more comfortable time to deal with this crisis, i take nothing off the table, but i remember the president saying he has put military strikes on the table. i just remember him saying he takes nothing off the table. here's what needs to be done. i don't know that the credibility exists at this point within the white house for this to be done but a president who was a credible individual could look at the camera and look across the ocean into the eyes through video of ahmadinejad and the mullahs and say, i have put an x on the calendar. and that marks the date beyond which you will not be allowed to continue your nuclear endeavor. i know that date but you do

not. i will work with you, so that you can save face in iran, mr. ahmadinejad, and the mullahs. i will work with you to accelerate the demolition of -- demolition of your nuclear capability to the satisfaction of american inspectors and we'll do all of that so you look at gooze as you can -- look as good as you can and save as much face as possible but you'll know what that date son the calendar, -- you'll never know what date is on the calendar unless you go too far. if you're one day away at that date, too bad. that's how you negotiate with terrorists work cold-eyed people who believe the united states is a great satan, that they're called by the entity they worship to annihilate israel, annihilate the united states and to negotiate with them, to think that you could open up dialogue and go through

all the resolutions and sanctions and embargos and not the blockade and let some of the rest of the world violate those agreements and profit from it, we saw it happen in iraq. didn't work. we're watching it happen in irap, it's not working. and now, we're dangerously walking very close to that line of iran having the capability to having dwooped nuclear weapon and a means to deliver it. by the way, when i say means to deliver it, mr. speaker, it isn't just a nuclear tipped missile that can streak tel aviv from iran, that 750 miles or so from the sovereign territory from iran to tel aviv itself. it is the ability to put that anywhere in a suitcase, it could be delivered aboard ship, it could be delivered aboard late boat, it could come about

any way over land. once they have that capability and it's proliferated, mr. speaker, there's no stopping the proliferation. we must end their capability before they have that capability, not after. after is too late. that nuclear horse is out of the barn as soon as they are able to produce that weapon and when it is, they will terrorize the world. we don't know where it is. so mr. speaker, i urge the support of the american people and united states congress for the autonomy, the sovereignty, and the self-protection of israel and should israel decide that they need to take out iran's nuclear capability, tonight, tomorrow, any moment, i stand prepared to stand with israel and even though this administration might send the message that military support and global political support would no longer be forth coming from this administration, mr.

speaker, i believe we have a new administration around the corner and if we can wait, if we can tell the iranians wait with your nuclear development and tell the israelis, wait with the military strike to take out the nuclear capability that's growing now in iran, if we can tell them that, mr. speaker, i can say that the american people look forward to an administration that will treat israel right, an administration that will support and encourage that israel defend herself and a united states of america that will step up and protect and defend israel as we are pledged to do both philosophically and spiritually and by the obligation we have from history. that is just what comes to mind, mr. speaker, as i listen to the speakers here tonight. syria is a very dangerous place and i am for a regime change and i don't think that we should have negotiated with nor

sent a delegation too president assad and he is slaughtering and murdering his own people. to that extent, i agree with the gentlelady from texas. but i came here tonight, mr. speaker torque address a number of pieces of subject matter. on the subject matter, i'm looking out at tomorrow is super tuesday. super tuesday with 10 states having primary elections and perhaps out of that, comes a direction, the likelihood that there will be one presidential candidate that will emerge and become the likely nominee. the apparent nominee. i think the odds are a little less than even that that can happen. what we have is a longer, more drawn out process than was anticipated. it started back in iowa, more than a year ago. as we work with the presidential candidates through that time, some of them were just putting their toe in the water, they came into iowa and

decided they didn't want to do it and stepped out again. others hadn't quite emerged, rick perry came on in a -- came on a little later, in august of last year, and did well for a while. some candidates stepped out, others stepped in and then out, now there are four republican candidates for president that are in the race and we're watching as the polls are starting to separate and i don't want to make this prediction, mr. speaker, but i'll say this. i look across the platforms of the republican likely nominees, potential nominees for the presidency, and i begin to ask, we don't have a republic agenda that's a national agenda. we don't have a consensus on that national agenda. this congress has been moving pieces of legislation, almost all of them tied to jobs, jobs, jobs, seems to me i can think back about four years and hear

our current speaker ask the previous speaker, madam speaker, where are the jobs? jobs, jobs, jobs. i've heard jobs, jobs, jobs for a long time. it's nice that we are about jobs. i haven't heard a lot about profit, profit, profit, which is required to pay for the payroll to create jobs, jobs, jobs. and the profit isn't something that comes from a government job. mr. speaker, that would be something i hope the president overheard. profit is not something that comes from a government job. government jobs consume the profits of the private sector. there are two sectors in the economy here. the public and the private. the public sector is the regulatory sector. not exclusively. when the public sector provides law enforcement, for example, that gives us security so that the private sector can operate, you can open up your shop and do business, open up your factory and do business. you have to have some security. you have to be able to have a judicial brampling of government, more limited than the one we might have -- we

have, i might say, mr. speaker, so you can enforce the laws. you need some functions of government. you need people to build roads and you need people to sometimes reach out and do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves, leave us otherwise alone, i would say, mr. speaker, but the drain on the private sector, the productive sector of the economy, comes from the public sector. the public sector generally consumes the energy and resources and the product of the private sector. private sector invests capital, produces goods and services that have a marketable value both here and abroad, and the economy dynamically grows. the federal government reaches in and takes out 22%, 23%, 24% of the gross domestic product, most of which needs to be in the private sector side because they're the only ones generating wealth, they the only ones taking capital and

re-nevadaing capital. historically, the federal government has consumed about 1% of g.d.p. now that's roughly in the neighborhood of 23%. of our gross domestic product. but it saps the vitality of the economy to have a government that grows and consumes more. it saps the vitality to tax and spend it in the government entity side. the endeavor of the president's economic plan should be to roll people out of public employment and into the private sector because the private sector is producing goods and services with a marketable value both here and abroad. i don't see that coming out of the white house here today. i pray it comes out of the white house in less than a year from now, when a new president, mr. speaker is elected who understands the principles of free market economics. i could go deeply into that but

i'm hopeful that i can express to you tonight the need for this congress to move on a series of issues that are very important to the american people. that is this, that it's unclear who the apparent nominee and in the end the nominee for president is. so therefore we can't go to that individual and say, will you please write up for me the platform you'll run on when you're nominated as president of the united states. that's unclear. but to me, what is clear is, there are a series of issues that are universal across the contending presidential candidates. these issues are the issues we should move through this congress, planks in the platform of the next president of the united states, we're in a perfect opportunity to do this. we're here with not a particularly intense legislative agenda. it's hard to have a lot of things to do when you send them down there and stack them up like cordwood on the desk of harry reid. so let's send some things down there that the american people

can see are the planks and platform of the next president. we know what this president will do. he gave us obecause in acare, tried to give us cap -- obamacare, tried to give us cap and tax, gave us the economic stimulus plan and tarp, all that out of president obama. he blocked the keystone x.l. pipeline because apparently he concluded it wasn't a national security issue, needed more time to study. i'll come back to that in a minute, mr. speaker. that's the agenda of the current president of the united states. the next president of the united states needs to have a clear platform to run for office on and they have been articulating that but the american people don't know what it is because they don't know who the apparent nominee will be. . i've sorted through the platforms of each of the viable presidential candidates and come down with a list of those issues that would be universal across the campaigns of the

likely or potential nominees of the republican party for president of the united states. and i would suggest, mr. speaker, that the leadership in this congress move the legislation that's universal to any of the potential nominees so that we can lay out that platform for the next president. the planks are there, if it's something that's popular with the american people and it's in the agenda of each of the presidential candidates, bring it to the floor of this congress. bring it through committee first, let's go through regular order. let's mark it up in committee, bring it to the floor. and let's have a debate and vote on it and send it over to harry reid. see how well he does rejecting the agenda that the american people support. so let me start off the list. and this is off of a bit of a research list that i put together about two weeks ago. it comes this way. every presidential candidate that is a viable candidate and with a reasonable potential to be nominated for president of

the united states, on the republican ticket, supports a fence. i've stood on this floor over and over again and said, go down to the southern border, those 2,000 miles, build a fence, a wall and a fence. we can't just think that four strands of barbed wire is good enough. or that a vehicle barrier is good enough. or that a single fence where the other day they showed a video of the panels in the fence where they went in with a post jack, what i call it, and jacked the panel up and the drug smugglers and the illegals poured underneath that and they dropped it back down again and walked away with their jack, kind of laughing and whatever the south of the border is for high fives was taking place. we need to build a fence, a wall and a fence, mr. speaker. and i've sfood over here on this floor and -- stood over here on this floor and democrat democrat stated how you do that -- demonstrated how do you that. we need to go down to the border -- you do that. we need to go down to the border and defend what is the

border. you can only come here legally. next we need to come north of there, a reasonable span, 40 to 50 feet, perhaps, and put in another fence. i would make that out of concrete. precast panels with a slip form trench foundation in it. and i would drop those panels in and fix that in such a way that it would be a strong barrier, so is that muema manatee is not pouring through -- so that humanity is not pouring through across the border. then i'd come again, another 50 feet or, so and build another fence. that can be steel, that can be chain link. it needs to be tall. so you end up with a fence, a wall and a fence, two zones of no man's land, so it can be enforced. yes, we need to use all of the virtual we, can all of the cameras and the sensery devices that technology will provide, so that we know to deploy our border patrol to a place where there's been a breach or violation in that fence and

enforce that 100%. we can't just let people come into the united states, shrug our shoulders and say, well, we'll catch somebody later on or somebody tomorrow. we have to ensure that if you're going to sneak into america, we're going to catch you and we're going to enforce the law and in the end, if you violate that law we're going to need to punish you and put you back into the condition you were in before you broke the law. now, i don't understand why that's somehow seems to be cruel and unusual punishment, to encounter someone who is unlawfully in the united states, who has violated our laws and if they crept into the united states across the border and entered the united states illegally, that is a crime, mr. speaker. it's not a civil violation, it's not -- it is a crime. and so that makes the people who sneak into the united states illegally, people who commit crimes by definition are criminals. and i suggest that we build a

fence, a wall and a fence, is some will say we can't build 2,000 miles. my answer is, have you ever seen the great wall of china? great wall of china is 5,500 miles long. and armies marched on top of that. and the first pemper of china, back in 245 b.c., connected the existing sections of the great wall of china so that it is one continuous wall. they did that not with huge machines and excavaters and cement plants them. did that with stupe labor, putting it together piece by piece by piece. if the chinese could build a 5 had, 500-mile long great wall, it would be a wonder to me why we have such difficulty building something that approaches 2,000 miles in length. a simple solution to a complex problem. our little old construction company could get tooled up to build a mile a day. now, you know, i'm not suggesting that our people go

do that. but if our little company has that capability, think what the big companies have for a capability? and by the way, i'm not either suggesting that we build 2,000 miles of fence. i just say this. build it according to the secure fence act, that's the law we passed. that's what duncan hunter was for. that's what i was for. but let's just build a fence, a wall and a fence, and just build it until they stop going around the end. doesn't have to be 2,000 miles long if they stop go around the end sooner than that. they leave tracks by the way. so you go out there and you take a look. well, ok, they went around the end of this fence, well, let's add another 20 miles. and now see how that works and we'll just keep building fence until they either quit crossing the line or we've got 2,000 miles of it. and the math on that, mr. speaker, is not that hard to figure out. although the question doesn't get asked often enough. so we did the math on this, a little while back, and i've got to adjust it by a mental

calculation, to get it into con temporary and now it's probably even a year old. we're spending about $12 billion enforcing our southern border. $12 billion a year. now, if i take $12 billion, divide it by 2,000, that's $6 million a mile. so if you're spending $6 million a mile to defend the border and the border patrol comes before the judiciary committee, the immigration committee, under oath and tetches, we think we interdict about 25% of those who attempt to cross the border. and i go down to the border and i ask those enforcing it, so you're stopping about one in four? and they laugh at me. oh, no, we're not stopping one in four. maybe 10%, some say 2% to 3%. but the most consistent answer i get from the enforcers on the border is 10%. but i'm willing to go back to the 25% number. and use that. even though i think it's probably high. and so i do the calculation and

i think, let me see, if janet napolitano, secretary of homeland security, came to me and said, congressman, i want to hire you to guard the west mile from your house across rural iowa, that mile of gravel rood, for that mile, and for that mile i'm going pay you the same amount that we're paying to protect our southern border, $6 million a year. oh, and by the way, if that's not enough incentive, it's a 10-year contract. so she would lay in theory under this formula $60 million on my kitchen table and my job is to guard that mile of road and see to it that no more than 75% of those that try get across. i'm going to snap that up, mr. speaker. and i'll tell you, i'm not going to go out there and hire myself a multitude of people that are boots on the depround. i'm going to hire some -- ground. i'm going to hire some but i'm going to be well aware that you

have a benefits package that goes along with it, health insurance, retirement benefits and all of the pieces that have to do with supporting an officer, including a vehicle for him to drive. multiple vehicles in some cases. i'm going to recognize that. and i'm going to look at the capital investment for the long-term, all the way through retirement, of hiring boots on the ground and, yes, we need them and those that are there do a good job and they want to do the job. but i'm going to look at it and i think, i could invest some of this $60 million in this contract a little more effectively. i think i'll build a fence, a wall and a fence. then i'll have myself a few officers there to rotate the shifts and monitor the sensors and watch the cameras that are taking place and maybe man a guard tower here or there. and we'd make sure that nobody got across that. not anyone would get across that. and by the way, as i brought up israel a little bit earlier, they built a fence. and they designed that fence so that it would be as reliable

and as tight as possible. and it has some wire there and it's got towers and they monitor it and it's been 99. something percent effective. so we can learn something from the israelis. why do they build fences if fences don't work? we look down at the mexicans. they build -- they have barriers down there between mexico and guatemala. there's a fence that was being built between saudi arabia and iraq so that they could interdict the refugees that they anticipated would be coming into saudi arabia, to keep them out. there's a fence that's being built right now in that bankrupt country of greece. between greece and turkey. to keep the illegals that are pouring into greece from turkey out of greece. even though the greeks can't afford it, they're building the fence to keep the illegal turks from pouring into greece. now, some will say there's something inherently immoral about a fence.

a fence, a wall and a fence, in my case, mr. speaker. and i would argue, there's a difference between that, those who say, haven't you ever heard of the berlin wall? well, of course i've heard of the berlin wall. i've walked almost every foot of the berlin wall. i have a piece of the berlin wall in my office and it's framed. it's framed with a wood frame and it's got a red cloth behind it and a piece of the berlin wall about that big that was chopped out on november -- excuse me, september 12, 1990. and it represents the single most significant historical event in my lifetime. the end of the cold war, when the iron curtain, the berlin wall itself, literally the iron curtain crashing down. but the berlin wall was designed to do something entirely different than all of the fences that i have described, mr. speaker. it was designed to keep people in.

not out. and that's the difference. a wall that is designed to keep people in because you don't want them to achieve and access freedom and liberty in our god-given liberty -- and our god-given liberty rights. that's what the berlin wall did. it trapped people, it fenced them in. the other fences that i've talked about are designed to keep people out who are trying to come into the united states and other places in violation of existing law. and others will say, and some are clergy saying, well, you were an alien in a foreign land and i took care of you. there are a lot of quotes in the bible that remind people that we should reach out to the less fortunate among us. but i happen to have stood on the mars hill in athens where st. paul gave his famous speech, his famous certificate monday in act 17 -- acts 17 -- sermon in acts 17 where he

said, and the lord made all nations on earth and he decided when and where each nation would be. that was st. paul's statement on mars hill in his famous sermon in act 17. each nation has its sovereignty. the lord decided each nation on earth and when and where those nations would be and we should not slipping from that responsibility -- shrink from that responsibility, that sovereign responsibility to protect our borders and to protect the rule of law. and the borders of the united states are what define the sovereignty of the united states and if we should accept the idea that there aren't borders, that people have always migrated and somehow it's immore forl for us to de-- immoral for us to define those borders or tell people they can't come across, then i would ask those who advocate a policy like, that and i believe that it is an illogical policy, that those who advocate for such a policy, i would say to them then, how many people do you believe should be allowed to live in the united states? what should the possibility --

what should the population of the united states of america be? six billion people on the planet, we're the third largest population country in the planet, 300-plus million of us. how many should live here? if you would ask the rest of the world, would you like to live in the united states and we'll buy you a ticket to go and we'll give you an unlimited -- just how about the current access of welfare benefits that are there, 72 different means-tested federal welfare freshmans -- programs, and by the way, refundable, no excuse me, yeah, refundable tax credits for illegals working in america under an employ i.d. number instead of a social security member, i congratulate sam johnson of texas for bringing his legislation that prohibits any tax credits from going to, any refunds from going to those who are filing their taxes without a social security number, but they could tap into all these benefits. 72 different means-tested

welfare programs and the refundable tax credits that are there, and we say to them, you can live by an implied guarantee in the united states of america at a middle income level, middle class, without working and we're going to see to it that it's all available to you, come to america, we'll give you that to you. . i would predict that more than half of the six billion people on the planet would opt to come to the united states. so how many people do those with advocate for open borders, what do they think the population of the united states should be? should it be three billion? am i right on that? should it be two billion? should it be four billion? i would suggest that it would surpass three billion under that kind of offer except many of those on the tail end of that would realize our system here would collapse long before

you could ever load three billion people into america. or two billion. or maybe even one billion system of what is the number? what is it that those who advocate for open borders and suspending the rule of law, what is it that they believe should be the future population of the united states of america? how many would they let in? i constantly hear the lamentation that it takes too long to come into the united states legally. it takes too long. well, i suppose if we just opened it up and accelerated the process and everybody that was in line if we let them in right away, inside of a year, maybe that's not too long. and i'm constantly hearing, candidate, presidential candidates, even, some in the past, not so much now, argue that we need to speed up our immigration process and that those who are here in the united states illegally need to get right with the law and that they need to go to the back of

the line. so if they need to go to the become of the line. -- line, d do they really, really understand the lines don't start in the united states? the lines for legal immigration into the united states start in foreign countries. where people have an aspiration to come here and they apply for a visa and eventually a green card to come here and that line -- those lines, when you add up all the lines of the various visas that that are out there, h-1-v's, the video is a lottery program, the list goes on and on, you add up all of that, the lines to get into, waiting to come into the united states legally are 50 million long. 50 million. 50 million people are waiting in foreign countries to come to the united states legally and i hear constantly, the wait is too long. we need to accelerate coming into the united states. so we bring 1.2 million people

into this cupry legally, kind of on average, each year. 1.2 million. we're the most generous country on earth by far and some data shows we bring more people legally into the united states than all other countries combined. i can't anchor that in a data point so i want to put that caveat in the record, mr. speaker, but it's in that category, someplace prettily close. 1.2 million legals come intooling america, drawing from a pool of about 50 million waiting in line and in all of that, we only have about 7% to 11% of the legal immigrants that we even score their ability to contribute to the united states. the rest of it is all about how they can benefit from the taxpayers and workers here, how they can benefit. no nation other than the united states would allow for the -- what should i call it the evolution of an immigration

policy that simply grants this to people because they want to be here and gives them the authority to accelerate the legal immigration of the family reunification plan so that beyond that first individual, they can start bringing in people outside the extended family tree. we sat down and did a spread sheet calculation, how many people could one individual bring into the united states under family reunification. we built it on a spread sheet and got up to 357 individuals brought in by one individual and ran out of room on the spread sheet and realized, you can't calculate it. but you can calculate the means by which we are legalizing people in america and it depends on whether you look at one study or another, they're competing studies, and that is between 89% and 93% of the legal immigration into the united states is not based on merit whatsoever. there's no merit quality there

whatsoever. and the balance of that, between 7% and 11%, does come from some measures of merit, such as having a skill. but i'm suggesting this, mr. speaker, that we develop an immigration policy here in the united states congress with the cooperation of our next president that's designed to enhance the economic, the social, and the cultural well being of the united states of america. any country worth its salt will have an immigration policy designed to benefit the country itself. we're not in the business of trying to alleviate -- we'd like to but we cannot be in the business of trying to alleviate all world poverty, all world hunger, all world lack of liberty and freedom. it isn't enough to bring people in here and let them understand and be inspired by american inler -- liberty, god-given american liberty, but we need to promote and inspire it in

other countries in the world. instead of going there to bow before foreign leaders and apologize for being americans. i'm astonished, mr. speaker, that we had a secretary of state, madeleine albright, who told the world she wouldn't wear the american flag lapel pin in foreign countries because she was afraid it would offend people. my response is, go find a country that's offended by that and not getting foreign aid. congressman louie gohmert has said so well of the countries that take our foreign aid and hate us, he said you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll hate you for free. so i want to design an economic policy to enhance the social

and economic well being of the united states, score the applicants for immigration into the united states, scoring them on their ability to contribute to this society, this culture this civilization and some of the ways to do that, we can look to our english-speaking allies for some guidance. canada, the united kingdom, australia come to mind. each of them have a policy or have been developing a policy to set up a point system a scoring system, so they can evaluate applicants for immigration into their countries. here are some of the cry tieria. education, job skills, earning capacity, age, you want young people to come in so they can pay taxes long enough to justify paying for their retirement. and english speaking abilities. because the ability to speak and write and understand english is the strongest indicator we have to assimilate

into the broader overall culture. there is nothing discriminatory about this other than, if we're going to have a policy that's good for america, we have to do some discrimination. in favor of those who can do the most to help our country. i'd like to bring in, continue to bring in, bright, energetic people, especially young people. if they are pre-educated by the taxpayers of a foreign country, that's fine. i'm happy with that. come on in here and help america's economy grow and raise your family but embress our american traditions, our american culture, our american civilization. after all, that's why you came. and to the extent that you bring some of your culture along with you and there are certain traditions you follow, that adds to the flavor, it adds to the zest of life here in america. but mr. speaker, when they come in and reject american liberty and the american way of life and try to re-create in an enclave the life that they left instead of embracing the life

that's offered to them here in america, i would ask, why are you here? why would you come to america if you're going to reject americanism and seek to re-create the place you left? why didn't you just stay there? shast some of the foundation of the immigration concept we have, mr. speaker. and by the way, as i get to item number two on this long list of universal items i think all presidential candidates would embrace and this congress should pass, i would add we've got e-verify legislation before this congress and i am not satisfied that it is written in a way that will work the way it's intended. i'm very concerned, mr. speaker, about the pre-emption written into it that prohibits the political subdivisions from supporting and enforcing immigration laws that mirror those of the federal government. i have proposed something that solve this is problem without having to preempt the states

and political subdivisions. it's called the new idea act. new idea stands for the new, and the acronym is the new illegal deduction elimination act. what it does, the illegal deduction immigration act clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible. and we know that but the practice is to write off wages and benefits paid to illegals because they know no one will come along and enforce. this has been a practice since the amnesty act of 1986. under the new idea act, then, the i.r.s. coming in to do a normal audit of an employer's company would run the social security and other pertinent data fru e-verify. let's say i have 100 employees. the i.r.s. would come in, internal revenue service would come in to do an audit of my company, they would look at

reseptembers, expenditures, look for anomalies in the calculation that might indicate there was money scooped out that wasn't, you know that a tax wasn't paid on or tax avoidance. in the process of doing that, they would run those social security numbers of the employees through e-verify. the internet-based system that can verify whether the data identified someone who can legally work in the united states. and as they run the 100 social security numbers through e-verify, then e-verify would either come back and affirm they would lawfully work in america of if there's no answer, no response, that, it's then implied they can't work legally in the united states so therefore the i.r.s. could deny the business deduction of the wages and benefits paid to the illegal. they would give a period of time for the employer and employee to cure any data that's there an give the employer safe harbor if he uses e-verify so that for another

means of lack of verification they can't come in enforce against him. safe harbor for using e-verify, not a mandate to use e-verify. the i.r.s. would make the determination using e-verify and the net result is this, out of 100 employees, say i had 10 illegal, the i.r.s. would say i'm sorry you paid $50,000 a year to each one of these employees, that's no longer a business expense, because they were unlawfully working in the united states and you had the tool to verify it. so that $50,000 times 10 is $500,000. that $500,000 that you wrote off of the gross receipts number, say i grossed $10 million and that $500,000 would be one of my expenses that's there. they would deny the expense of $500,000, $50,000 paid to 10 illegals and that $500,000 then

goes out of my expense column on schedule c, other into the gross receipts side and shows up down in the bottom line as net income. taxable net income. and that means that your $10 an hour illegal, by the time you pay the interest, penalty, and tax liability, becomes about a $16 an hour illegal. so the employer can draw a choice. does he really want to take a chance on being audited every year and seeing his expenses of his illegals move from $10 an hour up to $16 an hour? or would he maybe offer an american a job at $13 or $14 an hour? i think that's what happens, mr. speaker. and it provides an incentive to an employer doesn't have to switch it all overnight. they can calculate the risk and clean up their work force incrementally if that's what it takes. furthermore, in my bill, the new idea act, it requires that there be a cooperate i team