the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 389 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 390rk the nays are 23, the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 3606, the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation and cross hencheses -- references an to make other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow when the, an then the house adjourns tomorrow, it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, march 13, 2012, and when the house adjourns on that date, it adjourn to meet on -- at 10:00 a.m. on friday, march 16, 2012, and when the house adjourns on that friday, it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday, march 19, 2012.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bachus: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain motions for one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: i rise today to congratulate the pennsylvania state university panhellenic dance marathon. they go every year to raise money for the diamonds fund at penn state children's hospital, to assist cancer patients and their families through treatment. they have helped thousands of

families by offsetting expenses incurred during cancer treatment. this year, they broke the previous record and raised $10, 690. they raised over $10.6 million. that's amazing. penn state's thon has become one of the largest student ron filan to thro bies in the wol and helped imuff -- fi -- largest student run philanthropies in the world. i want to congratulate them all for another amazing year in support of a truly important cause. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order, the gentleman veck niced for one minute. >> today's "new york times"

headline, elite group is known for corruption but high-level trials have been absent. mr. mcgovern: this story appears while american service men and women continue to to die in afghanistan while the american people continue to send billions of dollars each day to afghanistan to sustain the afghan government. mr. speaker, i've had it. the american people have had it. this war is not worth another american life. it is not worth another taxpayer dollar, i urge the president to bring our troops home now. i urge the president to end this war now. enough is enough. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: it has been 1 --

>> it has been 1,044 days since the senate passed a budget for the american people. in 2011 the amount the american family spends on gasoline rose to $309, that's a difference of $194. what cowl you use the money for? with the policies coming out of this administration gasoline prices are going up, it'll be more than $36 8 a month for gasoline unless we make changes to american energy policies and be energy independent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. today, i have introduced h.r. 4170, a bill that will forgive student loan debt for millions of hardworking americans. mr. clarke: this bill provides that if a student loan borrower makes payments equal to 10% of their discretionary income for a period of 10 years, the balance of the federal student loan debt will be forgiven. this provides student loan borrowers with a second chance, those who have been struggling financially and by cutting this debt, this frees up their money to invest on their own. that will create new jobs throughout this country. it's time for congress to stand for the rights of student loan borrowers. it's time to forgive these student loan debts. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the university of arkansas at little rock women's basketball team for securing a spot in this year's ncaa basketball tournament. the game that put them into the tournament was an exciting one. the lady trow johns came back from a 22-point deficit in the second half against middle tennessee and went on to win by one point in overtime. with taylor ford's game-winning shot they won their second straight sun belt conference title and their third straight ncaa berth. congratulations to the entire ular community, to the coach, and to the student athletes on this year's team. mr. griffin: thank you for representing your school, the city of little rock, and the great state of arkansas. good luck. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from connecticut seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to honor the cystic fibrosis foundation. it's not a disease that affects a lot of americans, but the americans it does affect it compromises and all too often prematurely ends their lives. i had the great good fortune to meet with a number of my constituents who are concerned with the cystic fibrosis foundation including some in the chamber with me today. mr. himes: we are a good society because we invest the money to solve the problems that affect our children and our people. we spend money on cures to eradicate diseases that compromise and end the quality of life for so many of our citizens. as we do the hard work of getting our budget ined or, mr. speaker, i ask that this chamber not erode that good

work that we do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am here today to honor four american heroes, carlos costa, pablo morales, pena, and alejandro armando jr. who lost their lives at the hands of the castro dictatorship. two planes from the humanitarian organization brothers to the rescue were shot down under fidel and raul castro's direct orders. mr. rivera: ethey were searching for refugees trying to reach freedom. raul castro himself admitted to trying to -- to ordering the shoot down over waters so there

would be no evidence of the crime but the castro brothers have yet to be indicted for the crime of murdering four american citizens and continue to commit crimes against their sints every day. we should move immediately to indict the castro brothers for this crime. we should not turn our babs on the cuban people who fight for human freedom. i ask on this anniversary that we push for democratic change in cuba. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's time we emphasize the facts about the price of gas in our country. on inauguration day for president obama, the average price of gasoline was $1.84 per gallon. today, it's $3.75.

that's an increase of 103%. the estimate is that it will be $4.50 by may. a one-cent increase in the cost of gas equals $1 billion out of the economy and it's a $4 million per day cost to -- $4 billion per day cost to consumers. the congressional democrats have deflected -- tried to deflect the blame of their failed energy policies and point the finger at wall street speculator thers rise of the cost of a barrel of oil. but that's not the problem, mr. speaker. the obama administration's energy policies are creating uncertainty in the marketplace an driving up costs. we need this president to assume the responsibility for the problems that he's caused to the average, hardworking american taxpayers -- taxpayer, and do something about the price of gas.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to executive order 12131 and thed orer of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following members of the house to the president's export council. the clerk: mr. reichert of washington, mr. gurlalk of pennsylvania, mr. tiberi of ohio, ms. sutton of ohio, ms. linda sanchez of california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last -- late last night, two bioethicists, dr. alberto bellini and dr. francisco minerva published an outrageous paper justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies in the first days and even weeks after firth. they wrote, and i quote, when circumstances occur after birth that would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. mr. speaker, they just -- madam speaker, a brand new phrase. after-birth abortion. the killing of new bonches, the

killing of little children, boys and girls, immediately after their birth and up to weeks later. these bioethicists argue that if a newly born child poses an economic burden on a family, or is disabled, or is unwanted, that child can be murdered in cold blood because the baby lacks intrinsic value and according to to to them is simply not a person. they write, and i quote again from their article, their paper, actual people's well-being, you and i, madam speaker, are actual people, adults are actual people, according to them, actual people's well-being could be threatened by a newborn even if healthy requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply

of, closed quote. as any parent, especially moms, will tell you children in general and newborns in particular require an enormous amount of energy, money and boat loads of love. if any of those things, however, are lacking or oppose what belinni and any nervea say a threat, does that require a death sentence? are the lives of newborn children and newborn babies so cheap, so expendable? the murder of newly born children is further justified by them in this renowned journal's article, why they carried it, is certainly suspect, but they argue that it is further justified by newborn infants, like their slightly younger sisters and brothers in the womb, quote, cannot have formed any aim that she is

prevented from accomplishing. in other words, no dreams, no plans for the future, no, quote, aims that can be discerned, recognized or understood by adults equals no life at all. this preposterous, arbitrary and evil prerequisite for personhood is not only bizarre, it is inhumane in the extreme. stripped of its pseudointellectual and underpinnings, giobilini and any nervea's article is indistinguishing. they say that it is inextrickiblely linked to the devaluation of unborn children. let me say that again. the devaluation of newborn

babies, even into weeks of their life outside their mother's womb, is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children and is indeed the link to the abortion culture. and they write this, that they propose to call the after-birth abortion in order to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed -- that is to say the unborn baby, the baby, is comparable to that of a fetus. whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about, they write. so let's again get this right because the unborn child has been deemed to be a nonperson and can be killed at will. the newborn child, who is very, very similar in almost every aspect except dependency and a little bit less or more mature, that the choice is if they're unwanted, the parents can order

the killing, the execution of that child. madam speaker, these anti-child pro-murder rationization reminds me of disturbing rants from highly credentialed individuals over the years. princeton's peter singer suggested a couple years ago, and i quote him in pertinent part, there are various things you can say to give moral status to a child. after a few months, maybe a few months, six months, something like that, and you get a full moral status. really only have two years. break that down. only after two years, madam speaker, should we really confer a sense of personhood to a child who is no longer a baby any more because of this particular intellectual's perspective. dr. james watson, the nobel laureate for unraveling the mystery of d.n.a. many, many years ago wrote in "prism"

magazine, and i quote this, if a child were not declared alive until three days after birth that all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering. i believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have. compassionate to allow a newborn to die? i think not. in like matter, dr. francis crick, who received the nobel peace prize, i should say, along with watson, said, and i quote, no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live. madam speaker, the dehumanization of unborn

children has been going on for decades. what is less understood and appreciated is the dehumanization of newborn and very young infants. that, too, has been going on for years, but it has gotten in the last few years demonstrably worse. dr.s giobilini and minerva's article must serve as a wake-up call. the lives of young children who are truly the most unprotected class of individuals in our society are under assault. hard questions need to be asked and answered and defenders of life must be mobilized. i truly believe we have a duty to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable from violence, and now even the hospital nursery is not a place of

refuge or sanctuary. madam speaker, we must strife for consistency. why do so many -- and i have been here, madam speaker, for 32 years, and i work every single day of my congressional life on human rights issues. from human trafficking to religious freedom, i have written the trafficking victims protect action in 2000 to combat human slavery. i work against torture whenever and wherever it rears its horrific head, especially in places like china, north korea and elsewhere. but i am left to wonder why so many who claim to be proponents of human rights systematically dehumanize and exdude the weakest and the most vulnerable human beings from legal protection. why the modern-day surge in

prejudice and ugly bias against unborn children and now by logical extension newborn children? why the policy of exclusion rather than inclusion? they are indeed part of the human family. we should embrace them, love them and protect them. why is lethal violence against children, abortion and premeditated killing of newborn infants marketed and sold as somehow benign or progressive, enlightened and compassionate? why have so many good people turned a blind eye and looked ascans as mothers are wounded by abortion and their babies in the womb pulverized by such machines 20 to 30 times more powerful than household vacuum cleaners or dismembered with surgical knives or poisoned with chemicals?

looking back, how could anyone in the house or the senate or president clinton justify the heinous procedure called partial birth abortion? madam speaker, since 1973, well over 54 million babies have had abortion forced upon them. some of those children have been exterminated in the second and third trimuster. these are known as pain-capable babies, and those kids have suffered excruciating pain as abortion is committed upon him or her. why are some surprised that now the emerging class of victims, newborn kids, newborn children are being slaughtered in holland and elsewhere while a perverse proposal to murder any newborn children, sick or healthy, is advanced in an

otherwise serious and respected ethics journal? i urge members to read this article. it will make you sick. it certainly is the opening salv in an assault on newborn children. so in conclusion, madam speaker, children born and unborn are precious. children, sick, disabled or healthy, possess fundamental human rights that no sane or compassionate society can abridge. the premeditated murder of newborn babies, those who are 1 day old after birth, 2 weeks, 3 weeks old, are being justified as morally equivalent to abortion. i respectfully submit, madam speaker, that the congress, the courts, the president and society at large have a sacred duty to protect all children from violence, murder and

exploitation. we don't have a moment to lose. the child predators are working overtime to create more victims. madam speaker, i do -- would like to yield two to my good friend and colleague, dan burton, such time as he may consume. madam speaker, i do yield back the balance of my time. mr. burton: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized for 48 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. burton: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate it. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: madam speaker,

yesterday a good friend of mine, senator john mccain, became the first u.s. senator to publicly call for u.s.-led air strikes to halt the violence in syria. respectfully, i disagree with the senator from arizona. our main goal in the middle east is to protect our interests and the interests of our major ally, israel. if we are to be dragged into a civil war in syria for humanitarian reasons, i would respectfully remind senator mccain and the president that they do not have the power to unilaterally start a war. the authority to initial wait war is vested -- initiate war is vested in the constitution, specifically in congress, and the war powers act was enacted into law over a presidential veto. not an easy thing to accomplish.

to fulfill the intent of the framers of the constitution of the united states in requiring that the president has to seek the consent of congress before the introduction of united states armed forces into hostile action. section 2-c of the war powers act provides that no attempt by the president to introduce the united states armed forces into hostile action may be made unthe war powers act unless, number 1, there's a declaration of war, number 2, a specific authorization or number 3, a national emergency created by attack upon the united states, its territories or possession or its armed forces. the constitution and the war powers act are not a list of suggestions. they are the law of the land. the law, the president of the united states and every member of congress, swears to protect and defend. contrary to defense secretary panetta's assertion before the senate armed services committee the other day, international

permission does not, does not trump congressional permission. if the president is even remotely entertaining the idea of engaging in military action in syria, he must seek formal authorization from congress to attack syria first. while the violence in syria is appalling and syrian president bashir al-assad is certainly no friend of the united states, before any military action is taken, the president must tell congress and the american people by what right we attack syria. syria has not declared war on the united states nor attacked our possessions or armed forces. it is not our responsibility to intervene simply because violence erupts in another nation. if it were, bombs should be falling on a number of countries, including yemen, zimbabwe, uganda, sudan, north

korea, burma and i could go on and on. in fact, just this past tuesday, march 6, the former top united states -- united nations humanitarian official in sudan warned that the country's military is carrying out crimes against humanity in the country's southern mountains in acts that remine him of the 2003-2004 genocide in darfur. sudan president omar al bashar is under indictment for criminals -- for killing and rapes committed in darfur. roughly 5,000 people have died in syria, compared to 400,000 in darfur. how are the actions of al assad any worse than those of al bashir. -- bashir? where is the call to bomb sudan? we could have a war every week if we went after every tyrant that commits these atrocities.

human rights watch and amnesty international have documented the crimes committed by burma's military. many of the abuses committed by the burmese regime represents some of the world's most horrific ongoing atrocities. for example, the regime has destroyed over 3,300 ethnic minority villages in eastern burma alone. 3,300 villages have been destroyed. recruited tens of thousands of children, forced up to two million people to flee their homes as refugees and internally displaced and used rape as a weapon of war against burma. how is the violence going on in syria any worse an the destruction and degradation by the burmese junta? north korea is widely acknowledged to be the worst violate cror of human rights in the world. they care so little for its people, authorities are imprisoning for six months in labor training camps anybody who did not participate in the

organized gatherings in the mourning period for the late kim jong il, or did participate but didn't cry and didn't seem genuine. six months in a labor camp for not crying? north korea is a recognized state sponsor of terror. a proliferator of nuclear weapons an a direct threat to the united states forces in south korea. yet no one is urging the bombing of north korea. the world is full of despotic and oppressive regimes. the sad fact is that even in 2012, more of the world labors in the shadow of tyranny than in the daylight of democracy and rule of law. nofe world's leaders at least as bad as gaddafi and al assaad and many are worse. we are not the world's policemen. even if we are willing to ignore the by hi pockcy of using military force in syria for, quote, humanitarian

reasons, while we turn a byline eye to the other humanitarian crises around the world, there are several practical issues around the -- surrounding an operation in syria that make it ill-advised and this case should be made to the congress if the president or senator mccain push for military action against syria. libya and syria are very different countries with different geographies and different militaries. the libyan army of gaddafi was far less capable than syria's army under asaad. its forces were not as well trained, well fed or well armed. gaddafi had decisively turned on his armed forces after a sere's of military coup attempts in the 1990's. he relied on the revolutionary committee many of whom defected en masse within days of

protests breaking out against his rule. even against such a weak opposition, nato's bombing campaign only succeeded in pushing the loyal forces back, the rebels were unable to advance very far. as the battle turned into a stalemate, nato and others were forced to raise its commitment and the united states spent billions of dollars in that conflict as well without congressional approval. trainers were sent in and nato personnel shared space in the rebels' operations rooms in benghazi and qatar had to ship in 30 consignment of anti-tank cannons and belgian f-n rifles. ka daughteri forces found themselves leading the charge. nearly a year into the civil war to oust president assad, the syrian army remains largely intact and has a substantial chemical and biological weapons

capability and thousands of surface-to-air missiles and shoulder launch missiles, making syria much more of a threat than anything libya had. how will the american people react if an american pilot is shot down and captured by the syrian army or syria's proxy, hezbollah. that's why congress must be consuled before we take any action. i would urge any of my colleagues who are considering urging the president to take unilateral action that they remember the war powers act and the constitution. in addition, if air power is to be used against assad's regime as it was to overthrow gaddafi, it is certain that the venture will take longer than the six months it took in lib dwhreasm price in syrian blood on both sides will be higher and the geography of the country without the vast stretches of desert between towns that were turned into shooting galleries when gaddafi tried to remove

his forces, would guarantee more civilian casualties from nato bombs than occurred in lib yasm how many civilian casualties are acceptable to prevent a humanitarian chi sis? other questions that need to be addressed, what will israel do if hezbollah responds to western military actions against syria by launching rockets into israel? what will iran do to protect its ally in damascus? finally, brutally, we must ask the question, is the devil we know better than the devil we don't know? here i'd like to divert just a minute from my prepared text. when we saw the changes in libya, we didn't know who was going to take over. we didn't know that sharia law would be the rule of law there, which took them back into a more radical stance. in egypt, the elections that

have taken place after mubarak has been removed from power have led to the suspicion, very strong suspicion, that sharia law will be imposed in egypt as well. we don't know what that will do to the camp david peace accords an whether or not that cowl cause our ally, israel, to be in more danger. we need to know before we get into a war to change regimes what we're getting in place of the people we're removing. gaddafi, as bad as he was, and i didn't like him at all, i think he should have been removed, was no threat to the united states or our allies. he was a threat to his own people. yet we decided unilaterally to go in and get him. and we did. along with the french and our nato allies. now they're talking about, some of my colleagues, going into syria and removing al assaad without congressional approval by the president and we don't know what we'll be getting.

we have found recently from reports that al qaeda forces are in syria, assisting the rebels. now we have to make sure that if al-assad goes, that we don't have a base of operations for the enemies of freedom in syria. we know what we've got. we don't like it, but we better be careful before we start making a regime change there that al qaeda doesn't take over or have a big influence in syria that will cause problems for the united states, our ally israel and others in the mideast later on. while senator mccain, my good friend, my angrily deny it, the assessment of the director of national intelligence, james clapper, and half a dozen intelligence reports, and independent news agencies, is that al qaeda has inserted thems inside armed opposition

groups in syria, as i just said. al qaeda is there. they're the mortal enemy of everything we believe in and they're involved with the rebels there and we need to be sure we're doing the right thing if we participate and if the congress approves of some action in syria. do we really want to undertake a significant military commitment? those are the words of marine general james mattus, head of central command, to create so-called safe havens in syria to deliver weapons and supplies to al qaeda fighters from iraq? i believe that the sun is slowly setting on the assad regime. in syria. i sincerely hope we're not pushed into a war we do not fully understand and we don't really need to be in. i must remind my colleagues in both the house an senate one more time, the president, nor a few senators or members of congress, have the right to demand or push for unilateral action by the united states

without the congress of the united states being involved in the decision making process. that has happened in other countries in past, it happened in libya, but it should not happen anymore because the constitution and the war powers act and the rule of law must be maintained by the congress of the united states. and with that, i yield my time -- i don't know if anybody else wants time under this hour, but i yield my time back to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia -- under the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for 30 minutes. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i

very much appreciate the time and you staying with me on a -- late on a thursday afternoon to do this. thursday afternoon, madam speaker? friday afternoon? i'm losing track of my days, madam speaker, because i'm on the budget committee. this is budget season. we are going nonstop, meeting after meeting after meeting, to try to find that budget that not only guarantees that our safety net programs like medicare and social security will be there for generations to come, but that also guarantee that america will be here for generations to come because if you've looked at the deficits we're running if you looked at the economic circumstances we're in, if you looked at the $15 trillion, now $16 trillion that we passed on to our children and grarne, you know that our economic future is at risk. we talk so much, madam speaker, about the things that divide us in washington. i sometimes think that's unfortunate. there's a lot that unites.

i've brought quotes from president obama in the state of the union speeches that he's given right here between where you and i stand today, madam speaker. when he's come to the joint session of congress to deliver, this is what he said in 2010. the president said, we should start where most new jobs do, in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream. or worker decides it's time that she became her own boss. through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they are ready to grow. wow. who is that talking, madam speaker? is that a republican? is that a democrat? that's an american. that's an american talking about the american dream of being your own boss and growing a business, employing your maybes, growing the american economy. the president understood that

when he gave the state of the union speech in 2010. in 2011, mavepls, the president returned right here -- madam speaker, the president returned here to this very room and said this, at stake right now is not who wins the next election. at take is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country or somewhere else. and he was exactly right. he's exactly right about the grit it takes for entrepreneurs to grow jobs in this country and he is right that the question is not who wins the next election, the question is how do we ensure that new jobs and new industries take place in america instead of somewhere else around the globe. again in 2011, madam speaker, the president said this in his state of the union speech. we measure progress by the success of our people, by the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. by the prospects of a small

business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. by the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children. madam speaker, we see so much in the newspaper about what divides us in this country. these are words that unite us, words that republicans, democrats, americans from north and south, east and west, can all get behind. they don't stop in 2011. here he is in 2012, just two months ago, madam speaker, here in this chamber. to reduce barriers to growth and investment, i've ordered a review of government regulations. when we find rules that are -- that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them two. months ago, right here in this chamer. madam speaker, you know know that business in this country is under assault, and when business in this country

is under assault, american families are under assault. entrepreneurship in this country are under assault. the very basis of the american dream of being able to put in a hard day's work for a hard day's wage, to be able to change your station in life by the power of your ideas and the sweat of your brow, it's at risk. and why? i have here, madam speaker, a chart that shows the regulatory burden in this nation. what it actually charts is those regulations that come out of washington, d.c., that the implementation costs alone are $100 million a year. the implementation costs alone. not what it burdens businesses with in terms of lost revenues. not the number of jobs that it kills. not how many jobs it pushes overseas to china, to india and elsewhere instead of keeping those jobs in america, but just what it costs out of someone's

wallet to actually implement that regulation, this is what we see. 1995, of course, that was a republican congress, with newt gingrich leading as speaker, a democratic president with bill clinton, you see this kind of level line at about 80 regulations a year. 80 regulations a year. it goes along and along through the clinton administration, through the bush administration, and then we get to 2006 when america decided they could tell no difference between republicans and democrats and they threw the republicans out of control of the congress, as well they should have. as well they should have. but what happened, and elections have consequences, when they threw the republicans out of the house of representatives, the number of regulations began to skyrocket. even with president bush in the white house, this congress is where that legislation begins. the number of regulations on small business begins to skyrocket. then we get to 2008 when president obama is sworn into the white house, democrats rule both the house and the senate,

and you see regulations and the burden they cause rise right to the top. madam speaker, the decisions we make in this chamber have consequences. it's not nothing to tell a small business that there is a new rule or regulation that the small business has to comply with because it takes money and it takes time to comply with those regulations. they need to be important, and we need to take a look at it. the president says all the right things. i just couldn't agree with him more. to reduce barriers to growth and investment, i've ordered a review of government regulations. when we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. the speech says all the right things, madam speaker, but the evidence suggests that we are on a regulatory spending spree, the likes of which this country has never seen, and if you

think for a minute we cannot destroy the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, you're mistaken. you know, entrepreneurial activity, madam speaker, is at a historic low in america today. i'm not talking about the number of businesses that succeed. i'm talking about the number of americans who dare to try. you know, economic good times come and economic bad times come. the economy will always eb and flow, but -- ebb and flow, but when americans are afraid to try, when the regulatory burden is such that americans do not dare to try, we are threatening the future of this nation and the economic success of our children and our grandchildren. you know, they published an editorial in "the wall street journal," madam speaker. it is written by one of the four founders of home depot. i am a freshman from the great

state of georgia. birthplace of home depot. hopefully you come over to the morning craft project, wear the orange apron, but this is what their founder said. if we got together today, the four of them that built home depot, if we got together today with our same idea, our same intellect, our same capital, if we gather today, we could not make home depot succeed. why? because the regulatory burden in america is too great to allow for business growth. madam speaker, these challenges that we face are not global challenges about which we have no control. they are domestic challenges about which we have complete control. we choose, madam speaker, which regulations we pass and which

ones we say no to. i am proud to say, madam speaker, since this new congress has sworn in, we have not implemented one more regulation on this line. we are trying to turn back. we have a jobs act this week to turn back the clock on that regulatory burden to allow folks with energy and creativity to begin to grow jobs again, but it's a team sport. let me take you back to the rhetoric, madam speaker, and, you know, rhetoric has a term to it. i shouldn't say rhetoric, madam speaker. let me take you back to the state of the union speech that this president gave right here in this chamber. i listen to those state of the union speeches, madam speaker. i may be a republican from the deep south but those speeches move me from time to time. they move me because i agree with the words that the president says. i just disagree with the actions that he does. here we go, 2009. state of the union speech again, madam speaker, right here in this chamber. the president said this, given these realities, everyone in

this chamber, democrats and republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. and that includes me. he says, leader begins with him, and he's absolutely right. you know, madam speaker, we don't have control over the whole government in this chamber with you -- but we have control of the budget. the budget is lower this year than the seventh district of georgia had in 2008. these things without which we have control, madam speaker, we know leadership begins at home and we are starting with the tough budget cuts right here in the house chamber. the president said the same thing in 2009. he said there has to be some sacrifice of worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. and when we have a $16 trillion deficit, madam speaker, we know that there are no dollars. this is 2010. same president, same state of the union speech right here in this chamber. the president says this, families across the country are tightening their belts and

making tough decisions. the federal government should do the same. he's absolutely right. he is absolutely right, madam speaker. families across this country are absolutely making changes, absolutely doing what it takes to balance their budgets. the federal government can and must do the same. he said it in 2009. he said it in 2010. madam speaker, here we are in 2011, same state of the union speech. he says this, every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. they deserve a government that does the same. madam speaker, again, he's absolutely right. he was right when he said it in 2009. he was right when he said it in 2010. he was right when he said it in 2011. but, madam speaker, he hasn't done anything about it, and that's the challenge. the an election year, and folks like to say all the right things, madam speaker, but i didn't come to this chamber as a freshman to say the right things. i came to this chamber to do

the right things. what i have here is a chart of the president's budget that he submitted this year. now, let me first say, madam speaker, that as you know the united states senate has ignored the law of the united states america and has not submitted a budget to this in 1,044 days and they have said they are not going to do it again this year. harry reid said it would be foolish, foolish to do a budget. it just so happens the law requires to do a budget but foolish, he says. the president, to his credit, did put to his -- did put forward his budget. it's about 12 inches tall. and you have to go line by line by line and talk about what's important to you. is there enough money to go around everything? no, there's not. so what's important to you? where are you going to put your dollars? the president, to his credit, went through that very hard process and sent a budget to capitol hill. what i have here is a visual

representation of the budget he sent, madam speaker. as you can see i have a white dotted line here that represents current law. this white dotted line run rights through here, is current law. if we do nothing, madam speaker, if we do absolutely nothing, this is the trajectory in which american debt will grow if we do nothing. the president submitted his budget in february. i represented the president's budget by this large red line, by this large red triangle. the red line is what the president proposes that the deficit be. i mean, we can go back to his 2011 state of the union address where he said everyday families sacrifice to live within their means, the government needs to do the same. we can go back to 2010 when he said the same thing and 2009 when he said the same thing. in his budget he runs the deficit up in 2012, up in 2013,

up in 2014, and 15 -- 2015, in 2016, in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2021. way out there in 2022, the president's budget begins to reduce the deficit that this country faces from what it is under current law today. madam speaker, that's my frustration. how often is it in this body that we hear folks say all the right things? families sacrifice live to live within their means, says the president. we deserve to do the same. 2011. 2010, families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. the federal government must do the same. 2009, given these realities, democrats and republicans will

have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. and that includes me. but, madam speaker, the evidence reveals exactly the opposite. and what folks may not know, and i encourage you to go ahead and read the president's budget. again, he did the right thing for submitting it. i admire him for doing it. it's located at www.omb -- office of management and budget -- omb.gov. it has charts and graphs and all the numbers. but what happens in that budget, madam speaker, is taxes go up by $2 trillion. $2 trillion taxes go up on the american people. now, listen, we are in deficit times. we have revenue issues here. we need to have that debate about taxation. but my question to the white house is -- how can you raise taxes by $2 trillion on the american people and not reduce

america's deficit by one penny for nine years? and the answer is that you raise those taxes by $2 trillion and then you go and you spend it on other priorities. the president knows and has said in his state of the union address after state of the union address after state of the union address that we have to curb the appetite for spending in washington and here in the fourth budget, the last budget of his first term and candidly the most serious budget of his administration he still has not found those items that he's willing to be honest with the american people about and say we can't afford this, this puts our children and our grandchildren and in fact our entire republic at risk. now, there's a lot of blame that goes on in this town, madam speaker, and i don't take any pride in pointing out the

challenges of other people's ideas, but i do take pride in pointing out the merit of our own ideas. what i have here, madam speaker, is another graphical representation of the tough choices that we in this house, madam speaker, with your support and my support and the support of members on both sides of the aisle, the tough choices that we agreed to make on behalf of america. what i have here is a chart that shows america's debt as percentage of g.d.p., as a percentage of the entire economy. down here in black, madam speaker, is the historic debt. you see down here in world war ii era, in the 1940's, and coming down in the 1950's, this is the historic debt of america. during the global conflict that was world war ii, we ran america's debt up to 100% of the size of the entire economy. why? because we were fighting a mad man overseas and everything,

everything depended on us winning. and so we borrowed to the hilt, madam speaker, 100% of g.d.p. to invest in the war effort that saved freedom around the globe. well, then we began to pay those debts down, madam speaker. come forward to 2000, 2010, this red line is the current path of america. this red line as if the president dodged the tough decision this year, if the congress dodges those tough decisions, this red line represents where america is headed. . here we have at 100, madam speaker, that level of debt during the largest conflict this world as ever seen which the freedom of the planet hung in the balance. we are headed to that level and higher, madam speaker. 100% higher, 300% higher, 400%

higher with absolutely no conflict of that size on the horizon. we are just spending it here, not to fight national emergency, not to rise to meet an international challenge, but just spending it here. the greenline here, madam speaker, represents the plan that you and i and this house have passed. you know it's the only budget that's passed anywhere in the city of washington, d.c. in the last three years. only one budget has passed anywhere in the city of washington, d.c., in three years, and it was this one. the one that we did right here, madam speaker, that changed the trajectory of america's economic path. that takes us from a path to ruin back to a path of possibility and opportunity ultimately paying down our federal debt. how did we do that?

we did that by making tough decisions. we did that by going into the budget and asking the question, how can we do better? you know, madam speaker, in the great state of georgia if you talk to our department of transportation, they will tell you that we can build a georgia road, same mile of pavement, same safety exspecification, same everything, we can build a mile of georgia highway for about 60% of the exact same mile of federal highway. why? because of the regulatory burden that begins in washington, d.c., and flows downward. because every agency that touches every dollar this town sends back to the people that it took those dollars from skims just a little bit off the top for administrative costs. just a little bit off the top. we have to find ways to do

better. and we have to find ways, madam speaker, to behave differently. this is one example. how many town hall meetings have you had, madam speaker, where folks have come up to you and said daggumit, madam speaker, i paid into smare all my life. i need those benefits to be there for me when i retire. i hear that all the time. shoot, i have been paying into medicare all my life. i need those benefits to be there, too. i absolutely agree and understand why it is when folks have invested in their taxes, through their paychecks, in a promise that the government committed would be there for them in their time of need, why it is that americans believe the government should come through on that. but there's things about medicare we don't like to talk about, madam speaker. i have here a chart of medicare revenue. where it is the dollars come in to pay for medicare, because if you haven't looked at the numbers recently, madam speaker, you know we are spending about 40% of every peppi in the federal government, about 40% of

every pen -- penny in federal spending goes to medicare and medicaid. just two programs consume 40% of every dollar that we spend. in 1964 there was no medicare, medicaid. didn't spend a penny in those directions. now we spend 40 cents out of every dollar and that number is growing. but what you learn when you get to congress, madam speaker, you start going through all these committee hearings, is there's a lot they didn't tell you back home. medicare part a, that's the hospital program. that's the part where parents and grandparents, when you go into a hospital, in fact when we deseen the medicare program in 1965, as americans, we said, folks should not lose everything they have when they have a catastrophic illness and get hospitalized, we should have a support system to protect them in their time of need. and we did. we created medicare part a. and that's what every working american whether they started working at 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 they see that fica line on their check, madam speaker, those

dollars are coming out of every american's check, no matter how much they earn, all the way to the top of the income spectrum. every paycheck has about 3 1/2% taken out to fund medicare. now what happens? that amount that's taken out of all the american paychecks is represented in this light blue line here. it covers about 84% of the medicare part a costs. medicare part a, this hospital insurance that we are providing. every penny that we have taken from every american covers about 84 cents of the cost of the program. but you know after we created medicare part a, madam speaker, we created medicare part b. medicare part b is funded with zero dollars out of your and my paycheck. zero dollars out of any paycheck of anyone in america. not one penny in medicare taxes is taken out to fund medicare

part b. now, we charge medicare part b premiums. part b is what pays for your doctors visits and supplies and things like that. we ask medicare beneficiaries to write the government a check to cover 25% of those part b costs, but the other 75%, 74 because there is interest that gets picked up in there, 74% of all those costs are picked up by the american taxpayer. just out of general revenues. you wonder where the money goes, understand. we have told america that you pay into medicare and so you shall receive from medicare. you have paid in all your life, so it will be there in your time of need and we will ensure it is there in your time of need, but that's just medicare part a. about $200 billion. medicare part b is exactly the same size at $200 billion, and we never paid a penny for it, but the government's pushing all those moneys -- dollars out the door. move on to medicare part d,

madam speaker. medicare part d, that largest expansion of entitlement programs in the history of the country since 1967, implemented by a republican congress and republican president. yes, we charged americans, we ask americans to pay some beneficiary premiums to get medicare part b, about 11% of all medicare part b comes from medicare premiums. 83% is picked up -- no one ever paid a penny out of their pocket to deposit in a trust fund for that benefit. it's just a benefit that sprang out of thin air, and 83% of it is subsidized by american taxpayers across this country. now, i bring up these numbers for two reasons, madam speaker.

you talk about medicare. you pay those taxes, they are just going into the trust fund to pay for the program. they are just going into the trust fund. we have made promises to people about benefits that they will receive for which they never paid a peny. we had $16 trillion in debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. the days of being able to promise people something for nothing are long gone. we have to be able to have candid conversations with today's seniors, with tomorrow's seniors, i'm in my 40's, with my generation, madam speaker, and we have to renegotiate the

medicare contract with folks my age and younger. we have to do it. america cannot, madam speaker, sustain this path of debt. i feel a little disingenuous putting this chart up here, madam speaker. this is one of the current path of debt. the truth is in a if you're running the computer models, they really break down somewhere right about here. they really say that the laws of economics, what we know about the world banking system, what we know about commerce in this country, what they really say is, what about -- right about here, america's going to cease to exist anyway. that the numbers just don't work . that the economy just won't function. that america as we know it will be over here. it's not going to get as bad as i presented, madam speaker, because the republic as we know it will have gone away. you know, we talk so much about the debt limit on this floor, madam speaker, the debt limit as if it's something that congress

passes. every american knows a debt limit is not a law on a piece of paper, a debt limit is when you can't find anyone to lend you money anymore. the debt limit comes when the chinese say no, america, you are a bad credit risk, we are not going to give you anymore. when the germans say you are a bad credit risk. on the budget committee we had that hearing, madam speaker. we brought in economists from the left. economists from the right. we ask them all, folks, tell us how much longer do we have? when does the real debt limit get here? when the american economy can no longer find anyone willing to lend to them. this is what they said. madam speaker, the liberal economist that came to talk to us said we think you have five years. five years. before that day comes, the conservative economists said we think you have two years before that day comes. so we have a window, madam

speaker, between two and five years when the entire economy is going to begin to come unraveled. when american jobs and businesses are going to be at risk. when our entire experiment as a republic will be challenged. and the president in his budget this year introduced a $2 trillion tax increase and found a way to save us just a little bit of money nine years from now. madam speaker, we don't have nine years. every day that passes makes the problem harder to solve. every day that passes removes arrows from our quiver of solutions. every day that passes threatens the survival of our republic and that is why we presented the path to prosperity, madam speaker. as a solution.

madam speaker, i thank you for providing me the time today to talk a little bit about this budget. i hope folks will go to the web and learn for themselves the truth of the challenges facing this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. always a pleasure to get to address the house in your presence. i tell you what, there was quite an election in november of 2010,

one of the results was a freshman named rob woodall from georgia, and the gentleman from georgia does his constituents proud. it's a pleasure to serve with him. his comments most meaningful. when we think of what is going on today in the world of energy, in the world of constitutional rights, and the world of religious freedom there are things to be excited about and there are things to be greatly saddened about. when i came to congress as a freshman, was sworn in in january of 2005, it looked like our days of being an energy giant in the world were over.

sure, we were the kings of technology, but we were hearing from people that use natural gas , most of the stuff it seems like you look around a room and see whether it's plastics or if you got food, probably got fertilizer, natural gas used to make the fertilizer. it has had such a role in so many things. in recent months i asked some scientists, do you see anything on the horizon that might replace natural gas? -- natural gas for the uses as a feedstock to -- for so many things we make and manufacture in this country? i was told not for at least 30 years or so. the amazing thing, though, in the last seven years that should have everybody in america

excited is all the energy that's been found in america. here we are having to wring our hands, lowering our heads, woe is us, gas prices going up. we have a president, unfortunately, seemed like a nice fellow, but he doesn't know anything about energy other than what's handed to him that he can read about. . i wish it were otherwise. it's not borne out of the facts with regard to energy. i've been excited as a member of the natural resources committee to find out all the things that are being found. in east texas where i am fortunate because there is a natural gas formation that louisiana was kind enough to share with us. it goes -- it's called the

hanesville shale. there is more natural gas being produced than any other place. there is the marcellus shale. pennsylvania. runs up into new york state. but a massive natural gas formation. and the ability of hydrolic fracking, which has never been shown by a single scientific study to pollute water, despite some of the stories. once it is invested they will find out it's simply not true. the whole purpose of hydraulic fracking is to push oil or natural gas out of the formation and up. there is a invested -- there is a vested interest of making sure that it is ok where

drinking water is found. there is no scientific evidence that hydraulic fracking has polluted drinking water. if you look at the things that's done, depending on who you believe, we have at least 300 years of natural gas, even at an accelerated rate. people are now looking at having their cars running on natural gas. then, just when we think, well, natural gas is the thing of the future, now we got 300 years in which to find a suitable alternative without bankrupting the country trying to create something in the way of solar power or wind power that one day solar power i think one day will be a very viable source, but in the meantime this president in supporting his cronies who are manufacturing solar panels -- some of them are not doing anything except

enritching themselves, but the -- enriching themselves, but the market will take care of these things. when it is economically feasible and economically viable, then we'll see things like solar power become a reality. but the no time soon. in the meantime, the president's friends are being enriched. the country is being taken to the poor house on a fast track. there's no need for that. natural gas is the cleanest burning form of energy we could hope for. we're the largest repository of coal in the world. and then we find all of this oil, this huge play in north dakota. i met with a third group now

who tells me in utah, this hard, reddish brown rock that you wouldn't think has oil, when put under intense heat without oxygen, you get oil. they say at $60 a barrel, they could make $10 or more a barrel. and they are doing it right now in estonia. the same kind of rock, the same kind of thing. and now the third group has told me they believe there's probably -- they think you could get three trillion barrels of oil from just one area of utah. then it goes into northwest colorado and southwest wyoming, from what we're told. we know that there have been enough wells drilled in the middle east that all the oil that's there we pretty well know where it is. have a good idea from the way the wells and the fields are

being depleted about how much is left. information that i've been given indicated that there probably is somewhere around a trillion barrels of oil left in the middle east. a trillion. and yet in one area of utah we're told there may be three times that much. sadly, however, this administration does what it has done repeatedly for over three years. they put more and more of our resources off-limits. so when the president reads the teleprompter that says, you know, there's just nothing i could do to change the price of gasoline, with it we could get information to him to show him how wrong it is -- wish we could get information to him to show him how wrong it is. there is natural gas, there's coal. we've also been given

information when gasoline hits $4 a gallon, normally at least 25% to a third or so is purely speculation. so i realize the president wouldn't say there's nothing he can do about the skyrocketing price of gasoline. he surely means that or i'm sure he wouldn't say it. when the truth is if the president were to go on television tonight and announce that, you know what, folks, my secretary of the interior in january of 2009 immediately on coming into office announced that he was sending back the checks for leases in the small area -- may have involved some of northwest colorado but certainly utah -- he sent back the checks and said we're not going to allow leases on these

areas that were let at the midnight hour by the bush administration. well, we'll give him the ben pets of doubts -- benefits of doubt and what he said at the time were not true, those leases, as he admitted in one of our hearings, as i had to keep pushing to get the answer, were part of a seven-year process. companies can't just come in and bid massive amounts of money on a lease that they expect to produce oil or gas until they've had a chance to study the information. it was a seven-year process. not midnight hour. seven years and secretary salazar finally admitted that. seven years just to get to the point where people could bid on those leases.

massive amount of federal land. the majority of utah is federal land, and he put it off-limits. returned the checks after a seven-year process was completed. well, fortunately, during the prior seven, eight years of the bush administration there were other areas where leases were let and permits were granted and drilling commenced, and i don't think we ought to be allowing anybody to drill that had as many safety violations as british petroleum did in the gulf. if you can't have less than 800 egregious safety violations in your drilling, you got no business drilling on american soil or over american waters. yet, they were allowed to drill

when during comparable times, exxon had one, two, none. they had about 800. it appears the reason they were allowed to keep going, even though there was such great lack of safety, it looks like it must have been because they were about to say they come out publicly as a big energy company that embraced the president's cap and trade bill and that was going to be big news so they didn't want to alienate a big energy company. of course, they were going to be getting even richer dealing in the carbon credits consistent with the crony capitalism. they were going to be thrown lots of bonuses through that. but anyway, this ought to be an exciting time in american history. we have energy galore. a man from china told me he thought they had figured out what we were doing for our

energy policy. we kept declaring all our energy off-limits, more and more of it we wouldn't use the energy we got. may have more -- we do have more energy when you consider all the resources than any other country in the world. while the president is deriding america for using too much energy, we make the world safer, we make the world more peaceable, we make the environment cleaner. when manufacturers leave america and go to other places in the world, they pollute four to 10 times more in most of the places that those manufacturers are going to. you really care about the environment, well, keep them here. many of them are union jobs. you'd think the unions would embrace what we're trying to do rather than what the president's doing. but i understand it runs deep.

we have health care that's been rammed down the throats of americans. the majority didn't want it. the elections were being led in 2010. all the polls revealed that in 2009 and 2010. we got it forced upon us. when really what this government does best is play referee, makes sure everybody is playing fair and playing by the rules because the problem is when we become a player, we become a coach and the referee we're terrible at all three. when we get so involved in owning part of wall street that we're not watching what's going on, you have things like madoff ripping people off right and left. we should be the referees, making sure everybody plays fairly, not the players, not the coaches but the referees. government, the federal

government, especially, is a terrible coach trying to tell people how to make a business work. the best thing that could happen is if we get insurance companies out of the health care management business that they're in now. they're really not in the insurance business anymore. they are in the health management business. and if we don't get them back into the insurance business and out of them managing our lives and our health, then they'll be out of business and the government will take over just as obamacare anticipates. that's where it's all headed. if we don't get the federal government out of being a player and coach and referee and health care -- in health care, then the government will ultimately be the only coach, player and referee, and that does not bold well for americans. we have a chance now for the first time since the 1960's since medicare was thought up to allow our seniors to take

control of their own health care and give them the resources to do it. we should have -- there would be nothing like a real test, medicare here, you want medicare, have it just the way it is, orwell' buy you a health care, private insurance policy that we'll be referees and make sure they play fair and we'll make it a high deductible policy because those are so much cheaper. and we'll give you cash and a health savings account that will be enough to cover the amount of your deductible each year. and in the end, it will be cheaper and it will give people the dignity and patience to control their health care. they don't have to beg this government, they don't have to beg this board the obamacare has set up. they don't have to beg some

insurance company, please, please let me have this treatment. you'll have insurance, you'll have the money to cover the high deductible, and we move people into being in charge of their own lives because the only -- the alternative is rather grim. but let's be clear. this government wants to control people's lives and as soon as obamacare were to be fully operational, then the federal government has every right to tell people what they can eat, tell people what medicines they can have, tell people when they won't get that pacemaker, as the president told the lady at the white house during a town hall. maybe it's time we tell people like your mom who had 10 extra years of life because of a pacemaker, maybe it's time to tell your mom, you don't get the pacemaker, just take a pain pill. if we don't get this turned

around, the government will have every right to tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much you have to exercise, what you can and can't do. our freedoms will be gone. i've got a great quote here from one of the founders. . thomas jefferson, if people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. thomas jefferson. those that say, gee, i want to have unlimited sex and i want the government to pay for it, somebody's got to. i want the government controlling my life, people that feel like they need the government telling them what to

do, wherever it is, whatever aspect of life, sam adams is given credit as being one of the most influential founders in giving us this great nation. sam adams, if you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude, than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. we cannot your counsels and arms. crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. may your chains sit lightly upon you, and make posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen. sam adams. once the government has the right to control everybody's health care, it will have the right to tell you what freedoms it will recognize and you can

practice and which you can't. that's why -- one of the reasons obamacare is so objectionable. it's being -- the government intrusion into so many areas of our lives. the first amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. or bridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. we are not supposed to make the law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. obamacare does that. it gives this government the power to say, you know what, people ought to be able to get abortions paid for by the

government which means the taxpayers pay for it. they ought to be able to get contraceptives as they wish. so never mind the fact that right now if there's somebody in america that needs contraceptives they can be obtained. plenty of sources. still the president feels the need to intrude upon religious beliefs and say, folks, you can't practice this belief. you believe abortion is murder. it's murder of an unborn child, well, tell you what we'll do, we'll just say, your money doesn't go for abortions. yet in owe basma care it's -- obamacare it's very clear there will be:ics, there will be policies that will provide abortions and people that pay into policies, those policies insured across the board, and they will cover that, and money is fungible, it will be used for

abortions, it will be used for contraceptives. even though there are people putting in money to the system that object and feel they are violating their religious beliefs. so it struck me that the president recently found time to apologize to someone who had been up here on the hill testifying, but he never found time to apologize to those who he told you cannot practice your religious beliefs. oh, yeah, he tried to make an accommodation for a church and hospital, but catholics that have these closely held beliefs, i'm a baptist, but good grief, if you're going to tell a catholic they can't practice their religion because as some in this body have said, a majority think you shouldn't, you're going to tell people they can't practice their religious

beliefs? for hetch's sake at least give them an a -- for hetch's sake at least give them an apology. not so. no apology there. so i thought maybe it would be helpful to track exactly what deserves apology and what doesn't. well, we remember when the president first came into office, first thing he did was take what a lot of people referred to as an apology tour. he went around the world apologizing for america's arrogance toward countries where we had americans buried who gave their last full measure of devotion to free those countries. but the president found time, apology or no apology, yep, got an apology. all right. there were bush policies i said toward countries that we actually send a tremendous amount of money to but who vote against us over half the time in

the u.n. do they get an apology? bingo, he found time to give them an apology. the family of border patrol agent, brian terry, murdered by operation fast and furious gun that our government forced to be sold to criminals, well, no time for an apology. they don't get one. the c.i.a. enhanced interrogation that save lives and led to finding osama bin laden, we do have time to apologize for that. they get one. detaining terrorists who kill or conspire to kill americans at guantanamo, even though there's not been a sing many incidents of waterboarding or torture of any kind, remotely, at guantanamo, although when you -- they throw feesies or urine on our guards -- feces or urine on

our guards, we won't take away an hour of their movie watching. still they get an apology from this white house. the accidental 20812 burning of these korans that are desecrated by the writing of detainees, yes, they got an apology. the families of american soldiers who were killed after president obama said he, quote, calm things down by apologizing to afghanistan, nope. didn't get apology. no apology there. our own soldiers, but, nope, no apology. death of two pakistani soldiers in pakistan and the injuries of four our pakistanis in 2010 when a plane, we are told, made a mistake. yep. pakistani, they get an apology, but americans don't, pakistanis do. the president's support for the ground zero mosque at 2010 white

house dinner opposed by most americans, including 9/11 survivors. most americans didn't want a mosque at ground zero. the president said it was a matter of religious freedom. so basically word apology wasn't used, but it was an apology. we believe in them being allowed to do that even though it offends most americans and victims' families. yep. yep. they were at the white house hearing how sorry it was that americans opposed that. comment in 2011 that israel should return to its 1967 borders that would have subjected it to relentless attacks and vulnerability as prime minister netanyahu explained. nope, israel doesn't get one. no apology for israel. his good friend, bill aers and bernadine, the first people to have a fundraiser at the house for him. they were part of a radical left

wing group. dedicated a bomb at the pentagon in 1962, and we know there are people still serving the military that were around when the pentagon was attacked by his biggest, earliest supporters, they don't get an apology. no apology. ordering many christians to violate the religious beliefs and pay for abortion, drugs, and contraceptives. nope, no apology there. violates your religious beliefs, too bad. no apology. comments by president obama and president sarkozy in 2011 at the g-20 summit where they belilted israel prime minister, netanyahu, no apology tore that. comments made by rush limbaugh in his radio program about abortion ack have i tisses and georgetown law student sandra and i'm told its fluke, fluke,

whatever, yes, the president found time for that apology. the president's support for not allowing notices to save babies born alive after a botched abortion. we heard from at least one of those nurses how brokenhearted they were sitting there having to be forced to watch a baby die. no apology for those folks. attendance for 20 years at trinity united church of christ where radical pastor wright used racial and anti-semitic terms, inflammatory rhetoric, and insulting comments about hillary clinton from his pastor? i believe the comment was, he could no more disown that fine gentleman which he later did, no

apology for anybody offended by that. and inflammatory and indecent comments of one of president obama's biggest supporters, regarding sarah palin and michelle bachmann, tens of times worse than anything rush limbaugh would have ever dreamed of saying, that's right, no apology for them. i think it helps to chronicle exactly what deserves an apology from the white house these days. just so we know where policies lie. and where this president stands and with whom he stands. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time so that my friend, mr. burton, could finish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i'd like to use a few minutes of his remaining time if it's possible. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeking a one-minute request or more? mr. burton: i'm not sure what the procedure is on the half-hours. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas had a one minute remaining. mr. burton: i'll wait for my colleague from texas to start. she's going to yield me a couple minutes, i think, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlelady yield? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for 30 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i'll be happy at this time to yield a few minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. mr. burton: i thank my colleague from texas and i'd like to say that she's a pleasure to travel with. she's a real gentlelady.

the reason i take the floor for just a couple minutes is one of our dearest friends in the capitol is a fellow named joe katroni, he is a barber down in the house barbershop and he on march 1, he celebrated 42 years cutting hair in the capitol of the united states. he came to the united states when he was 18 years old from italy. he said he has lived the american dream and he's one of the nicest people that i think you'll ever meet. everybody that's ever worked with him or had their her cut by joe really understands that he's a very caring person and one that they respect. he has cut the hair of every speaker of the house except two. neap -- nancy pelosi, i don't think she goes to the men's barbershop. and john boehner, the current speaker. and i'm going to talk to speaker boehner as soon as we get back

from break and get him down so joe can say he cut every speakers' hair since he's been a barber down there. he has cut the hair of vice presidents, presidents, the president of italy, secretary of transportation, ambassadors, governors, admirals, chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, but his favorite person besides me is tip o'neill, the speaker of the house when tip was the speaker some time back. he has also worked before he came here at the air force base at andrews and the pentagon. but i'd just like to say to joe the barber, because we are going to give him a copy of this floor statement, madam speaker, that he has been a credit to the institution of congress. he's liked by everybody that's ever had him -- been in his chair, and i just want to congratulate him on 42 years of working here in the capitol. i don't think anybody's ever complained about him.

he's really a nice guy. he started march 1, 1970 and he's here now, 42 years later. and i just say, joe, congratulations. i'll be down to see you in two weeks. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. jackson lee: i was very happy to yield to the gentleman. thank you. i indicated to you in the spirit of bipartisanship although i have not had the privilege of having joe cut my hair, let me congratulate joe the barber, because he is the epitome of a public servant. he has worked for this august institution for 42 years, and i'm very proud to say that he can claim that he has done the hair of -- or cut the hair of all of our speakers. i don't think our speaker, who has outstanding italian heritage, our former speaker, speaker pelosi would in any way shy away from congratulating this distinguished gentleman who came to this country and literally is a walking, if you will, american dream.

so i want to congratulate you, joe the barber, on behalf of a bipartisan congress. and join my colleague, mr. burton, congratulating you for your service. you are truly a public servant to all of your family members and we wish you long life. again, congratulations for 42 years to joe the barber. . with that i'll continue my remarks and thank the speaker for -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlewoman suspend? members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. and we look forward to addressing these very important issues to you and certainly we want to make sure we address questions. in the coming weeks we will be discussing the atributes of the affordable care act, and i will look forward to coming to the floor of the house, again, and acknowledging how much money

the affordable care act, the health care act has in fact saved this nation, how it has preserved medicare, how we focus on medical education, medical school education, medical providers education, how we talked about issues dealing with health care disparities and in particular how we have expanded the community health clinics that have saved lives, how we have worked on issues dealing with children's health care, how we have provided access to health care for many, many people. that allows me or calls upon me to again follow-up to again distinguish the georgetown law student who spoke before members of congress who got in the crosshairs of a commentary that was not very flattering. i just want to distinguish the commentary that came against

the georgetown law student for comments that were made by entertainers and others in the course of their comedic work. the comment was she was called before members of congress to speak. she was not speaking on a television program or an interview. she was actually called by members of congress to testify to the question of access of health care to women. and i will tell you that right now documentation shows that women who are 24 years old and above, their health plans today cost 84% -- costs 84% more than a male similarly situated. so we know without health insurance how devastating it would be for women not to have health insurance. many of the planned parenthood,

family clinics and others are focused on health care. we want to have a firewall, as planned parenthood has, and that is that the firewall is that access to health care is a distinguishable factor of their service. and that is what this woman was talking about, the importance of access to health care. it was in the course of that testimony that made her a victim of public ridicule. that's why i believe president obama appropriately acknowledged the right of a citizen to petition his or her government and that if they do so that they should not be subject to public ridicule. their lies the basis of the president of the united states calling this georgetown law school student, and i applaud that, because no matter how heyer, the highest office in the land, the commander in chief, isn't it appropriate or

isn't it befitting of an individual who represents all of the people of the united states to have the humanity, to be able to call people citizens, families when they are at their lowest, when they have been in the position of presenting their public case to the united states congress or even to the president of the united states of america? i hope that we, no matter what our station in life, particularly those of us who hold in the most powerful lawmaking body in the congress, the highest office is considered the commander in chief and also the leader of the free world, that we would have the capacity to offer an apology to someone who's felt offended. i want to move into an apology i want to offer and that is to the families in my district whose loved ones have been buried in our veteran cemetery

in houston who now faced this tragic circumstance of having headstones miss placed or moved. i don't think there should be any tolerance for that. i believe that when an individual takes an oath to serve the united states military, for those through god's grace are able to return from battlefields, who are able to retire out of the military as veterans, that we owe them a great deal of respect for their benefits and then to those families who experience a fallen loved one either in battle or that they ultimately die as a veteran of the united states military, should expect that the sacredness of their burial should be respected. and i will be visiting our cemetery in houston, texas, and asking, can we not get it right? can we not fix the problem that moved headstones, that has misplaced headstones, mislabeled headstones, i frankly believe that our men

and women in the united states military deserve better and i am going to ask for better and insist on that. i have been working over the last couple of weeks meeting with a very prominent syrian american in my district, having met with him and others in months past on this whole question of syria. just last week i presented a letter to the representative of the syrian embassy demanding for president assad to resign and step down from office, demanding that the red cross be allowed at that time to come in and provide humanitarian relief, demanding that women and children be protected and taken to safe places so they could receive health care and food, and at that time asking for the respectful removal of the deceased, the bodies of the two fallen western reporters and as well with the others

that have been wounded. some progress has been made. in the immediate hours of that visit, we saw that the red cross and the red crescent were able to come in -- the international red cross came in and we saw syrian forces were bombing the humanitarian relief efforts, and we heard an interview from one of the western reporters to clearly indicate that the two reporters that died were actually murdered because the syrian forces actually targeted the location where they were, were journalists were, where everyone knows there is an effort to maintain a firewall or respect for journalists no matter what they are on the battlefield or in the area, it's know where they are, allegedly trying to be in the safe place and then you directly bomb that area, then you know that there is certainly basis for someone, an interview that took place on

cnn that indicated that they thought it was direct murder. but however we define it, we know that there is enormous loss of life. i want to just say that having had the privilege of serving on the foreign affairs committee, now a ranking member on the subcommittee on homeland security, having served on that committee for a number of years since 9/11, the tragedy of 9/11, having gone to a number of war zones, from bosnia to kosovo, afghanistan, iraq, having gone to mumbai right after the horrific terrorist bombing and knowing what conflicts around the world mean in terms of either sending our military personnel or even after we engage, if you look at the nato engagement, which included the united states and libya, there are many who will say right now, look at the confusion. but i think it's important to

understand that the intent of the nato allies was to stop the brutality. the aftermath, we would want it to be better. we would want there not to be the conflictingness that is going on, the tribal conflictingness, the instability of the libyan government to be truthful with you. of course we don't want that happening. no one took to the nato alliance or took to the air to bomb libya in agreement, in a coalition to create confusion afterwards. the call and the response was to stop what was apparent of the slaughter and the killing of libyan citizens en masse. we know it is not perfect now. iraq is not perfect, frankly, and we made it worse by going in to iraq because at that time in was not that kind of immediate conflict. but that was the basis for libya. now we have a situation where

the argument is that syria is too complicated, the region that it's in, the impact of a direct hit is too complicated. but today i am calling upon the very body that was established in the late 1940's after the very end of the 1940's after we ended world war ii, another horrific and heinous world conflict upon which we did not expect, based upon historical perspectives, when many argued that world war i was the war to end all wars and of course that did not happen and we've had conflicts and wars since. but right now the brutality of violence against the syrian people, the desperation of killing children in the streets, of slaughtering babies, of not allowing the wounded to get health care, calls upon the world to respond. and i think it is very clear

that it is complex enough that a direct attack by the united states, as the administration has acknowledged, would not be appropriate. a direct attack, a direct hit by the united states may not get the results we would like, but there is no doubt that we could not leave and with conscience this congress without someone calling for an immediate response and relief in the united nations which was organized to draw together world support. whether it is appropriate for u.n. peacekeepers, whether it is appropriate for the u.n. working with some of the arab states out of the arab league, it is absolutely ludicrous and tragic and disastrous and heinous for us to watch night after night of the violence that is going on against the syrian people. one may argue that there's violence everywhere, but there is a call upon our humanitarian

position in the world to be able to call out for assistance. so today i am calling for action by the united nations in establishing or reaching out for a coalition that will provide military response. what does that mean? providing weapons, if you will, so that those individuals who are defending themselves against slaughter. let's be very clear, these individuals are trying to defend themselves against slaughter. one city after another, direct attacks by the syrian national forces, ordered by president assad who refuses to leave and no one has been able to make him leave and the violence and the bloodshed continues on and on and on and on. so i don't think that we can stand and do nothing, and i have already indicated i fully understand that a direct hit by the united states would not be the appropriate direction to

take. but that does not leave us helpless and it does not leave the united nations helpless, and as a member of congress that has supported the united nations over and over again for the value of its presence in terms of a world force, to insist upon some coming together of nations, to the secretary general, don't shame yourself with inaction. don't shame the united nations with inaction by not calling upon those who have resources in the region to be able to provide those rebels or those who are defending themselves or those men and young boys that are defending themselves that are picking up sticks and whatever they are using from being slaughtered in the streets, from having amputated legs, not being able to attend to the wounded. today, march 8, it is imperative that you begin to assess the violent situation

and you stop this slaughter now. as we leave to work in the districts, i will be pushing back on this issue, continuing to push back to the united nations, asking the arab league for their help through different states to provide this care. how do i put a backdrop on this? this happens to be the week which we commemorate in this nation bloody sunday. for many that don't understand it was yesterday. it was those individuals who were pleading for the right to vote in this country, similar to the concept of democracy and freedom in a different way and different era the syrians are saying they are oppressed by this regime, but in the day that we were in the midst of civil rights, there were regions and places and people that could not vote in this country. citizens from all backgrounds took to selma, alabama, and proceeded, nonviolently, after being violently pushed back and

in essence bloodied, came back and walked peaceably over that bridge in selma, alabama, which was commemorated by last sunday but the actual date was this wednesday. i will be commemorating in it houston, texas, on this sunday, march 11. but the concept simply was, when people felt they were oppressed, that in this nation they found a way to find relief through a nonviolent approach, ultimately, as those who are historians will know, we passed in a bipartisan way, with the signature of president lynn bonn baynes johnson, both the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act, which i maintain today is a protector of every citizen's right to vote, no matter what your racial background, where you live, the voting rights act simply -- simply says one person, one vote. we believe in voting. we have tried to expand that to ensure there are election laws that don't stop people, don't

oppress people from voting, any number of things like voting -- voter i.d.'s, there's no fraud, when people have a registration card and live in the community, we should be allowing citizens to vote. i put that in context because now this is 2012 and i think americans feel, with some if you will, how should i call it, some mishap and laws that probably don't work, that we can vote. just think of a society that feels that they can speak, that they cannot act upon a free government, just think of that kind of society and then you want to petition your government and what happens? what happens? you're slaughtered. you slaughtered. there's no peaceable marching because if you study syria you'll know they started peaceably marnling. what happened? the syrian forces came and attacked them with weaponry and with violence. they killed them. plain and simple. when they were marching for freedom.

so i would ask that we again not allow this to happen and i will proceed with my petitioning to the united nations and i will be prayerful as well because as we stand here today, i will assure you that there are those in syria that are dying as i am on this floor today that those -- that are dying. as i am on this floor today, there are those who are being attacked, syrian national forces are killing people in the street. i don't think we can allow that to occur anymore in this month which we celebrate women's history month and the fact that we've celebrated some of the women peacemakers, right now, today, women are being wounded, they're being hurt, their children are being hurt in syria. i want to thank the speaker for yielding this time and allowing me to call upon the good graces of the international family to be able to lift up the souls and spirits and the lives of

the syrian people and as you reflect on this, let me just say, when you thought there was no hope and you can look at the arab spring, although governments are not perfect an we are struggling for these governments such as egypt and others to establish themselves -- themselves, who would have thought that individuals could have brought about a change in egypt and tunisia and libya, who would have thought that democracy would be raising its head as difficult as it is, don't give up on the syrian people. don't give up on those children, those babies, those young men, those men and those families. don't give up on syria an don't stand by idly while bloodshed continues an syrians are slaughtered in the street. i look forward to a time relief and the lifting of our humanitarian spirit as we as a nation celebrate the democracy and freedom in which we are able to live.

i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the las vegas justice court for witness testimony. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, jan churchill, district representative. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is continue -- is adopted.

>> good afternoon. how are you? we just saw a tremendous vote on the jobs act. i think this vote today, nearly 400 votes for the bill, we will get the final tally in a minute, i think what it demonstrates is we are able to set aside our differences when we want to and

come together for producing results that people want to see. what this bill does is it provides a real shot in the armed two entrepreneurs, small businessmen and women, remove the red tape and allows small businesses and easier time to go about starting up as well as retaining and creating jobs. the president asked us in his state of the unit -- state of the union address to send us a bill that helps business start- ups and the jobs that does just that. the vote was very strong and what we have seen on the other side of the capital is senator mcconnell has been terrific making public statements toward supporting this bill. i hope leader reid can act with dispatch and follow the president's request so we can get him this bill for signing as quickly as possible.

it is what the economy needs. we've got to get this growth going again and we do it through business start-ups. the majority whip had a piece of this bill. >> today was a good day. today was a very bipartisan day where we walked through a process. the unique this was if you followed the entire process, very open through subcommittee cupful committee, a debate on all sides, a bipartisan bill. the most important thing here is what it focuses on, small businesses. the history of america's great on small business. most job creation is through small business. but the biggest challenge we have is we are at all-time low at last 17 years. the greatest obstacle which is at access to capital, red tape, at the entrance to market. this bill deals with all three. you have bipartisan ideas coming through, you have the president

putting out a statement in support, talking about ideas in this bill. you have not seen that in a long time in washington. unfortunately, it has to pass the hurdle of the set when the senate has had difficulty passing a jobs bill, even though they are bipartisan. we are hopeful a bipartisan bill house would support the president that harry reid can't bring this bill up and have a cup to fruition because it's a win for all americans, especially to small business. >> as a business person and freshman congressman, and has been a bumpy year-and-a-half. but today, we can have a bit of optimism that we have had a jobs bill, a bipartisan bill, focusing on the private sector. jobs are not created it halls of congress. there are created the private sector. that's what's so good about this. we can't look to our colleagues

and it urged senator reid to let the process work its will and give the american people something they have been longing for ever since the last election. about arty enough but that we have been focused on day one from energy, jobs, trying to put americans back to work and giving power back to the people. last night, i could not sleep at i have three children. my little girl is 8 years old. she wants to be a dentist. i was thinking the house that would it be if she grows up that i have to say this is not america anymore and you can't be whatever you want to be. we must focus on the private sector at let's make america what it always can be and will be. thank you very much. >> i'm from the hudson valley of new york. our private sector, our citizens are the folks who create jobs and our job here and also

congress is to make sure we have a climate that will allow our citizens to do what they do best and let them have the dignity of participating in what has made this country great, and that is to have a good, productive jobs that have the opportunity to invest in growth. the job that does both. we need the help out of the senate to get this jobs bill to the president's desk. we had the cooperation of virtually every member of congress across specter to get this job done. this proves we can work together and do great things to get america back to work. let's pass this bill and get side and get going. >> this is one of those moments for freshman congressman when you are actually finding some joy. many of the bills must package we have been working on for years. we've had arguments that debates

and we made really good quality intellectual product year. bringing them all together at one time as more powerful than standing on brown. for capital formation, these bills provide all sorts of different hats for companies to grow at for them to hire and expand this economy. yes, it was done from the republican house, but we worked with our democratic colleagues and you saw a terrific bipartisan vote. we did something really good today. >> the world bank said in 2010, we ranked -- we have fallen behind in the world has caught up. markets used to be the envy of the world and today, the rest of the world wants to take that

place from us. what this legislation does -- we know it is more costly to get landing. we're moving counter to that and reducing red tape, updating regulations that have been on the books, some of them for 80 years. in the case of legislation that allows you to communicate by stock offering. by legislation reduces the regulatory hurdle for small businesses to access small amount of equity investment on a mass basis. that takes the best of micro finance and the crowd sourcing and puts them together. it is high time we passed legislation like this to reduce red tape and unleash the private sector so we can create jobs. glad to have a bipartisan vote and i appreciate the leadership

in bringing this moment about. >> do you think ron paul, newt gingrich -- that would relate to the jobs that how? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> we are about a system in this country. everyone can speak their will and they are free to conduct their lives in any legal way. we are a party of ideas. we've seen a hard-fought primary with a robust debate and i'm looking forward to our party focusing on the issues most people are concerned about today and that is what this bill is about. we know we do that through small business which is why this bill is so appropriate. >> [inaudible]

some of them have already passed the house and nancy pelosi called the package to meter. what do you say to that? >> the problem is the congressional performance in producing results has been brought into question. we are trying to regain the confidence of the people who sent us here. having a win like this, we can demonstrate we can really work together. it doesn't help to denigrate any time we do actually work together and produce a result like today because you have to look far and wide to see when that actually happened in such a deliberate and civil manner. we what about this bill reaching out across the aisle. many democratic members were

involved in the process. i met with the president's appointee to the jobs counsel the focused on these issues of entrepreneurship and is with that process we came forward with a product that reflects all the views and allows us to come together, so i hope nancy pelosi can work with us in this same vein and accomplishing more as we help to get the economy growing again. >> your office sent out a note saying 30 jobs bills have been sent to senator reid but he has not acted on that. how does that rhetoric play to what the senate does. >> that's not rhetoric, that is fact. the bills are over there. we are frustrated as are the american people that we cannot see the senate act enough in terms of trying to remove the difficulties of the partners and small businesses are having. we want to make it easier for

them. this bill today makes it easier for start up businesses to happen in america. we need to be a startup country again. we are the envy of the world would come to our capital markets and the opportunity we provided to the people in this country. we have to do that again and we are asking harry reid to join us. >> it said it has said they are trying to bring up their own version of the jobs act next week. which you be willing to go to conference to get the two bills together? >> the president has endorsed this jobs act. if we want to act with dispatch so small businesses and start- ups can't get going again, it seems the simplest way forward is to listen to the president. listen to the overwhelming majority in the house at let's join together and do something for entrepreneurs and small

businesses once and for all to get this country back to work. >> are you concerned at all about any anti-incumbency mood out there -- some people for their to the right of some of your members and the threat of some of your members worried about primary challenges? >> we are certainly in election season. the test for any candidate is whether they can produce results that where the leadership is. our majority came to this town to effect reforms that people have been looking for for a long time. it's about getting the economy going and spending in our means and providing the leadership that we have a plan in place we are trying to implement. that will be the governing aspect of the primaries and general election in november. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> said that democratic leaders spoke about the agreement they reached last night to limit -- to limit the debate on the two- year transportation bill. it will allow debate on 30 minutes of a vote next week. during the midst of the voting on the senate floor -- here are the leaders remarks from earlier today. >> after 10:00 last night, we were able to reach an agreement on the highway bill. this is an extremely important piece of legislation and is the model for how we should work on things around here. at least the way to get it on the floor. we had some extreme difficulties. this bill was first placed on

the senate calendar on february 9. on the ninth is when we were hit with this thing out of left field dealing with women's health. it has been extremely difficult to get to the point where we are now. i have so much admiration for what senator boxer has done to get us to the point we are now. you have heard me many times, not everything around here should be a knock down drag out fight. this is an important piece of legislation, not dealing with tens of jobs or hundreds of jobs, but millions of jobs. over a thousand groups support this legislation. what a shame it has taken so long to get to the seventh floor. i've talked to a couple of groups we met with today who are here. i told them come to the gallery

and you will see some votes on my highway transportation bill. you will see the first 10 amendments have nothing to do with transportation. that's the price we have to pay to get where we are. i think that is commendable and that is good. we are going to do our own and i will introduce that bill next week. it will be different from the house bill. i'm not here to say the house bill is bad because it is a step forward. i'm glad to see it is going to pass on a bipartisan basis. this bill has been in the banking committee and they have done excellent work. we will move as quickly as we can on that legislation.

but if you compare the two measures, the highway bill dealing with millions of jobs right now and the small business jobs package, they are quite different. i call upon the speaker to take up our bill -- we know the house has been what would be a nice way to say it? they have been foundering in their own problems over there. the highway bill was taken away from the subcommittee and there's probably background and has basis for doing that. the faa bell led by the house chair -- we have 22 extensions before we were able to get it done. we don't need 22 extensions of

the bill. we need this bipartisan bill -- a number of the amendments are extremely bipartisan. we need to move toward on this legislation. there is overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate and an enormous impact on the economy. the high-wage jobs bill will be the true test of whether house republicans are actually interested in pursuing common- sense, bipartisan legislation to create jobs. >> in the press today, we have mixed messages from the speaker. we heard today that he is going to take up the senate bill and the other is he's struggling to revive his partisan approach that secretary of hud called the worst, most partisan transportation bill he's ever seen. he's been in washington a long

time. we have had enough of this. i hope the speaker will spare the american people and other unnecessary battle and pass a jobs bill without delay. >> thank you. let me thank you personally because we would not be where we are today without your patience and hard work to put together this amendment package. let me say this is the senate jobs bill. compared to the house jobs bill, it has 2.8 million jobs at stake here. passing this bill will put america back to work, not to take anything away from the house jobs bill -- it is a good bill. when it comes to jobs creation, there is absolutely no comparison. i hope we can pass this bill in

the house as quickly as possible. there has been one fundamental problem the speaker runs into time again. that's when he tries to create a partisan bill, things fall apart. take a look at the house a jobs bill. the house jobs bill supported by the president. it's an indication we can still do the same day when it comes to beat said that jobs bill. they can work together with the democrats in a tradition at fashion that has been done for decades. this use to be the easiest bill to pass on capitol hill. people could not wait to get on the committee to pass this bill every five years at look at what has happened in the house. it has fallen apart repeatedly because he's allowed it to be written up by people who have pretty extreme views and his own republican caucus. if he will reach back to the tradition of a bipartisan bill, the house can pass a bipartisan

bill and create jobs. talk about a political odd couple, they have come together to create a bill which has had a signal vote of 85 senators in support of it to move forward. when we finish the process, i expect a similar majority to support it. this is how to put people back to work. i hope the house will move quickly to pass the bill. >> it in the next couple of weeks, speaker boehner will face a choice on to important issues. the question is will the speaker choose partisan gridlock over bipartisan cooperation. the first and obvious bill is the highway bill. the deadline for action is the end of this month. by tuesday, the said it will last past this package pretty close to 3 million jobs, many of them in the construction trades which have high at a point at

which have been a drag on our economy. in previous economies, they would lower interest rates and construction workers with start building housing and the economy would get going. we do not have that now had this highway bill will fill the gap. in an election year, the bipartisan senate agreed that is a rare accomplishment. after the senate passes the bill caught all eyes will turn to the house and the question will get beat what will john baker do? earlier this week, he indicated he was open to break up the senate bill. yesterday, he tried to rally his troops in favor of the original proposal which is going nowhere. he told them to get behind the bill because it bears their stamp. this upsets bill bears a bipartisan staff at i just heard speaker baker has said he wants to pass the senate bill or something close to it.

he should stick to that commitment and get it done right away. last time the speaker tried to spurn a bipartisan deal, he came to regret it. the speaker should remember the lesson of the payroll tax cut debate at i repeat his mistake. whenever he lets a small group of hard right dictate what he should do, he loses at america loses at bipartisanship loses. we hope he has learned that lesson. it is clear he's wrestling with it publicly in his statements. there is only one right path. the same thing is happening on the budget. yesterday, the associated press report a story that under tea party pressure, they may read that got a budget deal. the speaker should remember that the deal as a deal at a house republican leadership should not go back on their word just to

quell another uprising by the tea party. they will lose. if he lets this small group of hard right dictate where the whole house should go. that is true of a highway bill. it's true on the payroll tax cut, and it will be true of the budget. the senate has shown a willingness to work with the house in a bipartisan way. this is filled with good day this and harry reid says we will leave a similar bill and the senate that will have more consumer and investor protections. we are not standing in the way of their bill because it originated over there. we are going to surpass a small business bill similar to what the house is producing. the question is, will the house passed a bipartisan highway built coming out of the senate?

there is a bipartisan deal at hand. we will work on a jobs bill. they should pass the larger jobs bill dealing with infrastructure. all the house republicans need to do is not back it up. the speaker faces a choice -- cooperation or gridlock? he should choose wisely. >> today, we are proving the senate can get work done to boost the economy what we do not have to fight against a tax bought weapons health-care. democrats and republicans have come together on a deal that will creator save billions of jobs in our country and help communities across america lay down a strong foundation for long-term economic growth we have worked together across party lines and focus on priorities to get this done. this is the way the senate is

supposed to work. i hope that means republicans will start -- will stop obstructing everything around here and they planned to work with us to get the economy back on track. this bipartisan deal is a great accomplishment, but we have more to do. the more the republicans obstruct, but the more they will slow down progress and our ability to really deliver to the american people. i look forward to wrapping up this bill and i hope the house does their job and passes this bill in short order. it is very concerning to become the reports i hear of the house that they are considering a-per participant highway bill extension that would endanger the progress we have made. my messages look what we have accomplished today. by bringing republicans and democrats together, we're moving forward at a time when millions of jobs hang in the balance. we cannot go back to this

progress. we have to get people back to work again. >> said deter schumer -- there are reporting this morning that the house will wait for the set to act on the highway bill at that pass something similar to what you are working on. what is your reaction? >> that is a significant step forward to some of the other information we have gotten. passing a similar bill is pleasing to might years and can't they should forget about their job to strike, destructive bill. you see republicans -- the criticism to the approach is not from democrats. it's from his own members. >> there are reports president

obama is lobbying democrats -- did you request that? >> the answer is yes -- everyone should call down on keystone. take a deep breath. half of it is being constructed as we speak. the other half -- there is a new application that has been filed to get rid of some of the contentious problems the company as they have. the president is not coming out of say he opposes keystone. he opposes it at a matter that has been jammed down our throats. we will defeat it because it's what we should do. >> is your goal to try to help drive down the price of gasoline?

>> the purpose of this bill is to continue the highway program started by president eisenhower. everyone of us -- we've talked about the millions of jobs this will save. we know that to do this is extremely important. we have 70,000 bridges in a state of disrepair or 80 replacement. 20% of all our highways in america are not safe. do we need to do a highway bill? of course we do. i don't want to belabor this, but i will because i want to make sure you understand where we are coming from. my wife and i took a trip during christmas at went to southern california. i decided to do something different -- we are going to drive from san diego to las vegas. i had not that that is a long

time. that was such an eye opener to me. the highway was so crowded. we came to a complete halt many times. eight or nine times. everyone of those times we came to a complete halt, cars are idling, using gas they should not be using. big trucks try to move commerce across the country by the leg at using a lot of fuel. highway construction will save fuel. >> what was your reaction to the attorney general's speech, the statement that the authorization use of force that past several years ago justifies the targeting and killing of americans overseas who are deemed terrorists and due process is not necessarily judicial process? >> i have not studied the

decision. in substance, i support it 100 percent sign. >> on judicial nominations, [inaudible] >> we will hear about that later today. not counting the circuit judges, we have 17 trial court judge is being held up. it's so wrong. it's not fair. the american people understand this clearly as another part of obstruction taking place here. these men and women who want to become at the request of the president, but judges -- they have held up their lives. i practiced law for a while. been asked to be a federal judge, yet to be careful what cases you take -- this has been going on for months and months for some of these people and it

is simply wrong. we're not going to stand by and have them dribbled out to us. >> [inaudible] >> i have talked to senator mcconnell this week about a lot of things but not about the small business jobs bill. >> [inaudible] >> i think it would be such a bad thing if we had a short-term extensions. remember what happened with the faa bell? it brought construction -- funding was stopped completely eddie couldn't even get short- term extensions and that was really bad. but you cannot get a contract for two weeks -- you can't do

that with the highways. this is construction time. the cold weather is at dayton and this is what construction needs to take place. thank you, everybody. >> also speaking on a transportation bill today, house speaker john boehner says he plans to take up the senate version of the bill or something similar to a. house republicans had conversations about a longer- term approach to the bill. the speakers transportation bill has garnered little support in the house. he spoke for about 10 minutes. >> another part of our plan to help american job creators.

this bill will really help small businesses, jump-start them and provide access to capital. another one of the plans i hope the senate will take up, having run a small business myself, i know how difficult it is to jump through the bureaucratic hoops and red tape to get a business up and running. i think this bill will make it easier for businesses and start- ups to put up the capital they need in order to grow jobs in our country. i would like to think the majority leader for his work on this. the majority whip -- all of them did a great job and contributed to the success of this bill and i welcome the administration's support and i hope senate democrats will take this up in an expeditious fashion. unfortunately, this morning, we

learned some news overnight that indicates the white house is pursuing a much more disappointing approach when it comes to energy. according to reports, the president is personally lobbying senators to oppose the keystone xl pipelined amendment today. this comes days after the white house denied the president is working to stop the pipeline for being built and attempting to blame others for the delay. it also comes one week after the president signaled to me and senator mcconnell that he might be willing to work with us on some bipartisan steps forward on energy legislation the american people support. if we're going to have bipartisan action on energy, the keystone pipeline is an obvious place to start. the american people support the

construction of this pipeline and they want the project to move forward. i think the white house opposed the american people an explanation. the president said this week that he wants to see lower prices at the pump. at least in an election year. but his own policies are making matters worse and driving up the cost of energy. by personally lobby against the keystone pipeline, the president is lobbying, sending american energy to china at lobbying against american jobs. the president told the nation he supports the all of the above strategy republicans have long reported, but his actions don't match his words. the energy department predicts families will pay nearly $4 a gallon for gas this summer. most parts of the country, they already are paying $4. this is the last thing our

economy needs at last thing the american people needs, higher energy prices. the house has passed a series of bipartisan energy bills that will address i gas prices and create new private-sector jobs in america. all they need is the vote in the senate and we can pass these to the president that he can show the american people he is for and all of the above energy strategy. it is time for the president to make sure his words and actions come together as one. >> last year, you were the chief architect of this budget deal that had caps and in the fall, you stood by the caps as some conservatives said they should be treated -- now it sounds like you are willing to revisit that deal. is that true, and if so, what is different now?

>> we are working with our members to the normal legislative process to develop our budget and what we have something to report, we will let you know. >> will you -- a >> on waiting for the outcome of those conversations. >> [inaudible] working not deficit legislation -- is that the sort of effort you could support? >> i think any bipartisan effort is a welcome sign and i was frankly encouraged by that. >> can you give us an up-to-date status report on the transportation -- how difficult it's going to be to bring the wings of your party together on this particular bill and will you pass the extension?

>> as i told the members yesterday, the current plan is to see what the senate can produce and bring their bill up. in the meantime, we will continue to have conversations about a longer-term approach which most of our members want. but at this point in time, the plan is to bring up the senate bill or something like that. >> considering the history of sanctions and how they have not been successful in the past, do you believe we are actually getting closer to getting into a war with iran? >> i think the sanctions are having impact on the iranians. congress passed the iran sanctions act and we gave the president a lot of options and put a lot of tools and the tool box. many of them are still there. the president has additional options when it comes to imposing sanctions on the

iranians and i think he should consider pulling a few of those tools out of the tool box and beginning to apply more pressure on the iranians. >> should it rick santorum and newt gingrich get out of their race? >> you have been trying for over year to get me into this presidential race. one thing is clear. this year's election will be a referendum on the president's economic policies. the president is trying to make this election about everything other than his economic policies, but the american people are concerned about our economy and concern about jobs and that is going to continue to be my focus. >> do they have the right to stay in? >> i'm not involved on who should stay and are whose should

stay out. >> i have a big job to do here and i'm going to stay focused on my job here. >> basically -- he said we have passed these bills before and it is to meet your -- is the jobs bill to bigger? >> this is aimed at helping small businesses get the capital that they need to get off the ground that grow. add cutout some of the red tape that gets in the way of trying to start a business. we have already passed over 30 bills city in the united states senate. all of them that would help our economy grow and boost more american jobs. this is another step in the right direction. >> you say you are prepared to

bring up the senate bill. it did not pay for the -- they don't want to pay for it. >> and you did not pay for it. >> we did not. >> i am curious -- there have been a couple of skirmishes were the democrats have come out on top. where do you see the last one for you guys? >> this is a difficult process we are in. we've got a new majority with 89 freshman at my job every day is to work with our members to find out where the center of gravity is and try to move legislation that is in the best interest of our country and we are going to continue to do that. >> are you prepared to bring forward the hhs legislation? >> house minority leader nancy pelosi spoke about the need for

the house to move forward with the transportation bill but move away from the republican proposal, saying that it is off track. her remarks are 25 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. as you are probably aware, late in the day yesterday, the senate came to an agreement on a bad debts to its bipartisan transportation bill. it is our hope something similar will happen in the house of representatives. as far as we can see, our republican colleagues have been in disarray on the subject of what, how, and went a transportation bill will come to the floor. it is a very important that we move forward with this big job creator. it is also important that we move away from what the republicans have put forth already. they put forth a bill that would

cost us 550,000 jobs, would cut highway at best a and 45 states and bankrupt the highway trust fund. according to the secretary of transportation, it would not only hurt jobs but hurt safety. instead of working together on a transportation bill which is one of the biggest drop initiatives congress can pass, republicans are once again bring to the floor bills that we passed and our noncontroversial, but they are light compared with what we need to do on the transportation bill. we are in budget season and communications with our own caucus of the budget committee -- it is clear to see that once again the republicans will

break the medicare guaranteed. this is very important to our country, to our seniors, to american families, to our economy, to the health and economic well-being of american seniors and we will fight very hard for that. what the republicans are putting forth transfers cost to our seniors and contributes to withering of the vine which has always been their vision for medicare. i am going to -- in san francisco, we have been celebrating st. patrick's day since right after valentine's day. we will be here exactly on the day of st. patrick's day, i want to wish that to you. some of our members have been wearing it green corsages for a while.

i don't have irish grandparents, but i have irish grandchildren that they are very proud that next week we will see the inaugural award from the charity college dublin philosophical society award. i am very excited about that. it is an honor i am overwhelmed by. the fact that it takes place during my 25th year in congress makes a very special honor for me, and that happens on top of the privilege that i mentioned to you, giving the presentation for president george herbert walker bush's library on president's day, i am very honored by the privilege of

representing my constituents for 25 years. on a very sad note, this is so personal and sad -- we lost congressman donald payne earlier this week. he was a beloved figure in congress and the country and indeed around the world. at he cared about the health and well-being of everybody, especially children. he just did not take good care of his house because he has now left us because of cancer. he cared about children of the education committee and he cared about the needs of our children wherever they lived, but especially addressing the needs of children in disadvantaged areas. i had the privilege of being with have on different continents and we all have stories because he was a senior member of the foreign services

committee. when we were in liberia, the african methodist episcopal university in monrovia, we were there when they dedicated their -- people came from all over africa to dedicate a library tape for donald payne at number of years ago. he not only do everything about africa. he knew the world but focused of africa. he not only do everything about africa, he not only the leaders of those countries, but they do him. those who were worthy of his respect return to that attitude toward him. it is a very personal loss for all of us in the house of representatives at i am proud the president has acknowledged his great contribution to our country. i had the privilege of navy have our house representative to the

united nations general assembly in recognition of his leadership that service to our country. was that, i would be pleased to take any questions. >> the georgetown law student who told congress that contraception cost over $3,000 for a while but during her time of law school, yet the store and 3 miles away cells birth control pills for $9 a month to women who do not have health insurance. was her testimony accurate. >> i have a great deal of respect for the testimony she presented to congress. she is factual, courageous, and a difference in the debate in our country and we were honored by her presentation. >> on the jobs bill, you talked about bringing forward bills

that have been brought forward before -- the house republican leadership is pushing it. the white house has signed off and are supporting it. i'm surprised why you are not trumpeting it as a rare showing of bipartisanship where it is so lacking so often. >> because it is so meager. trumpet -- it comes with little penis. [laughter] yes, it is bipartisan and that's a big thing. we have a what best about us in many ways, but when it comes to this bill compared to what the possibilities are, this transportation bill is long overdue. the authorization of the

transportation bill is something we have been urging, even on we had the majority, republicans in the senate were obstructing any think of the size we needed, the five or six year transportation bill. this is a bill that creates jobs immediately in our country. construction jobs to build. the society of its beers says we have a deficit of the that trillions of dollars to be modest that is roads, bridges, high-speed rail, the rest of that. mass transit at in addition to that, broadbent, which is a newer form of an infrastructure, and water infrastructure. some of our infrastructure of water is made of bricks and

wood. decades, maybe a hundred years old. that's a sanitation issue. there is an urgency for job creation and immediately. for what it does to koppers, moving people to have from homes and product to and from the market. it is about the vitality of our country at -- thomas jefferson called for the building of the ad for a structure -- they called them internal improvements. if you follow the "lewis and clark expedition -- theodore roosevelt observed 100 years later, but the 100 year anniversary by announcing the establishment of the national parks service to reinforce the green and the structure in our country.

what hundred years later, we did not observe that, but i was hoping we would under president bush. but infrastructure was not a priority that as so we are behind in doing this infrastructure built. i want to add another great republican president -- president eisenhower at the interstate highway commission. all of these things done at a time when we did not have a lot of money to spare. it is not as if we were building the golden gate bridge. we are not flush with money now, we've got to make these investments. we see the need and the opportunity is there. it is bipartisan in the senate. let's get moving. people's hopes are pinned on our passing this transportation bill and these guys are saying my way or the highway and it's just

right. we have passed a number of them already with over 400 votes. we have done it. it is good. but let's not mistake it for what we need to do for serious, comprehensive jobs bill for our country. >> is the elongated gop primary beneficial to the democrats? >> here is what i say about all politics -- you never know. you can't predict anything. it is what it is at it depends on how the republican party will come together. it is up to them. we are two-thirds of the way into the election. less than eight months away. i think all assumptions in politics are false, stale --

it's all new for the situation you are in. having said that, i think it would be much stronger for the republicans to have a nominee by now. >> you were talking about transportation a moment ago. has there been any outrage to say is there some way you can help us on this? nothing like there has been outh going on. >> has there been outreach? >> there has been on the committee level, some communication. we're just waiting for the speaker's office. >> do you think it should not have been kept up to that level at this stage? >> i am hopeful republicans will

come to their conclusion -- remember our old friend the payroll tax cut, where in the senate, the president, the republicans, and democrats in the senate, democrats in the house came to a place of agreement, and the republicans in the house or isolated. -- work isolated. we have a situation where we have a bipartisan bill in the senate that we could accept and the president wants to have a transportation bill pass. once again, republicans in the house are showing -- how far off they are on this. off the track, you might say. have i set -- exhausted every punt for the transportation

bill? [laughter] >> the reports this morning about the keystone pipeline. working hard to defeat that, is the president plane into the republican argument? >> i do not know that is the case. i do not know -- it is not happening in the house right now. i am not aware of that. i do not know that the president is dropping that. i will tell you that this issue is one that has to be -- we have to stipulate to a set of facts. there are those who say this pipeline is necessary. as i infer from what you implied in your statement that this is a source of energy for our country. the fact is there is no evidence

to support that. in fact, the prime minister of canada said no keystone pipeline, no problem. i'm very serious about selling our oil off discounted it. everyone knows the fact is this pipeline was want to be built to bring oil to refineries to take it overseas. this is not about domestic consumption. it does not relate, and the fact is, if you want me to again, i will tell you in terms of domestic production, since the president has been president, there are four times more oil leaks than there were when he became president. you can take all the oil rigs, the gas rigs, combine them, they

exceed all the rigs in the rest of the world. in terms of domestic production, when the president says all of the above, he meant that. it is about domestic production. it is about renewal bulls. it is about report -- alternatives. in terms of the setting that he was then, it yesterday. whether it is a oil or gas, he said nuclear, and we had supported that in the house in our compromise -- president george w. bush -- everything is part of this solution, and we have to respect that as we transition more to renewals that

do not contaminate the error our children -- the air our children breathe. another point -- what is the impact on the price at the pump? one of the concerns we have, we have had a concern about speculation and its impact on the price at the pump. there is a healthy speculation that is part of the free market that we all recognize. there is a manipulation of the current -- of the commodity that is not healthy and exploits the consumer. in the dot-franc bill, -- dodd- frank, there is a number of provisions, closing the loopholes and the rest, and right now there are those who want to stop that -- of the unfair manipulation of the market.

republicans stand within. they want to overturn the provisions that say stopped the exploitive it speculation that raises the price of oil and the price at the pump. remember, supply is up, demand is down, thanks to the american people and their decisions. why is the price up? is it because of international prices of oil and it does not matter how much we bring down consumption, how much we increase production? if so, we have to have some independence to do something alternative to that. so, i think if you want to talk about the pipeline, but the fact is this will was never destined for domestic production. -- this oil was never destined

for domestic production. so says the prime minister of canada. >> madam speaker -- you are a longtime member of the intel committee. what was your reaction to the attorney general's assertion earlier this week testifying american government targeting of americans overseas who are deemed to be terrorists, specifically that due process does not necessarily mean judicial process? >> i had a number of briefings in the past on different subjects that relate to our national security. i have not had one on that. i listened to some of what the attorney general said about the distinction between due process and judicial process.

but i am not want to respond. i support the administration to be specific. >> about a government target american citizens overseas? >> i am not certain about the difference between due process and judicial process. i would like to see a briefing on that. we always have to be -- and our first responsibility is to protect and depend -- defend, but we also have to balance security with liberty and freedom and our values, and again, i have confidence in the attorney general. i did not have a briefing leading up to that or after. i want to see exactly what they are talking about. yes. >> looking ahead, it looks like there are going to be a lot of things going into lame-duck session. leaving aside tax cuts at

sequester cut unemployment appropriations come attacks extenders -- is there too much being put upon this idea that will stick to the lane duck and there will be a definitive outcome in the election that these things can be dealt with on a semi-permanent basis? , our goal is to get as much done in the session as possible, and that is why we would like to move with the transportation bill for jobs which is what the american people want us to do. yeah preparations process -- i would hope would follow the agreement that we have made the republicans so we can move forward. i feel there is weakening on their part to honor the agreement, but let's hope they do and we get some of the work that must be done by the end of the fiscal year done by then, and certainly before the lame duck. i do not know what ever in that list is a must pass, and the

priorities can be so long -- >> this looks like a train wreck, basically. >> you're talking about what is an array of issues that might let pieces of legislation that might come up -- i do not know that to be so. i just did not know that we are quite have and the delinquent in executing our duties between now and what you would say the election, but probably the month before the election, that all that would be kicked to the lame duck. what ever happens, it is just a decision. get it done. it will be the same congress in the lame duck, the same president in the lane duck. let's just come together and make a compromise and find our common ground, if possible, or not, and we can do that now as well as we can do it eight or nine months from now.

thank you all very much. happy st. patrick's day, whenever you begin and whenever you ended the celebration. thank you. >> there may be even some green beer. >> the house completed work for the week earlier today, but before leaving town, members pass a bill that reduces regulations. the vote was 390-23. the chamber is not in session next week, members return for legislative work on monday, march 19. you can follow the house live on c-span when the members gavel back in. >> sweet and there are two ways to watch the tucson festival of books, live on c-span2 and live online at booktv.org.

sunday, panels continue, starting at 1:00 eastern with the environment, the great depression, the american west, and studying the brain. throughout the weekend, look for coverage live on booktv.org. the tucson festival of books, like this weekend on c-span2 spanbooktv.org. >> they are not fighting and sacrificing their lives because of muslim extremists. it is because they want the same universal rights and freedom we guaranteed in our constitution. >> if we do not get the international community together on a coalition of the willing

soon, we will look back and say we not only did not directing morally, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity. >> i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here, and we're not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, afghanistan, on the war on terrorism, in libya, and in syria. we're working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multilateral coalition. we have got to be able to work at that. it is not that easy. >> watch the hearings and news conferences whenever you want, online at the c-span2 video library.

c-span.org/videolibrary. >> eric holder to testify today on the justice department's budget request for 2013. it totals $36.5 billion in total spending, a $1.9 billion increase over 2012. in front of the senate appropriations subcommittee, this is one hour 40 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> he good morning, everybody. -- good morning, everybody. the commerce just as the appropriations subcommittee will come to order. this morning, we welcome the

attorney general of the united states, and as is the usual and customary way, senator hutchison and i will make opening statements. we will go to you, mr. attorney general, for yours, and you may summarize that all segments be included in the record. senator shelby has a banking hearing with senator hutchison. we will go to senator shelby for the first question. is that ok? then we will serve the senators in the order of their arrival, and expect a robust participation. we will strictly adhere to the five-minute rule. having laid groundwork, i will say good morning and welcome to that first subcommittee hearing. attorney general of the united states -- we will hear his

presentation of the department of justice budget. we have a positive relationship with the attorney general. he has brought to the justice department the experience of a career prosecutor. he has been dedicated to fighting violent crime and terrorism. he knows he is pioneering work, working with our administration on how to deal with that new and emerging threat of cybersecurity, which is how do we protect our citizens, and his views on protecting our civil liberties. well, as attorney general, before we get into numbers about the money, i would like to thank you and in thinking you i want to thank all the hard- working men and women who work at justice. there are 119,000 employees who work there, and 25,000 are

federal agents -- fbi, u.s. marshal, alcohol and firearms. we have 20,000 prison guards and staff and 10,000 prosecutors and investigators. they have done amazing cup of coffee -- they have done it amazing accompanist -- accomplishments. we want to thank them because every day and every day -- either to keep prevention or do intervention cannot to make sure they are doing traditional violent crime were, to being all over the world. and in fighting issues against white-collar crime. i have three priorities as the chairman of this committee -- community security, how does the budget support the mission at keeping communities safe, national security, and oversight

and accountability -- no boondoggles on the watch of the subcommittee. i want to make sure that does the department has what it needs to do its mission. there is only -- sell it noted the resulting one new initiative, -- i saw there was only one new initiative. that request is $611 million. it is a target increase, and we're going to want to hear more about that, because we in maryland have seen such a rising number scams and schemes and credit terry lending practices, and we need to know what you want to do with the money. we cannot have a strong economic and vibrant community unless they are safe, whether in our neighborhoods, protecting small business on main street. i want to know how the budget will keep america safe at home

on main street. their quest for a $2 billion for grants to state and local law enforcement -- i wonder if it is sufficient. this is $32 million below 2012, and we might have to consider reorganizing priorities. the state and local funding seems to have borne the brunt of budget cuts. since 2010, grants have been cut by $1 billion in local funding. part of this was the ax and acts of the congress itself. many of my congress realized cuts have consequences in discretionary spending, so we need to hear your view on what we can do. we know that gao has recommended you should conduct a review and eliminate unnecessary duplication. we support that. we also want to look into

community security and protecting our charter. one area of bipartisan support is in the money to catch predators who use the internet to stop children, break up pornography rings, and track down and arrest child molesters. we understand you are requesting to have a $28 million, and we look forward to seeing how you allocate that and what to do. the southwest border -- my colleague has in that area. i want to know that this is not only a bipartisan support -- we think it should be non-partisan to support our border, and i will let her raise those questions. in the area of cyber threats, our nation faces a growing threat overseas, from hackers, spies, and terrorists. we need safe and resilient networks. we worry about banking and commerce, the safety of our

power grids, air-traffic control systems, digitized records. mr. de the congress held with the administration -- yesterday the senate held a cyber exercise. the majority of the senators were listening to a mock attack. we need to know about cyber. i want to know how the justice department is improving its accountability to tax payers. you have gotten a bad rap, lavish banquets, cost overruns, so we want to know how we stand sentry over the money we spend. we have specific questions, but with the number of people here, i am shortening my statement. i'm going to turn now to senator hutchison. >> thank you, madam chairman,

very much, not only for the deference on border security, where i live, but also on the way you run this committee, which is for us to do what is right for america. mr. attorney general, i do want to address some of the areas of border security. first of all, scap funding is something that continues to be shortchanged by your budget, and scap is the reimbursement for local counties that incarcerate illegal alien prisoners. along the border, our counties are generally very poor and do not have those kinds of resources, and each year you continue to not fund. we put the money back in last year, $240 million, but i would

hope you would support increasing that as we go through this process because we must incarcerate these illegal alien criminals who are mostly in the drug cartel operations so that this will not be borne by the county's on the border. language was included in last year's bill that would prohibit a law enforcement agencies from selling operable weapons to cartels. this request that you are giving us removes that language, saying it is unnecessary. we want to make positively sure, and that what happened does not happen again, and i would hope you would support our insertion of that language again. last year, our commerce justice

state bill provided $10 million to expand the capacity of the overcrowded help tasso intelligence center, and this is critical for our southwest border information sharing and has the potential to become the border's focal point to stop the flow of narcotics, combat illegal immigration. it is imperative that the el paso intelligence center and the dea take full advantage of resources available from the ies rtment of justice agency' and i hope you can give us an update on the status of this funny. there have been reports that cartels across the border are attempting to recruit college students to smuggle drugs into the country, and it says miners are more appealing because

criminal penalties are later for them. when of the good parts of your budget request is $312 million for juvenile justice prevention programs, and i will be interested in hearing if you think if you are aware of these border threats to our youth and if some of that money that you are requesting could be put on the border to try to make sure we try to help our youth overcome the cartel overtures. in addition, there is a request to cut of 1.5% from state and local law-enforcement grants, which are very important grants to these catholic -- counties and local law enforcement agencies along the border that has such a burden but the trafficking that is coming across the border, and i would hope you would help us restore that funding.

valor program is one that i applaud your efforts to put in place, and unfortunately, the number of federal, state, and local officers who died in the line of duty in america last year increase from 153 to 173. the feedback from the training and research being conducted through valor is very positive, including the alert center at texas state university, which was credited by the two officers that came into fort hood, when the shooter and started shooting on armed military -- -- unarmed terry people. but those officers survived, but

they both credited their swift response that day to the alert acted shooter training program that they had received. that is something that i applaud in your budget. i want to state a concern that i have about the u.s. national park service pushing for construction which is in progress, on an unmanned border crossing the big band national park in texas. this is not a justice decision, but it is going to affect some of the personnel, i am concerned that this is an area where illegal immigrants can walk across. the water is needed, and you can walk right into big bend, having

an unmanned border crossing a i think is insufficient. we are going to talk about that at some points to see if we can -- at some point to see if we can get fbi, atf, border patrol, somebody to man a place like that where it is so vulnerable. last but not least, i am going to ask you some questions about your public integrity unit. i am going to give you full credit for dismissing the case against senator ted stevens when you learned of the corruption within that division of your department. i am going to ask you questions because the report will be public within days, if there is anything that you should take as your major responsibility, it is that the public corruption unit in the department of justice is

fair and evenhanded, and clearly, that was not the case in the prosecution of a great friend to many of us, and a great patriot for our country, who, unfortunately, was very badly abused by the department of justice. but i will say you did dismiss the case when you learned of the misbehavior, and i gave the credit on the senate floor for doing that and will again, but i do want to ask you about the report when we have time to ask questions. thank you. >> mr. attorney general? >> thank you. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for your support to the justice apartment's critical work. i look forward to discussing the budget for the department and how these investments will be

used to build on what is our record of success. the president's proposal demonstrates the commitment to augment our important obligation, and that is protecting the american people. despite the fiscal constraints, that dedicated employees who serve in office as a runnerup have made significant progress in safeguarding our citizens from terrorism, while the crime, and from a range of threats that often threaten the most vulnerable members of our society. we have proven our commitment to the acting as stewards of precious taxpayer dollars. in the most recent request, propose spending increases have been exceeded by proposed cuts. as a result of numerous steps taken to streamline operations, almost $700 million worth of

savings have been developed and we invested in critical mission areas. i believe the apartment is more efficient than ever before. recent achievements, especially when you consider our national security efforts, by continuing to work alongside u.s. and international partners, we have identified and disrupted numerous alleged terrorist plots, including one by two iranian nationals to assassinate the saudi a ambassador, and we have secured convictions against a number of dangerous terrorists. in october the department obtained a guilty plea from ab dul-mutllab.

in november we secured the conviction of a net furious -- of a notorious arms seller. the list goes on and on. with the sustain investments included in the budget for the comprehensive national cyber security initiative, the joint terrorism task force, and other key national efforts, the department will be able to strengthen our surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. it will allow us to bring our fight against financial fraud to a new level. on monday the president issued a proclamation to mark the beginning of this year's consumer fraud protection week, and i know the justice

department bus branch has established a record of success in defending the interests of american consumers. in 2011 alone, our consumer protection branch obtained a 95% conviction rate, and obtain sentences totaling more than 125 years in prison against more than 30 individuals. this represents a remarkable progress, but is only the beginning. since the start of the administration, the justice apartment has signaled an unwavering commitment to combating and preventing a wide range of financial and health- care fraud crimes, and we have a quest we have taken steps. charges have been brought boardt numerous ceo's,

members, and other executives of wall street firms, hedge funds, and banks who have engaged in fraudulent activities. we have attained a prison terms of up to 60 years. just this week we secure a conviction against a formal report of jurors -- a former board of directors. the task force has established new working groups, the consumer protection group, which will enhance civil enforcement of consumer fraud and the residential mortgage bankers group, which will help investigate and prosecute abuses in the housing market. both will foster cooperation and collaboration in the

department's response to problems. a similar approach that the departments of justice and housing and urban development and 49 state's attorneys general to achieve a settlement. although this will not -- this agreement builds on the record of fair lending obtained last year and will sustain relief to homeowners. it provides a blueprint for future collaboration across government and party lines. there is no better illustration of our progress that the work to combat health care fraud. over the last is collier, in cooperation with the department of health and human services, and others, by utilizing authorities provided under the false claims act and other statutes, we were able to

recover nearly $4.1 billion in funds that were stolen from federal health-care burdens, and that is the highest amount record in a single year. we also opened more than 1100 new criminal health care fraud investigations, secured over 700 convictions, and initiated more than 1000 investigations, and every dollar we have spent, we have returned $7 to united states treasury. these numbers are stunning, but my colleagues recognize we cannot be satisfied, and this is no time to become complacent. that is why in addition to helping us build on this record of success, the budget requests will bolster our fight against drug trafficking, gangs, and cyber criminals, and increase efforts to protect the law enforcement officers who keep us safe and expand on the work being done by our civil rights

division to guarantee the rights of all americans are protected in border areas and work places, and voting booths. i am committed to build it on these and the other many achievements, and you understand in this time of uncommon threats and complex challenges we simply cannot afford to cut back on the amount and quality of justice that we are obligated to deliver. the department must remain diligent in protecting and enforcing block, and these efforts must be funded. i look forward to continued to work with the members of this committee to accomplish this, and i will be had it's a question might have. -- and i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. we will now turn to senator shelby? has a banking committee that he must jordan, and then i will

pick up with senator hutchinson. we will recognize members in order of arrival and follow the five-minute rule. >> thank you, madam chairman. good morning. two key justice department facilities will soon be operating on -- the fbi's terrorist explicit device or analytical center, and the national center for explosives training and research. these assets will help officials deal with a growing threat posed by terrorists and criminal use of powerful explosives. you and i have discussed these previously, and you agreed then that the missions of these groups are distinct but complementary, and that makes sense to collate them at redstone.

can you describe how the department of justice will utilize these agencies? >> it deals with the examination theied's that we see coming out of afghanistan, and the agency run by atf deals with other -- more prevalent x was a devices we see, and you're right. they have fundamentally different responsibilities, but they complement one another, and the location of them in that place makes a great deal of sense. describe locating he same arsenal?

>> there may be breakthroughs they can exchange with people relatively close by. having the agencies responsible for explosives determination and prevention having been closed by, although distinct roles, have been pretty well delineated. it is clearly having them there and talking to one another. [unintelligible] >> highest per-capita phd communities in science and eight engineering. >> there are a lot of smart people there. we use smart people when ever we can find them. there are a lot there. that is fair. [unintelligible] >> and pay for it.

attorney general holder, the justice department is seeking funds to activate a new women's prison in alabama. this present was designated as a female-only facility based on input from your department, and it cost nearly $250 million. [unintelligible] >> we want activate it. it was specially designed to deal with the unique needs that female prisoners have. we have a need to expand our capacity to expand -- to handle the male prisoners in the federal system. given the fact the facility was specially configured, it would be our hope activate it as quickly as we can coo.

>> it is finished, and i would hope he would do that soon, because activation cost hardly anything compared to build. >> the need is clearly there for the expanding female population that we see in federal prison system. , is that a priority for you? >> we want to bring online as many of these facilities that we can, and this is one that is extremely close -- we're just about ready to open it. >> thank you very much for taking me out of the order, and i appreciate it very much. >> mr. attorney general, i have two questions -- i have many, but i will submit them for that record. federal prisons. as i look at the department's budget, almost 1/3 of the justice apartment money is going

into federal prisons. that amount is now at $6 billion, and is rapidly approaching almost what the fbi budget is coming $8 billion. my question is, what is going on with federal prisons? people are incarcerated -- we want the bad guys and gals off the street. we want you to prosecute and incarcerate particularly where there are people who constitute a danger to our country or our communities. i do not know if we can sustain this growth, and i am concerned about once we put them in, it is a revolving door and keep expanding their presence with the same people. the keep coming back. could you elaborate on the department's needs? is there any recommendations you would have to be given to contain the prison population?

are we federalizing too many crimes? is recidivism it problem? this is an ever increasing part of our operations. >> there are a variety of reasons why we see the prison population in expanding. we have about 215,000 people in the federal system. that number goes up every year. for that reason we come back to this committee asking for additional funds. there are a variety of reasons why you see people coming into the system. we are good partners with our counterparts at redella help them to the extent we can, so some cases that violate federal and state law and if we have serious criminals, we bring into the federal system. the point you hit on, something we need to focus on, how can we

rehabilitate people so we cut down on recidivism? one of the things we talked about is the second chance act, coming up with ways we make available to people reentry possibilities so they have the chance of not being recidivist, coming up with educational, vocational, drug treatment programs while we have been in prison. we have seen good success been done with state systems that has been shared by the pew research foundation. we have learned from them in that regard. >> i want to go forward to specific recommendations, where our federal and law enforcement to prosecute and get bad people off the street, whether terrorists or terrorizing a neighborhood, like some of the drug dealers in some of my own communities in maryland. at the same time, we did not

want our federal prisons to be an incubator for more crime, where the lessons they learned when they could present is not commit crimes again, but how to be better crooks. we want our presence to teach them how to be better citizens. and then to come back to the community support system where they do not fall back into the paper that got them. i am concerned that our federal prisons are such that we need to look and evaluate and learn these lessons. we want to work with you. you are very experienced in street crime. it takes me to the other area while you have done this fantastic job of fighting terrorism, keeping america at stake, it has been stunning what our national security services have accomplished. the military and some believe. i will come back to streets and neighborhoods.

we have communities that face crime every single day, and we talked our local law enforcement, our local prosecutors' offices and so on, and they feel they are under the gun. they need grants, cops on the beat, and so on. do you feel that this is sufficient funding because in the last couple of years, in 2010, we had $3.7 billion that went into state and local grants due to acts of congress and so on. now we are down to $2 billion, and yet everywhere i go in maryland come from our local police commissioners to local district attorneys, state's attorneys, as they're called in my state, people say we need those justice department grants. they give us better technology, tools to deal with violence

against women, they need you. they love having you as a partner. do we have enough money in the right places to do the job to protect our communities? >> we have in the request, 2.04 been dollars for state and local assistance programs, $290 million for copps, $412 million for the office of violence against women. this is a level equal to the level we requested last year. it is lower than numbers you had said. given the budget realities we face, the amount we have requested is strong on law enforcement, science, victims. what i would like to have more money -- what i like to have more money? yes, but the budget realities we confront and the need to stay within a budget in the executive

branch have gone to this point. through the provision of this money, to the assistance we can also provide to our partners, we can i think do the job. i met with the association of attorneys general, and the partners -- and the partnerships we have is an unprecedented one, and the combination of the partnership and the money we're seeking here will allow us to be a good partner. >> i will turn to senator hutchison. what i would find it helpful is two things -- if you look at your grants, cops on the beat, what was the amount of money requested by state and local people to apply for those grants, and what could you find? my time is up. i would like that for the record. the second thing is the gao report raises issues related to

duplication of services, and i would like to have your reaction to the gao report on how we can streamline, get more efficiencies. i think you are already on that right. -- on that road. >> we will have questions for the record, but i wanted to pursue this public integrity unit's in conduct against senator stevens. the court-appointed counsel, after you -- after you moved to dismiss the case, the court- appointed counsel to investigate the prosecution of senator stevens and found the prosecutors engaged in systematic concealment of evidence, but they were not guilty of criminal contempt. according to the summary that

was put out, the full report coming later, it said -- the court said despite findings of widespread and the intentional misconduct, the special counsel recommended against contempt charges because prosecutors did not dissipate a clear and equivocal order by the judge as required under law. the judge set upon review of the dock and proceedings in the steven's case, he concludes no order existed in this case. the court accepted to repeat it representations' of the subject, that they were familiar with their obligations, he worked complying, and proceeded in good faith. does it concern you that the only reason these prosecutors escaped charges is that judge in the steven's case did not file an order specifically telling

the prosecutor patient follow the law? >> you have to take into account a variety of things. when i was made aware of issues that led to the inquiry that judge sullivan ordered, i made sure the case be dismissed. i ordered the office report be done as an internal report which has now been completed. it is in its final stages of being worked to. >> will it be made public? >> i hope we can. there are privacy interests, but i hope to get as much of the report made public as we can. it is an exhaustive study, and the people have done a good job and had made recommendations with regard to sanctions that ought to be made. i hope we will make that available. >> i am going to request that you do. >> i am not at liberty to

discuss the report. we have gotten a limited number of those reports, 10 or 50 of them, and we are under orders by the judge not to discuss those. i have had a chance to review the summary and portions of it and some of the findings made there are disturbing. they were disturbing when i made the decision to dismiss the case. we have done at lot since that time to come up with ways we try to prevent this kind of mistakes from happening again. we have a training program. we have hired somebody responsible as a coordinator to make sure discovery in criminal cases and civil cases so we did not fall back into this same kinds of errors. we have talked to members of the judiciary, all to make sure that what happened in the case does

not replicated. i would urge everybody to understand that this justice department, when we make that determination that mistakes occur, took the extraordinary case -- stepped up dismissing the case. >> i give you full credit for that. four of the six prosecutors who were investigated opposed releasing the report, and their names have been redacted. i want to ask you if any of these prosecutors are still in the justice department system? >> i have to check that to make sure, but i believe all prosecutors who were involved in that case are still in the department. i believe that is true, but and not to totally sure. >> does that trouble you that there would be finding of misconduct in such a sensitive area that they would still -- that you would not let them go outside of our justice system?

>> it depends on the nature of the misconduct it is that they did, the mistakes that were made. one has to look at the report that is about to be released, combined with the opr report and recommendations for sanctions contained in that report. to look at what exactly should happen to these people. was the incident isolated? >> are you going to do that? are you going to make a decision regarding people who have clearly exhibited that they do not have the integrity to prosecute in the sensitive area will you tell the committee what your actions are when you have made that determination? >> the actions we take -- there is no privacy act that prevents us sharing with the public what we have shared with this committee. >> i ask that you report that

the committee. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you, attorney general, for your service. established a new working group. thank you for that. i want to top about that, but last week the former chair of the financial crisis inquiry commission observed the number of lawyers and other staff of the working group -- i want to mention that is fewer than the 100 professionals dedicated to the bank fraud task force during the savings and loan era. he suggested congress should extend the statute of limitations for financial institutions fraud up to 10 years as congress did in 1989 when it pass the federal

institutions reform and recovery enforcement act. you are aware of the public sentiment of anxiety, frustration and outrage toward the fact that so few people have been prosecuted. talk to me about the working group, the dollars you are dedicating, increase your asking for. is it going to be going into the working group, and comment on the recommendation that the statute of limitations, when it was lengthened to 10 years by congress then, it that is something we should do. >> first off i will say this whole mortgage fraud problem, scandal, that we're dealing with, is something we have taken seriously. we have brought charges against 2100 people last year in connection with the mortgage

problem. the number of people, 55 federal personnel to go to this task force, that is the federal component, but one unique thing is we're working with partners and states attorneys general, said the number of people who will be devoted to that task force will be substantially greater than that, and i suspect we will be adding people from various offices around the country. we're looking at up to five that will be intimately involved, so that number will ultimately go up. we will have adequate resources to do the job we need to do with regard to the residential mortgage-backed securities working group. the extension of the statute of limitations, that is something that i will be glad to discuss with members of this committee after i have had a chance to speak with the prosecutors,n