-- the pay was held down because the health care is paid for when you retire, which is not proving to be the case. dod health care pays for retiree military health care and not the v.a. there is a common misunderstanding. host: we have to go now to the house floor. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, for five minutes. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, as our nation winds down from its military engagements overseas, it's time for america to do some nation building here at home. a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding american roads, bridges, transit and water systems would create 27 million jobs over five years. in the first year alone the

economy would add 5.2 million new jobs and grow by over $400 billion. in the second year, unemployment would be reduced to 5.6%. these are among the findings of a new america foundation report, "a way forward." nearly expert agrees that america's infrastructure is broken and in need of immediate repair and replacement. the american society of civil engineers gave america a d grade for infrastructure quality, and it's estimated that $.2 trillion is needed to -- $2.2 trillion is needed to bring our infrastructure in good repair. america is 23rd in infrastructure quality. transportation for america reports that there are 69,000 structurally deficient bridges nationwide, including 2,000 in new york, and 99 in western new york alone. in fact, every second of every day seven cars drive on a bridge that is structurally

deficient. dangerous road conditions were a significant factor in 1/3 of all traffic fatalities last year. americans spent 4.2 billion hours stuck in traffic costing $710 for every american motorist. the 1987 collapse of a bridge in new york killed 10 people and the 2007 collapse of the minneapolis bridge killing 13 people are tragic reminders of the human costs associated with the deteriorating infrastructure. the economic costs are staggering too. the united states chamber of commerce says that the nation will lose $336 billion in economic growth over the next five years due to inadequate infrastructure. one local example, in january, the new york state department of transportation closed a crucial bridge in springville, new york, due to concerns about its safety. in the closure, it was

devastating to businesses. the cost of borrowing money is at a historic low rate. the interest rates on five-year debt is less than 1%. the treasury department is considering negative interest rates, meaning that investors will actually pay the federal government to buy united states debt. the question is not whether to undertake this work. public infrastructure is a public responsibility. the question is when to undertake this work. the cost acceleration of delaying road and bridge repair increases by 500% after only two years. put simply, a $1 million road repair project today not undertaking will cost $5 million in 2014. a $5 million bridge repair project will cost $25 million in 2014. what's more, a five-year $1.2

trillion program would create such robust economic activity that it would generate an additional $600 billion in federal tax revenues. that is to say that our country would be purchasing $1.2 trillion in investment in infrastructure for nearly half off. the united states has spent $76 billion rebuilding the infrastructure of afghanistan, a population of 30 million. and $63 billion rebuilding iraq, a population of 27 million. both of these nation building efforts were deficit financed and as they took money out of the american economy, actually undermined american economic growth and employment. and for america, a population of over 300 million, the house is considering a five-year, $260 billion transportation bill, or $52 billion each year for the next five years on average. less than any given year we spent in both afghanistan and

iraq. rebuilding our nation's roads and bridges will support private sector american businesses, construction trade jobs average approximately $70,000 a year, and these jobs can't be outsourced to china or mexico. i began this morning by talking about the wars in iraq and afghanistan. let me now say something about our returning veterans. the unemployment rate for returning veterans under the age of 24 is an unacceptably high rate of 38%. a good and grateful nation owes it to these veterans to ensure that they return home to economic opportunity. the department of defense sponsored a program back in 2002 called helmets to hardhats, to accelerate apprenticeship training and job placement for these returning veterans. helmets to hardhats is a not for profit organization working with 15 construction trades and over 80,000 american businesses. mr. speaker, it is time -- it is the right time to make a

robust investment to repair our outdated and failing infrastructure. there's a lot of work to be done and a lot of americans need to be put to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for five minutes. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, last saturday evening i was watching the weekly fox television program entitled "huckabee." bullying was the featured issue. bullying has become a severely significant issue in some schools across our country. bullies with limited exception select their targets or victims in this manner. the victims of smaller and physical stature are the bullies and are usually younger in years. the victims of bullying, mr. speaker, become depressed and embarrassed resulting in physical and emotional damage.

one young lad became so distraught that he died by his own hand. yes, he took his own life because of the damage that bullying had inflicted upon him. the "huckabee" program in addition to having interviewed a bullying victim and his family featured as well the director of a recently released movie entitled "bully." i urge you all to see this movie. mr. speaker, i want to insist that bullies are punished at their schools, by their parents and are prosecuted as juveniles if they are still minors. we should cut no slack to bullies. they deserve no slack. and if exposure could link the

bullies to the aforementioned suicide, perhaps that should be pursued as well. mr. speaker, this bullying plague must be resolved, but it will be resolved only when the bullies receive the punishment they deserve. i thank the speaker and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this point the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i'm introducing the puerto rico snap restoration act. in 1971, congress enacted legislation to partially include puerto rico in what is today called the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap, and what was then called the food stamp program. implementation of the food stamp program in puerto rico began in 1974. in 1977 congress amended

federal law to fully include puerto rico in the food stamp program so that rules governing eligibility and benefits applied no differently on the island than they did in the 50 states. four years later, however, congress exercised its authority under the territory clause and removed puerto rico from the food stamp program, electing to provide the island government with an annual block instead. annual block grant. since 1982, puerto rico has used this block grant to administer its nutritional assistance program, which differs from snap in a number of aspects. the bill i'm introducing today, which i will include -- seek to include in the 2012 farm bill, would have the snap program in place of the block grant. if enacted into law, puerto rico will include the 50 states, the district of columbia and two u.s.

territories, guam and the u.s. virgin islands, as those participating in snap. converting puerto rico back to snap was made after carefully weighing the benefits and costs associated with this conversion. i rely primarily on an in depth study prepared by the usda which evaluated the feasibility and impacting snap in puerto rico. on this subject, as with other important issues that i'm tackling, i have the principle that it is good to build a strong evidentiary record before taking action. this raises a number of important policy questions, but its bottom line messager for -- message for puerto rico is kris cal clear. the benefits of conversion farther outweigh the costs. let me be more specific. applying certain assumptions,

the usda study found that conversion would increase the number of households that receive nutritional assistance in puerto rico by over 15%. in addition, 85,000 households would become eligible for assistance under snap. moreover, restoring snap would raise the average monthly benefit for participating households by nearly 10%, and instituting equal treatment for puerto rico under snap would mean an additional $457 million for the island each year. it would take the form of additional benefits. these numbers reveal a fundamental truth. because congress removed puerto rico from snap 20 years ago, hundreds of thousands of children, families on the island have received no nutritional assistance at all or received far few benefits if they lived in the 50 states or even the neighboring virgil green.

accordingly, -- virgin islands. accordingly, this serves as yet another example of how the american citizens i represent, especially my most vulnerable constituents, are treated unequally because of the island's territory status. whether i'm fighting to convert puerto rico back to snap or to increase the island's annual block grant, i strongly believe this is a fight worth making. by ensuring that the neediest of my constituents can afford a healthy diet, we enable them to live a dignified and independent life which in the long run helps reduce health care costs and takes pressure off other safety net programs. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, for five minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. this is an important week in

the future of our republic. in this capitol, we are debating, voting on budgets, laying out our visions for how we should handle the spending, taxing and debt issues facing america in the coming years. across the street at the supreme court, they're debating what, if any limits on the commerce clause. but really we're talking about the same thing. do we still live under a federal government of limited enumerated powers? do we believe that the source of our government begins in we, the people? do we believe in liberty? do we trust people to make their own decisions about their own lives without reliance or

subserveans to an all-power central government in washington? are there limits on what washington can demand of the citizens that it's supposed to be serving? republicans believe that the answer to these questions is a resounding yes. . the budget put forth by chairman ryan and the budget committee shows that it is possible for this congress to offer solutions to the challenges of the modern world that are rooted in limited government, individual freedom, and the constitution. it is our responsibility to govern, to offer the people an alternative to the do-nothing attitude of the senate democrat leadership, or the business as usual tax, spend, and borrow budget offered by the president.

the arguments being made by the plaintiffs against the individual mandate are that the constitution is not dead. that there is at least one party in washington and a majority of the country still believes that the constitution means what it says. that there are limits on the power of congress and the executive branch. i'm energized and hopeful for the future of this great republic as i see these events unfold this week, and i'm reminded of the observation of president reagan. i hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. there is a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as the law of physics. as government expands, liberty contracts. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. today the clock is ticking here in congress own the floor of the house where people around the country would like to be preparing for the next construction season. indeed, the most important action for the economy, for job creation, for strengthening the livability of our community, might well be enacting the surface transportation act. sadly so far the news has not been good. later today we debate the house republican budget which would slash infrastructure funding to a level less than is required simply to meet obligations for contracts that we have already entered into. people that are building roads

and bridges and transit systems. and we have an obligation to them to go down that path. the budget, sadly, would not even allow the federal government to meet its partnership obligation. there is more bad news as we see the republicans can't come to grips with what would be required to move the transportation authorization bill forward. last month they offered up what has been characterized as the worst transportation bill in history. it was partisan. it was unbalanced. it would overturn two decades of transportation reform, undercut transit, and the vital enhancement programs that communities have used to improve the quality of life and stretch their transportation resources. it even attacked bining and -- bike and pedestrian programs.

eliminating safe routes to school for our children. well, luckily it collapsed under its own weight. they were afraid to even have a hearing on it before it came to the floor, and then they found out that there wasn't an opportunity to pass it. the support wasn't there in the face of united opposition around the country from people who care about transportation. at the same time the senate has given us a balanced and bipartisan bill. 74 members of the other body voted for it and passed it over to us. i would hope that as time for us to stop playing partisan ideological games with this vital transportation bill. the headlines that the republican maneuvering has done is an embarrassment to speaker

boehner, to chairman mica, but it's not just to the republican leadership, it's an enbearsment to the house. i'm sorry -- embarrassment to the house. i'm sorry my republican friends and colleagues can't seem to agree amongst themselves about a path forward. they cannot get 218 votes for any bill, even the speaker's proposal. the good news is they don't have to. there are 435 members of the house if they would work in a bipartisan basis as we have done in the past, we can stop this short-term roulette. we can give the construction industry, local government, people in the private and public sector the certainty they need for not just this construction cycle but the next construction cycle. we can put 10s of thousands tens of thousands of people to work, do what congress needs to do,

what congress has done always until this point. i hope the republican leadership before we leave this week will at least allow the bipartisan senate bill to come to the floor , to be voted on. i'm confident that a majority will pass and we'll meet our obligations to keep america moving and the economy growing. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to the house request to return the papers on h.r. 5, cited as the protecting access to health care act. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, for five minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. all of the above energy is the plan first introduced by house republicans when gas prices

spiked during the summer of 2008. for two years prior, congressional democrats were following a green energy plan only. doing their best to completely eliminate the traditional forms of energy like petroleum, natural gas, and coal that account for 83% of our energy consumption. when president obama took office in 2009, he took up their flag and began pushing for his controversial cap and trade law that even he admitted would mean electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. he appointed an energy secretary that admitted on national tv that he wanted our gas prices at european levels. well, they are both on their way. since then energy costs have doubled, gas prices have skyrocketed, and we are in a

crisis in this country when it comes to our energy use. just as we saw in the summer of 2008, when these gasoline prices spiked, and our energy costs rose, the price of everything else was soon to follow. when its cap and trade bill failed and get enough support, the democratic controlled congress, he set out to have the e.p.a. basically regulate the bill into law. over the last three years, the e.p.a. has issued some of the most costly regulation on power plants in their history. by 2016, the utility mack regulation is expected to cost $9.6 billion annually in direct costs, and some analysts estimate its total indirect costs closer to $100 billion. the cross state air pollution rules expected to impact over

1,000 power plants across the country, and by the e.p.a.'s own estimates, it's estimated to cost $2.8 billion annually. with no business experience in this administration, i don't think that they realize when the cost of doing business goes up, business prices go up, and that affects every hardworking american taxpayer at the pump, when he turns on the light at home, when he buys a loaf of bread, when he goes to buy a u.s. manufactured product. it costs. according to the president's own commerce departments, the boiler mact regulation in itself is expected to cost between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. the impact of these regulations is already being felt. last month, two utility companies announced the closing of 10 of their power plants as a direct result of some of the strict new regulations.

another move that will raise the price of electricity for consumers. yes, it seemed as though the president finally coming around when he said in his state of the union speech earlier this year, right here in this room, this country needs an all out, all of the above energy strategy that develops every available resource of american energy. it's not often that i agree with the president, but at that point i did. unfortunately the president hasn't stayed true to his words. in fact, just yesterday the e.p.a. announced their latest set of regulations that will effectively ban the building of new coal powered power plants by dramatically decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. whether the president and environmentalists like it or not, coal currently amounts for almost half of the elk terrorist it generated in this country. effectively eliminating coal-fired plants is only going to increase the cost of electricity to american families. we can no longer allow the white house to say one thing and do

another when it comes to energy. if the president truly supports the republican all-of-the-above energy strategy as he claimed he did, then he needs to follow through. it's time we start to take advantage of all the god-given natural resources this country has and to have american-made energy, american-made power that will power this nation. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the situation in afghanistan is as bleak as i can remember at any point in the last 10 1/2 years that we have been at war. in recent months we have seen the burning of the koran by american troops. a video of soldiers urinating on bodies of dead afghans. spontaneous riots in the afghan streets protesting the continued

u.s. occupation. as well as deadly attacks by afghan soldiers on the u.s. and nato forces that are there to help and to train them. and now in the most grotesque tragedy imaginible, two weeks ago a u.s. staff sergeant left his base, walked more than a mile through an afghan village outside kandahar, going door to door and systematically gunning down 17 civilians. "the new york times" reported that one afghan farmer was visiting a nearby town for the day and returned home to find that his wife, four sons, and four daughters had all been murdered in the attack. here's the irony, according to the times count because the taliban still lingered in the area, the farmer had been concerned about moving his

family back to this part of southern afghanistan last year. but he was reassured by the very fact that he would be near an american military base. with these latest atrocities, how can we expect president karzai or elected ally under the best of circumstances, to continue to cooperate? how do we expect to convince the taliban to come to the negotiating table for a peace and reconciliation settlement? and most importantly after this incident how do we convince the people of afghanistan that we are their friends. that our presence in their country is a force for good. staff sergeant robert bales will be tried for these unspeakable crimes. but i also think any responsible analysis would conclude that he is also a victim of the war. he is on his fourth deployment.

he clearly suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder or even worse mental health affliction. he clearly had no business being on active duty. mr. speaker, more than a decade of war is weakening and wreaking havoc with the bodies and minds of our service members. staff sergeant bales will be held to account, but what about the cruel and unforgiving war machine that has absolutely has to bear some responsibility? when are we going to finally set warfare aside and embrace a smart security approach? yesterday 80 retired top military leaders took out an ad in politico calling for robust investment in development, diplomacy, and other civilian efforts that will do ab-- a lot more than military force to keep

america safe. and yet the republican budget we'll debate later today cuts those very foreign aid and humanitarian programs. when will we learn, mr. speaker? how bad does it have to get? our afghanistan policy is an absolute shambles and the american people know it. . many believe we shouldn't be waging this war. this is the moment. we must realize this mission has no hope of succeeding, that the only humane and responsible course is to end the war at once. this is the moment. finally, after all the tragedy and mayhem to bring our troops home, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the

gentlelady from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise again to highlight the epidemic of sexual assault and rape in the military. next week will mark the one-year anniversary of my first floor speech on this issue. that day i told the story of technical sergeant mary gallagher who was raped by a co-worker while deployed in iraq. the week leading up to the rape, sergeant gallagher's assailant harassed her, stocked her and attempted to break into her room. though she twice reported the assailant's threatening behavior, her command did nothing about it. they called it a, quote, he said she said scenario. justice was not served. i told the story of army specialist blake stevens who was consistently assaulted and

sexually harassed by the man in his unit. he reported the harassment to command but no action was taken. fellow service members later sodomized him with a bottle, and the only punishment his assailanted received was extra push-ups. justice was not served. last week i told the story of marine lieutenant ellie helmer who reported repeated sexual harassment with no avail. the marine corps did absolutely nothing in response to the harassment. she was later raped by another superior whose behavior went unpunished. her command ultimately told her, quote, you're tough. you need to pick yourself up and dust yourself off. i can't baby-sit you all of the time. quote, no justice was served. mary, blake and ellie paint a

picture of a military culture that treats sexual assault can acceptance, a -- and the military refutes this. yet, evidence suggests just the reverse. the, quote, hurt feelings reports that stands beside me is an example of how rape and sexual assault has been trivialized and how a victim was mocked in the military. it was supposed to be say tire, the quote, report, was posted on the facebook page of a female captain in charge of the marine barracks protocol office just a few months ago. it mocks fellow marines who file sexual assault complaints with a list of, quote, reasons for filing this report, which include options such as, quote, i'm a little b blank.

i'm a little, quote, p blank. i'm a cry baby. and i want my mommy. and what do the head of protocol do when she saw this document? did she report or punish the people who made it? did she tell them there is zero tolerance for this behavior? no, she didn't do anything of the sort. in fact, the head of protocol wrote this caption to the image on her facebook page. quote, my marines crack me up, unquote. it's no wonder that only 13% of victims of rape and assault are brave enough to report the crimes committed against them. the hurt feelings report and the facebook response convey a toxic culture when it comes to sexual harassment, assault, stalking and rape. victims of rape are, quote, get over it or told they were asking for it based on the way

they dress. one year ago i promised to tell the stories of service members who survived rape and sexual assault while in the military. i said then and i promise you now that i will tell their stories until meaningful action is taken to eliminate the chasm between the number of estimated sexual assaults and the number of prosecuted sexual assaults. i urge survivors to email me at stopmilitaryrape@mail.house.gov if they want to speak up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for five minutes. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, the death of trayvon martin is indeed an american tragedy. too often this violent act which resulted in the murder of trayvon martin is repeated in the streets of our nation. i applaud the young people all across the land who are making a statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this nation, particularly those who wear official -- clothes. racial profiling has to stop, mr. speaker.

just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum. the bible teaches us, mr. speaker, and -- the speaker pro tempore: the member will suspend. mr. rush: these words -- the speaker pro tempore: the member will sprund. the member will suspend. the chair must remind members that -- the gentleman is out of order. mr. rush: and in the new testament -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. rush: he has anointed me -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. rush: sent me to proclaim freedom. i urge all to heed these

messages. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the member is no longer recognized. the chair will ask the sergeant at arms to enforce the prohibition all in decor. the chair must remind members that clause 5 of rule 17 prohibits the wearing of hats in the chamber when the house is in session. the chair finds that the dawning of a hood is not consistent with this rule. members need to remove their hoods or leave the floor. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, for five minutes. mr. lewis: thank you very much,

mr. speaker. mr. speaker, america has the best health care system in the world. long before coming to congress, i spent my energy in the life and health insurance business. in selling individual contracts, i found that questions of pre-existing conditions and portability were a major concern for people buying individual health insurance contracts. over the years i became convinced that these two major challenges could be solved by breaking down the walls between the individual states. this would provide a much larger pool of applicants, thus allowing for a much more reasonable base to underwrite the cost of covering those pre-existing conditions and allowing for a more effective portability. when we debated how to solve the problems affecting our health care system two years

ago, many were warned that government would go too far and must not be the solution. our former speaker said, and i quote, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. well, now we know what is in it, and it's time to speak up. mr. and mrs. america, do not allow a federally mandated program to undermine the best health care system in the world . do not allow a federal mandate to get between you and your physician. do not allow government to undermine your right to choose between the great variety of protection available in the marketplace. do not allow a politically appointed board to ration health care in the name of reducing cost. do not allow the federal government to take us down the pathway to socialized medicine.

do not allow us to be dominated by those who would have america look more and more like europe. so, mr. and mrs. america, it's time for all of us to come together. we can solve the problems of our existing health care system without allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats getting between you and great health care. you need to tell the congress to do their job, solve the problems without destroying the best health care system in the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> legislative work in the house starts at noon eastern. members will begin debate on the republican 2013 budget plan. ordinary by -- offered by budget

committee chairman, paul ryan. they'll also considered president obama's budget plan. it will be offered as a substitute by a republican. they'll finish work on the budget tomorrow. a vote is scheduled this afternoon on transportation projects. authorization for that. we'll have live coverage when members return here on c-span. the nation's highest court is back in session. to hear more oral arguments on the health care law. today they are considering whether the whole law has to go down if they strike down one portion. this afternoon they'll consider a challenge by 26 states to the expansion of the medicaid program for low-income americans . it's an important feature toward the overall goal of extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people. this is the last of three days of argument over the health law. the court will release the audiotapes of this morning's arguments this afternoon. you can hear it at 1:00 on c-span3. then this afternoon's argument

will be played back at 3:15 eastern also on c-span3. and to hear all of this week's arguments, go to c-span.org. you'll also find reaction by attorneys in the cases. the house armed services committee looks at security on the korean peninsula. north korea says it plans to send a satellite into orbit next month to mark the anniversary of its founder, but its neighbor to the south and the international community says the launch is cover for a long-range missile test. the committee hears from general james thurman, the commander of u.s. and combined forces based in south korea. we are joining this hearing in progress live on c-span. >> that would be additional requirements and additional cost. i do not think under the current environment that is feasible. so i'm ok with leaving 4,645

families when we built camp humphreys, which is part of the oning sun relocation plan. that plan was based on the authorized 4,645 families. so i see staying at that right now. is what i will tell you. the biggest issue that i have is the constant turnover of personnel primarily army. because we are on one-year tours. you can imagine the turn that's ongoing every day. we typically lose about 600 to 700 soldiers a month that are rotating either in or out back to the continental united states. >> about every month it's about 600 go home and 600 come? >> yes, sir. so i have asked the general and the army to look at how we can build readiness at best value. and see what we can do and i'm

very mindful of the cost and i don't want to create a requirement that is not operationally focused. >> on the relocation plan, what do you see as anticipated problems? do you see any more anticipated delays and implementing the relocation plan either for young serl or just the land partnership? >> congressman, first off the land partnership program was a u.s. initiative. that is on track. i am looking at some of those capabilities to make sure that the positioning is right on the peninsula. i'm looking at a brigade right now. the second program, theoning sun relocation, it was a little

behind. we have that back on track. we'll have both of those programs completed bye 2016 is what the estimate is right now. i would be more than happy to provide you the cost breakout and i'd like to take that for the record if i could. >> i appreciate that. you say you still anticipate by 2016 anything in the fit that causes you concern about meeting that goal? >> the only thing which is not associated with the land partnership program or the yon sung relocation, there is a requirement in the 13 budget for a battalion headquarters for a chemical battalion that was -- that's going to be deployed from the states as part of force posture adjustments to the peninsula. and that's an additional requirement. >> not originally anticipated. so that's added in the 13. so you have to find some way to

accommodate that? >> that's correct, congressman. >> thank you. that's all i have. yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. doctor, it's very timely that we are having this hearing. as we look in the news of what's just been coming out of the talks that the president attended, we know that the news also reported on monday, for example this is a cnn story i'll be reading from, just hours after the united states warned that north korea would achieve nothing with threats or pro vocations chung yang moved a long-range rocket it plans to test fire to a launch pad monday. now, north korea's threat of a missile launch can only be an effort to test perhaps head deployment.

a missile that would have capability of reaching the united states. secretary gates said as he was leaving that one of his concerns was the rising threat of north korea that it could in fact get to the point where it could threaten mainland united states. we also know it's of course nuclear weapons program which makes their missile program that much more of a concern. also monday news broke of the president having a conversation with an open mike where the president says to medvedev, on all these issues but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it's important to give me space. this is the president speaking, medvedev said, yeah, i understand. i understand your space, space for you, meaning our president. obama says this is my last election, after my election i have more flexibility. medvedev says i understand. i will transmit this information to vladimir.

obviously the concern everyone has is as we talk to the issue of north korea, as we talk to the issue of their missile program, their nuclear weapons program, gates indicating that they are a rising threat to mainland united states, it raises the question of what is the president's secret deal to limit our missile defense system? the president is talking to another world leader about once he gets through the election, his last ewlecks, then unfettered, he'll be free to have flexibility on our missile defense system. we are all very, very concerned as to what this secret deal could be as we face the rising threat of north korea. is this limits on the deployment of our missile defense system? limits on our use of our missile defense system? limits on our operation of our missile defense system? you can understand how everyone would be concerned as we look to the news of the rise of north korea and the threat it provides to mainland of our president making any deal, especially a

secret deal, that is only to be revealed after the election, that might affect our missile defense system. doctor, you are the acting assistant secretary of defense policy for asia and pacific security affairs. what is in this secret deal? are we to be concerned about the effects of limiting our missile defense system? our only protection that we have with respect to the emerging and rising threat of north korea to our homeland? >> i am not aware of any secret deal. we do take the growth of north korea's missile capability very seriously. as i indicated we are working very closely with south korea operationally and other countries in the region. >> before the time expires, since you said you are not aware of any secret deal, perhaps it's not a secret deal to you, it's secret to us until it was caught on the microphone with the president. let me reask you a question. are you aware of the deal the president has with medvedev and

with russia that would be revealed to us after the election that perhaps is in secret to you that would limit our missile defense capability either in deployment, use, or scope that of course is a series -- serious concern to this committee as we look to the rise of north korea. are you aware of the subject matter of the president's missile defense deal, secret or not, with the russians? if you're not, why are you not? >> no, sir. i am not. i can assure you that we do believe that missile defense and our phase adaptive approach to missile defense in the asia pacific region is very much alive. it's very much a part of our comprehensive approach to deal with the threat by the north koreans. and something we are committed to. and in the closed session i would be happy to describe in detail the steps we are taking -- >> doctor, you are an appointee by the president, are you not? >> yes, i am. >> i would greatly appreciate it if you would ask the president

what are the details with russia on missile defense that cannot be disclosed until after the election. we have grave concerns as to the president having any restriction on our defensive systems, especially with, as you have eloquently described, the rising threat of north korea. i would greatly appreciate that. thank you. >> mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here this morning. gentlemen, it's always good to see you. i guess one concern that i have and others have had as well whether there is any intention of drawing down further the presence of u.s. troops in theater? is there any plan or contingency plans to do that in light of all

of the issues, including sequestration, that would play into that kind of scenario? >> congressman reyes, there are no plans that i am aware of that draws down any forces on the peninsula. we are staying at 28,500. there may be some adjustments inside those capabilities, but those adjustments would be to improve our overall force posture, but there are no plans that i am aware of. >> in terms of the agreement that we have with the -- particularly for the stability of the korean peninsula with the south koreans, are there any concerns, and i apologize for not having been able to be here, i had another meeting i have to be in. but are there any changes that

we contemplate based on the new leadership in north korea in that partnership with south koreans? >> congressman reyes, first off the -- i believe the alliance is as strong as it's ever been, particularly of our pail miltary partnership. the concerns that the south koreans relay to me is obviously they are very concerned about the continued willingness on part of the north koreans to continue to test ballistic missiles, and the pursuance of nuclear capability. that causes great angst and concern. and i think right now that's probably one of the biggest things, obviously they have not

forgotten. the sinking of the chonan that occurred in march of 2010 and the shelling of the by pidto island that occurred in november of 2010. they are very watchful of that and mindful of it. they have put a lot of emphasis on their military for overall readiness, i will tell you that. >> in terms of the progress that had been made prior to the demise of jim young ill. are there any indications that those kinds of efforts or talks are taking place in lieu of the concerns that you just expressed of the sinking and the shelling of the -- by the north koreans? is there any prospect that those talks of economic opportunities

being set out by south koreans at this point? >> congressman, i have not seen any great change as a result of the succession of the new leader. i would welcome any discussion, obviously. i think if the parties can discuss their differences, that's always a good thing. but i have not seen any change. i defer to dr. la voy on any policy issues in regard to that. >> i could add to that, congressman. north korea is a authoritarian regime, of course. and it has political successions are extraordinarily difficult when you don't have a representative government, which is the case there, of course. and so what we are seeing now and what we anticipate is he provocative behavior because

unfortunately this seems to be the only way that the north korean regime can try to demonstrate its bona fideys to a population -- bonna fidse to a population that is suffering terribly. they can't meet the needs of the population, nutritional or educational or other needs, so they resort to provocative behavior. despite efforts to stabilize relations with the north and to de-escalate tensions on the peninsula following these very dangerous activities in the past, now once again because of an internal political dynamic on north korea, it appears they are once again inclined to take these provocative steps, most specifically the announced -- long-range missile test flight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was just going back and forth with my aunt, who has a nephew

serving over there in korea. what you ladies and gentlemen accomplished over there in representing george weanl the united states well. i want to speak just very briefly about the air force base that we are very proud of. could you just speak to the jay stars program and what it means in a potential conflict with north korea? >> congressman, first off in respect to jay stars it gives us moving target capability. without going into the classification -- classified portion of it. but more importantly what i'm looking for as a commander is i have a set of priority intelligence requirements. and i welcome any system that is going to help me answer those

requirements. and it is an added capability that does help us on the peninsula. >> my cousin is honored to serve under you as a commander. his mom wanted to ask why was issued live ammunition. we'll answer that behind closed doors. thank you, i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you. mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize to you and the witnesses for being tardy. i was in a hearing with the secretary of education and wanted to hear him. no disrespect to you gentlemen. thank you for your service to our country. dr. la voy, within the confines of this public discussion, i wanted to get the thinking behind the linkage of the missile test that's coming up, presumably next month, and our

decision about whether to execute and follow through on the food aid agreement with north korea. i'm not sure what i think about that idea, but let me play devil's advocate here. one argument might be that linking the two punishes the north korean people without having any significant impact on the north korean leadership, would further intensify eavent u.s. or anti-western hostility, and therefore strengthen the hand domestically of the north korean leadership to engage in such extra legal and unwelcomed activities on the international stage. how would you assess that argument and respond to it? . >> well, i can tell you it's regrettable that food aid is not moving forward. the north korean population really needs nutritional assistance, and we're prepared

to provide that to north korea. the real motivation and linkage, this is not intended to be linked to anything else, not by any movement by the north koreans. however, the fact that north korea is brazenly violated agreements they agreed to in the discussions in beijing and its commitment that was announced on february 29, on leap day, indicates they're not reliable and we cannot expect them to meet other international commitments, including the commitments that they've agreed to that are associated with the provision of nutritional assistance to the needy population in their country. >> i understand the basis, the rationale that they dishonored their agreements so they really abandoned their right to claim what they would get under the agreement. my question really more is whether we think that would be effective in altering the behavior of this government or whether it's going to worsen our position. you obviously think it's going

to be effective relatively speaking? >> well, we don't think that should be a lever to political outcome. it's a humanitarian effort that we have intended. again, it's regrettable this has stopped. while we are not providing that food assistance it's because we have confidence to meet their agreement. we have not done that to change their policy. >> they might see that differently but that's ok. >> again, within the confines of this public discussion, either of you would be pleased to answer it. how do you assess the role the people's republic of china in dealing with this outlaw behavior by north korea? are they more helpful or not or are they more harmful or not or neutral? put another way, what do you think the optimal behavior of the p.r.c. toward this problem

is and how close are they to obtaining it? >> congressman, i think as we've discussed already, china has potentially a great deal of influence and probably more than any other country on the regime in north korea. so, of course, we for a long time have been talking to the chinese, consulting regularly with the chinese about how vast influence the north koreans and a manner to affect reforms at home and to conform their international behavior to acceptable standards. objectively, we can see that north korea continues to behave outside the rules of normal and acceptable international conduct. so that influence has not been as effective today as we would have liked. we continue to consult with the chinese and with other countries that discuss with -- to have relations with north korea about north korea's behavior. and as our partnership with

china deepens, we hope that china will see the interest in the spirit of this partnership -- >> i'm really hopeful of that too. unless you see everything as a zero-some game between the u.s. and p.r.c., which i don't and i hope they know, this kind of instability in their own region can't possibly be good for the p.r.c. and certainly not good for the rest of the world. so i hope we continue those efforts to find common ground that would encourage north korea to act within the community of nations. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. west. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member, also. i want to say steadfast and loyal. general, great to see you again. i want to duck tail what my colleague, mr. andrews, talked about. i was stationed in korea.

more saber rattling and us giving in. dr. lavoy, my simple question is -- you do -- do you ever see an end to this extortion that's coming out of north korea? >> well, we hopefully see an end to that and we are doing everything possible to do this. but it's a real cal is i trant regime. -- calsitrant regime. it leads them to this provocative international behavior. and probably when they can only reform internally can they get international behavior to align to acceptable standards. >> but does there come a time when our perceived benevolence when they translate into weakness must be ended in order for us to stop this crazy international extortion because that's how i see it. i am just a simple guy from the inner city of georgia and

that's how we see it. >> congressman, i don't see you as a simple guy. i don't see our approach as benevolent or weak at all. >> they see it as weak. >> i don't see it. >> there are quotes coming out of dprk saying so. duck tailing off i my colleague. do you believe that the incredible debt situation, where china holds 30% of our debt, the trade imbalance situation -- we are almost at a economic disadvantage with china. does that have an adverse affect in our foreign policy dealing with north korea? >> as i indicated just a moment ago, we do have a strong partnership with china. we are consulting with china on a range of issues, particularly on north korea, because china does have so much influence. and we believe that china can be an effective partner and can provide more influence on the

north korea regime than it has to date. >> but do you think china sees itself being somewhat more belligerent because they have this control of 28% of our debt and a little bit of a trade imbalance advantage over us, do you think that gives them some leverage? >> congressman, that's not apparent to me. we talk with china about real world international problems and how to deal with them. >> and general thurman, commanders like yourself always taught me two questions that you have to answer when you're briefing a plan. sir, what do you see as the most dangerous and the most likely courses of action coming out of north korea? >> thanks, congressman west. the first thing i worry about every day is a miscalculation on somebody's part that causes a conflict that we hadn't planned for. that's the first thing.

secondly, i worry about the asymmetric capabilities that the north koreans have, whether it be with special operations forces or the introduction of chem bio and cyber. those are the things that i worry about. i think we're postured well to repel an attack. however, they have a considerable number of indirect fire systems and as expansive as seoul is, any round coming our direction could potentially do damage. so i worry about that, so the importance of staying ready and remaining vigilant is very important for both r.o.k. and u.s. and that's 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

>> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to thank our witnesses for being here this morning and testifying. i had to spend most of my -- this committee in another committee where i'm chairman of the space and aeronautics so i haven't been able to follow the entire line of requesting -- questioning. i'm sure chairman west talked part of his visit. we did that this past august. it was a wonderful trip. the republic of korea along with the philippines and japan. one of our common denominators of concern was china and also what was our u.s. posture going to be. and if we moved our posture to where our allies thought we were retreating or following back a little too far for their general welfare that then they would have to do whatever they

have to do to take care of the security and stability of their population. so i guess what i'm saying, i hope we're focusing on china. i know the president talked about it being an emerging that. and that cyber security. the middle east. making sure the shipping lanes around the world are continuously opened because our economic and national security depends so much on it. and then the next thing we hear is we are in another hearing and we hear -- i don't know -- a separate conversation, actually, that the chinese are even building icebreakers to go up in the arctic so they can begin claiming the north seas for those resources. so that causes me some concern and hopefully we'll perhaps continue to focus on their behavior and expose it and then -- all the while, you know, they're increasing their spending on their military and we're cutting half a trillion dollars over the next decade and we're staring down the

barrels of a double barrel shotgun stuck at our head with the possibility of sequestration. and that scares me. but i guess i'll just switch gears and from a c.p.a. standpoint, i like to see the cost benefit, and i know we're doing some realigning from yong song. i didn't have a chance to visit the new site i guess where camp humphries is going to be. are we getting the best value for our dollar? we kind of kept the peace for them for decades now. and i know typically wherever the u.s. military has been, that footprint is one of the most valuable pieces of property left on that continent or in that country. is it -- so are we doing a fair exchange? are they paying their fair share? >> congressman, thank you for

that question. first thing, i would tell you i think we're getting a very good deal with the r.o.k. government. the property of i don't think song -- of yong song, we will keep a residual of yong song because that's important with our day-to-day business we do. i interface daily with the r.o.k. chairman of their military as well as their ministry of defense. so we'll have a small footprint there and, of course, the u.s. embassy will eventually relocate to yong song out to some property there. in regard to the cost, there are shared costs, and i would be more than happy to give you a detailed cost breakdown of that so you can see. but i believe we're getting a very good deal, and i believe that the l.o.k. government welcomes u.s. presence.

you just spoke of china. we are a stabilizing influence. as long as we're deployed. and that needs to be factored into all of these discussions because that's important to maintain stability in that region. but i think overall the r.o.k. has been more willing, and you can go back to 1991, they have continued to increase their spending to assist u.s. forces that are stationed there. >> well, thank you, general. i know on our trip over there they're rereceptive and they were very supportive of u.s. troops in r.o.k. so keep doing a great job. i enjoyed seeing you and hopefully i've already made it aware to chairman whitman i'd like to take another trip because it's such grave importance and it's important we gather as much information as possible and come back better prepared for hearings just like this. so thank y'all both.

i yield back. >> thank you. ms. hochul. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just like my colleague, i have a little disadvantage. i came from a markup in homeland security. the question i had i think has been addressed. i was concerned about as the overall cost of realignment of the u.s. forces in south korea and how much is being funded by the republic of korea. so if we can get that information. is it 20%? what are we talking here? i don't need raw numbers. i would like them in the future. what is their shared numbers and what kind of numbers does that equate to? >> congresswoman, first off, on yong song relocation, the r.o.k. government is paying for that. >> ok. now >> there will be some ancillary costs with our -- specific to the unique requirements for our communications networks. that's a responsibility of ours

as well as some of the o.r.m. requirements and s.r.m. requirements that will be required in the future. the land partnership program was a u.s. initiative and that was funded by the u.s. primarily. we did use special measures funding from the r.o.k. government to assist in that but i would be more than happy to give you the detailed cost breakout. >> ok. thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you. mrs. hartzler. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was interested in your comments, general, what keeps you up at night worrying about the operational special op forces that north korea has, their cyber, as well as the weapons of mass destruction capabilities. those are the things that stood out for me as i read your testimony as well. i did not realize that north

korea had the world's largest special operations force, over 60,000 trained and loyal soldiers at the president's beck and call at any moment so that's very concerning. i want to focus on the other two areas. you say regarding cyber that the newest addition to the -- their arsenal is the growing cyberwarfare capability that north korea employs sophisticated computer hackers trained to launch cyberattacks against r.o.k. providing the regime a means to attack and u.s. interests without attribution and increasingly deployed including educational, commercial institutions, government institutions. so i was wondering what are we doing to help counter this threat. >> congresswoman, first off,

that is correct what you just read. it's an area that i have placed greater emphasis on to make sure first off our networks are properly protected. and i would be more than happy in a closed session to go into the detailed capabilities of what that threat is what we see in a closed forum. >> ok. >> i pearblely am concerned that we have already deployed this against our military. so i'd like to know more about what happened there. all right. so let me move to the weapons of mass destruction question saying that, you know, you list that as a significant concern and that you assess the capabilities to manufacture, transport and deliver a variety of both persistent and nonpersistent chemicals to include nerve, blood, choking and blister agents could be thriffered through artillery or missile systems and that if they were to employ them it

could use highly patho jenic such as anthrax. this would be a tremendous problem. so is our counterproliferation policies and programs effective tools to mitigate these threats and what more can we do? so, general or secretary? >> congresswoman, first thing in regard to our protection of our men and women who are serving on the peninsula, i have placed a lot of emphasis on our overall chemical, biological defense training. we train on that on a frequent basis. i'm confident we have the right capabilities. that's the first thing. secondly, in terms of biodetection, we have placed a lot of emphasis on our installations with our

biological detection capabilities. and so it's important to keep that current. we do work with our r.o.k. forces. they are very good with our chemical capabilities, and we have -- we train in those type of environments. so i'm confident in regard to that. i do not see the north koreans giving up this capability. i think it's something we're going to have to continually deal with given the current set of conditions. >> do you have anything? >> thank you very much, congresswoman. i think what the department of defense brings to bear, particularly with general therman and his -- general thurman and his capability, number one, a strong deterrence capability, to deter the north from using these horrendous weapons of mass destruction. as he indicated, a robust defense capability. should these weapons be used,

general thurman and his force, together with the south koreans, have a good defensive capability to deal with the consequences if these were to be used. and to compliment both of these and really to enhance that deterrent capability is a constant operational readiness of our forces in the theater. so this is what the department of defense brings to bear against this. i have to agree with you, north korea is an outlier today in the world. the president was just in seoul over the past couple of days with a nuclear security summit. over 50 of the world's leaders are there. everybody is trying to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to decrease that danger. again, north korea is an outlier. what we're doing in the department of defense, we're also supporting a broader international diplomacy and nonproliferation efforts to try to deal with that threat. >> appreciate what you're doing. very, very important. thank you so much. >> thank you.

mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here for your service. i'm sorry i missed the early discussions but i wanted to ask you -- i guess extend the discussion on the tour normalization and what you're finding in terms of morale of the -- both unoccupied tours because the turnover, as i understand it, is about 600, 700 service members every month. is that normal? is that what we would anticipate? what kind of resources are there and how is that affecting readiness any way on the base? >> yes, ma'am. congresswoman davis, first off, most of the turnover we see that is occurring out of that 600 to 700 are the lower enlisted grates which are predominantly over there on a

one-year assignment. as you can imagine, that constant turnover affects the crew stability inside the second infantry division and so that's something that commander has to deal with. in regard to the number on tour normalization, we have roughly today around 3,800 families that are command sponsored. there are another 1,700 soldiers elected to bring their families over there that is noncommand sponsored. so that's really what we have. we have not achieved the 4,645 as of yet. so that's why based on the current fiscal environment, i looked at the number one, could we afford more families over there over and beyond the 4,645? i determined that that is not feasible at this time.

>> do you have other concerns that really are affecting the -- basically, the quality of life or service members that are there? and is there -- while in fact you wouldn't necessarily -- you don't see those numbers getting to that level, do you see major differences in terms of their ability to conduct their mission? >> ma'am, i do not. i think what makes korea unique is we have a threat to the north. we have a well-stated mission, and i have not seen a decline in any morale issues. this requires active leaders, leaders that are sensitive to the needs of their service members. and that's where i put my effort. and making sure if there's any quality of life issues, then we quickly try to resolve that. >> ok.

and of the people that have been deployed and the service members, are there numbers i guess maybe at the height of some of the deployments that are actually going into iraq or afghanistan? >> yes, ma'am. we see a lot of returnees from iraq and afghanistan. i mean, we are combat season force now. frankly we welcome the combat experience over there as we work with our r.o.k. counterparts because that just helps strengthen our capability. >> have you been able to strengthen any of your fighters in the mental health areas in order to accommodate some of the needs of returning soldiers? >> yes, ma'am. i placed a lot of emphasis on that, particularly in regard to any type of ptsd to make sure that, one, we have the capabilities there to treat our service members. we destigmatize that and we are very active with our chaplains'

support programs to make sure we're quickly dealing with any service member that may have a problem. >> because in their case they really are not able to go out when it comes to service providers. is that correct? i mean, they really have to stay in? >> the medical community does write consoul takes that go out if there's some specific need. -- consultations that go out if there's some specific need. >> thank you very much. thanks for your service. >> thank you. mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. lavoy and general thurman, thank you so much for joining us today and thank you for your service. general thurman, i thoroughly enjoyed our visit out there at your command. south korea was a great way to understand the challenges that you face and we want to make sure we understand a little bit more about those today.

you speak in your testimony about the north korean army, the korean people's army. having about 800 service combatants. can you tell us what are their capabilities and limitations in relation to our fleet structure that is currently deployed in japan and the japanese maritime self-defense force ships that are also there in the region? >> congressman wittman, thanks. first off, in regard to maritime, the thing that concerns me most out of the 800 combatants are their submarine forces that the north koreans possess. particularly the ones in the west seas because that's shallow water out there and that's of concern. and also on the east sea. so we watch that very carefully. i can go into more detail in cleesed session on that. there are other maritime

capabilities. i think some of that's atrophy, frankly, from what i can tell. the r.o.k. navy maintains a robust patrol capability every day, and some of the things we look at with them is obviously our interoperability with the u.s. sub fleet that reports out of japan. and for the japanese defense forces, i don't have any purview over those forces other than working through admiral scott swift who is the seventh fleet commander. i know he has a good relationship with the japanese as well as the r.o.k. >> general, can you tell us what needs do u.s. and r.o.k. forces have in the area of ground afact and air assault equipment there to support our men and women that serve there? and also, where are we in

relation to manning requirements, training and equipment requirements there in the region and especially looking at there being a cap of 25,000 in the republic of south korea, where is that in relation to our needs and especially in the area of aviation? i want to get your thought on where we are there with those equipment needs and where we may be adequate or where we may be falling short. >> congressman wittman, with regard to aviation forces, we do not have a combat aviation brigade there. i have asked the department as well as the department army and back through the pay com and the joint staff to look at adding that battalion back that was repoe pogsed out of there -- repositioned out of there to meet requirements and for the war in iraq and afghanistan. so i've asked that be relooked so i would welcome that

requirement. and that would help with our helicopter fleet there. in regard to our overall equipping posture, i feel we are equipped very well. we're getting many of the new pieces of equipment. we just modernized the second infantry division with new tanks. we got the best tank this nation can provide as well as new bradley fighting vehicles. the preposition stocks are in good shape. we just issued some of that out. so i'm confident in regard to ground capabilities. we're in pretty good shape. i can talk in closed session on precision. i will be happy to talk about that and some of the capability gaps we have. >> we talk about conventional capabilities, talk about missile threats. let me say this. we made a significant

investment in special operations forces and also asymmetric warfare capability. let me ask you, are you properly positioned from a resource standpoint in that region where our special operations forces and asymmetric warfare capability, and if not what do we need to do and what do you see are the major threats on special operations and asymmetric side? >> with regard to the special operation forces, we have the special operations command there in korea that works side by side with the r.o.k. special operating forces. the r.o.k.'s have a very good force. we're working with them to continue to improve that. so if we go to war tonight, that's what i have. in addition to what would be flown in from u.s. socom. so we're working with the

department on those unique capabilities. in regard to u.s. capabilities, for soft platforms as an example, and that's one of the things as i did my assessment that i looked at that i think we need to improve on. secondly, in regard to the north korean asymmetric problems, they have the capabilities to infiltrate. that's probably one of the biggest worries i see with what they have with their forces and they can do that very quickly. whether it be through sleeper cells or whatever, and we can also go into that in more detail in a closed forum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. bartlett. >> if north korea were the developing the intercontinental ballistic missile, they could carry a nuclear weapon and capable of reaching our shores.

and they launched it toward our nation, what would our response be? >> well, sir, i can't speculate on that hypothetical situation. we do not assess that north korea has that capability today. but we are aware that north korea is developing both its long range ballistic missile capabilities and is continuing to work on its nuclear weapons capabilities. so it's a future threat that we're very concerned about and the department is considering the best responses to that. >> what do you think north korea expects our response to that would be? >> congressman, i -- the way i look at this, north korea uses a coercive strategy, and they use that strategy to get concessions. first off, they won't, i don't

believe, give up their capabilities with regard to ballistic missiles because they see that as a means to protect the regime. in regard to the coercive strategy, we've seen this cycle where they demand concessions, they don't get what they want or they get what they want, they antagonize, they provoke and then they impback into a peace mode. we watched that on a continuous basis. so my sense is they're going to continue to use that as long as they follow their military first policy which i believe goes to protect the kim family and the whole communist party there. >> isn't there a general perception in this country and their country and any other country watching our two nations if they launched a ballistic missile, nuclear armed toward our shores that we

would respond in kind? i said not january perception. >> i would just say -- >> i said not a general perception. >> i would say i don't know what our response would be on that. >> i'm asking what you thought the general perception was on this process between our two countries. if they launched a nuclear tipped weapon toward our shores that we would most likely respond in kind? >> my sense, congressman, that's what fuels the anxiety and the concern over the north koreans having that capability and it's got to be dealt with in some manner. >> could i add to that, congressman bartlett? >> yes. >> i think we have a robust deterrent capability. we have capabilities in the theater that general thurman

commands. again, we -- it's our policy to deter that kind of behavior that you're talking about. and while we don't assess that they have the capability that you outline today, which i think you agree with, the development capabilities in this regard is something we're very concerned about. we maintain a robust decurrent capability to deter that kind of action. >> and they are aware of that robust deterrent capability. i think it's very unlikely if they have a nuclear weapon reaching our shore they would launch it. why would they do that if they simply put a medium range missile on a ship and launch from that ship anywhere on our west coast or east coast? which we have little defense and for which we have little capability of determining for certain who is responsible for it, why isn't that the most likely mode of attack from north korea if in fact they're interested in attacking us? >> well, congressman, i think

we have to be aware of a whole range of possible attacks or provocative actions that north korea could take. and over the course of keck aids of history, -- decades of history, they are pursued all kinds of asymmetric means to provoke the south and us. we have to be aware of the full array of threats including the ones you outlined. >> i'm not sure they're idiots nor do i think they're collectively suicidal. i think the major threat is the possibility of a launch which they could do tomorrow. even a scud launcher which they could buy for $100,000 in the open market and any crude nuclear weapon could take out our whole mid-atlantic area with an e.m.p., could it not? i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen. the committee will now extend

in recess as we move to closed session and we'll reconvene there. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the house of representatives comes back at 12:00 eastern time, as always we'll have live coverage here on c-span. the nation's highest court is back in session. the last of three days of oral arguments on the health care law. today, they're considering whether the whole law has to go down if they strike down one portion and a challenge by 26 states to the expansion of the medicaid program for low-income americans. the court will release the audiotapes of this morning's arguments this afternoon. you can hear it at 1:00 eastern on c-span3. then, this afternoon's argument will be played back at 3:15 eastern, also on c-span3, and to hear all of this week's arguments, go to c-span.org. you'll also find reaction by attorneys in the cases. and on c-span's facebook page, we're asking -- which supreme court justice is having the biggest influence on the health care oral arguments? join the discussion on c-span's

facebook page. there's a link at c-span.org. a look now at what it will take to fix the economy. the atlantic recently hosted an economy summit in washington. the focus was on the economic recovery here and globally and options to speed the recovery. this is about half an hour. >> well, this is a parade of talent you have unfolding in front of you. i do want to commend this interviewee. he really is one of the most imminent economic scholars in the world and all-authority on monetary history, monetary economics, monetary policy and a history of the federal reserve. that's where i want to start, right at the beginning. i know you are not in the

bernanke as a hero category. you have been quite critical in the things you've written for "the wall street journal" and elsewhere. tell us why. >> well, i do think and i commend him for responding to the questions which he heaped to create by letting lehman fail. but at least he responded to it as not letting it destroy the financial system. so i applaud him for that. now, he's doing the administration's fiscal policy. and that's not a good thing for a central bank to do. so the proof of the pudding is going to be whether he's a hero or goat is whether he is able to get rid of the $2 trillion or $3 trillion that he's put on his balance sheet, shrink is back to $1 trillion. my guess is not without difficulty. and that difficulty has been compounded because now the european central bank is adding fuel to the inflationary fire and the bank of japan has

finally decided that it wants to inflate, too, so, you know, when you see all the central banks in the world -- the countries are running big deficits and the central banks are printing money as rapidly as they can, then you know that inflation is coming. people say to me, well, where do you see inflation? oh, i see it in a lot of places, but one of the places i see it in is unlike the federal reserve, i think the bubbles are caused by people getting other money. that the exchange rate is declining because the fed is printing money. so just to give you a few little examples, when president nixon left the system, we are now .8. there were 4 1/4 swiss francs to the dollar. it is now .8. we have completed the dollar.

those are signs of inflation. there are others. productivity is slow. productivity growth has slowed now. wages, compensation is driving. that surely is a sign of things to come which aren't going to be nice. >> ok. so you see inflation in the works. i want to come back to that in a moment. i want to come back a little bit. the first part what you said when you said that the fed is doing the government's fiscal policy. just -- i mean, help people to understand what you mean by that, in what sense is the fed doing the government's fiscal policy? >> when it bice $1 trillion worth of mortgages, it's doing the government's business. it has no business buying long-term assets. central banks -- well-run central banks never do that. and the fed in its history, 100-year history only did it during wartime. now it's doing it fairly well.

that's government policy. why? well, the treasury, administration, congress, everyone spends more so the fed is doing their work for them. it's also doing the work of -- which i much -- recapitalizing the bank system by keeping interest rates low. letting the banks borrow at very low interest rates and lend at somewhat higher rates. and now heaven forbid they're saying to them, well, you know, now you have all this capital. you can pay dividends. you can buy back shares. you know, this is our taxpayer money that we're going to pay for in inflation. i mean, it's a ridiculous policy. >> let me push back a little bit, put myself in a position of an official. i'm sure that listening they think, well, you know, we will force to do a lot of unorthodox things. a lot of things that made us very uncomfortable.

the fed is split right now on whether to persist with some of these policies or begin to reverse them or advance them, but i think a fed official would say, what's the alternative? wasn't the government capable of doing what perhaps you think it should have done? the fed steps in because nobody else would. >> i heard paul volcker speech at lunch. i have known him since we both worked in the kennedy administration in 1962. we didn't always agree, but he said something very important. we have a long term problem. that's my -- long-term problem. that's my view. we need a long-term solution. we can't solve our problems by printing a little more money today or having a bigger deficit tomorrow. what we're going to -- what we need to do and what i would want to do is to say we have a long-term problem.

in fact, a number of them. so let's find some long-term solutions. let's say, how the central question is, how do we get back to a long-term growth path for the american people that has low inflation? that's what we want to do and we want to develop systematic stabilizing policies over a long period of time. does the federal reserve do that? no. does the congress do that? no. does the administration do that? no. do they even think about it? no. that's the worst part. you know, just to finish this, i read more federal reserve minutes than any human being ought to read. [laughter] you never see a sentence which says, if we do this today, where will we be a year from now, never. the exception was the volcker years. volcker knew he couldn't end inflation in a month so you had a longer term policy. it disappeared after he left.

you know, it's all about, what are we going to do this quarter, and how will it affect next quarter? well, that's not the way to stability. in fact, it's a way of disaster. >> i read a number of columns in favor of central bank independence which i think is -- goes to the heart of what you're talking about. i have to say that the crisis and the correctness of that view. the correctness of the central bank independence precisely because central bank has to accept the political constraints that confront them, don't they? i mean, they cannot wish them away. so what i want to ask you is, let's suppose you've been running the fed, which is not such an outlandish proposition. it's a -- >> that's a terrible idea. >> let's suppose you were doing that job and you confronted the problems that confronted

bernanke in 2008, what would you have done? >> well, let's see what he did and what i would have done differently. i laweded his response to the failure of lehman even though i disagree in the midst of a recession, without announcing an advance, you change the policy that's been in effect for 30 years without telling people you're going to do that. i mean, that's enough to scare the bejesus out of anybody. he did that. then he cleaned up the mess. and when he did it he said, look, these are short-term securities. so they're going to run off. but they didn't. when it started to run off he bought long-term securities. that's where i would have gotten off the train. when the long-term securities run off he bought mortgages. i would have stopped before that. and i would have said, look, my policy is to get back to long-term growth with low inflation. and so i'm going to do what i can to prevent -- to clean up the mess but i'm going to do it

in a framework which says i know where i'm headed over the next three to five years and i'm going to consistently go there. >> if he stuck to that purist line you might describe it that way, what do you think would have happened to the economy given the fact that congress, hasn't chosen to do its job since the lehman collapse or at least some might argue? what would you have expected to see happen in the wider economy if you take that hard line on monetary propry tee -- propriety? >> i assure people if there is a crisis i'd respond to it. just the way paul volcker did when he was reducing inflation. that wasn't a population

reaction. >> no. >> there was demonstrations against him all over the place. here's the lesson which i think is very interesting. in january of 1982 with the home bill on their back, worse than anything in this current recession, he went to las vegas and talked to the home builders and he said to them, we either end inflation now. if we give in we're going to start over again and it's going to be even harder. they gave him a standing ovation. you know why? because he was telling them, this is where i'm going. get ready for it. in the end it's going to be better. and he was right. and that's what i would try to do. get them to believe that what you're going to do is really going to be in the long-term interest because that's what they can effectively do. >> i understand. i think many people, most people would agree that volcker

was a hero and what he did was both brave and right. one might also argue that the situation confronting the u.s. in 2008 was even worse. i mean, one could argue far worse than the situation that confronted volcker. and if the fed had stuck to its guns and said we do monetary policy and we do it with an eye on the long term, if congress isn't capable of mitigating a short-term crisis, tough. i mean, how bad do you think things would have become? >> well, you know, volcker did this with the reagan deficits. you know, he just didn't buy government bonds. now the fed is buying the bulk of the government bond issue. is that a good idea? i don't think so and i don't think they're going to think so when it comes time to sell. the important question is not whether what he's doing today, tomorrow, next week is a good

idea. the question is how is he going to unload a couple trillion dollars, trillion, that is with a t -- >> that's right. >> is he going to sell a trillion dollars worth of mortgages into this mortgage market with this housing thing? not on your life. you'll hear the screams from honolulu to portland, maine. >> i want to ask you about the reversing of the policy in a moment, the risk of being overly persistent. let me just press one last time on how bad to you think things might have got. i mean, if i understand you correctly, you are saying that the fed failed to soften the recession. you aren't say that the fed's policies failed in the short term. you're saying that was the wrong goal. they shouldn't have concerned themselves with the short term. that leads me to ask, how bad might the short-term been if you'd been running the fed?

>> let me answer that slightly differently in a slightly different way. the fed is 100 years old. how many of those years have been years in which we've had stable growth or relatively stable growth and low inflation? well, there was 1923 to 1928 on the gold standard. a limping gold standard but a standard. then there was 1985 to 2002 when they followed something called the taylor rule. not identically every meeting but pretty much -- that's it. the rest of the time they produced a great inflation. the great depression. a whole variety of business cycles. and they contributed -- it didn't cause -- but it contributed to the current crisis. so that should tell you all this discretion and making policy judgments from quarter to quarter is a bad idea. and the economic profession is

solidly on the side of anything it's solidly on the side that rules are going to work better than discretion. would we have had bubbles if we followed rules? no, we would not. the bubbles is people getting out of money into real assets, trying to protect themselves. and that bids up these prices and the fed can't do a lot about that but they can do a lot about preventing that. that's what we need them to do. we need them tro provide stability -- to provide stability, not ambition. >> ok. i am attempted to keep going. but let's move to the issue of reversing the policies. i mean, we all now understand your view that it was a mistake to fill out the balance sheet to this extraordinary extent in the first place. but it's being done. what do you think is the likely course of action now, you know,

to reverse this? what would do you if you were in position to influence their position? >> i would start to reverse it. i would raise the interest rates slightly to 1%. i would look around and see what happened. you know, if it was too much, i might back off, but i certainly wouldn't go further. if it didn't create a lot of problems, well, i would go a little further slowly. working towards some equal libry all. let me -- equallibrium. let me say this $15 trillion worth of government debt, approximately $12 trillion is held outside of the government itself. every 1% that we increase the interest rate is going to raise the cost of interest payments by $150 billion. so while we're thinking about congress struggling to cut a little bit off the budget

deficit, we're going to be adding with three percentage points in interest rates, we're going to be adding $450 billion or $360 billion, you know. is that good? heck no, it's not good. people say, well, you pay it to yourself so it doesn't matter. we don't pay it to ourself. we pay half of it to the rest of the world. it will have big repercussions on the balance of payments. we have worked ourself into a terrible position. i'm like the guy who says, stop digging. >> ok. ok. i mean, one argument we're going to talk about europe in just a moment because i know you have strong views on that also. but if you -- you know, if you compare the u.s. and europe, if you look at where they are right now, you might conclude there's something to be said both for strong pisscal

stimulus which the u.s. had by global standards and for aggressive monetary ease which, again, the u.s. had much more than europe did because the u.s. seems to be emerging from the recession, does it not? you don't see those signs of recovery by any means in europe. >> i think the europeans have a mess and is making it a bigger mess. the greek bailout, it is surprising and extremely disappointing to me that when i read the "financial times" or most of the discussion, never is the word used about cost of production. but greece has a cost of production. 30% higher than germany. so every time they make an estimate of what the greek economy is going to do, it's going down. now, they say, well, by 2020 they're going to have a debt to

g.d.p. ratio of 120%. don't bet on it. their economy is collapsing. now, what solutions are being given to them? they're told every day saying, let the germans inflate or print money. germany's debt is about 80% of g.d.p. if they do what "the financial times" gurus tell them to do so, it will soon be in the same sink that the others are in. and the idea that germany is going to inflate its way out of this is nonsense. it has the highest -- so the result will be that the others will inflate relative to germany. and that goes in the wrong direction. the german response is, well, let them deflate. you know, what are we talking about? well, for greece we're talking about a 30% deflation. 30% deflation. that's like the great depression in the united

states. would you bet a nickel that you would let that happen? the greeks are very, very slow to implement any reforms. 30% reduction in wages? it's just not going to happen. for italy it's 20% to 25%. for spain it's 20% to 25%. nobody even talks about cost of production, but cost of production is the solution to growth. so my proposal is a very simple one which no one in europe wants to hear. and i'll tell you why they don't want to hear it in a minute. what i see is keep the euro. divide it in two. take the southern countries and have a soft euro. float it against the hard euro. the hard year eis going to drop the fiscal restraint. the soft euro will deflate, devalue against the hard euro. when it devalues to a new one if they join the fiscal responsibility pact, they come back in the hard euro. that will do what the greeks, the italians, the spanish are

used to. that is you solve the problem by devaluing. and that will cut wages. >> the u.s. house coming in momentarily today to consider the republican 2013 budget plan by budget committee chairman paul ryan. it cuts more than $5 trillion over 10 years, changing tax rates and restructuring medicare into a new premium system in 2013. a number of alternative budget plans are pending as amendments. also, a vote scheduled this afternoon on extending highway and transit projects. authorization runs out at the end of this week. the senate passed a two-year extension. house republican leadership is proposing a 60-day extension. the house version has been pulled from the schedule twice this week due to a lack of votes. now live to the house floor here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend dennis colbreth, first baptist church, jasper, alabama. the chaplain: our heavenly father, i want to thank you so much for the privilege we have to frare you today. you are the creator of all. it is through you that we can have hope and we can have grace. father, you have blessed our country as no other country has been blessed. i pray, lord, that you will never let this body forget your goodness and your mercy to us all. guide these legislators in such a way that your will is promoted throughout the world. continue to use our country as a beacon on the hill. it is because of your mercy our country is a light of hope, shining in a lost and dark world. dear lord, please let us never

let us take this freedom for granted as these -- for granted. as these representatives gather from across the nation, we ask for your guidance, for your wisdom, as these men an women seek to make decisions that affect the lives of every american here at home and across the world and this i pray in jesus' name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings an announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i would demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal is approved. mr. cohen: mr. speaker, i respectfully object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of

order a that -- that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postpone. the pledge of aledges will be led by the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aleder holt, is recognized for one minute. -- mr. aderholt, is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: it is my pleasure to welcome our guest chaplain who gave today's opening prayer. dr. culbreth, as senior pastor, serves a doing regation of 2,400 at first baptist church in jasper, alabama. prior to his tenure at first baptist church in jasper, he

served congregations in crarls bad, georgia. dr. culbreth has been an active member of the senior xavier leadership team for the north american mission board and the virginia baptist convention. dr. culbreth earned his bachelor of arts at stanford university, his master of divenity at southern baptist seminary. he is a native of evergreen, alabama, and enjoys spending time with his family, wife, mary beth, his children, as well as plan playing an occasional round of golf. he's an inspired leader in our community and it's a privilege to have him here today to be with us and to give our opening prayer. it's my honor to serve him, his family and his congregation in the fourth congressional district of alabama and, again, i welcome dr. culbreth to the united states house of representatives this afternoon.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the white ribbon campaign theme is no excuse for abuse. crystal harris was raped by her abusive husband, and it was not the first time he hurt her, abused her or even threatened her. but this particular crime and rape was caught on tape so shawn harris was convicted and sent to prison for six years. that sounds like justice prevailed. the outlaw was put away. but that's not the rest of the story. a judge ordered that once the sex offender husband gets out of jail for rape, the victim must pay him $1,000 a month in

spousal support and, get this, she has to pay the legal bills for the divorce. his legal bills. the victim has to pay the rapist. rape is never the fault of the victim. and a victim never owes the perpetrator anything. no judge, no law should force victims to financially support convicted rapists because there is no excuse for abuse. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee, for what purpose do you rise? mr. cohen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the chaplain of the day asked god to look over this congress. i ask god and think the preacher should have asked for direction a little bit further. to look over the supreme court. because the supreme court has in its hand the affordable care act, and a report which was

issued yesterday that said in my home city of memphis, african-american women are twice as likely to die of breast cancer than caucasian women. and that's unacceptable. part of that is because they don't get the health care they need, and the affordable care act will see to it that everybody gets access to affordable health care, that there won't be a disparity twice as much for the cost of insurance for women than men, and that mammograms will be offered to people, ladies without a co-pay. if the affordable care act passes, that disparity in health between white women and black women in my city and america will end, and that is wrong. part of what happens happened in my city is the vestige of jim crow. we still suffer from those. there are rules in the

affordable care act that helps those. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, one week ago today i introduced 4232 with my colleague from ohio, congressman tim ryan. the restore the freedom of information act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would make it easier for american taxpayers seeking information from the federal government's multibillion-dollar bailout programs. when the executive branch ceases to function as an arm of the government and begins taking ownership of private enterprise they should not be able to hide behind the freedom of information act. in the auto bailout, the administration actively took away the pensions of delphi salaried retirees and now refuse us to release documents to tell the americans how it happened. mr. turner: whether it's the auto industry or financial bailout, taxpayers deserve access to this information and

h.r. 4232 will do just that. it will ensure that the administration will not continue to hide its decisions from public scrutiny and deny american taxpayers the access they deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, budgets are about values. the budget we're about to debate today, the republican budget, does not reflect american values. it is a budget for the survival of the fittist. it cuts the highest tax bracket from 35% to 25%. that's going to add $5 trillion to the debt. in order to compensate for that, this budget cuts $5.7 trillion in domestic discretionary spending. if this budget were ever to

become law, it would push back all the progress we've made over generations in terms of malnutrition, in terms of poverty rates, in terms of protecting our seniors. it is a budget that would make charles darwin blush. it is a budget not worthy of this house, and it is a budget i hope will be resoundingly rejected because of the values that do not reflect america at its best, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas, for what purpose do you rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the achievements of the mammoth springs high school boys basketball team. they defeated the sacred heart rebels by a score of 32-49. this is the first ever championship victory. i'd like to commend the head coach for his leadership in

claiming the stateship. mr. crawford: i want to recognize craig, j.d., tyler, josh, ryan, courtly, dylan, matt and garrett for the leader they've shown. great accomplishments like a state championship does not go without a great deal of dedication. their head coach brought a great deal of pride to their economy. now they brought a state basketball trophy to their home, i know they'll set higher goals to achieve. congratulations to the bears and the entire madam out springs community for their state championship victory. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection, so ordered. mr. baca: today, i proudly -- mr. reyes: today i remember the life and legacy of one of our greatest civil rights pioneers in our latino community, cesar

chavez. an advocate for social justice, cesar chavez dedicated his life to giving voice to those that couldn't speak for themselves. cesar chavez advocated for strong health care for communities. he advocated for good-paying jobs where people could lead the kinds of lives that our country cherishes and honors. cesar chavez was a navy veteran who perhaps during world war ii was disappointed in the way that segregation existed in the armed services, but it gave them the passion to go out and do the kind of work that today we celebrate, a legacy that was adopted by president obama in the words of cesar chavez, while we start, yes, we can. and so today i proudly stand here and remind us that we have

so much to be grateful to those that have advocated in our respective communities. cesar chavez, martin luther king and so many others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, president obama's obamacare plan not only raises many constitutional questions, but it's creating an environment where younger americans like my little nephew, preston james hunter, who was born last night, will be forced to live in a world with less choice and higher health care costs. as the cost of health care rises, we are seeing that taxpayers are on the hook for even more money. now, we all know that this bill pulled $500 billion out of medicare, and now we're learning that over the next few years the states are going to have to pay another $620 billion for medicaid extension.

yes, $620 billion for medicaid expenditures. for tennessee, my home state, tenncare estimates that it will increase tenncare enroll by 2,491. that is an extra cost of $225 million a year. those are just the estimates. while the president and democrats in washington are raiding medicare, republicans in the house are fighting back and working to protect medicare for our seniors. also, the jobs killing aspect of obamacare. we now find 22 and increased taxes that are in this bill that are affecting american families and employers. we simply cannot afford a forced health care plan that doesn't work, raises taxes and many americans believe it's unconstitutional. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: mr. speaker, today i rise in recognition of a great civil activist, cesar e. chavez. this week we celebrate the life of a man who symbolizes dignity and respect, who would have turned 85 years old on march 31. he was a farm laborer, a leader, a co-founder of the united farm workers and a veteran. he brought social justice to my grant workers, communities that included better pay, improving housing and outlawing the child labor law and human dignity. and he achieved all of this through the use of nonviolence. for over 10 years, i've worked to create a national holiday to commemorate cesar chavez. please join me in celebrating the life of a great american hero by supporting my legislation, house resolution

130, which designates the fourth friday of every march as cesar e. chavez day. martin luther king jr. once tell graphed cesar -- telegraphed cesar chavez a message. the legacy of cesar chavez will continue to inspire not only latinos but people across our nation who believe in the american dream. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, this week, the chicagoland region hit a record. a record high for gas prices. gas is $4.51 a gallon in the 10th district of illinois. mr. dold: and about $4.67 in the city of chicago. at a time when budgets are stretched to their limits,

rising gas prices contribute to many things, including rising food prices and skyrocketing bills at the pump. my energy plan includes investing in domestic energy and implementing an all-of-the-above approach because these are bipartisan ideas and we can and should support them. not only will it help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it will low the cost of energy for small businesses an families across the country. we must continue to explore environmentally friendly forms of energy while utilizing the resources we have here at home. let's come together on this important issue so that hardworking taxpayers an hardworking families can be assured that we are listening and putting their concerns above political rhetoric. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa rise. mr. faleomavaega: to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. mr. faleomavaega: over the past three years, president obama has offereded -- introduced legislation and offered relief to work middle class families across the nation he offered a bill aimed at raising middle class living standards. he expanded small business loan programs to five small business owners access to credit an boost job creation. he also extended the 2010 payroll tax cut through 2012 to give the average working family $1,000 a year in increased federal student aid to low-income college students. mr. speaker, i commend president obama's bold leadership and vision and for his commitment to restoring economic security for our middle class families across america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker, our nation is currently standing at a critical crossroads. should washington go deep entire the red or continue cutting spending and get our nation on the track to fiscal solvency. under the house republican budget, which cuts more than $5 trillion, while preventing the president's tax increases. in addition to paving the way for our nation to get back on track, the republican budget also puts forward bipartisan solutions to save and strengthen medicare for current seniors an our children and grandchildren. mr. kinzinger: under the current plan medicare will be bankrupt in a decade. this plan continues coverage for those in medicare and guaranteeing coverage for those in the future with pre-existing conditions. it would provide more assistance to the low income anless healthy seniors.

the medicare plans will compete with each other which will ultimately lower costs and improve care. it begins to reduce our deficit now to leave our children with a country free from debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. mr. cicilline: i rise in strong opposition to the budget offered by mr. ryan of wisconsin. my home state of rhode island has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. we need to create jobs and get our country back on the right track, not another extreme proposal from the house republican leadership. unfortunately, this budget proposal would give the wealthiest americans an average tax cut of $150,000. while slashing important support for middle class families and investments we need to grow our economy. once again, house republicans are proposing to end the medicare guarantee for our seniors.

in this case, by replacing it with a voucher program that would not be guaranteed to keep pace with rising health care costs which coult result in higher costs for -- for our seniors and lescare. i urge my colleagues to reject this proposal an yield back the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you're recognized. >> i rise today to speak out about an important issue that faces our society, domestic abuse. we have a moral obligation to stand up against those who exploit power to commit vibles violence against men, women, and children. in an effort to raise awareness mitigating circumstance district kicked off the white ribbon campaign last week. the white ribbon campaign is led by men and encourages all members of the community, men, women, young, and old to join their efforts this made leadership helps to acknowledge the important crigses men have

to make toward this effort and invite others to take a role. from march 23 to april 1, thousands of my constituents in central new york will be wearing a white ribbon or white wristband to raise awareness about domestic violence and sexual violence. ms. buerkle: i encourage my house colleagues to join me in wearing a white ribbon to put a spotlight on this very important issue. wearing the white ribbon demonstrates a personal pledge never to commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against men, women, or children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. >> i rise today because the health of women and their families is threatened. it's threatened not only by the supreme court case across the street but by the republican budget here in the house. the affordable care act law protects women from being charged more for health

insurance for simply being a woman an allows women to fete health coverage and not be denied because giving birth may be considered a pre-existing condition. ms. hahn: and it helps families, mothers and fathers, have peace of mind in raising their children. last friday in my district, i met with kathy estrada and her sonic. kathy and her husband worked hard and are doing the best they can to raise their sons. as a young man, nick, in his 20's is building a life, it's incredibly expensive to buy health insurance. he's a skateboarder, she used to worry that something would happen to him and she wouldn't be able to take care of him because he wasn't on her insurance. now she can rest easier because he can be covered on her insurance policy. the affordable care law is helping women and families of all ages across the country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from

pennsylvania. >> i seek to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> suppose you come to a fork in the road you see that the path on the left goes to an old bridge that's falling apart, and the path to the right goes to a new bridge. everyone would go to the right. mr. pitts: we have a g.p.s. for medicare provided to us by government, and they say, medicare will be broke by -- in a few years. we want to have a program that gives seniors an option to stay in traditional medicare or choose a new plan. the republican plan provides greater benefits for low income ancic seniors and requires more from wealthy seniors. the medicare trustees have put

up a bright orange sign saying, bridge out ahead. we can either heed their warnings and turn down a new path or plow right through and end up in the river. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. or new jersey. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues here in the house to take action and create jobs by bringing moving ahead for progress in the 21st century to the floor. yesterday, for the second time, the majority pulled a short-term extension bill. mr. sires feather sp -- mr. sires: if congress doesn't act, millions of jobs will be at risk. two weeks ago, the bill passed the senate with a bipartisan

74-22 vote. while it's not a perfect bill, it's fully paid for and is estimated to save 1.8 million jobs and create up to a million more jobs. while i prefer the five-year transportation bill, this bill is legislation that both republicans and democrats can support. a transportation bill will not only improve our infrastructure but improve jobs and provide jobs. i urge my colleagues to breng up to the floor this bill for a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to rise and address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. culberson: i had the opportunity to -- >> i had the opportunity to hear -- mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i

want to preserve and protect medicare, speaker pelosi last year cut $500 billion from medicare and the president has put -- has placed his bets on a bureaucratic control board, the independent payment advisory board. a trustee's report from a year ago suggests that the medicare trust fund will be exhausted in less than a decade that doesn't seem like a viable way forward. we've got a budget resolution up to preserve and protect medicare. you can ensure care in the future. this house has voted to repeal the independent payment advisory board, maybe the senate should take up the same action. we have to divert spending and free up resources that focuses on patients. we're committed to protecting our seniors in medicare, lowering the deficit and creating a workable system that allows good doctors to see more patients. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from georgia. >> i ask unanimous con sonet to address the -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> it's with sadness i rise to honor anthony dejuan boatwright. mr. barrow: he was left alone in his day care center, fell into a bucket of beech -- of bleach and suffered irreparable brain damage. despite being awarded money, they couldn't -- his family couldn't correct -- collect money even though they were -- because the day care center wasn't required to have insurance. last august, they passed the anthony dejuan boatwright act so other families wouldn't face

the same tragedy. juan, your mother and i thank you for your life, you will be missed but your legacy lives on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the other gentleman from georgia. for what purpose does -- do you rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. >> mr. speaker, it looks like the president's road to regulation nation is truly never ending. mr. westmoreland: yesterday, the e.p.a. announced their latest set of regulations which will effectively ban the building of any new coal-powered plants. this regulation comes on the heels of some of the most costly regulations in the history of the e.p.a., including the utility macand boiler macrules. he promised this would mean electricity rates could skyrocket, one promise the president has kept. coal is one of our most plentiful resources. over 50% of our energy is

provided by coal. we can no longer allow the white house to regulate this country into an energy crisis. it's time we start to take advantage of all the god-given natural resources this country has and have american-made energy power this nation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am troubled by the republican budget's affect on health care. specifically the provisions that would eliminate the affordable care act. passing the republican budget would be detriment ale to the health of citizens across the united states, but it's particularly harmful to women. as we mark the anniversary of the affordable care act, we can measure its successes by the benefits that women have already realized.

preventive care is guaranteed. gender rating will soon be gone and access to contraceptives have expanded. ms. bonen -- there are stories of women who have been put at risk. i want to share a story about shelly. without contraceptives, julie would suffer from extreme pain and the risk of infertility. under the republican budget, her access to this medication could be in jeopardy. it's unconscionable to deny access to treatment that can improve the quality of their life, and i urge my colleagues to stand up for women and oppose the republican budget. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mrs. capito: for the past three years i have been saying many times that the e.p.a. is overstepping its bounds and rell lating where it cannot legislate and costing us american jobs. the u.s. district court for the district of columbia overruled the e.p.a.'s veto of the spruce mines clean water act permit. the decision stated, and this is a quote from the judge, that the e.p.a.'s veto was, quote-unquote, unprecedented and acted in a manner that was, quote, arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with the law. could there be a clearer sign that we've been subjected to a overreach of the executive power? this decision is a win for west virginia but we have a long way to go because the administration's so-called energy policies have led to higher gas prices and higher heating prices. we are blessed to have abundant natural resources in this country. particularly in my state of west virginia. but this becomes irrelevant if the administration holds these

domestic resources hostage. all of the above means following the law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, many people are smiling about the argument in the supreme court on the affordable care act, obamacare. but i will tell you those children born with sickle cell and asthma are praying the affordable care act survives. those srs that fall in the dough mutt -- those senior citizens that fall in the doughnut hole are praying they survive. i believe in the humanitarian approach to the service of our nation. help those who cannot help themselves. we look forward to a vigorous debate on this medicare project -- excuse me, this republican budget, i hope that we stand together against ending medicare, destroying jobs and moving forward on the lob sided help that we give to the wealthy over the poor.

i also want to say that trayvon martin's parents were here yesterday, and i want to stand against victimizing the victim. we say to them in a forceful way that it is important for justice to be done. that justice is to assure the arrest of mr. zimmerman who will the be alleged guilty but will be innocent until proven guilty. but now is the time to heal this nation and to recognize that this case must move forward with justice for a little boy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas, for what purpose do you rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, senator lieberman, an independent from connecticut, said, quote, the truth is we cannot save america as we know it. we can save medicare only if we change it, end quote. i agree with senator lieberman. my mother's on medicare and i want to ensure care for our senior citizens by maintaining

this program for those currently on medicare and preserving it for future generations. mr. griffin: our budget, which we will vote on tomorrow, saves medicare for current and future generations with no disruptions for those in and near retirement. it is based on a bipartisan proposal by chairman ryan and senator ron wyden, democrat of oregon. i urge my colleagues to support the g.o.p. budget tomorrow because failure to take action to save this program today poses the greatest threat to the health and retirement security of america's seniors. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? ms. that -- ms. schakowsky: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: they deny coverage or charge more for it

if you are pregnant. erin from chicago, writes -- quote, when i found out i was pregnant i had full shurps coverage. i was told, however, i did not have a pregnancy rider and therefore my pregnancy would not be covered. how could i pay for health insurance that will not cover a vital part of a woman's life? i was asked if i wanted to purchase the rider that would not take place for over 365 days, unquote. well, thanks to obamacare, insurers will not be able to get away with this beginning in 2014, insurers cannot deny or charge more for any pre-existing condition and that would include pregnancy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. at this time we recognize the gentleman from new york, for what purpose do you rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tonko: thank you, myrick.

-- thank you, mr. speaker. here we go again. deja vu all over again. the ryan-romney republican budget ends medicare. aarp said the proposal lacks balance and jeopardizes the health and economic security of older americans. the budget we will consider this week fails to test the balance, fairness and shared responsibility. it showers the few americans that we are -- that are the very wealthy with an average tax cut of at least $150,000 while preserving giveaways to big oil companies and wall street c.e.o.'s. all these tax breaks would be paid for by ending medicare and cutting education, basic research and new sources of energy. obviously this budget rejects all of our american values. this is not the first time the other side has tried to end medicare. they tried it last year too. the american people rejected the ryan proposal then, and they will reject this latest

attack on our middle class now. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. chu: budgets are about priorities. i think it should be about helping people climb the ladder of opportunity so they can live a good middle-class life, the american dream. but the republican budget hurts the middle class. it provides billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, big oil and special interests. millionaires get an extra $150,000 in their pockets in tax cuts. how do the republicans pay for this? this is how -- they take some by slashing education, leaving 10 million students with less money for college. they steal some from our future economy, gutting investments in science and technology. but republicans do the most damage to seniors. they end the medicare

guarantee. they shift medical costs to seniors. they basically let medicare wither on the vine. these are not my priorities or of those of the american people. that's why i oppose the ryan budget. the speaker pro tempore: jeaths. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wilson: i ask for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, this afternoon i rise to thank those members and witnesses who joined together yesterday to discuss the tragic shooting of trayvon martin. representative conyers, jackson lee, brown, barbara lee, richmond, nadler, johnson,

green, quigley, rush, deutch, yvette clarke, danny davis, carson, meeks, sewell, richardson, waters, chu and cohen. i cannot tell you how comforting it was, mr. speaker, to his parents and to everyone there to see such very strong support from this body. together we can continue to apply pressure in the case of trayvon martin, a little boy from my district, district 17, miami-dady county, florida, and -- miami-dade county, florida, 32 days and still no justice. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on

the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection to under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded votes on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1339 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1339, a bill to amend title 32, united states code, the body of laws of the united states dealing with the national guard, to recognize the city of salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard of the united states.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. platts, and the gentlewoman from maine, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. platts: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. platts: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1339, recognizing the city of salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard of the united states. i would like to thank my colleague from massachusetts, the honorable mr. john tierney, for bringing this measure before the house, and i'm honored to be a co-sponsor of this legislation with him. it was in 1629 that captain john endicott organized the first militia in salem, massachusetts, and all males between 16 and 20 participated

in the defense of that community. each week this first region meant diligently practiced drill and provided guard detail to protect the colony throughout each night. this militia and those that followed will come to play a significant role in the revolutionary war and all conflicts that followed. today, the national guard continues its proud mission of providing units for the first line in defense of our great nation at home and throughout the world. by designating -- excuse me -- by designating the city of salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard of the united states, we hope to see positive tours and economic development in the city, a city already recognized throughout the world as one of the -- excuse me -- as one of immense historical significance. but most importantly, mr. speaker, this resolution will instill pride in both the local and state communities and properly recognize the critically important role that

the national guard has played in defense of our nation and its citizens since the earliest days of our nation. as the oldest component of the armed forces of the united states, the services our national guard has provided our country will innew mexico rabble and -- enumerable and immense. i'm proud to be part of the recognition of the national guard's birthplace. i encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine. ms. tsongas: massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: close. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i'd like to offer my support for h.r. 1339, recognizing the great city of salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard of the united states. i'd like to thank my colleague from massachusetts, mr. tyranny , to -- mr. tierney, for

bringing this legislation of which i am an original co-sponsor before the house. the national guard has provided 370 years of dedicated service to our country. beginning in 1629 when the first militia was organized in the massachusetts bay colony in salem by captain john endicott, the national guard has played a key role in protecting the nation and responding to contingencies around the globe. the national guard is the oldest component of the armed forces of the united states. the pay yots who founded our nation -- patriots who founded our nation followed english tradition and organized their abled body male citizens into militias. all males between the ages of 16 and 60 were expected to maintain arms and participate in the defense of the community. colonial militias proteched their couldn'tlymen from foreign invaders and helped win the revolutionary war.

following the war, our founders allowed for congress to quote, organize, arming and disciplining the militia. however, recognizing this emilitias state roles, they left training of the militia to the state. the national guard still remains a dual state-federal force. the service of the national guard is as vital today as it was in the time of our forefathers. they deployed 50,000 troops in the gulf states following hurricane katrina in 2005. tens of thousands of guard members have served in harm's way in iraq and afghanistan. today the national guard continues its historic dual mission, responding to state and local emergencies while abe pli -- ably and courageously serving overseas in times of war alongside their active duty counterparts. i'm proud to stand here today

to recognize salem, massachusetts, as a city of great historic significance and the birth place of our national guard. i urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this resolution. thank you and i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: at this time, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from massachusetts, the author of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i thank my colleague from massachusetts for yielding as well as taking the time to help manage the bill and being an original co-upon sor and i thank my colleague from pennsylvania as well for co-sponsoring this bill, for his kind words and discussion on what it is and how meaneringful it is not just to salem, massachusetts, but the country. i rise to recognize salem, massachusetts, as the birth place of the national guard. salem was the sight where the first regiment mustered an this

was -- this was what would become the national guard. i offered an amendment to this effect last year an it was approved by voice vote but it did not move on. next month is the 375th anniversary of the first muster on salem common and it's being commemorated so i'm pleased that the house is considering the bill at this time. i want to be clear, consideration of this bill today was made possible because of bipartisan support and just like my two colleagues here, there were a number of people, over 116 co-sponsors from both parties who participated in bringing this bill and i want to thank the majority leader as well as the leadership on both sides for their courtesy, given to staff as well as to me. i want to thank the house armed services committee chairman, buck mckeon, as well as ranking member adam smith and their staffs and i want to note the 116 colleagues, republicans and democrats, all the democrats on the armed services committee and a substantial number of

republicans on that committee, for their support. this kind of consideration is just the way this house should behave and should act. i'm glad we were able to do it on this bill. today is an important day for the city of salem an for the national guard an for local residents like larry conway and many others who have been advocated for this designation for years. designating salem as birth place of the national guard will pay tribute to those who first organized to defend our country almost 375 years ago an will also honor those men and women who continue to serve in the national guard today. we're working closely with our senate count paths to ensure that that chamber acts quickly in time for the 375th anniversary next month. it won't recount all the details which my colleagues were so kind to enumerate but the bill itself sets forth all the important bench marcs an the progress we've made. i want to thank my colleagues, i urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania.

>> i continue to reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: all time -- sorry. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to add, again, my words of thanks and commendation to the gentleman from massachusetts for sponsoring this resolution. mr. platts: as was reflected, in honoring the birth place of the national guard, we honor all who have served throughout our nation's history and during my state house days as well as now in congress, i had the remarkable privilege to interact with both my air and army national guard in pennsylvania as well as with national guard troops from around the country in my many visits to iraq and gaffe stan -- afghanistan and elsewhere. these are remarkable citizen

soldiers through and through who when called upon respond to the call of their nation and their fellow citizens and serve us courageously. again, an honor to be a spon or of this resolution and commend the gentleman for introducing it and urge a yes vote in support of its passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. therefore the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1339 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye -- 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas an nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you firmly, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena for documents issued by the superior court for the state of california, north valley district new york connection with a civil case currently pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that because the subpoena is not material and relevant, compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the privileges and precedents of the house. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 597 and ask

for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 122, house resolution 597, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 112, establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022. the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by representative brady of texas and representative hinchey of new york, or their respective designees. after general debate, the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. all points of order against such amendments are waived, except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. after the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and voled by -- controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget, the committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the house with such amendment as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the chair of the committee on the budget pursuant to section 305-a-5 of the congressional budget act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to demand for division of the question of its adoption. section 2. it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of

march 29, 2012, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15 relating to a measure extending expiring surface transportation authority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is now recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, i thank you and ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: i'd like -- for purposes of debate only i'd like to yield 30 minutes to my colleague from new york, pending which, i yield myself such time as i may consume. and all time is yealeded for debate only. mr. speaker, it's budget day. it's budget day and we get to begin that in the rules committee. i have the great pleasure in this body, as a freshman, of serving on both the rules committee and the budget committee. you can imagine the sincerity with which i bring my

enthusiasm to the floor today and coming here as a freshman who believes in an open process, who believes we ought to have the opportunity to bring all ideas before the people and let the 435 member os they have people's house express their opinion, i'm proud to tell you that the rule before us today allows for not one budget to be debated, not two budgets to be debated, not three, not four, not five, and not six, mr. speaker, but the rule that we bring today allows for seven different visions of the united states budget to be brought before this institution an debated. that is every single budget that was introduced, offered, yesterday, mr. speaker, in front of the rules committee. candidly, had more members submitted budgets, had we had 11, had we had 12, we would have made those in order too, because this debate we'll have over the next two days, mr. speaker is a debate about the vision that we have in this poddy for this country.

i am so proud of the vision that was voted, reported out of the budget committee and will be made in order by this rule. the options we'll have before us, mr. speaker, is made in order by this rule. including the president's budget you may remember last year, the president submitted his fwouget congress and not a single member of the house offered that budget on the floor. it was offered in the senate, it department get any votes. it was defeated 97-0. but it was offered there. this queer, we're going to be able to look at the president's budget and debate that here on the floor of the house for the first time in my term. we're going to have a budget offered by the congressional black caucus that lays out a vision for america that talks about taxation and revenues and spending and where we should prior advertise. -- prioritize. we have a bipartisan budget that will come before the floor of this house b to be debated in its entirety. we have the progressive caucus budget that's coming, we have

the republican study committee budget that's coming. and mr. speaker, we have the democratic caucus substitute that is coming. all to compete with, in this grand arena of ideas, the budget that we reported out of the budget committee. i see my colleague from wisconsin, with whom i have the great pleasure of serving on the budget committee, we went through amendment after amendment after amendment, some 30 amendments offered and considered, debated, some with bipartisan support, some with bipartisan opposition, to create this one budget that will be the foundation for the budget debate, mr. speaker, that this rule was enacted. i don't know how we could have done it any better in the rules committee. i hope that's what we'll hear from our friend from new york. again, every single budget that was offered. and that was the invitation put out by the speaker, just to be clear. the openness and the invitation was, mr. speaker, come one,