question. it has expanded enormously. there's an entire fleet of cyber warriors. that is the new war. you're always looking for new wars. now they are latching onto cyber wars. contractors need someplace to make money. they are making lots of money on these cyber wars. made up ofew fleet eavesdroppers and cyber warriors. host: thank you for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

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 kentucky, mr. chandler, for five minutes. mr. chandler: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am the proud sponsor of a resolution congratulating the university of kentucky men's basketball team for winning the 2012 ncaa championship. since the days of adolf rupp,

kentucky basketball has been the fabric of the commonwealth and the success of this year's team will be remembered for generations to come. the university of kentucky boasts one of the proudest and most celebrated basketball programs in the whole country. as an alumnus, i may be biased on this point, but i also believe the statistics speak for themselves. the u.k. wildcats are the winningest team in the history of college basketball and have won the second most national championships. they've appeared in more ncaa tournaments and won more games in the tournament than any other team. even in the great tradition of kentucky basketball, this year's team was special. they shattered the ncaa record for shots blocked and set a new record for single season wins with 38 victories. the wildcats dominated the ncaa tournament with a combination of explosive offense, suffocating defense and team

chemistry. this season wouldn't have been possible without head coach john cal peri. known far and wide as coach cal, although known as a skilled tactician and recruiter, the key to coach cal's success is how much he cares about his players. he mentors these young men so they're prime to succeed, both on and off the court, and i think i can speak for all wild cat fans when i say that -- wildcat fans when i say we hope to see him on the sidelines at the arena for many years to come. from top to bottom, every member of this team played an important role in their drive to the championship. but there are three players in particular that deserves special recognition. anthony davis had one of the most remarkable college basketball seasons in recent memory winning eight national player of the year awards and setting an ncaa record for most blocks in a season by a

freshman. michael kidd-gilchrist was unquestionably the heart and soul of the team. and darius miller, former mr. kentucky basketball, ended his stellar career on a high note by setting a school record for most appearances in a kentucky uniform and joining the prestigious 1,000-point club. finally, this team was supported every step of the way by its fans, the big blue nation, who made their arena one of the toughest plays to play in the country. they showtime and time again why kentucky is the best state for college basketball. this year was an especially proud year for the commonwealth of kentucky as we sent two teams to the final four. i want to congratulate the university of louisville cardinals and head coach rick pitino on an outstanding season and a hard fought rivalry game

that lived up to its immense hype. i also commend the university of kansas and the ohio state university on their terrific years and for making it all the way to new orleans. as the member privileged to represent the university of kentucky, i am honored to introduce this resolution today and i look forward to welcoming the wildcats to washington next month. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, for five minutes. mr. flores: i request unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate coach kim mulkey and the baylor bears for winning the ncaa college basketball national championship. the lady bears were ranked number one in the country all season long going undefeated and becoming the first ncaa

basketball team, men's or women's, to ever win 40 games in a season. the lady bears recorded some impressive team and individual accomplishments on their way to their second final four in three years and winning their second national championship in seven years. the lady bears senior class, condry, palmer finished their career with 131 wins, one national championship, two final four appearances, four ncaa tournament trips, two regular season big 12 titles and three big 12 tournament titles. ashley field, lindsey palmer and mckenzie robinson was chosen academic all-big 12 honorees. symms, williams and griner were named to the 2011-2012 all-american team.

after dominating opponents on both ends of the court all season long, griner was chosen as ncaa tournament m.v.p. and became the women's -- the third women's basketball player to ever win all four national player of the year awards. the lady bears are led by the remarkable head coach, kim mulkey, whose resume and accomplishments have already been -- have already cemented her place among the best women's basketball coaches of all-time. as a player, coach mulkey was a member of the 1984 gold medal winning u.s. women's basketball team. she was inducted into the women's basketball hall of fame in 2000 and has been named big 12 coach of the year three times. this year kim was named national coach of the year. coach mulkey is the fastest women's basketball coach to ever reach 300 wins and is the fifth coach in the ncaa to win multiple national

championships. she has led the lady bears to the ncaa tournament in 11 of her last 12 seasons at baylor. the lady bears returned their top six scorers and rebounders next season so there is more to come from this outstanding group of young women. i am privileged to represent the city of waco, baylor university in my district and i wish best wishes to baylor president kim starr, the athletic director and everyone else at the baylor nations they continue to show that a christian institution of higher learning can indeed compete and win on the athletic -- college athletics as well. 2011 and 2012 has truly been the year of the bear. sick 'em bears. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, for five minutes. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, the

genocide of more than one and a half armenians is an undeniable fact of history. in 1915 the armenian nation, which had resided in anatolia for thousands of years was subjected to an organized barbaridy which included death marches, drownings and executions. those who managed to survive these horrors scattered to the four corners of the earth. today survivors of the armenian genocide and their children and grandchildren bear witness to this massacre. each year armenian americans, supported by others, who readily accept the teachings of history, renew their plea that the united states government, formally recognize the armenian genocide, and every year that responsibility of recognition

remains unfulfilled. when faced with a deeply compelling research and scholarships surrounding the armenian genocide, it is wholly untenable to assert that the genocide did not occur. instead, many in congress offer the protest that recognition would harm our relationship with turkey and undermine our broader geostrategic interests. others suggest that it is just not the right time to push the issue of recognition. the result is the same -- continued failure on the part of the united states to do the right thing. this failure puts salt on the wounds of the armenian people, but it does more than that. it could he rodes the moral -- it crodes the moral standing of our nation as a whole. i join those who once again at

this time of annual remembrance implore my fellow members of congress and president obama to formally recognize the armenian genocide. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, the number one fear of chicago elementary schoolchildren is not braces or book reports or the dentist. it is getting shot. more than 500 chicago students were involved in gun violence in the last two years and 34 were killed by guns last year. in a single week in june there were 60 shootings in chicago. chicago police trace many of the guns used in these type of shootings from gun shows in

neighboring states. you can go to a gun show in a neighboring state, indiana, and buy any weapon you want without a single background check. you can be a convicted felon or domestic abuser, under a restraining order or a suspected terrorist and walk into a gun show and walk out with an assault weapon. a member of hezbollah purchased weapons at a american gun show the day before 9/11. is this what the american people want? the american people approve of a situation where terrorists can buy guns without even the level of tracking we use for airplane tickets or cold medicine? the american people want our law enforcement officers to have the tools they need to catch the bad guys. 81% of gun owners support requiring a background check on all firearm purchases. 90% of all americans favor strengthening databases from preventing the mentally ill

from buying guns. 69% of n.r.a. members support closing the gun show loophole. so why aren't we acting on these areas where there is such overwhelming public support? well, the majority has its rally to base and the n.r.a. has to send more urgent uphills based on emerging threats. so this week we are protecting bullets from the e.p.a. because a little lead in the water never hurts, right? they stand the ground against polar bear. anyone who opposes vigilante justice against this arctic menace is clearly a gun-grabbing communist. all of this would be funny if the same mentality wasn't being used by the n.r.a. against our nation's youth. 25 states have passed stand your ground laws declaring open season on anyone considered threatening to anyone at anytime. these laws were not passed

because public demand for them. they are passed because the n.r.a. teamed up with some of the largest manufacturing and retail corporations to push for these laws. why solar companies would support the efforts to pass these laws is beyond me, but the impact is a 17-year-old buying one of their sodas is now under a much greater threat. let's have a reality check. let's take action on one of these areas where there is clear overwhelming support. i sat in this chamber and listened to the mexican president plead with congress to close this loophole that fields violence between the cartels and his country. but as the n.r.a. president himself pointed out, congress has done nothing. we hold hearings to point out that the a.t.f. lacks leadership, but to continue to block the appointment of a director. we talk about the need to enforce the laws in the books but look the other way as those laws are ignored at gun shows. we stop suspected terrorists

from boreding airplanes but not from -- from boarding airplanes but not buying from 30-round clips. this is the first step to national gone confiscation. the supreme court answered that in the d.c. and chicago handgun cases. the court found there is an individual right to bear arms. it is a limited right subject to local control but it is a right. that is now settled law. . now is the time to move past the beltway extremist and listen to the american people. are these tough votes? maybe. but that's what we were sent here to do. i want to mention blair holt, a chicago high school student, son of two lifelong public servants, blair was riding a bus on his way home from school when a gun was pulled on his friend. he stepped in front of the gun

and was shot to death protecting his friend. i ask my colleagues to think of that next time they want to claim they can't do anything about gun violence. blair holt was willing to take a bullet for a friend. shouldn't we be willing to take a tough vote for our children? thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, for five minutes. mr. holt: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: mr. speaker, my colleagues who remember this friday some 10 years ago may recall my coming to the floor on behalf of my constituents from milltown, new jersey. they lost their husband and father on september 15, 2001, four days after the tragic events of september 11. that night an angry man walked into the convenience store in dallas texas, ordered two ham

bursters, and shot the 46-year-old husband and father in the face. this was not a robbery gone awry. it was a deliberate act of hate based on the her taje and physical appearance. when asked by police why he shot him, the shooter expressed no remorse. he said, i did what every american wanted to do but didn't. when he came to the united states from pakistan in 1993, he did so in search of a better life for his family. after working in new jersey he took an opportunity to run a store in texas and was going to bring his family to join him after he was established. they epitomized the hardworking, optimistic spirit that immigrants brought to this country. they were on the path to permanent residency and eventually american citizenship when he lost his life for no other reason than that he was a muslim and a murder had a middle eastern face. it looked at that -- time as if

it ended the family's path to citizenship. the widow and four school-aged girls were subject to immediate deportation. after exhausting all legal and administrative options to allow them to remain in the united states, i determined that a private bill was the only possible course of action. finally in 2004, congress passed and president bush signed this private bill into law, giving the family a path to their dream. a few weeks ago the hassan is took their oath of u.s. citizenship in our new jersey congressional office. these five remarkable women had endured a long arduous pathway from tragedy to citizenship. they formally tied their futures to the united states of america n a real sense, though, this naturalization ceremony was about the united states of america as much as it was about these five women. these five women were tied to

america long before they took their oath. they considered themselves americans. and the united states of america had an obligation to them for many years. at the ceremony we saw hope coming out of tragedy. a fair result out of an insane injustice. and compassionate concern out of impersonal laws and regulations. the united states intends to provide and strives to give hope, fairness, and compassion, but these are not automatic. cruel fate or happenchance often threatens to crush hope and opportunity. irrational human passions and prejudices comport justice and fairness. the demands of life in a busy complicated society and the complicated legal code can crowd out compassion. in 2001 all across america americans reacted in dismay when they heard the news of the hate crime. when they learned that the murderer committed his

brutality in retaliation for september 11 11 attacks in an act of twisted patriotism, they knew it was a block on our country. americans felt the pangs even more deeply when they learned he left behind a struggling widow and four little girls. for most americans that was the end of the story as they went back to their busy lives. they thought the wheels of justice will turn and take care of this. they didn't think about the united states' obligation to this family, nor did they consider how impersonal the law can be. on march 16 finally, hope, fairness, and compassion prevailed. it was wonderful and heartwarming. the people of america and our government have an odd attitude toward immigration and immigrants. often forgetting our own origins and even our own best interests we resist diversity and even lash out at others like ourselves because we mistakenly think they are not like ourselves.

a country has a founding commitment and history of openness. punctuated, i must say, with instances of rejection, bias, and hatred. the historical record is very clear that openness toward immigrants and policies of inclusion have greatly benefited us. human preage diss sometimes go through. we see it even today. but with this oath of citizenship, the aspirations of hassan for his family were realized. we mustn't forget year by year over the centuries the united states of america has moved by means of laws to overcome these prejudices of humans and the impersonal forces of society to create an opportunity and to create fairness. we must not -- we must lift our lamp by the golden door that also keep the door and our hearts opened. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five

minutes. mr. green: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the "houston chronicle" reports today that a proud father announced over his facebook page that his baby was born. the baby was born on april 14, 2012. baby weighed six pounds, 15 ounces, was 20 inches long. a proud father announcing the arrival of his baby. i regret to say, mr. speaker, that the chronicle goes on to report that on yesterday the

mother of this child while taking the child in to receive medical attention was killed. a proud father announces the arrival of his baby. the mother is killed days later. what kind of country are we becoming? i don't know what the motive is for this. but i do know the results. i know that a baby will not have its natural mother there to care and to nurture. i know that the mother won't be there on the first day of school, won't be there to see the first step that the child will take. the mother won't be there to turn on the light and protect the child from the creatures of the night.

to pitch the ball and catch the child after a fall. i don't know what the motive was, but i know that a mother won't be there when a child walks across the stage to graduate from high school. when the child is married and the first child is born to the next generation, the mother won't be there. regardless as to what the motive is, we must stop this senseless violence. i don't know what the race of the perpetrator was. but i do know this, people of good will want to see this person prosecuted and i want to see this person prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law permits. this senseless violence has to stop. prosecution alone won't do it. i think we do have to say more

and do more and let the country know that this is not the america that we see in our future. we have got to condemn all of this senseless violence. this senseless violence goes beyond race, it goes beyond status. this senseless violence has to be denounced by every one of us and every one ever us tries to do it as regularly as we can. i just want to join the choir of people who are saying that we will not tolerate it. we demand prosecution, and we understand that we must end this foolishness because if we don't end it, it will be our end. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker.

the rising costs of health care is one of the most difficult policy decisions and budget challenges that we face as a nation. the problem will continue to grow unless we act. rather than cutting care for the most vulnerable, however, we must develop smart ways to contain costs. a great example of this type of innovative approach is something that i'm proud to describe for you and it's happening in my district. the program is called, henipin health program in minnesota. it's run by the county and it integrates care for individuals with the highest need. so low-income poor individuals needing health care can be very expensive to treat because they end up going to the emergency room as they don't have a regular care provider, and yet

it adjusts to this situation and treats them on a cost-effective basis. these individuals often face many challenges such as chemical dependency, chronic illnesses like diabetes and others, and unstable housing. they try to identify the holistic needs of the individual, whether those needs happen to be medical care, housing, or finding a job. here are a couple of individuals who this innovative program has already helped. a 50-year-old native american man from my district is chronically homeless and suffers from hepatitis c. he used the emergency room as his primary medical care, but this was only because he didn't have transportation to a clinic. he was entitled to a free bus pass but didn't have an address to receive it. hennepin connected him with a social worker to pick up his bus tickets and now he's able to see a clinic for his health care, keeping him out of the

emergency room which is the most expensive type of care and which you can't be rejected from for good reason because it would be inhumane to do so. the program is also helping a african-american man in district who has had a history of heart disease, kidney disease, and homelessness. they were able to connect him to housing providers which helped him stay out of the emergency room as well. he is now able to get all of his medical and mental health needs addressed at a health care home. these are great success stories. people who are low-income who have serious health challenges, who don't have any health care so they seek -- as a last resort, the emergency room, which happens to be very expensive to treat them at. this is not the most effective way nor compassionate way to treat them ongoing regular treatment from a provider is what's needed.

they have saved money and more importantly has helped people, members of our society, americans, get their health care needs met. as some cities have found, 1% of the individuals in a safety net program can often account for up to 1/3 of the costs because of this problem of ending up in the emergency room. by coordinating care for high need individuals, health care programs can greatly reduce costs while also providing better care. while hennipin health program is new, it's extremely promising and has already demonstrated it can be a model for the nation. and i might add, mr. speaker, this is government, yes government, delivering good service at an affordable low cost by being smart. chock one up for the american taxpayer and people who are in chronic need of health care. it's a good idea.

i'm proud of it. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday americans filed their tax returns, sending the federal treasury funds for the government to perform vital functions. . unfortunately, much of that money, way too much of that money continues to be wasted on a policy that has failed miserablely. i am talking about a policy that has lost the confidence of the american people whose taxes support it, a policy that has cost nearly 2,000 american lives, a policy that has done more to undermine our national security goals than has done to make our nation safer. of course i'm talking about the war in afghanistan. this past weekend brought yet another -- brought yet more

evidence that our continued military presence in afghanistan carrying a price tag of roughly $10 billion a month is stirring up unrest and emboldening insurgents rather than providing security and stability. beginning this last sunday, the taliban launched a series of bold, coordinated and simultaneous attacks throughout afghanistan, hitting the parliament building and diplomatic sites throughout the country. thankfully there were limited casualties. and by many accounts, the afghan security forces handled themselves with skill in response to the violence which is very good news because as the afghans are better able to police and protect themselves, it's all the more reason to hasten our military withdrawal from afghanistan. every day that we continue our

military occupation, mr. speaker, is another day that we breed resentment, that we create more impassioned enemies. mr. speaker, the american people are writing the check for this war. in fact, they just sent in their annual check this week. they deserve a better return on that investment. they deserve a set of policies that are more humane, more consistent with our best values as a nation and more likely to advance our national security objective. they deserve the kind of smart security approach i've been talking about for many years now. instead of invasions and warfare, we need diplomacy, we need multilateral cooperation. instead of military surges, we need civilian surges.

instead of trips with guns, we need to send humanitarian experts, experts that can help afghanistan and other developing countries fight poverty, rebuild their infrastructure, educate their people and so much more. listen to this quote, mr. speaker. in today's ever complex world we must use all the tools of national security to achieve our objective, including a strong state department and other civilian-led agencies. development and diplomacy keep us safe by addressing threats in the most dangerous corners of the world and by preventing conflicts before they occur, end of quote. that's an excellent speculation of smart security, but that's not lynn woolsey and it's not the out-of-afghanistan caucus talking. it's from a letter to congress

signed by 80 retired military leaders making the case not to cut usaid and arguing for a strong international affairs budget. the time is now, not in 2014, mr. speaker. the time is now to bring our brave troops home, to implement the compassionate and cost-effective smart security agenda that can keep our nation safe and it can keep peace in the world. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday i spoke about a secret organization called alec, also known as the american legislative exchange

council, and i talked yesterday about how alec promotes model legislation written by its corporate members and desimilar nated to conservative state lawmakers around the country. the public whose votes elect these lawmakers to represent them are kept in the dark about the fact that their representative member is a member of alec, and the member or the legislative member goes on various retreats and junkets wherein the alec corporate members who pay tens of thousands dollars a year to be members where legislative members pay $50 a year, you see the imbalance there. this is something funded by the corporation' special interests,

the lawmakers just to make it look good have to pay $50 annually to join. we don't know who those lawmakers are, although we do know that 60% of the lawmakers in the entire united states of america are members of alec. and the taxpayers are probably the ones who pay the annual membership fiat which or with which the -- or with which they are in committees and these committees produce the model legislation that is then introduced by these same member legislators in their respective legislatures, and that was the way that the so-called stand your ground law but it's really

a shoot first, ask questions later, bill. that's how it started in florida. it was an alec-produced bill. it's now spread to one half of the states in the united states of america. 25 states have adopted similar laws despite the fact that self-defense has always been a defense available to people who find themselves in that situation. but the reason why they did this is because they wanted to produce more handgun sales. it's nothing more than about money, and the n.r.a. and the corporations that sell firearms through the retail outlets across the nation are benefiting but we have people dying in the streets because of these weapons. now, also -- so that's one

committee. there's another committee that's been set up by alec, and it deals with the private prison industry. mr. speaker, the united states imprisons more than any other nation in the world. we currently incarcerate approximately 2.3 million people. america's high incarceration rate is not fitting for a nation which is routinely touted as the greatest in the world. although high incarceration rates hurt the united states as a whole, it definitely benefits the private prison industry. in 2010 the two largest private prison companies, c.c.a., and the geo group received billions in revenue.

the prison industry is driven by corporate members of the american legislative exchange council, alec. alec is a secret organization that has advocated for harsh sentencing and detention laws that lead to mass incarceration. it provides state legislators with model legislation and each year alec members introduce these bills in state houses across the country. this gives unparalleled access and authority to alec's corporate and legislative members, undermining the will of the people and the power of the ballot box. private prisons have vested interest in maintaining and maximizing their profits. they are not concerned about public safety or rehabilitation or reducing recidivism. those principles directly conflict with their bottom line and mantra which is more

prisoners and more money. mr. speaker, i will again be back to continue to discuss this issue. i discussed it yesterday. today is another day. i think the american people need to know what's going on in the politics of america. and if we don't do something we are are at risk for losing the rights that we as citizens are supposed to possess. government of, by and for the people, not for special interests, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, for five minutes. mr. kingston: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house, the failed policies of the obama administration continue to drag down the economy. the policies of stimulus programs, bailouts, crony

capitalism, the department of justice investigating on what they choose worthy to be enforced, saudi kings going to china hat in hand asking for more money, these policies have brought down the economy. indeed, the unemployment rate, which the administration says is 8.2%, that's not accurate at all. they simply got it down that low by omitting a whole lot of unemployed people from the unemployment category. there's about four million people who've given up looking for a job, and the obama administration doesn't even consider them as being unemployed. in my opinion, there's four things we can do to address this, and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. i have reached out to the white house. i will continue to, and even in election year, it's far more important to put america first

and party second. first thing we need to do is pass a budget. you know, right now the national debt is over 100% of the gross domestic product. $15 trillion national debt and a $15 trillion economy. indeed, we are on the road to grief. for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. the united states senate, under harry reid, has not passed a budget in three years. that is the constitutional duty of the legislative branch of government. the house has done so. the house passes a budget. we had a great debate two weeks ago. we had a budget offered by the democrats, one offered by the progressive caucus, one offered by the congressional black caucus, one offered by the most conservative caucus, one offered by the ryan budget committee and we had a great debate and we passed a budget. now, the senate doesn't like

it. i understand that. oh, footnote, we even offered the president's budget which increases the debt $1.2 trillion. another $1.2 trillion, and not a single vote from the nancy pelosi to john boehner, not one vote for the president's budget. the same thing happened in the senate last year, but i understand the senate doesn't like our budget. they don't like the president's . s budget? you got to pass it. and if you will pass a budget in the u.s. senate we can hammer out our differences between the house and senate. indeed, both parties have to give, both bodies compromise. that's always been the case. but it would send a huge international signal that america, the economic leader of the world is serious about getting our hands on our debt. we are leading the way instead of falling to the demise of grief -- greece, spain, portugal and some of the other troubled countries. so the first thing we need to do to change our economy around is to pass a budget.

the second thing to do is to look at regulatory burden which is stifling new jobs. and instead of government bureaucracies going to the small businesses with the, i got you attitude, we know you hate people, we know you hate consumers, we know you want to pollute the air, we know you want to poison the food, maybe the regulatory agencies should go into small businesses and say, we recognize what you're doing right. we want to encourage it and where you are e' doing wrong, we are going to discourage it. if you don't address it we'll fine you. don't go to every business in america assuming they're guilty besides creating jobs. we need to find balance in the regulatory burden. finally, we need to drill our own oil, and we need to encourage the new technologies of horizontal drilling, fracking and all of the great promising that are out there. we need to look at the example of williston, north dakota,

which has brought its oil production from 200,000 barrels to 600,000 barrels in less than a year's period of time. indeed, america could perhaps become an energy exporter. not only would that be an economic boom, but the national security advantage of it will be an unbelievable change in the world stability today. . fourth and final, we need to have tax simplification. how many americans within the sound of my voice fill out their own tax return? more and more people are turning to accountants and lawyers to figure out what the heck we owe uncle sam every april 15. when you pay an accountant $300, $400, $500, or even $1,000, to figure out what you owe uncle sam, that's a tax in itself. we need a tax system that's

certain, that's clear, that's concise and fair so everybody understands it and everybody pays their fair share. indeed tax simplification would help turn the economy around. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time but in my opinion democrats and republicans have the moment right now to change the economic direction of america by passing a good solid budget by having balanced regulatory reform, drilling our own oil and having a good energy policy and filing tax simplification. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until the hour

the house is expected to take up a bill. while the house has gaveled out and -- we are going to take you live to a foreign affairs committee on north korea, house hearing on north korea. committee looking at the leadership transition in north korea. the hearing's been under way for about 45 minutes. ileana ros-lehtinen chairs the committee. >> long range missile launcher which north korea put on display, this would obviously be in violation of u.n. security council resolution 1874 and china's a permanent member of the security council, obligated to uphold sanctions. how involved is the people's liberation army in the development, in the supply of weapons to the north korea

military? and do we suspect chinese technical support for the development of north korean missiles technology? and lastly, cooperation with iran. japanese media had reported that a 12-member iranian delegation of missile and satellite development specialists secretly visited north korea recently. the report says that -- that is by no means a recent curns or isolated occurrence. what other design, development have collaborated on we have not seen in public reporting as of yet? >> thank you, madam chairman. i think the issue of a third nuclear test is sort of the game in washington right now, when and if there will be a

test. i talk to many specialists around town and say they think there will be a test. i think it is 50/50 right now. i think there will be a test when north korea is ready and will endure the amount of isolation it will endure, more than it already has, but they have to conduct a nuclear test because we have to assume that they are developing a nuclear design. their uranium enriched program has nuclear fuel which has not been tested yet and i feel there will be a test of that kind. i hope the statements before and after the rocket launch suggests there may be a line they are not prepared to cross right now and they may not currently be planning to conduct a nuclear test. but frarningly all bets are off -- but frankly all bets are off for this country. the missile tests are certain. the missile test could land on japan. it could land on hawaii. it threatens the west coast of the united states, and it is a delivery system for a nuclear warhead. it also is something that they are using to fizz their nuclear

test -- their missile technology to other rogue states, including iran. i think there was certain there was a uranium delegation that was closely watching in missile test. i believe there probably is a -- probably has been some type of collaboration between the iranians and north koreans in the nuclear sphere. i always believed that the reactor in the syrian desert probably had some role from iran. maybe this was a nuclear reactor that was being built so iran could somehow acquire plutonium or the technology to make plutonium in an area that the iaea could not detect. i think this is a dangerous situation. but concerning the issue of a third nuclear test, i just any it's hard to judge. >> thank you. do any others -- yes, dr. green. >> what we don't know, the historical pattern suggests they will do a nuclear test. the propaganda of recent years, declaring 2012 the year north korea will be a full nuclear

weapon state, the birth of the great leader, would also suggest it. when experts were shown the uranium enrichment facility saw 300 centrifuges spinning and probably the tip of the iceberg. so technologically i would say it is possible, perhaps probably they are close to ready to do uranium tests. it would up the ante on us considerably and raise the price for future negotiations. if i were betting i would say we may be looking at a uranium test but we don't know. particularly with uranium because it's much easier to hide. it doesn't give a signature in the atmosphere the way that plutonium has. it's been sometime since they have been involved. minute denied they had anything to do with it -- minh denied they had anything to do with it. there was more negligence than malicious support from north korea, but it's an area we should be pressing the chinese quite hard on. >> thank you.

thank you very much. sorry. out of time. mr. berman is recognized. >> well, thank you very much, madam chairman. and you emphasize different issues. the panel doesn't seem like it's a clash of approaches. i was -- i actually want to focus on china, but before i do that, dr. green, you said something that caught my attention, that there are sanctioned entities openly doing business in china. is it -- did i hear that right? so -- and if i did, does that say something about a presidential statement which talks about expanding the sanction then to these -- not being worth a lot, is that the

implication what we were saying? >> to be exact, i've seen the photos, the japanese photo journalists have taken of the one company on the sanctions entities list open, you know, the sign up. the chinese are not implementing the sanctions. i don't think the administration would say they are. and in the security council they're blocking any effort to add new entities or do any sort of further steps. >> i said the presidential statement. >> it did reference examining new entities and that was a positive element. now we've got to follow up on it. and part of the problem beijing has is the foreign ministry which controls that decision rarely can implement within china. it's not all -- a lot of it is dysfunctionalitys in this huge complex chinese system. but i think we could be doing much more in u.n. security council deliberations, in our

discussions with the chinese to get beijing do more. >> all right. let's go to china then. is that any real sign that china is reconsidering its stability first policy toward north korea? is it a full herring to try to secure stronger cooperation on beijing to try to change bong yang's -- pong i don't think's behavior -- any of you? >> well, i would note, mr. berman, this was a presidential statement and it's not binding and this is what we resort to when we can't get china and russia to agree to binding language. this was a fallback position. and -- >> but -- all right.

i get you. it's not binding. to the bigger question. is there any reason to have any hope that china is going to change its calculus, that a diplomatic push on china, who is so important to doing some of the things you suggested need -- need to be done in terms of -- are stopping what north korea gets in order to fund and implement its program, is there anything out there that would indicate there is anything about chinese behavior that might change based on this most recent activity? >> the chinese have already met with kim jong-ill. i think the chinese would like to restart talks under their sponsorship and i think they're

probably working on that. i don't think china will allow any sanctions from this missile to go forward. i think they are going to put it behind them. >> anyone else have any thoughts? >> the panel of experts that's implementing the security council resolution has a chinese expert on it that essentially his job is to keep the committee from adopting anything that would be critical toward china. and so there really are real limits to the security -- that the presidential statement has eye didn't find as the vehicle by which -- identified as the vehicle. with regard to the strategic orientation, it's clear they are focused on stability and the reason why the presidential statements went as far as it did was simply because president hu heard such strong blowback when he was in seoul. in terms of following through it's probably not going to be there. the chinese are going to keep their stability first policy. you know, the quip for people to work on this is p.r.c.

stands for please remain calm. they'll do what they can to lower actions by us or north korea and then get in the way of a process of talking. i think appealing to china's self-interest have limited utility. they know nair self-interest. they made their calculations. part of our strategy has to be what scott was referring to, change in the atmosphere. that's why the trilateral u.s.-japan treaty peace, missile defense is so important. they have a lot of leverage on north korea. it's a path we have no choice but to take which is strengthening our defenses with allies, which china of course in the long run would not see. if we are not changing their calculations, we're appealing to their self-interest, we are not going to get much of a change. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. berman. mr. royce is recognized. >> i'm going to pass for a moment, madam chair.

>> mr. burton. >> thank you, madam chairman. i'm sorry i was a little late. we had another committee hearing but this is most important. that failed rocket launch cost $850 million, they estimate. and i have it before me a report that says that would have blocked 2.5 million tons of corn, enough for the north korean government to feed millions of its people. and why did they launch that when they knew that was a direct violation of the leap day agreement? it's like, you know, they said that they were going to have a hiatus on -- let's see -- halt nuclear tests, missile tests and allow the national international energy agency,

iaea, back in the country after a three-year hiatus. did that and turned around and launched a missile, how do you deal with that? you say we try to negotiate with them. every time we negotiate with them they turn around and stick us in the ear. that's the first question. the second question, in 2012 we had -- we -- we've had both congressional and presidential elections in the u.s. and south korea it's going to be this year. north korea's developing into a strong and prosperous nation. this was supposed to be the year they were going to do that. whatever that means. it would appear that these three elements could form a perfect storm. in other words, do you expect north korea to continue to saberrattle and promote further aggressive behavior this year so as to try and impact the ongoing election cycle in south korea? then the final question, you can answer them all if you like -- i know i am preaching to the choir which i say that south korea is our closest allies.

we even passed a free trade agreement this year and i'm glad the president signed that. given the ever-present dangers posed by north korea and the regime, what's in congress, what can we do here in washington and congress to create a more stable environment over there? and i'm not talking about signing another agreement like the state department did saying they were going to do certain things and they turn right around and violate it. . mr. fleitz? >> thank you, sir. i believe the launch of the rocket last week is consistent with an historical pattern of north korea making agreements then a provocation and then looking for concessions and then they get more agreements. this seems to be a strategy -- >> why do we keep caving in like that? i don't understand that. i understand we want to be humanitarian and help the people, but when the food goes there, we don't know it's going to get after the people who are starving out there.

so we are giving food through the government not through aides and they take that money that they would use for food if they were going to do it and they launch another missile. $850 million. it just seems like our government -- not just under democrats but republicans as well, we reached out trying to negotiate with these guys. i don't see where we have gained a thing. >> i think that that's -- it was a mistake to link the nuclear issues to the food deal. but i also -- >> why? >> i don't think the north korean people should suffer from the country's proliferation -- >> wait a minute. does the government distribute the food that we give to them? >> that's the point i was going -- >> the point is. you say we shouldn't tie the two together. why even give the food to them if they use it for their purposes and then launch a missile? >> they shouldn't get food unless there is verification provisions to make sure it gets to the north korean --

>> they are not going to agree to that. >> then there shouldn't be a deal. >> that's the point. >> i would say, sir, there's two things congress could do. first of all that's one provision. second of all, we have to honor our friends, the japanese. a provision of the six-party talks is the japanese, people kidnapped by the north korean government and being -- maybe hundreds of them. this is supposed to be part of the six-party talks. it's been put off by two successive administrations. it's a matter of principle. >> it's terrible those people are held to negotiate based upon fear and that they might do this or that is a sign of weakness. it is a sign of weakness. i can't understand why our government whether republican or democrat, why we continue to negotiate with terrorists, terrorist organizations, and countries that continue to say they are going to do one thing and then violate the other while we are giving them billions of dollars of food aid and other things. all the way back to the clinton administration before. i remember when we negotiated

for that reactor over there, what was it? the light water reactor. they violated that. >> we offered them two light water reactors. >> i just don't understand the mentality. thank you. >> very good point. thank you very much, mr. burton. mr. connolly is recognized. >> mr. connolly, thank you, madam chairman. mr. snyder picking up on the last point my colleague just made. perhaps making a devil's advocate argument about it. the idea why would we negotiate with or be engaged with a criminal regime, some might observe that in the very early weeks of the new then george w. bush administration, president bush actually publicly overruled his own incoming secretary of state, powell, who had said we are going to continue the policy of engagement and negotiations of the clinton administration and president bush said no we're

not. and what followed from that was a much more aggressive north korean pursuit of its nuclear program. would that be a fair statement? >> i think that is an accurate characterization of what happened. >> so, while one can understand the concerns raised by my colleague, i share them, on the other hand the idea of let's not engage, let's have a policy of implacable hostility have consequences given, frankly, the ability of north korea to pursue aims, including its nuclear program, would that be a fair statement? >> i think that there needs to be some type of communication with north korea in order to be able to manage and handle miscalculations. >> ok. let me ask, mr. green, dr. green. >> if you'll indulge me.

i was in the white house at that time and i think a more accurate description would be that kim dae jung came in march to president bush before most of his officials were in place and said you should continue what president clinton was thinking of doing which was go to north korea. and the white house's position was we need to review our policy, which we did. in june of 2001 put out a statement from the white house saying we will continue if north korea honors it and would engage with north korea. it was, i don't think, a rejection of engagement. it was a request for a time to get the administration strategy in place because there have been so many problems in the past over several administrations with north korea. >> fair point. i do, however, remember with some surprise secretary at the time having his wings clipped because he had gone out front maybe before that assessment. which maybe also sends a signal that had some consequences, i

don't know. i kind of think we are between a rock and hard place. i'm not convinced about the efficacy about that engagement, and i share mr. burton's concern -- in fact, let me ask you, dr. green, mr. fleitz, the issue for me here and i think mr. burton and others is efficacy. right after we provided some food aid to north korea recently, they announced the -- their intention to test a new rocket or the existing rocket. how do we handle this issue of efficacy? we don't want millions of people to starve, but on the other hand that kind of engagement in terms of the provision of assistance seems to have very limited payoff if your hope is to moderate behavior. your comment? >> sir, don't think we should tie the regime's w.m.d. programs to food. as i said earlier if food aid is provided to north korea there has to be strings attached. there has to be verification

food will reached the people and not be sold or given to the military. if they won't agree we shouldn't make an agreement. >> dr. green? >> congressman burton asked why did we go into this psych? we do over several administrations. the difference between us and north korea is they are consistent and we are not. and we get -- every administration gets in a mode after a particular provocation of sanctions and pressure, it's very hard for us or japan or south korea to continue that. it stresses us. we have iran. domestic politics in these countries. we in 2010 were in that mode. the chinese felt the pressure, the north koreans felt the pressure, we stood with south korea who had been attacked. by july of last year we were shifting in the united states towards trying to engage and putting pressure on south korea to back off on their demands of the north. the north koreans do that. even though they lost the food aid he which was small, they got -- which was small, they got points on the scoreboard by

marginalizing our ally. that wasn't the administration's intention, but that's what happened. >> if hi more time, i only have 13 seconds, i would ask you this panel, to comment a little bit on the consolidation by the new leader in north korea and how real he is as a leader versus maybe sort of a tool of the military. >> that question hangs. thank you, mr. connolly. mr. royce is ready now. >> thank you, madam chair. since food aid is being discussed i'll just mention that tom lantos human rights commission hearing that was on this subject where we heard testimony of sacks being delivered in a village. villagers being told don't touch those. and the trucks coming back and picking up the sacks. so one of the questions here is, what do they do with that? well, the french n.g.o. at

another hearing explained how she had tracked this and the food was being sold on the food exchange in the capital of the country in order to get hard currency for the regime. this is perhaps the greatest problem because as we look at these interviews, debriefings done with detectors, they say food does not go in the no-go areas anyway. the no-go areas are no-go areas. food does not get out there. so i had for the record i had -- an amendment, the royce amendment here last year, prohibiting food aid from going to north korea under these circumstances. that was watereddown in the senate, by the way. i share the gentleman from indiana's concerns about control of that food. and it indirectly propping up the regime either by going to the military or being sold for hard currency. a couple of points i wanted to just make here and ask your questions about was the -- to go

back to mr. berman's point about elevating the discussion of human rights in this whole dialogue, do you think it would be helpful if that became sort of a strategy imperative? nowhere on the planet are people as ground down from what i saw, and if you read the reports out of the war camps or concentration camps in terms of the people being worked to death there, really i think it would be beneficial if there was greater understanding on that front. and second, we now have broadcasting into north korea. how about a little bit moreau bust radio free asia broadcasting on what's actually going on in the country? for example, in the last question i'll ask you here to comment on is this admission on the part of the north korean regime that the launch was a bust. that's the first time to my knowledge that you had an

official mention of that. how about broadcasting out the cost of the launch, 3/4 of a billion or more, the cost of the launch, and then the privations people face, the conditions in north korea and make the connections for people. because increasingly as people are leaving the country they are saying, you know, close to 40% are now saying they are listening to the broadcasts, they are getting access to these cheap radios that are -- come over from the border from china. they are listening to the broadcasts. how about -- let me ask you your thoughts on those subjects. >> thank you very much. when i was the third ranking official at usaid in the george w. bush administration, i worked every day on the north korean food aid problem. we were trying to negotiate strict criteria for deliverry. that is the key test. it should be based on the humanitarian criteria and making sure our assistance gets to the

people in need not as a lever over a nuclear weapons program that north korea doesn't want to negotiate away. it's not leverage. that's why i think this is not really the lever for negotiations over nuclear weapons. it should be based on humanitarian criteria if we can't get it to the people in need, then you're right, we shouldn't deliver it. >> let's go back to gloig shall better gloig r.f.a. and b.o.a. >> information is very important, sir. that's why i'm suggesting and information campaign like we have not seen before. but that has to be partly based on engagement. because if you consider the 50,000 north korean workers who are working in south korea's one economic zone, that's been an intelligence mine field for us. we can't go into this in open session i can tell you in general that those people have had an eye opening affect by seeing south korean prosperity. they also get across the chinese border, we can both document human rights abuses in north

korea and highlight -- >> i understand all of this. to the extent we have hard currency going into the regime, this is a regime that built a reactor for syria. that built a nuclear weapons program for syria, and did it while we were under supposedly an agreement where they weren't going to proliferate. they were proliferating beyond anything we could have imagined while doing a two track nuclear program. and they are selling it who knows where. so at some point we've got to figure out how to cut off the hard currency and accelerate the change in side. giving them more access to it i'm not sure is the answer. >> thank you very much. mr. rohrabacher is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. first of all let me just note that years ago i can remember major dwites -- debates in the

house of representatives over whether or not we should have a missile defense system. thank god those of us who supported missile defense won that debate. for every loony regime that tries to get his hands on nuclear weapons and tries to launch a rocket reinforces the importance of having a missile defense system because that's perhaps one of the only things that gives us leverage here is that we can defend ourselves. also i have been privy, as a member of this committee, to the debates over the years on food aid to north korea. when did the united states assume the responsibility for the nutrition of the north korean people? i mean this is -- this is a loony policy on our side.

shall we just say that any dictatorship around the world decides that they want to spend their money on weapons production that they are going to automatically qualify for nutritional aid for their people from the united states? and that we are going to have expressions of sole concern that the food aid we are giving them goes directly to their people. what dictatorships are we leaving out of that equation? does every dictator in the world who wants to spend more money on weapons just do it and then we'll give them food aid? or is it just north korea? this is an insane policy that i remember debating this 20 years ago and it's happened now, and it hasn't done any good. giving them all this money has provided them the resources they need to spend $850 million on a rocket launch.

this is something that we -- i think that we need, again, have reality checks. we go into debates on such policies as these. i'd like to ask about the chinese here. do any of you have evidence that that rocket that was going up had important chinese components on that rocket? and if their nuclear system they have been building, their weapons system, are there not chinese components to that that are vital to the success of those projects? whoever knows anything about it. >> several of us have had clearances over the years and there's only so much we know and so much we can say. we do know, that the north koreans have put together their missile program, the uranium

enrichment program, their reprocessing by purchasing chemical precursors, highly refined uranium, dual use materials all over the world. a lot of it -- >> how about their -- >> a lot comes through china. >> that is why -- that is why beijing following the letters of the resolution is hardly enough. >> is it not impossible when we see this impotomac riverished regime in north korea that can't even feed its own people, the regime that gets its -- counts its power on the basis of the number of people marching down the streets doing the goose step, that this is the regime that actually is responsible for building these nuclear reactors and this technology, are we not dealing with beijing -- is

beijing not using north korea as a proxy? please stay calm. forget what i'm doing, stay calm. go and blame the other guy over there? >> i tend to think china is not behind north korea's nuclear program. i think china likes having north korea as a buffer between it and south korea, but from what i have seen in my career, china has never been terribly happy about north korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. but i -- >> i have 15 seconds left on my time. i'm just going to suggest that china is the big player here and just like we don't want to face reality that we shouldn't be giving food aid to a dictatorship like this, or that we need a missile defense system, we just don't want to face reality of the down side of china. and for whatever reason this has been going on for 20 years to

america's detriment. and nowhere is that more clear than our policies with korea. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. rohrabacher. mr. smith is recognized -- sorry, dr. poe, judge poe, the vice chair of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. just the way it is. >> it seems to me that kim is just like his daddy. he follows in the footsteps of his daddy. . he's trying to make a name for him sefment makes a bunch of promises to the west. like daddy and granddaddy he lies. he breaks his word. shock. where i come from if a man breaks his word you probably shouldn't trust him the next time he gives his word, not to do something or to do something. there seems to me, here we are over here, the united states, ok, we'll try it again in a few years, few months, we promise you the same thing if you just

hold off on, in this case, your nuclear capability. it seems to me that just doesn't work for north korea. it doesn't work for iran. and we are pushing a decision to really do something just to push it off to the next administration. i know we have heard from the other side about, well, this is bush's fault, clinton's fault. it doesn't make any difference. right now we are in a situation where north korea is going to be a threat. and what -- my first question is, what is the policy of the united states overall in dealing with nuclear capability of north korea? are we just going to keep making promises? keep trying to give them food, help the people? what is our policy toward north korea?

>> part of the problem in dealing with both north korea and iran is that we are recognizing their right to nuclear technology. i was at the state department, i remember, when president bush reaffirmed iran's right to nuclear technology, many of us argued if you pursue nuclear weapons secretly, or nuclear technology in violation of the iaea you aren't entitled to nuclear technology. unfortunately both administration endorsed that. that may be something congress can look into. >> what do you recommend? >> i think states that cheat on their ieae obligation have no right to peaceful technology. the period says differently, we changed it. that was one of the biggest mistakes in the bush administration. we are seeing that in the negotiation with iran. north korea is not entitled to nuclear technology because it will use it to make nuclear weapons. the framework was going to give north korea two additional nuclear reactors. they were proliferation resistant but they could be used under the right conditions to

make fuel. that was a foolish agreement. i think that -- i guess if i was to find the biggest problem with our policy that's it. >> dr. green? briefly. >> do i not think any administration ought to have reactors, that's off the table. mr. fleitz is our policy towards north korea. iran is another story. i agree completely. there's an assumption if we can contain the north korea nuclear problem. if we can cut a deal and pay them off, we can manage it. the problem with that theory s. the north koreans are not going to sit still. they are going to use these timeouts to increase their nuclear weapons capability, threaten transfer, and continue raising the asking price. so we need a strategy that focuses increasingly on rollback missile defense, alliance cooperation, interdiction, enforcement of sanctions. if we can't do it with china, we

do it without china. i would still maintain a diplomatic element. you do need some tchanl for communication for a variety of reasons. we have had it backwards for many years. we have made the negotiations the center 125eu7b8g and all -- center stage and all the other pieces the secondary considerations. >> it seems to me the north koreans don't take us seriously. would you agree with that or not, dr. green? >> they take us very seriously in one sense. after the collapse of the soviet union, young's stratgi -- >> talking about with sanctions. >> i think -- i suspect the north koreans have gotten used to a pattern where we have a very hard time in democratic societies maintaining pressure on them. >> credibility. >> we will back off. we move on to other things. even our approach on the security council was designed to save our diplomatic ammo to get china and russia onboard for iran and syria.

they know that. >> one last question because i'm out of time. long term what is north korea's intentions? what do you speculate? somebody needs to answer before my time is up. >> long term this corrupt regime wants to stay in power. that is the purpose of this corrupt group of people behind kim jung unand his family. >> do you think we should have removed them from the foreign terrorist list? >> absolutely not. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. you got a lot in in those 11 seconds, judge poe. chris smith is recognized. he's the chairman of the subcommittee on africa global health and human rights. >> thank you very much, madam chair. thank you for calling this very important and timely hearing. madam chair, the hearing i chaired in my subcommittee last september on human rights in north korea, the witnesses made the following two important points, but these were the two i would like to bring up today. any attempts to address the nuclear weapons issue while sidelining or ignoring or

deprioritizing the human rights issue was doomed to fail. and second, it is imperative to provide the north korean people with current, accurate information so that they understand that there are alternatives to the repression under which they are suffering. i also chaired a hearing on china's forced repatriation with the china commission on march 5 which pointed out by china's violation of its obligations under the refugee convention. and some of our witnesses there also made those points that were made in september. some of our witnesses today, madam chair, have agreed at least in their written testimony, i'm sorry you i missed orel presentations, dr. -- oral presentations. dr. green, you indicate we knew need a human rights policy that is unflinching. and our efforts to muster international support to prevent action such as those by china to return refugees to north korea against their will. humantarians and human rights policies towards north korea,

you went on to say, deserve pryor at thisization in their own mirt. not linked to negotiations. mr. steiner, you indicate providing information to north koreans may be one of the most, quote, effective options for influencing north korea's internal choices. dr., you recommended florida the u.s. and south korea expand our efforts to, quote, dramatically expand the flow of information into north korea. v.o.a. broadcast five hours a day, seven days a week, and seem to be having a positive impact in the contry. one doctor who does humanitarian work in north korea wrote to v.o.a. korean service according to my friend who was still in pyongyang, are you not only the voice of america but also the voice of victims of the north korean dictatorship. r.f.a. programming includes commentary as we all know by north korean defectors to help

them understand the broader world and how north korea appears from the outside. could any or all of you comment on the role that you think human rights has played in this administration's policy towards north korea? and what it should play. and further elaborate on the means of communication and the kind of information to all sectors of north korean society that you think we should be promoting. >> the administration's appointment of robert king as ambassador for human rights is a good move. he comes from this committee as i understand it. good man doing a good job. i think we should be moving up to a higher level. in particular i think we need a moreau bust, multilateral strategy on human rights. for us the bush administration it was hard. we had a progressive left government in seoul that didn't want to play and in europe, france and germany, countries that preferred to point the human rights finger at the u.s. we have a very different lineup in seoul and europe and japan. i think we could with more

effort create a more of a multilateral front pressing china on the forced repatriation of refugees, and we know that north korea is not going to fundamentally change its policy in the short term. but i think there's evidence they are sensitive, particularly when there is a broad multilateral indictment of their regime. that's where i would encourage ambassador king and his colleagues to bring it up to the next level. >> i think human rights have been basically lack interesting our talks with north korea and that's a problem. we focused on a handful of issues trying to strike agreements on nuclear issues that were fairly week and we have put other issues, such as hue -- human rights to decide. that's been a mistake. we have to hold to our principles and fight for everything we believe in when we engage the north koreans, not just the issues that they are interested in talking about. we have to talk about what we need to talk about. thank you.

>> and many cell phones in north korea today, only they can call other north koreans, it means information can flow from one part of north korea where can you not move around to another part. the more information we can pour into north korea it can seep in. it's starting too. china is richer than it used to be. it's no longer a bad example. it's the example that north korea is falling behind because it's trying to prop up a military that's gobbling up more than a quarter of its weak g.d.p., $27 billion gross domestic product. more than $5 billion is coming in from china. china is the number one patron. we have to expose this and get information flowing in. we do need our south korean ally and there is an election coming up in south korea. >> i just want to say the north korea human rights act is a major contribution from the u.s. congress. the strong support for funding for information 234r0es -- flows targeted at north korea. we still need to work very hard on highlighting china's really

terrible policy of repatriation of north korean refugees. i know you have been doing work to highlight that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. although we would normally conclude at this time, mr. connolly has an issue so pressing, so urgent that i told him that he could have a few minutes to ask it and bring it up so as not to cause extreme stress. acid reflux, coronary disease, and any other medical complications that could ensue. mr. connolly is recognized. >> why do i have a feeling, madam chairman, this will cost me a lot of chocolate. i wanted to give the panel an opportunity to answer that question i pit out there earlier. it seems to me an odd thing we would have a hearing on north korea and not talk about the change in leadership. i think we would benefit from each of our observation it is. remembering we have to be succinct. who is this new leader and what

is our understanding of consolidation of power and who really holds the power in the north and what it might mean moving forward for the discussions we have had this morning? mr. snyder. >> so far i think what we have seen on the surface is continuity. but as could be seen from the video, there's something odd, hard to accept in the west, of -- about a 30-year-old kid running a country surrounded by 60-year-old generals. we don't know what is happening under the surface. we are watching it through a tv screen. the chinese actually have better direct access. what we really need is to see how the leader is interacting with those around him directly in order to make a clear determination. >> so far he's following a clear game plan. they are making him up to look

like his grandfather, the great leader. he's appearing more in public than people expected. normally there's a 100 day mourning period after the death of a father. basically following a game plan i think that the missile and nuclear program is largely in place in terms of that plan and that kim jung ill he kidd audibles. he made judgment calls how to respond to western pressure. the interesting thing and troubling thing about this young successor is how will he handle the audibles? when things start getting rough, how will he handle that in the margins? that's where the unpredictable factor comes in and where we may see tensions emerging between him and military or other leadership figures. >> i think kim jung unis probably secure. kim jong il's ill health was

known for some type. they did have a transition in place. whether kim is really running the country or whether kim jong il's powerful brother-in-law and his wife are part of a triumbrant. we'll be watching this just like we used to watch the soviet generals on mayday to see who is behind whom and what's going on in the country. i just tend to think that this is not -- the military is not going to challenge him. that the general who is might have long ago were purged and they are part of a regime that wants to stay in power. >> the fact that king jung un had gone ahead with the deal suggests that he didn't need one, continuity, or he couldn't overcome the military first structure he was inheriting. we don't know is the key point. i have done many television interviews about kim and the thing they don't put on the television is the point that u.s. government, the south

korean government, do not really know because we don't have direct access to the dynamics of the leadership and how they make decisions. we need to get much closer to this problem to have a better understanding no matter which policy to go, then we need a long-term hard strategy, we need to stick to it over time because this is a long game. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. connolly. mr. berman and i thank the witnesses. thank you for your excellent testimony. sorry about messing up the order and totally dissing dr. cronan there at the end. my apologies. thank you for joining us. committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> house foreign affairs committee wrapping up their

hearing on north korea the associated press reporting this morning that president obama will meet with the japanese prime minister, noda, at the white house later this month. among the areas of discussion they will talk about the situation in the korean peninsula following the death of kim jong il, expected later this month.

>> members of the house foreign affairs committee will join their colleagues as the house gavels in at noon eastern today. on the agenda a 90-day extension of highway and mass transit programs. that bill would also require approval of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline from canada to texas. live coverage in the house in about 20 minutes. until then this morning's briefing with speaker john boehner.

>> good morning, everyone. everybody having a good week? i have to say i missed you over the last couple weeks. that would probably be a fib. behave yourselves. on sunday secretary geithner said that the obama administration's economic policies have been, quote remarkably effective. i don't think there's anything remarkably effective of 38 straight months of unemployment higher than 8%. the longest such period since the great depression. and i don't think there's anything remarkably effective about adding $5 trillion of debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. and there's nothing remarkably

effective about doubling gas prices and blocking moreth -- more american energy production that could begin to address those rising gas prices. our country's facing some serious economic and fiscal challenges. and the global challenges we have will continue to mount. all the american people are getting from the obama administration are political gimmicks like the so-called buffet rule, that won't do a thing to create jobs in our country. even the president has admitted that his buffet tax is a gimmick that won't help our economy. yesterday's gimmick was this new focus on oil manipulation, even though the white house can't produce one shred of evidence that this manipulation is taking place. if they thought it was taking place, they have the tools and the laws already in place to go

after it. so here's the president using the rose garden for an announcement on tackling a problem that they have no shred of evidence even exists. now, the president checked out last labor day. he spent the last six months campaigning from one end of the country to the other instead of working with members of both political parties here in washington to address the serious challenges that our country faces. he's shrinking from his responsibility to lead and rather not using and not having any courage to help tackle these problems. and as i said before, if the president won't lead the republicans will. and we are. while the president continues to push tax hikes, republicans are focused on lowering taxes for small business owners. tomorrow the house will vote on

the small business tax cut that will provide 20 million american small businesses with the resources they need to expand their businesses and hire more workers. it's all part of our plan to help american job creators. got 30 bills sitting over in the united states senate. this will be one more. the president wants to help create jobs and get our economy going, he ought to be calling harry reid and pushing the senate democrats to take these bills up. republicans have also passed bills to expand american energy production that would address high gas prices and help create american jobs. today the house will take another step when we vote on the keystone pipeline. yesterday legislation was signed to get the pipeline moving again. and the fact that the president has threatened to veto the keystone pipeline, this shows how out of touch he is. the american people want us to build the keystone pipeline.

they want those jobs created now . republicans will continue to listen to the american people. americans are working harder than ever to create new jobs and opportunities despite the obstacles that washington continues to throw at them. just think about what could be achieved if the president were serious about working with members here in congress on both sides of the aisle to address the serious challenges that face our country. >> speaker boehner, -- [inaudible] >> the president's is serious about helping to create jobs, where are his ideas? why won't he sit down with us and talk to us? yes, maybe he doesn't like this 20% tax cut that would help 20

million small businesses. what are his ideas? when there is no conversation, there is no engagement, all we are left with is moving our own ideas through regular order, through the regular process here in congress. i told the president over a year ago, if there were ideas he and i kohl agree on that were in the best interest of our country, i would be there to support them. >> you said the president had a failure to lead. [inaudible] >> the jobs act that was signed into law was one of our ideas that we pushed out there. they had bipartisan support in the house. and i think the president saw that it was going to get a big bipartisan vote in the house,

did he sided, hey, i'll sign it. good for him. that's how the process is supposed to work. >> can you talk a little bit about the g.s.a. scandal? this isn't the first time this has happened. interior department back in 2008 . waste, fraud, sexual misconduct. how much of this do you lay at the doorstep of the administration because it happened on his watch? >> well, this is outrageous behavior regardless of whose administration it is. i wrote my check out on sunday to pay my taxes. and i can imagine millions of other americans wrote their checks out. they are taking their hard earned money and sending it to washington and this is outrageous that their tax money is getting wasted in this fashion.

there is an investigation going on and it's certainly appropriate and those responsible ought to be held to account. >> what reforms need to be made? >> let's make sure we understand what all the facts are and learn out of this lesson and then we'll determine are there changes that need to be made. >> you said that you supported mitt romney, do you have any advice for the other two candidates still seeking the g.o.p. nomination? >> no. >> what about the need for hearings on capitol hill, and how much -- [inaudible] >> i think we need to get to the bottom of it. again from all the press reports i have read it certainly sounds like behavior that was inappropriate.

and again, let's deal with what the facts are. i'm interested in getting to the bottom of this, to understand what did happen and why it happened. again, if there are changes that need to be made, we certainly will do that. >> last week the president won't issue an executive record to require contracts permitting them from firing workers -- he wants to work with congress. [inaudible] >> i haven't seen the bill. haven't thought much about it. >> arguably 8.2% are unemployed -- >> no one should face discrimination in the work force. and there are ample laws already in place to deal with this. having been the chairman of the education and work force committee, i'm quite familiar

with the employment law. and -- if there are further changes that need to be necessary, i'm sure the committee will look at it. >> when you were last here just before the recess you sent a highway bill with final touches and it would come to the floor after the recess. you're not bringing that bill. what went wrong and what's the future for highway legislation in this congress? >> h.r. 7 would be on the floor -- would have been on the floor six weeks ago. but there weren't 218 votes to do this. you have heard me talk about allowing the house to work its will. it's not about the house working my will. the house ought to be allowed to work its will. when it came to this bill the house decided they didn't want to vote for it. you have to go to plan b. plan b is on the floor today. and i'm hopeful we'll be in conference soon.

>> an independent analysis posted on majority leader cantor's website says that the one year measure would only create 40,000 jobs. that's like $1 million of jobs. how does that make sense? >> i think we exspect to create far more jobs than that. but small businesses who file as individuals, as i did in my business, face enormous challenges. and rather than pay these taxes, that money could stay in their business to help them buy more equipment, hire more workers, and expand their business. the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? we are trying to do everything we can to continue to help them. we've got a plan. we sent 30 bills over to the senate. when are they going to get off their rear ends and do something

over there? >> last question for loud mouth. >> recently the u.s. catholics -- conference of catholic bishops sent letters to various committees on capitol hill about the ryan budget saying it does not meet the moral criteria by cutting programs that serve poor and vulnerable people. as a catholic what's your response to them? >> you know what -- what's more of a concern to me is the fact that if we don't begin to make some decisions about getting our fiscal house in order, there won't be a safety net. there won't be these programs. i don't know how often some of us have to talk about the fact that you can't spend $1.3 trillion more than what you bring in, that's what's going to happen this year, $5 trillion worth of debt over the last five years, and think that this can continue. so when you look at the fact that we have to make hard

decisions, it's about trying to make sure that we are able to preserve these programs that are critically important for the poorest in our society. >> do they have a moral argument, though? >> yes. i want them to take a bigger look. the bigger look is we don't make decisions these programs won't exist then they'll have something to worry about. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> today the house will take up a 90-day extension of the transportation bill. that bill also requires the approval of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline. we'll have live house coverage at noon here on c-span. and until then part of this morning's "washington journal."

>> we are back with congressman frank pallone, democrat of new jersey. serves on the energy and commerce committee. president obama making the announcement yesterday about going after oil and gas speculators with new penalties. what did you make of that? >> i think it's very important because all the evidence is that the rise in gas prices have been primarily due to speculation. and that's the only way we are going to get them down again is by going after the speculators. and basically i guess he's talking about more enforcement officials and also higher penalties. and some other things. those are the key. >> it says here in the "washington post" that neither obama nord his aids pointed to any examples of illegal activity or to any evidence that oil speculators had in fact been responsible for raising prices recently. the senior official said that oil prices have been rising mainly because of growing global demand and political uncertainty in the persian gulf. >> i think -- bottom line is to suggest that the president or the government can absolutely

impact gas prices in any particular situation or any particular week is a false presumption. a lot of it has to do, as you said, with what's going on just in the marketplace. but i think that if there's anything that's going to be meaningful, it would be trying to make sure there isn't the speculation in the marketplace. >> if it's not the direct cause then, why go forward with this type of announcement? why ask for this type of money and o congressional authority? it looks on the surface likes politics. >> i think there is evidence. i brought with me today although i'm not going to read it to you that a lot of indications of speculation is a major cause of the problem. but all i'm trying to tell you is that we are not always going to be able to effectuate an answer. that's all. >> let's listen to what president obama had to say yesterday and we'll come back and get your reaction. >> first, congress should provide immediate funding to put more cops on the beat to monitor

activity in energy markets. this funding would also upgrade technology to our surveillance and enforcement officers aren't hamstrung by older tools than the ones the traders are using. we should strengthen protections for american consumers, not gut them. these markets have expanded significantly. second, congress should increase the civil and criminal penalties for illegal energy market manipulation and other illegal activities. so my plan would toughen key financial penalty tenfold and impose them not just for violation but every day a violation occurs. third, congress should give the agency responsible for overseeing all markets new authority to protect against volatility and excess special lation by making sure the traders -- speculation by making sure traders can post margins. they have the money to make good on their trades.

congress should do all this right away. a few weeks ago congress had a chance to stand up for families already paying an extra premium at the pump. congressional republicans voted to keep spending billions of americans' hard earned tax dollars on more unnecessary subsidies for big oil companies. so here's a chance to make amends. a chance to actually do something that will protect consumers by increasing oversight of energy markets. >> congressman, how does it protect consumers? can you explain that more? >> the president is basically saying he wants the tools to go after the speculators. the idea being that he needs some flexibility. one of the concerns that i have is that on the republican side of the aisle they keep bringing up issues that don't relate to this. like for example they passed a bill out of the energy subcommittee in my committee yesterday that says that we should reduce regulation of clean air, which has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices. i think that the president's

saying, look, give me the tools to go after speculators in the event that speculation is a problem. i think that makes perfect sense. he needs that flexibility. >> the republicans critical of the president's energy policy so far. here is a quote from house speaker -- from the likely g.o.p. nominee, mitt romney. >> i totally disagree with what romney said because the president has said all along he wants all of the above. yes, go after the speculators. he's increased progression significantly. oil and gas production is i think an eight-year high. i mean we are at the point now where more oil was -- and natural gas were exported last

year than was imported. so we are getting away from dependence on mideast oil. also he talks about fuel efficiency which consumers want. he's making it possible to move towards alternative fuels like wind power and solar power. this sort of the all of the above approach is a very comprehensive approach which i think in the long run will work. for romney to say that he's not doing anything is simply false. >> coordinated effort. >> coordinated. by the nrcc, other republican organizations. and here is a recent ad by crossroads g.p.s. on the president's energy policy. >> i just cashed in booned. domestic oil production is at an eight-year high. >> oh, really, his own administration admits production is down. the real story. >> a lot of these increases in production went back to bush era decisions and most were on private lands. you are taking credit for this

boost -- >> taking credit for other's hard work. typical washington. no matter how obama spins it, gas costs too much. stop blaming others, work to pass better energy policies. >> congressman? >> it's so interesting because the republicans for years have been saying -- have this mantra, drill, baby, drill. in fact that's what the president has been doing. there's been more drilling. more leases. more production whether it's been on public or private lands. and the actual production is up significantly. and yet they keep saying, oh, we need more drilling and he's not doing it. it's just false. i don't want to say that's the only answer. you have to move towards renewables. you have to increase fuel efishency. you have to go after the speculators. you have to make sure you have flexibility with the -- in case we use the strategic petroleum reserve. >> rachel in texas, you're up first for the congressman. chris: yes, this morning we are

talking about wasteful spending and back when 9/11 happened and we went into afghanistan, before that will brought the bin laden family over here, had gone through security and everything, and a lot of them are living here in texas and i don't know why anyone hasn't brought up the fact that bush and the bin laden family went in together for the big oil reserves out in crawford , texas. i doesn't understand why the bin laden family are still living here. guest: i don't know much about the family and whether they are still living here. the only thing i would say we do need to get away from dependence on mideast oil. we don't want to be dependent on some of these regimes whether they be the kings or the dictators or whatever in the middle east that control oil. so that's my only -- the only

comment i can make in response to what you are bringing up. i just don't know enough about the bin laden family or which are abouts. -- or whereabouts. host: why are speculators speculating the price of oil will go higher? why not more going short? guest: right now it's -- it seems like prices are actually starting to stabilize. i don't want to predict that because we still have the summer driving season coming up. but i'm hopeful that we are actually going to see some stabilization prices and hopefully the rise in prices is behind us. but again we don't know because so much depends upon the world market. host: adapting to $4 gas. for a number of reasons americans are using less fuel slowing decline in price. as prices have neared and in some cases topped $4 a gallon, drivers have cut their consudges of gasoline to its lowest levels in decade. driving less and buying cars more fuel efficient.

ghoip one of the things that -- guest: one of the things i need to stress is that consumers want a fuel efficient car. there are many reasons for that. i think it's absolutely clear. one of the things that bothered me with the legislation that came out of our committee yesterday that basically said we should -- >> that conversation and all of today's "washington journal" avail able online at c-span.org. we are heading over to the u.s. house. they are gaveling in. they'll take up the 90-day extension of the transportation bill. live coverage of the house now on c-span. y: dear god, we r givings hanks fo another day. bless abundantly the members of this people's house, during this season of new growth, may your redempive power help them to see new ways to productive service, fresh approaches to understanding each other, especially those across the aisle, and renewed commitment to solving the problems facing our nation.

may they and may we all be transformed by your grace and better reflect the sense of wonder, even joy, at the opportunities to serve that are ever before us. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and 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 south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to 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 ayes have it and the journal is approved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

and the yeas and nays are requested. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. mr. lankford: 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: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> request permission to speak to the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? so ordered. mr. lankford: april 19, 9:02 a.m., central time, my city will stop for a moment of silence. we'll stop and we'll reflect for 168 seconds, family and friends

will stand on the green grass in the shade of the survivor tree and will read the names of all 168 victims of the april 19, 1995, bombing at the building in oklahoma city. while the state of oklahoma remembers, i'd like to ask the nation to also pause for a moment and to remember, to remember the service, the lives and the families of those that we will never forget. to thank again the rescue workers that rushed into a building that they had no idea how stable it really was. to remember again the survivors of that day. in the days ahead, our community will visit the three-acre memorial site, tens of thousands will participate in the memorial marathon and oklahoma families will again stop, discuss and remember with their children april 19, 1995. i'd like to encourage the nation to do the same. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. when i entered public service i promise -- promised i would never forget those americans who built this nation. the educated my generation, passing on a better, stronger country than they inherited. nearly 50 years ago congress passed medicare and president johnson, as you can see here, signed it with former president harry truman and beth truman sitting at his side. america promised that if you worked hard, we would not forget you in your golden years. we promised that health care bills would not drag seniors into financial ruin. the republican budget breaks that promise. it tells our parents and grand parents to fend for themselves and ends the medicare guarantee. the promise that i made, that this country made that i demand

this congress uphold is that we treat seniors like national treasures and not national burdens. the republican budget fails that promise to america's seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last week the president announced plans to divert $500 million to the i.r.s. for the purpose of hiring new i.r.s. agents to promote the president's health care government takeover bill. this fact reveals that obamacare is not a bill designed to improve the quality of health care, but instead raises taxes, and creates more burdens for individuals and small businesses, destroying jobs. house republicans remain committed to fighting for the total repeal of obamacare, then to promote commonsense, free market health reforms, preserving the doctor-patient

relationship. additionaly, i am grateful for the efforts of tom mckendall. mr. mckenledle is the founder of the c.d.c., an organization providing assistance to our military personnel, receipt advance and their families by helping them transition back to civilian life. in order to raise awareness of the cause, tom will spend the next several weeks biking across the united states, duplicating his biking this spring across the united kingdom. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on monday i met in western new york at a senior center with a discussion centered around the future of medicare. prior to the creation of medicare in 1965, only 50% of seniors had health insurance

because they were seen by insurance companies as too risky. today medicare is a lifeline to affordable prescription medications and accessible preventive care for seniors across the nation, including over 100,000 beneficiaries in my district alone. mr. higgins: now some want to change the program to instead give our seniors a voucher. that forces them to go out into the market, on their own, to try to obtain insurance. our parents and grand parents deserve better -- grandparents deserve better. medicare provides one of the most important guarantees in our society. the guarantee that if you are an older american and you get sick, you will get the care that you need without going broke. this is an american promise worth fighting to protect. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, two years ago this friday the deepwater

horizon explosion took the lives of 11 americans. including four mississippians. and caused an oil spill of epic proportions. for 86 days millions of barrels of oil gushed into the waters of the gulf of mexico, washed up on gulf coast beaches and threatened the ecosystems and the economic stability of an entire region of the country. the images of oil gushing into the gulf of mexico, wildlife coated in crude, and tar balls washing up on beaches have long vanished from the national media spotlight. mr. palazzo: but the spill left lasting effects on the lives of gulf coast residents and businesses. i ask my colleagues to take a moment this week to remember the lives lost and the millions affected by this tragedy. and urge them to show their support once more to all those affected by the single largest manmade disaster in our history by voting yes for today's bill. restoring and replenishing the gulf coast is more than just a responsible decision, it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of sergeant dennis weekle of the national guard. last month while serving our country in afghanistan, he saved a young afghan child who had crawled underneath a moving armored vehicle in order to collect a brass shell casing. responding quickly, the sergeant moved the child to safety, even though doing so placed him in the path of the same armored vehicle and took his life. the sergeant is an american hero who gave his life to protect a child he did not even know. rhode islanders are often reminded that we come from a small state in the union. but today the sergeant's actions have touched our entire nation and our example of the sacrifices made every day by our brave men and women in uniform. my thoughts and prayers go out to his mother, linda, his father, dennis sr., his fiance, ashley, and his three children. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 9, the small business tax cut act. in my home state of georgia, there are more than 150,000 small businesses which employ over 1.5 million people. these are the folks that tell me every day when i come home that a tax break would allow them to hire more employees. consider this, between 2005 and 2008, more than 130,000 new jobs were created by small businesses in georgia. but under the current administration, in just one short year georgia's small businesses have had to led -- let go nearly all of those jobs. that's a crushing 120,000 people out of work because of the obama administration's policies.

democrats somehow think that they can solve our unemployment crisis by raising taxes. but job creators know that the only way that they can put people back to work is if they have more money to hire folks. that's why i support h.r. 9, and also why i introduced my jobs act, h.r. 660, which would lower taxes for everyone. i urge my colleagues to support both bills and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to ask that the m.e.k. be removed from a the list of foreign terrorist organizations. since its listing in 1997, the m.e.k. has denounced violence and has provided intelligence on the iranian regime yet remains on the terrorist list. even important allies acknowledge that the m.e.k. no longer poses a terrorist threat.

in 2009 the united kingdom and the european union removed the groups from their list. the unjust listing has been considered by the u.s. courts, but the department of state still has it there. in july, 2010, the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit criticized the department of state's designation of the m.e.k. as a terrorist organization. since the group's due process rights have been violated. and the department of state has yet to provide specific information demonstrating why the group is a terrorist threat today. the battle with delisting the m.e.k. has gone on for too long. i urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the immediate delisting of the m.e.k. by the department of state. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. edsedseds mr. speaker, last week -- ms. edwards: mr. speaker, last

week one of our colleagues stated that she has, quote, little tolerance for those who graduate with high student loan debt based on her personal experience working her way through school. i want to share my personal experience. i come from a military family of six children. my father served nearly 30 years. my parents, like many across this country, couldn't afford it pay for all of my college education -- afford to pay for all of my college education but they knew it was the way to achieve the american dream. so i had to take out student loans in addition to scholarships and work. i took out nearly $100,000 in schol-- in student loans from undergraduate school to graduate school. and i borrowed that. i only paid off my last student loan payment one month before my primary election in 2008. i was struggled as a single mother and meeting my other responsibilities but i was thrilled when i made that last payment. contrary to what's been said about those who take out student loans to finance their education, i'm glad the federal government now directly issues

all student loans rather than through private banks. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: let's talk about who wins and loses in the ryan republican budget. if you're a millionaire hedge fund manager this budget is made for you. you get an average tax cut, cut of $394,000. if you're a senior citizen woman living at a medium income of $22,000, sorry you're out of luck. the republican budget repeals obamacare so you pay more for prescription drugs and preventive services. it takes away your medicare guaranty and increases your cost. it changes medicaid to a block grant meaning you may be on your own if you need long-term care services. and the republican budget even cuts the older americans act

services like meals on wheels. older women and men shouldn't have to sacrifice so that millionaire hedge fund managers can become even richer. under the democratic budget, they don't have to. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, budgets are about values and require elected decisionmakers to balance the needs of our constituents with fiscal responsibility. the republican ryan budget, this chamber deemed adopted yesterday, is in no way a reflection of the american values that have shaped this nation. the republican budget would turn back the clock more than a century to a time when social darwinism, survival of the fit est was the form. to the leadership of people like republican teddy roosevelt, our nation began to realize the value in tending to the needs of the poor, the

sick, the working poor, the elderly, our children and women. the republican budget would again put us at risk by making seniors, speerns a slashing of medicare. increasing their out-of-pocket costs. and it would further line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the least among us. the cuts in discretionary spending would further set our students behind and create a drag on the economy by disinvesting in research and infrastructure. mr. speaker, these are not american values. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> talk to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. for one minute. miss chu: for women -- miss chew: for women of -- ms chu: for women of color -- because many times they can't

afford to pay for health care, such diseases have more disproportionate effect. without affordable health care and birth cro -- birth control being part of that health care, women's health is at risk. in fact, birth control pills prevent 200,000 ovarian deaths and 100,000 deaths overall for women. without birth control being covered, out-of-pocket cost force women and their health care needs can be up to $600 a year. it's like a tax on women. that's not fair. that's why i support president obama's decision that birth control should be part of all health care plans. women do not have to be second class citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to sound a warning, college could become

even more expensive. mr. tonko: while it's true that a recent report from the college savings planetwork puts a value of a four-year degree at $570,000 more than a high school education would provide over a lifetime of work, playing for loans to go to school is a ticking time bomb. on july 1, federally subsidized student loan interest rates will double for low and middle income families from 3.4% to, yes, 6.8%. about eight million students nationwide will be affected by this change. for a student that takes out $23,000 in loans over the course after four-year degree, this would mean paying back an additional $11,000 offer a 20-year payback period. it doesn't have to be this way. this body can act. it can act before july 1 to stop interest rates from doubling. i stand here today to urge action to stop superintendent loan interest rates from doubling over night.

our nation's young people facial enough hurdles -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: mr. speaker, roughly 120,000 jobs were added to the economy in march. marking the 25th consecutive month of increased private sector employment. in two years american businesses have created 4.1 million jobs. just last month the unemployment rate was down to 8.2%. while the stimulus bill enacted in 2009 aided in recovery, there is still much more that this congress can do to close the employment gap. instead the republicans in

congress have insisted on either blocking the democratic job creation proposal entirely, or aggressively pursuing legislation that concentrates on special interests and the super wealthy. mr. speaker, as long as millions of americans continue to struggle, we have the responsibility to engage in a meaningful way that will get our economy back on track. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: first let me thank congresswoman chu and our colleagues for standing up for women's health today. between 2009 and 2010 the united states teen birth rate saw a record 9% decrease, 34 births per 1,000. this degrees is due in large part to increased contraceptive use in addition to sex education.

even as african-american and latinas saw a large birth rate decrease, both communities, and we know it's also true for asian pacific american women, both communities, all three communities, still experience much higher rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections than white teens. and the reality is not much better for african-american women. who like teens experience more than double the unintended pregnancy rate of white women. this is unacceptable. unintended pregnancy has a very real public health impact not to mention the increased economic burden on families who are not able to adequately plan for their children. that is why access to affordable bith control is so very important for minority women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> on the whole women earn less

than men for the exact same job, in fact compared to men women basically work free for 3.5 months of the year since we only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. ms. speier: here's something that's not free. health care for women. we pay $1 billion more a year in health insurance premiums than men. that's astounding. and it's not because the fairer sex is less healthy than men. in the individual market, a woman, 40 years old, nonsmoking, in kentucky, actually pays more for her health insurance than a 40-year-old man who does smoke. even among 30-year-olds in chicago, women are paying over 30% more for health insurance than men of the same age. in fact, a 40-year-old woman pays $1,200 more than a 40-year-old man for the exact same coverage.

the fact is women are at the mercy -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. speier: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. i rise today in observation of equal payday. mr. polis: a day that signifies to a degree how far we have come with regard to breaking the glass ceiling and providing opportunities for all americans regardless of gender, but also remind us how far we have to go. how far we have to go before parity is reached. for every dollar earned by a man for the same job women continue to earn only 77 cents. that extra difference, thousands of dollars a year of income for working families, constitutes a lot of groceries or a lot of gas money that men can buy for the same work that women are undercompensated for. i was proud that one of my first votes in the united

states congress in the 111th congress the lily ledbetter and fair pay act. we are not yet there in reaching gender parity in this country and ensuring every american regardless of gender has access to the same opportunity and same compensation. that's why i introduced the women's win job act along with rosa delauro which helps train women for high-paying jobs. i urge my colleagues to continue to address the disparities in compensation among the genders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 125, house resolution 619. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union

for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4348, to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such 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, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this

resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: house resolution 619 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 4348, a bill which extends the federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of fiscal year 2012 and establishes program funding levels consistent with the fiscal year 2012 appropriated levels. the highway trust fund taxes and expenditure authority are also extended through fiscal year 2012. the federal surface transportation programs and highway trust fund taxes and expenditure authority are currently authorized through june 30, 2012. mr. speaker, the underlying bill today expand the authority

of the government to fund the highway programs through the end of this fiscal year. in addition, the bill provides for the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline by giving the federal energy regulatory commission 30 days to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline expansion and also includes language contained in h.r. 3096, the resources and ecosystems sustainability and revised economies of the gulf coast states or restore act, which would establish the gulf coast restoration trust fund and dedicate 80% of penalties paid by the responsible parties in connection with the deep water horizon oil spill to the restoration of the gulf coast ecosystem and economy. . our constituents are feeling great, real pains at the pump. and their pains are being ignored by the president and his

liberal extremist enablers in congress. recent polls indicate that 63% of americans say increases in gas prices have caused financial hardship for their families. my democratic colleagues may be well served to ignore their occupy wall street handlers for a moment and recognize that as gas prices increase, it costs more to transport foods and other services which lowers the standard of living for all americans. the simple truth is that when president obama was sworn into office in january, 2009, the price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. today in many parts of our country it's over $5 a gallon. my guess is that this is not the kind of change that most americans were expecting or wanted when president obama promised change. maybe since the president doesn't fill up his own gas tank

, he does not fully appreciate this reality. the steeply rising gas prices have major ripple effects. higher energy costs destroy jobs and leave families with less money to meet their basic needs. one of the most well known precepts of economic is the principle of supply and demand and the price of gasoline is not immune to this basic principle. that's why we need to increase the supply of all american energy sources to get to us american energy independence. republicans have crafted and passed legislation that would not only lower the price of gas, but create jobs at the same time. unfortunately the liberal democrat-controlled senate stubbornly refuses to move these bills through the process. it's better to produce our own american energy and create american jobs rather than rely on unstable, hostile foreign regimes for critical energy resources.

it seems that democrats subscribed to the wisdom of the -- of president obama's energy secretary who proclaimed that, quote, we somehow have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe, end quote. mr. speaker, in italy gas prices exceed $9 per gallon. the obama energy policy consists of ignoring the needs of americans and pleasing his liberal base rather than working for all americans. congressional democrats persist in their claim that increasing domestic oil and natural gas production will not immediately decrease the price of gasoline. for decades this argument has been used as an excuse to continue stalling. we can no longer delay and deny access to our own american resources. another false claim of congressional liberals is that the oil producers are somehow responsible for the high price of gasoline, even though official government investigations have shown time

and again no wrong doing. but they insist on tying their fundamental disdain for capitalism into the claim that denying fair tax treatment to domestic energy producers, that is provided to every other industry, will somehow lower gas prices. mr. speaker, increasing taxes on american energy producers will only make the price of gasoline higher for families and job creators, because effective companies simply pass their increased costs on to customers in order to stay in business. in what universe does making something more expensive to produce make it cheaper to sell? the simple truth is that domestic energy producers are essential to the u.s. economy, job creation, energy security and deficit reduction. it supports more than nine million jobs and has more than $1 trillion -- adds more than $1 trillion to the u.s. economy each year. today the energy industry pays over $86 million a day in income

taxes, royalties, bonuses and rents to the federal government. between 1996 and 2007, the industry invested more than $1.2 trillion in a range of long-term energy initiatives compared to net income or earnings of $974 billion. the reality is that failure to produce domestic energy supplies along with global turmoil and competition for supplies with developing nations have driven up energy prices and boosted foreign energy companies that do not pay american taxes, nor comply with american environmental standards. house republicans are now bringing forward yet another bill that will have the dual impact of lowering gas prices while supporting job creation. republicans remain committed to solutions that promote america's energy independence, lower gas prices and helps create american

jobs. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from -- the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customer 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 4348, the surface transportation extension act of 2012, part two. transportation policy has been and should be bipartisan. in fact, it's largely considered nonpartisan across our country, where mayors and county commissioners rely on and expect certainty from washington with regard to necessary investments in infrastructure and mass transit. yet instead here again with this bill, politics has been injected into a process that has long been both bipartisan and an engine of our economic dynamo that ties our country together

through our transportation infrastructure. instead of creating jobs and advancing our economy, here we are with the bill that offers further delays, crippling states and localities' ability to plan and fund projects and put americans back to work. the bill before us provides yet another short-term extension, the 10th extension since the last highway law expired in 2009. the facts on the ground aren't changing. whether we extend this for two months or three months or one month, we'll be back here again with the same facts on the ground, the same looming fiscal crisis at the federal level, the same need for infrastructure at the state and local level. so what facts are new? and what's the justification for such a short-term extension? as we stand here today to vote on another transportation extension, 50% of our roads have been identified as in disrepair. 70,000 bridges are structurally deficient and potentially

dangerous. we need to make investments in our nation's highways and transit projects. that much republicans and democrats can agree on to bring our infrastructure into the 21st surgery. yet instead this short-term bill before us represents another missed opportunity to make these critical investments for our country's future. the impact of another short-term extension is not insignificant. as a former small business owner myself, i know very well the importance of certainty in business planning. rather than providing states with the confidence they need to pass long-term projects, plans for them, plan their highways for construction companies to gear up, this bill prolongs the uncertainty which only increases costs, contributing to the deficit and contributing to tax payers getting a worse deal for their investment at the state and local level. the underlying bill only allows states and localities to plan for one short construction season. what guidance do they have for the next construction season?

how can bidders and contractors offer their best pricing when they don't even know if there will be a paycheck after this building season? as a bipartisan national governors association has said, a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for state and local governments and the private sector. yes, this approach will actually increase costs rather than decrease costs. we should be voting instead on the bipartisan, comprehensive transportation bill that the senate has already passed, that if this house brought to the floor i'm confident would pass and that president obama would sign, passed the senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 74-22. the senate bill maintains critical investments in our highways and public transportation, improves accountability through asset management plans and establishes performance measures so states are accountable for using their funds efficiently. it's extremely disappointing that transportation policy, an issue that's long been

bipartisan in its support, has turned into a political football in this congress. the house majority has continued to offer partisan bills that would weaken our economy and create uncertainty. this time the majority has crafted a transportation bill by linking it to unnecessary and unrelated politically motivated riders, completely unrelated christmas tree of a bill. that we see before us, with elements that have nothing to do with our transportation and infrastructure. almost appalling is the riders in the bill -- as the riders in the bill are the restrictive rules before us. this rule made in order only three republican amendments, shutting out all democratic and even some republican ideas. when it comes to transportation policy, this body should be considering amendments under an open process and allows members of both parties to bring forward their ideas to save taxpayer money and to invest in infrastructure. unfortunately thoughtful amendments were not made in order in this process, including

some that i will discuss later in the debate. because this rule and the underlying bill represent some of the worst partisanship that i've seen in the three years i've been here, i strongly oppose them both and i urge my colleagues in the house to reject this approach, reject this rule, reject this bill and bring up the senate bill and bring it quickly to passage in the house so that we can send it to president obama, to re-authorize transportation in a bipartisan way that reflects our values as americans. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i think i should remind my colleague from colorado that the democrats were in charge of both houses of the congress and had the presidency when this bill, the authorization for this bill, first expired and i believe they

re-authorized it several times. and weren't able to get a bill passed. i'd now like to recognize my distinguished colleague from louisiana for four minutes, mr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague and friend from north carolina for yielding time to me. i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill and i'm very pleased that the rule has allowed one of my amendments to go forward, a very important amendment i should add. our country depends on its maritime commerce and without the use of our maritime transportation routes, we're not really talking about transportation. if we cannot expand exports, we cannot move our agricultural commodities, our manufactured goods to other destinations around the world. if we do not have waterways that have been maintained.

the army corps of engineers has said on multiple occasions to me that if you take the top 60 ports and harbors in this country, less than 35% of those waterways are dredged adequately , to the authorized depth and width authorized by congress. my bill, which is now an amendment to this transportation bill, h.r. 104, is the ramp act, it's the realize america's maritime promise act. it has bipartisan support with 190 members in the house and over 30 senators supporting it over on the senate's side. what has happened, mr. speaker, is this. in 1986 congress created the harbor maintenance tax and the harbor maintenance trust fund. and this was a user fee on the owners of the cargo, a user fee, a tax. and the revenue was supposed to

be dedicated solely for operations in maintenance dredging by the army corps of engineers where they have federal authorization. now, what has happened over time is that these funds have been diverted to other uses. in 2011 the harbor maintenance trust fund collected more than $1.4 billion in revenue but only slightly over a half of it was used for the intended purpose. the rest was diverted off into all kinds of other sources. frankly, mr. speaker, as chairman of the oversight subcommittee on ways and means, i find this to be an egregious abuse in diversion of taxpayer dollars. my amendment's very simple. it ties the harbor maintenance trust fund receipts to the expenditures so that these funds will be used for their intended purpose and that is to dredge, maintain these very important waterways. now, why is all that important?

well, years of neglect of these waterways is hurting american competitiveness and it's hurting our ability to export. bottom line is this, for every foot that we lose in shoring on the mississippi river, we're losing $1 million per day per ship because of short loading or light loading of these vessels or operating under restricted schedules. in january, 2012, alone, we had five vessels that ran ashore when the -- on the mississippi river. five vessels that ran ashore. it's a safety issue as well as an economic issue. . . oiler great lake ports, many of our great lake ports are closing. they are closing because of shoaling. how can we be a competitive nation that's engaged in international trade if we don't take care of these waterways? this funding is critical to prevent these draft restrictions. the army corps of engineers have said if they have access

to the incoming receipts, they could maintain all these waterways to the specified depth and bidth. what's -- bidth. what's really good -- width. what's really go about this amendment it doesn't add to the deficit. it's basically restoring the original intent to the use of these funds. i urge support of the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from vermont, my former colleague from the rules committee, mr. welsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. unfortunately this is another example of congress failing the american people. it's failing our states, it's failing our communities. first of all, how in the world can we expect transportation projects to be done on a

short-term basis? 90 day extensions. four-month extenses -- extensions. that's impossible to get from planning, to execution, to construction, it won't happen. number two, how can we have a transportation bill where we don't find mass transit? alternative transportation? that makes no sense whatsoever. what happened here is the need to have the transportation bill for this whole country has been hydrogened for political purpose -- hijacked for political purposes and the keystone pipeline is an example. take whatever position you want on keystone, but will the implementation of keystone bring down gas prices as is asserted? even allowing drilling everywhere that drill, baby, drill folks want to drill, it lower gas prices? a study of the energy information administration said that if we opened up all of the coastal waters off florida, off the east coast and west coast, drilled on all the public lands

that might add over time about 10 years, a million barrels a day to supply. that's in a world demand of 100 million barrels a day. so the question is, what impact is that going to have on price? the best estimate they came up with was about three cents per gallon. that suggests when there's so much effort, so much political rhetoric about something that is so profoundly ineffective in giving relief at the pump to folks who need it, that it has a political agenda. let's instead do some things that would make a difference at the pump. one, let's fully fund the commodity future trading commission. turn that into what historically been and that is a safeguard for consumers, a safeguard for businesses that need stable pricing, and the commodities market. instead, we are allowing it to become a casino for wall street speculation that is probably

adding about $20 on the price of $100 barrel of oil, or 50 cents on a gallon of gas when you go to fill up. that doesn't need to be. give a break to our consumers and businesses. number two, allow the president for fighting the speculation to deploy the strategic petroleum reserve. 800 million barrels of oil opened by the taxpayer. when that's deployed by president, two republicans, two democrats, it's been a cross the bow to speculators, it's brought down prices 8% to 33%. three, let's commit ourselves to using american oil that is produced on american soil to be used in america. many of us are proposing a keystone pipeline -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. welch: thank you. so if there is going to be keystone oil, it is flowing

through our state, why do we just want that to go to the export market when it will provide no benefit whatsoever to the american consumer? let's do the things we can to bring down the price. tap the s.p.r., strengthen the commodity future trading commission, and use american oil on american soil. i yield back. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. again i want to point out to my colleague from vermont that it was under democrats this authorization expired. they renewed the authorization six times while they were in control of both houses of congress and had the presidency. so they haven't done the job they should have done. i also want to point out that the president has the tools he needs through agencies already to do the investigations that

need to be done. they have done them over and over again. they found no fault on the part of, quote, speculators or the oil companies. all the president and his allies on the other side of the aisle are doing, mr. speaker, is trying to distract people from their failed economic policies. every policy that they have instituted has failed miserably. brought us record unemployment. brought record gas prices. he blames, blames, blames other people. takes no responsibility. refuses to be held accountable. for anything that this administration has done, that the democrats when they were in charge of the congress for four years did which created this situation. so i think it's time that they quit casting blame and look for ways to solve problems like -- encouraging the president to approve the keystone pipeline

and increasing the supply, the real supply not 17 hours' worth of fuel from the strategic oil reserve. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado -- the the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'll offer an amendment to the rules to ensure the house votes on h.r. 14, a bill brought forth by representative tim bishop and representative corrine brown, containing the text of the senate transportation bill, senate bill 1813, which passed the senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74-22, to discuss our amendment to the rule i'm proud to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. i would encourage every member to defeat the previous question so we can end this legislative circus and bring the bipartisan senate transportation bill to the floor.

our nation infrastructure is at a critical junction and the traveling public and men and women who build our roads and rails don't have time for the games that the republicans are playing with this bill. the republican my way or the highway attitude is not how we should legislate. transportation has always been a nonpartisan issue. but that has changed when the new republican leadership took control of the house. in just two years the republican leadership has ruined a process that used to be bipartisan. from the committee that used to be bipartisan. i think secretary lahood said it best when he said, what this bill that the republicans are bringing to the floor is the worst bill he's seen in 35 years. we are in danger of letting our transportation system fall to total despair.

slowing the economic even further and putting the traveling public in harm's way. the american society for civil engineers give america a d grade in infrastructure quality and has estimated $2.2 trillion is needed to bring our nation infrastructure to good repair. transportation for america reports that there are 69,000 structurally deficit bridges nationwide. the u.s. chamber of commerce said the nation will lose $336 billion in economic growth over the next five years due to inadequate infrastructure. the world economy forum ranks the united states of america 24th in infrastructure quality. we are the world's largest superpower and we should never be ranked 24th in anything. the senate amendment that would

offer by the democratic leadership on the committee would fund two million jobs every year. provide continueous dedicated funding for public transit, streamline projects, permit responsible ways for permitting, strengthen buy america requirements, increase funding for safety programs, and let me emphasize, fully paid for. transportation and infrastructure is absolutely critical to this nation and if probably funded serves as a tremendous economic engine to job creation. the department of transportation statistics show that for ever billion dollars we invest in transportation, it generates 44,000 permanent jobs . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. polis: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. brown: i would encourage every member to vote no on the previous question. all we are asking for a an up or down vote on the senate bill. when i was a kid we used to say i dare you. i double dare you, my republicans, bring the bill to the floor for up or down vote. let the senate -- i heard someone on the floor yesterday talking about the senate. we need to do away with the senate. i now thank god for the united states senate. because they are very responsible. they passed a bill with over 80% of the members voting for a bipartisan transportation bill. that's what we have always had in the 20 years i have been on the committee. let's pass this -- pick up that senate bill, let's pass it, send it on to the president to create jobs, and let's see what happens at the next election. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, it's my honor to yield five minutes to my colleague on the rules committee, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding. to me. mr. speaker, yesterday at the rules committee chairman dreier said this, there's no way we are going to have a transportation bill unless it's bipartisan. mr. speaker, it was music to my ears. i thought the chairman had a revelation because that's exactly the tune the democrats have been singing for weeks. that we need a bipartisan transportation bill. we have been saying this month after month after month. transportation bills have always been bipartisan. our colleagues like to criticize the senate for inaction, but even they passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill this year.

mr. speaker, actions speak louder than words. instead of taking the bipartisan path, my republican friends have tried one partisan approach after another and they have failed every time. and the part zahn march continues today. last night nine members of the house submitted amendments to this bill. five democrats and four republicans. then not two minutes after the chairman said this, my republican friends approved a rule on a straight party-line vote to block every single democratic amendment. let me review this for my colleagues because i think it is important. first, the underlying bill was written by republicans in a backroom. without any democratic input, none. now republicans are only allowing themselves to amend the bill they wrote. this chart produced by the majority says it all, four republican amendments submitted, three made in order, five democratic amendments in

order, not a single one allowed. now, maybe some of the people in the backroom can't see this number because it's so small. so, mr. speaker, i'm going to make it a little easier for those who need help here. here we go. zero democratic amendments allowed. zero, a bill written by only republicans which only republicans could amend. apparently this is what a bipartisan process means in the republican house. this is the new and improved open house that they promised. open house, my foot, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there are real consequences to this approach. and i had a very important amendment blocked yesterday in the rules committee. an amendment to end the subsidies to oil companies that are gouging americans at the pump. an amendment that would cut the deficit by $40 billion. $40 billion. i don't care what my republican friends say. that is a lot of money. and the taxpayers' money that's going right into the pockets of the s