60%, so instead of wasting time on extremes, why don't we get this stuff done? we were able to get that stuff done. most of those people were world war ii war korean veterans and they had more important things than getting reelected. they had been shot at. they were brothers even if they were representing different parties. we do not have that idea of shared sacrifice. most people, a broken thumb is about the most painful thing the ahead. very few have been in iraq, afghanistan or bosnia. host: that is about all the time. the report is available on there website and hours. mr. bell, thank you for being here. guest: a very much enjoyed it.

host: for our viewers, thank you. we'll be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. now, to the house of representa. another day. quicken our spirits so that we will know the blessings of living together in unity and peace. we have our personal aspirations and ideas of what is best. grant that we might know the satisfaction from sharing our common concerns and experiencing the joy of mutual accomplishment. to all efforts, to work toward common solutions to the issues facing our nation, solutions which coming week, may the american people be able to communicate their hopes for the efforts of their congress men and women.

may they understand as well that a unified nation is equally the work of each of us where we live. may all that is done this day be fore 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. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. members and guests please join me? 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 five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today the oil and gas industry in colorado directly employsç 50,000 peopl and supports over 190,000 jobs in our state. mr. coffman: however, the obama administration has increasingly put up barriers that drive out energy development on federal lands. they practice -- they impact jobs in colorado and other western states. for this reason my colleagues and i have introduced the domestic energy and jobs act of 2012. my portion of this bill will ensure responsible study andç relyable exploration of our abundant resources every year which will facilitate the job creation that comes fromtñ?ñ? expanded energy development. we have endured 38 straight

months of higher than 8% unemployment. resources here at home is simply wrong. i urge this administration to follow our lead in the house and support an energy policy that puts people back to work. mr. speaker, i yield back.

important to them. via from humble, texas, wrote me this. american manufacturers do their part to improve the environment and the united states manufacturing is the leading --

leader in developing clean technologies. policymakers should look very cautiously at new government programs that would expand environmental rules or impose entirely new schemes and regulation. the e.p.a.'s actions, such as those on ozone standards, chemical action plans and cement emission regulations will increase costs, destroy jobs and undermine u.s. manufacturing's ability to compete in the global marketplace. our position and our prosperity will not hold if american manufacturing continues to be the victim of overregulation. congress must commit to policies that ensure america's ability to compete and to succeed. mr. speaker, vera is right. regulations need to be quit putting american business out of business because of unnecessary, expensive overregulation and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek

recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, unless congress acts in the next 22 days, the interest rate for the subsidized stafford student loan program is going to increase from 3.4% to 6.8%. despite this approaching deadline, with over seven million college students waiting for an answer, what is the house g.o.p. leadership's response today? to send us home today for the ninth week of recess since last january. despite the fact that the senate will be in session next week and was reported in the press last night, a real bipartisan compromise is going to be emerging but of course we won't be able to act on it next week because we won't be here. this chart will be down to 11 days until the rate doubles. mr. speaker, this work schedule by the republican leadership would make homer simpson blush. it's time for us to go to work and find a compromise that's going to fix this issue for seven million college students waiting for an answer all across america. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, there are too many americans out of work and the president's policies only makes things worse. there are fewer prime working age adults in jobs in the -- since the start of the recession. by those who are not seeking work and those working part time, the real unemployment rate checks in at 14.5%. the president's policies have led to lower u.s. rankings and indexes of economic freedom and business opportunity. the president's regulations are costing businesses billions. the e.p.a.'s utility mact alone will cost $9.6 billion per year to the american consumer, according to the agency's own estimates. the president has stalled energy development on public lands, leaving us subject to foreign oil and high gas prices. mr. speaker, there are 28

bipartisan bills awaiting senate action. it's long past time for the president and senate to join the house to increase american jobs, opportunity and competitiveness and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon, for what purpose does he seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: last night we debated the future of our national transportation system. there are two competing views. there are those of us who want to rebuild and build upon the eisenhower legacy with a national transportation system. then there's those on the ultraright who say the federal government should not invest in national transportation system. it should be devolved to the states. hey, we already tried that. this is 1956.

this is the brand spanking new kansas turnpike. guess what, it ended up in the oklahoma farmer field because they didn't build it. they want to go back to the good old days. that will work really well. those who believe in investing in a national transportation system, being more fuel efficient, last night were accused of being socialists. we are socialists because we believe in -- right, eisenhower was a socialist, the u.s. chamber of commerce is a socialist. they are opposed to the broun instruction. they say that they reject the broun's motion to instruct conferees. he would take it to zero. no new investment on october 1. bad for america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

today i called the white house to get off the campaign trail, show leadership, do the president's job and aggressively pursue the leakers of america's state secrets. these secrets have implicated america in something to revealing detailed kill lists of terrorists targeted for assassination. not only do they preserve our national security, they teach our allies not to trust us. look at them to gather d.n.a. evidence to locate osama bin laden. he faces 3 years in a pakistan jail. mr. brooks: where is the outrage from the white house about these leaks? it's time for the president to plug the holes and protect america's national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to implore my colleagues to abandon their my way or the highway approach to the job-creating highway bill currently in conference. mr. tonko: we can't afford to kick the can down the road again. during the recent recession, nine million jobs were lost in the construction sector. there's still about 1.4 million unemployed construction workers, but re-authorizing a long-term highway bill as encouraged by the president would begin to fix this problem. in my district alone, 25 years ago on april 5 of 1987, a freeway bridge collapsed in new york. three men died returning from a bowling tournament, a mother and daughter heading to a baby shower, two shriners, a married couple driving to texas and a truck driver heading to wisconsin. the cause was failure to properly maintain the bridge.

no price can be put on the lives that were suddenly ended that very tragic day. but their memories should serve as a stark reminder, a stark reminder that our failure here has real, painful, life-taking consequences. let's move forward and invest in america's infrastructure, to put construction workers back on the job, to help businesses grow and to keep our drivers and truck remembers safe. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to note that u.s. navy technician joseph aubin, a young man of bridgeport, connecticut, had his name added to the vietnam memorial wall just down the way here. mr. himes: 46 years after he died on a flight from the philippines to vietnam. this was a solemn and happy occasion as we recognized one in a long line of millions of men and women who have

sacrificed for us and for our country. but there's a lesson in this event. there will come a moment undoubtedly when the young men and women that are returning from afghanistan and iraq seem as lost in the midst of time as joseph william aubin does today. and so this is really about us, and it's always been about us. it's about them working for our safety, our liberty and our values, and it is about us to make sure that we as people don't succumb to the fact that we -- that memory fades and that urgency is unsharpened. it's about us to make sure that 20 years from now we remember william aubin and those like him who sacrificed. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include tabular and extraneous material on h.r. 5882. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 679 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5882. the chair appoints the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, to preside over the committee of the whole. . the chair: the house is the in committee of the whole house on the constitution for consideration of h.r. 5882 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, and the gentleman from california, mr. honda, each will control 30 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the house, we bring before the house today the 2013 appropriations bill for the legislative subcommittee. this is a bill that spends 3.3 billion, which is approximately 1% less than last year. that's a $33 -- $33.4 million deficit reduction from last year. i think all of us know we are living in difficult economic times in this country. taxpayers want to know that when they send their money to washington it's being spent wisely. we also know that government needs money to provide services, but right now government needs something more. a government needs a sense of discipline to rein in spending. a government needs a commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished and completed in a most efficient and effective manner, more so

than ever before. so our subcommittee took this to heart. we listened to the agency heads as they came before us and talked about their needs, want, and priorities. and we considered all of that and made some very difficult, some tough, but i think workable decisions that allow us to move forward. and i would remind the members that over the last two cycles we have reduced spending on the legislative branch subcommittee funding bill by almost 8%, and after we finish this bill, we will have decreased spending by nearly 9%. and so let me just give you-all a summary of the highlights of this bill. first and foremost, we fund the house of representatives at $1.2 billion. that's the same level as last year. it's the same level that was requested by the house of representatives. people say, well, why didn't you

reduce the house any further? i remind members over the last two psychesles we have reduced funding -- two cycles we have reduced funding for our own house by 10.352%. the members accounts are funded at last year's level, once again when people say why didn't you cut those again, i would remind members that we have cut those, the appropriations has been reduced by $13.5% for the office accounts. that takes us back to 2008 levels. which is a substantial cut. we certainly led by example. we have tightened our belts. we have reined in spending and i think we can be proud of that. we also have language that allows members if they don't spend all of their office account they can reduce the national debt with their leftover funds. the capital police receive about a $20 million increase. that will allow them to reduce the backlog in training that they have.

it will also alleviate some of the salary shortfalls because this is a year where we have the two national conventions and we also have the inauguration. the congressional budget office receives a very slight increase to acquire some much needed equipment. the architect of the capitol, which we fund, actually receives the largest reduction, about a 10% reduction. the architect brings to us a series of projects that he would like to see funded, and we can't fund them all, but we give priority to those that deal with the health and safety issues because so many people work in the capitol complex, so many visitors come here every year. this subcommittee was concerned about the fact that we don't have the money right now to continue the rehabilitation of the capitol dome, that great symbol of freedom we see every day, we have spent $19 millionle to begin that rehabilitation

projects, and -- project, and it's about $100 million to finish that. i'm confident we'll find the money very shortly and complete that project. if you look at the library of congress, they receive a very modest increase. the government accountability office, the so-called watchdog of this congress, they receive a slight increase, allow them to add 21 new full-time equivalent personnel. that will allow them to continue to write the reports that they write. to tell us whether we are spending the money wisely or not. and i think it will allow them to continue to meet the ever increasing demands that we as members place on them. the government printing office receives a cut, again, for the third straight year. they are doing a much better job of dealing with binding and printing of the information that they provide for us. so in a nutshell, mr. chairman, that summarizes the bill. i want to be sure and say thank you to all the members of the

subcommittee, both the democrats and republicans, for the work that they put in to bring this bill before us today. i want to say a special word of thanks to my colleague, mr. honda, the ranking member, thank him for his bipartisan spirit as we work together to fund these agencies that we depend on every day. and finally, i certainly want to express the gratitude of all the members of the committee to our staff, both the democratic side and the republican side, for the tireless effort they put in to bring this bill before us. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. honda: i am pleased we are considering the fiscal year 2013 legislative branch appropriations bill. chairman crenshaw has been collegial in the development of this bill and i appreciate his willingness to accept our input throughout the process. but chairman's mark before us

funds the legislative branch at $3.3 billion, a cut of 1%, from fiscal year 2012. and this does not include senate items. even with a lower allocation, chairman crenshaw was able to level fund and even increase several areas important to the operation of the legislative branch. the house overall is held flat at $1.225 billion. the capitol police will receive $360 million, a nearly 6% increase. the congressional budget office is funded at $44.3 million, $493,000 above the fiscal year 2012 level. and the government accountability office is funded at $519.8 million, $8.5 million or nearly 2% above fiscal year 2012. while the levels are adequate for some agencies, the allocation required the

subcommittee to propose no funding to continue the rehabilitation of the capitol dome, this nation's great symbol of democracy. this bill's lack of funding for this critical project is a direct result of the house trbles' unilateral decision to cast aside the funding levels agreed to under the budget control act. the majority's decision required the appropriation committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions across all of the bills. one issue that i continue to be concerned about is the house general counsel's defense of the discriminatory defense of marriage act, doma. with the limited funding available for the house of representatives, i think there are far more weighty uses of the precious taxpayer resources than funding crtsdz for outside counsel to defend a highly controversial and two u.s. district courts have ruled unconstitution, doma. i am concerned that the scarce

resources available to the house will continue to be serveoned off in order to defend a law that continues to be -- siphoned off in order to defend a law that continues to be found constitutional in the court. i'm proud to represent the silicon valley. since i joined this subcommittee, i have tried to push the house and other agencies to explore technological st. louises to issues such as -- to issues such as traps, evacuation and management, data storage. as you probably know federal agencies including our own in the leg branch can be slow to change and adopting technologies. this is mentioned in the report which includes language on the issue of both data down loads of legislative information. something i requested and secured language about in this bill in fiscal year 2009. this effort is now being championed by leadership on both sides of the aisle as it is only to increase transparency by

allowing the public to easily download and analyze government data. there are some concerns about cost and the ability to authenticate the data that the language in the report tries to address. i think, however, that these are relatively simple matters to overcome as data is already being compiled in a format that can be easily distributed and technology support staff have indicated that only a simple procedure is needed to make the data available. furthermore, the g.p.o. also employs an authentication standard for its own accessible data through its p.f., the the federal digital system website we can use. the house majority recently announced it will immediately create a traffic force as described in this bill to expedite and report on implementation of public access to bulk legislative data.

while i believe the time -- to implement this is now, i expect to be included in these efforts as ranking member of the subcommittee and a long time advocate since before 2009. and in conclusion, mr. chairman, i want to reiterate my appreciation for the chairman's effort to work with my issues where there was agreement. i am glad to see the congressional support agencies, including the congressional budget office, the government accountability office, and the congressional research service, are adequately funded. mr. chairman, i want to thank the hardworking professional staff which have helped to craft this bill and assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year. liz, chuck, on the majority side, along with michael with our chairman crenshaw's personal office, and danny on our side of the aisle along with kim and

mark from my office. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. lungren from california, the chairman of the house administration committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. lunbren: i -- mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 5882, legislative branch appropriations act. as chairman of the committee on house administration which oversees many of the agencies affected by these appropriations, i am pleased we are continuing to uphold our pledge to reduce government spending while providing the necessary security and support for each member to fulfill their constitutional responsibility. since taking control of the house, we worked diligently to identify and eliminate wasteful spending, streamlining and improving operations by using technology, thereby saving taxpayers millions. we have also worked to reduce spending on the production and printing of unnecessary publications, including an

amendment offered by my colleague, mr. harper, to reduce the number of the copies of the u.s. code printed for the house. with the support of the appropriations committee, it will further improve house technology through the advancement of programs utilized by the law revision counsel and office of legislative counsel that modernize and improve their capabilities. uteslizing new technologies, we'll continue to increase the accuracy and accessibility of legislative proposals and changes in the u.s. code as the people's house is imperative, we continue to use technological innovations to foster transparency and provide our constituents a timely and accurate information. i'd like to thank the appropriators for their support in providing the resources necessary to enhance and streamline house operations and reduce overall expenses. later when we have an amendment on the floor, that once again tries to make us go backward in our effort to get rid of waste produced in this house, i will stand and oppose that. we have had a successful program

of converting waste to energy, one of the most innovative programs in the entire country. we have convinced the other side of the capitol, the senate, to join us. we have thousands of tons of waste not -- now not going into land phils but being converted to clean energy. one of the best examples of a technology that the e.p.a. says is one of the cleanest in the country. we ought to be thankful for that. we ought not to go backwards. we ought to understand and in doing that we have also given best or better customer service to those who utilize the various restaurants on the campus here in the capitol. those are things that we ought to be proud of and not be shy about the successes that we have had. i'll still be here on the floor to talk about one of those amendments as we did just a year

ago. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. honda: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on appropriations. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all i'd like to pass along my appreciation to chairman crenshaw, ranking member honda for their willingness to work together in a very bipartisan manner. . i'd like to commend the staff, the majority and minority, for bringing this bill where we are today. this bill's allocation is just slightly below last year and well within the range of what would have been expected as the majority stuck to the discretionary number agreed to in the budget control act. but for the most part, this bill has been protected from ryan budget austerity. many programs and agencies important to the operation of congress have been spared from harmful cuts. support agency such as the congressional budget office,

the congressional research service and the government accountability office are all adequately funded which will allow them to continue operating within further pre-- without further reductions in staff or services. however, it is important to note that not every account has been spared. as we all know, the architect of the capitol is in the middle of an extensive restoration effort. this bill allocation does not provide the funds needed to begin the second phase of that effort. but rather cuts the architect of capitol significantly below last year's funding level. as i mentioned during the committee markup, i'd rather the dome remain a monument to our nation's greatness and not be a symbol for shortsighted austerity. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i would continue to reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. honda: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. who seeks time? be mr. crenshaw: we don't have any more speakers. would you like to yield back your time? mr. honda: yes, i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. does the gentleman from florida yield back his time? mr. crenshaw: yeah, i think it's a good bill. i think it's been adequately explained and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. all time for general debate is expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment shall be reported except those printed in house report 112-518 tanned except pro forma designated by the chair or ranking minority member on the committee of appropriations.

it may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent, shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman -- the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i know there is an amendment that is going to be offered by mr. gosar from arizona, and i understand that he is just outside the chamber at this very moment and so i thought i would take a minute while he comes to the floor and just

remind everyone of the great job that this subcommittee's done in working through all the issues to bring them before the house. i think there are several amendments that are going to be offered here today, and we will certainly take those into consideration. from my standpoint some of those amendments are good amendments, some that i will oppose. but as we begin that process, i just want to once again thank everyone that spent so much time and energy to bring this to the house floor, recognizing that this is the branch that funds the house of representatives or the agencies that we look to to give us support, that we want to make sure that they have the adequate funds because when they do a good job it helps us do a good job. and so with that i will look

around the room and see if someone is here. yes, i would yield, sir. mr. dicks: i guess we could go out of order. is that a problem? mr. crenshaw: i know that mr. honda and i can -- mr. dicks, as well, you could strike the last word and make a comment or two if you'd like to. you know, mr. honda might want

to say a word. mr. dicks: apparently we'd have to go back in the house and ask unanimous consent if we wanted to go out of order on this. and maybe it's just better to wait for the gentleman from arizona to get here. what is the plan? what is the plan for phase two of the capitol, of the dome restoration? how does the chairman see this? mr. crenshaw: that's an excellent question. we ought to take a little time -- mr. dicks: i thought it was. mr. crenshaw: as you know, phase one is in process. that cost -- that's the skirt of the dome and you can see some of the work that's being done there. the next phase is much more expensive. i think a little over $100 million. and as you know, we have inauguration that's coming, and

so during inauguration i would hope that we don't have a lot of construction going on to impair the view of that beautiful dome. so it is my desire as soon as the inauguration's over that we can find the funds. and that is a priority of the subcommittee that we might even break that up into two or three phases but certainly that work needs to be done. when you look up and see that magnificent structure, it looks wonderful but when you get up close there are some problems that we need to deal with and we want to deal with those as soon as we can. and so i think it's just a matter of priority. mr. dicks: there isn't any sense -- there's no emergency requirement here. this work does -- is work that can be done over a stage period of time.

there's no real serious problem that -- that could be of adverse affect to the capitol, is there? mr. crenshaw: no, i don't think anything makes it an emergency. but clearly like a lot of these projects -- excuse me -- that ought to be funded, the architect has a long list of projects and this is certainly one of those. and so we want to be able to deal with that but i think it is a priority of this subcommittee. we talked about that. we want to make sure as soon as we can to have the money to do that. so if you don't have any more questions -- mr. dicks: we have a speaker here so why don't i yield to the speaker. the chair: the time of the gentleman from florida has expired. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: and i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma.

mr. boren: i rise in support of h.r. 397, to reinstate the house page program which was terminated in august of 2011 and this is in the context of the leg branch appropriations. it was not in order to have this amendment. we will work with the committee as we go forward, but i want to say that the page program was an institution older than congress itself. dating back to the first continental congress in 1774, house pages have supported congress by delivering messages, answering phones in the cloakroom and serving on the house floor. young people who serve as house pages have had the chance to see the inner workings of our government from the perspective that many people have not. i had the opportunity to serve as a page for senator robert byrd in 1988. it is a summer i will never forget. the experience was instrumental and my motivation to become a

public servant. the house page program is not only a great opportunity for young people to learn about our government but also the enthusiasm of these young people also reminds us every day why we are here. at a time when we are trying to come together and find bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems, pages serve as a reminder of our future. as we legislate on the house floor, pages served as witnesses to lawmaking that will affect their generation. they remind us to consider viable long-term solutions to the problems facing america. in september of 2011, minority leader nancy pelosi proposed a new intern initiative to replace the house page program. while this is a step in the right direction, i believe it is necessary to restore the tradition of young people serving congress even before they attend college. i look forward to working with my colleagues to bring pages

back to our halls. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-518 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i rise today to speak in favor of my straightforward amendment. it would reduce funding at the bow tancal gardens which equals just over a $1.2 million cut. that money would then be transferred to the spending reduction account so we can take one more step toward reining in federal spending. i will be the first to say i

appreciate the bow tancal garden and its beauty. i believe it's a great program and i am personally interested in botany but members of congress are faced with difficult choices, especially given our current fiscal crisis. there are programs that are sfutionally mandated and another programs that are nice but are not constitutionally mandated. this is one program in a is not but it can't handle the fiscal pressures. while the botancal garden is good, we must trim excess spending in order to get our government in order. our own office budget as we on the house side have demonstrated should be trimmed. mr. chairman, so many families are tightening their belts during these trying economic times. congress must do cuts where they can. i ask members to vote in favor of the gosar amendment and i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seems tyke? -- who seeks time? the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i want to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. one of the reasons why we have a committee structure is so the members of the subcommittee that i chair and mr. honda is the ranking member and we, as i said earlier, we sit down, we listen to the agency heads and the architect of the capitol which is in charge of the budget for the botanical gardens. they come to the choices. we make difficult choices. as i said we reduced spending in the legislative branch subcommittee for three years in a row. we are now at a point where it's almost 9% less than it was three years ago. and so if you just decide you want to stand up and just cut another 10% of this budget and then say you really like the botanical garden, it seems to me this is a function of the architect of the capitol.

it costs $12 million a year to have the botanical garden. many come to visit that and enjoy the beauty. if you are going to stand up and say let's cut 10% across the board, why don't you just cut 10% from the capitol police and 10% from other areas? it seems to be shortsighted. already the architect of the capitol said i am not going to ask additional money to do some of the repairs i need to do. there's need for a new roof and some other things. they said we are not going to ask for that because we're operating under the philosophy here that we raut to do more with less. we try to do the best we can. and so here we are. and so i would just say that they're doing a good job. they're trying to control their costs. if we cut them any further you really cripple them. you'll say to them that they can't have as many staff members. they'll have to close the botanial garden certain parts of the time. but i think they've done a good

job changing their money. they have not asked for more dollars, and so i would urge members to defeat this amendment. the chair: the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman yield back? mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. crenshaw: i would like to yield part of my time in opposition to mr. honda, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i also rise in opposition to the amendment which seeks to cut $1.2 million from the architects of the capitol bow tanic garden. -- bow tanic -- botanic garden. it makes it impossible to fund the capitol dome restoration, however the chairman found a small amount of funding to try to keep up with the maintenance of the garden. nevertheless, members attack because they could get a good

headline in the papers for cutting. tonight the author of this amendment put out a press release after offering this same amendment press release, representativ gor stated, the botanic garden has proven the tax dollars in a cost-effective and efficient way. if they have proven their ability to use their tax dollars in a cost-effective manner, why is the gentleman targeting this agency? the voters should know after this amendment we still don't finish the dome restoration. we still have to rehabilitate the cannon house office building. and the gentleman from arizona wants to make sure the garden -- our constituents sent us here to do real work and real lutions to a deficit not to make political points by attacking institutions like the garden which was established back in 1820. as a member of congress we have a responsibility toe ensure --

to ensure that our nation's heritage is kept intact by future generations by tackling unnecessary spending but also by making investments in our future. i urge defeat of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: would the gentleman like to say a word? mr. dicks: i'm going to move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from washington cannot move to strike the last word during the consideration of amendment but could do so in between the consideration of amendments. mr. crenshaw: i yield as much time as the gentleman would like. mr. dicks: thank you. just so we have a historical perspective what we are talking about here today, the united states botanic garden vooted in the nation's heritage. during the late 18th century, george washington, thomas jefferson, and james madison

shared the dream of a national botanic garden and instrumental in establishing one on the national mall in 1820. now it just seems to me that -- even though we are in difficult fiscal times, and i could make an argument that we should be spending money on projects to put people to work, including the dome, and -- but this has a historic significance to our country. i mean george washington, thomas jefferson, and james madison. and to me we can find $1.2 million to do the repair work that's necessary to keep this in good condition for the american people. this is a priority. and i hope that we will all resoundly defeat the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i would like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mlb postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. honda: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: i would like to yield time to my colleague here, congresswoman kaptur. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i just want to thank congressman honda, the ranking member, for yielding me just a brief moment here to -- just to oppose and put comments on the

record, oppose the gosar amendment and the cuts to the national botanical gardens. unless you have actually walked through the aisles and you looked at the exhibits and the genomes of the extinct plants, if you haven't really understood why medical science depends on many of the medicinal plants that are held there for posterity, if you haven't really appreciated the importance of the botanical sciences to human life, the work of the botanical gardens that links to every community across this country that is trying to help communities raise food, even inside urban borders and food deserts, you can't come to appreciate the importance of the fragility of life and how significant we as a country for

years, decades, centuries, have had an appreciation of the importance of the botanical sciences to human life. the site itself is nestled right adjacent to the capitol, demonstrating the importance to the american people that those who came before us understood the importance of the linkage between human life and plant life. some of the most important scientific breakthroughs we have had in medicine, for example, come from a plant kingdom. and i think that though the gentleman may have a good goal in mind in trying to handle our accounts in a responsible way, this is very irresponsible way to do it because in the end if the botanical center has to cut contracts, if they have to lay off workers, in the end what appears to be a cut may actually prove to be a budgetary increase over time in additional costs because these are unanticipated

draconian cuts to the architect of the capitol. i just wanted to say in a prior iteration of his amendment, the gentleman actually issued a press release saying the botanic garden has proven its ability to use tax dollars in a cost efficient way. i don't know how he changed his mind on that. i think for the good of the country, for the future of medical science, the linkage of this scientific collection to communities, i think it's proven its worth. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me this time. i yield book to him any remaining time i have. and appreciate the opportunity to place my remarks on the record. the chair: the gentleman from california yield back his time? mr. honda: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in 112-518, for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. browne: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is very simple. it would reduce the proposed under ining for salaries and expenses of the congressional research office, or c.r.s., back to fiscal year 2012 levels, this year. mr. chairman, we have to look for savings at every line of these appropriations bills no matter how big or small they may be. this amendment would take almost $1 million and transfer that money to the spending reduction account. also keep in mind that i'm not asking to cut anything, i'm not making any single cut in funding from c.n.s.

i'm only asking they receive the same amount of money that they are getting this very year. we are in far worse shape than they were one year ago economically. our national debt has hit almost $16 trillion. yet this congress continues to blow through billions of dollars with a reckless disregard for our economic reality. mr. chairman, i think c.r.s. should have to pitch in and do their part by spending no more money next year than they are spending this year. it's called tightening the belt. families have to do it. states have to do it. and branches of the federal government should also have to do it. we have to stop spending money that we do not have. and i ask that my colleagues support this amendment as a step in the right direction toward doing just that.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from california. mr. honda: yes, mr. chairman. i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. this amendment would cut the funding level of the congressional research service by $878,000 returning it to the 2012 level. he said that he's not doing anything to harm it because it's the same level as last year. but everybody knows that every year the cost of living, the cost of doing services increases. so a flat congressional record push ahead budget -- across-the-board push ahead budget is a decrease. it's subtle but still a decrease. i just want to let the gentleman know that that's the fact. the other fact is that c.r.s. is a research arm of the congressional members. it's a research arm that we are able to use to do the kind of

research that our folks really depend upon and is nonpartisan and not biased one way or the other and very professional in doing so. if we are expected to do the right kind of work for our constituency, and also for our country on issues, then we should be able to expect good work from our c.r.s. chairman crean shaw should be commended for recognizing the funding shortfalls c.r.s. has endured in recent years. as other -- chairman crenshaw should be commended for recognizing the funding shortfalls c.r.s. has endured in recent years. i believe this may make more damage of this unbiased resource and not reduce its capacity. and therefore i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do sow. yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. browne: -- mr. brown: -- mr. broun: my friend says this is a decrease in spending. it's not. it's decreasing to last year's spending levels. we are broke as nation. we are spending more money than we are bringing in. members on both sides of the aisle certainly use the congressional research service and it's a good service for all of us, but we all have to tighten our belt. i hear members on both sides talk about we need to make cuts, we need to balance our budget, we need to start dealing with the deficit and debt. i agree. we do. but this reminds me of the mantra that went on back during our founding period with a slightly different twist. back in those days founding of our nation, they were talking about taxes. the mantra was, don't tax me, don't tax me, tax that fellow

behind the tree. but today it's don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut the fellow behind the tree. but there is not a person behind the tree. we all need to tighten our belts . this is just a very small, not cut, but a stabilization of spending for the c.r.s. i encourage my colleagues to make one small little itty-bitty step towards financial reality and financial sanity by let's just freeze the spending level of the c.r.s. for one year. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the gentleman from california. mr. honda: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have amendment number 3 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 678, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair. my amendment seeks to address a problem we face here in the legislative branch. the congressional supply of pocket sized copies of the u.s. constitution and declaration of independence is exhausted.

my amendment reduces and then reinserts $218,379 from the budget for the government printing office to address this shortage so that they can provide these pocket constitutions and declarations. last cost of the pocket printing of the constitution. but the money is not the root of the problem. the funding exists to print more pocket constitutions today or tomorrow. what is lacking is the authority for the government printing office to do so. the approval of this amendment appears to be the best parliamentary approach that we have right now to solve this immediate problem. last week, as i prepared to visit a school in new jersey where we would hold a ceremony of oath of citizenship for new citizens, i asked my staff to make sure we had pocket constitutions to distribute to them.

i always carry one. i find many of my constituents want to as well. when i discovered that the supply was exhausted and none had been printed for this congress, i thought we should address that problem now. except for the dozens of copies that might be on a shelf in members' office or the few that are in a bag in the back of my station wagon, members find themselves -- find that they cannot get these pocket constitutions. every day, like so many of my republican and democratic colleagues, i point to this constitution. when i meet with students i ask them, what is the greatest invention of humans? and they, knowing i am a scientist, will come up with some technological answer. i will argue, our greatest invention is our constitutional

system of government, our brilliant, resilient, self-correcting government dreamed up in philadelphia so many years ago functioning remarkably well over the centuries. and this simple 45-page pocket constitution that members have been able to share with their constituents for generations allows everyone to understand better that brilliant system of government. over my time here in the house i have eagerly distributed these pocket constitutions to students, new citizens and many constituents who ask for them so that they can have their own. and who better to distribute these copies than a representative working under the authority of the article 1 of this ingenuous document? a self-governing country works only if it believes -- only if we citizens believe that it

does. a self-governing country works only if the citizens provides the motive for it to work. and familiarity with the copies of this ingenuous, powerful, essential document provide the motivation and the mechanism for our government to work. and since 2009 when members of the 111th congress each received 1,000 copies of this edition, this pocket edition of the u.s. constitution, members of the house have not received any new pocket constitutions. that means despite the fact that we began this congress, the 112th by reading the constitution, in which i was pleased to participate, no member of the 112th congress has been provided with any additional contributions. so with no new copies of the pocket constitution except these few that i have here since 2009, it is long past time to fix this simple problem with this simple amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i seek time in opposition although i am not necessarily opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i want to say thank you to the gentleman for bringing this attention to the house. just from an informational standpoint make members aware in february this house passed what we call a printing resolution which calls for the printing of the pocket constitution that he's talking about. the other body now has that piece of legislation, and like a lot of other pieces of legislation that that body finds itself in possession of, nothing has happened. so i think this is an appropriate -- this is appropriate for some of us to encourage the other body to take up the printing resolution, solve the problem and actually i was told just this morning that i think the point of your amendment has actually had an impact because the other body, i am told, has

indicated they plan to move ahead with the printing resolution that we sent them earlier this year. so i think all in all that's been a positive. mr. holt: if the gentleman will yield? mr. crenshaw: yes. mr. holt: the problem is not money. the problem is the authorization. that can be pleshed by -- accomplished by this resolution, joint resolution from the joint commission on printing to the government printing office or it could be resolved through the appropriations, as i am attempting to do now. and i should point out, as the gentleman refers to the other body, it is out of pride of this body that we say we will do what we should do and the senate will do what they will do and we will try to get together to move legislation forward. it is our job here today to do what we can do and to educate the public about this ingenuous

system of government that has been so successful for two centuries, we should do this. thank you. mr. crenshaw: reclaiming my time. i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. lungren, the house administration committee -- a member of the house administration committee. mr. lungren: it is customary that either house determine what their printing needs are. but we do have to normally have a resolution for it. under mr. harper's direction with the joint committee on printing, we actually reduced our request by 50% to save money, but also to get adequate printing of what we thought was needed. the other body initially decided, determined they don't need any more copies. they have now reassessed that, and at the last minute have indicated to us that they see the need for doing that and have promised us that they will act on our resolution. so this is a hope that maybe

this is one thing that they can agree on sending out of their body this year and over to us. but in the meantime the gentleman's amendment is appropriate. let us not lose the constitution over this. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the ranking member, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. honda: thank you. i won't need the full two minutes bus i think the proponent, congressman holt, has done an excellent job in expressing our sentiment about the importance of the pocket constitution. i appreciate the chairman of the authorizing committee, congressman lungren, and my chairperson for taking the initiative and moving forward on this in prodding the other body to make sure that they act on the resolution 90. so i would urge all members to vote yes on this amendment. thank you very much and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-518 offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i bring forward zeros out the open world leadership center. this is a subset of the library of congress. this is an agency that's received millions of dollars over the years. in fact, $123 million over the past 10 years to bring foreign

government leaders from countries like russia and others to the united states, something that might be a good idea but frankly when you consider the fact that we're running massive deficits, have a mountain of debt that keeps building up, we have to cut back programs that we just can't afford to do and clearly this is one of those programs. and i do applaud the chairman in the committee for reducing this account. and although it's been reduced, there's still $1 million remaining in the account and ultimately what we do is completely eliminate that funding. and the reason we're doing this, if you go back -- and we've looked at the congressional record over the years -- going back to 2009, congress has been very clear to this agency, the open world leadership center, that it's time for them to stop receiving government money. just look at the comments from april 21 of 2010. at the time chairman wasserman schultz said our subcommittee's stated goal has been that we would begin to wean you off

your reliance on legislative branch funding. so it is somewhat difficult for me to understand why you have asked for $2 million more in funding. this is an agency, mr. chairman, that has shown an unwillingness to work with congress who for years now has said it's time for you to stop getting government money. this isn't some new development. this is something that republicans and democrats have agreed on for years, and it's finally time for that government funding to end. and if they want to continue doing the work they do, they can go seek private funding which by the way congress encouraged them to do years ago but they refused to do that because they still have the ability to get government money. as long as we leave $1 million in this account, we continue to allow this agency, the open world leadership center, to function, when we've now as a policy decision finally said it's time for them to go. so with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i seek time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: everything the gentleman said is truex september for the fact that what we are doing in this bill is actually shutting down the open world program. when you do that, there are some costs involved in the final shutdown. and that's why last year this was funded at $10 million, and to shut down the program we basically took away $9 million, left $1 million there to terminate the existing contracts that we have. there are some final compensation that has to be paid. they got to close some offices. there are potential unemployment claims. and so the point of this bill is to do exactly as the gentleman suggests and that is to shut down this program which probably at one time was a very worthwhile program and was a very i guess program that you could afford, but in today's world, this is a program that under this legislative subcommittee doesn't seem to be

the right place to find funding. there were attempts in the past to fund it under the state foreign operations subcommittee, but bottom line, the goal of this committee is to shut down this program because we can't afford it any more. and even if you pass this amendment it still costs $1 million to shut down the program. the congressional budget office scores it as $1 million. so i would say we ought not to pass this amendment. we ought to continue the process that's been started, to shut down this program, and these dollars will be used to do just that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, again, mr. chairman. did the gentleman want to also speak? the chair: the gentleman from louisiana controls the time. mr. scalise: ok. i'd continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd yield two minutes to the ranking member, mr. honda of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman's amendment attempting to cut $1 million in the bill for the open world program, and i want to emphasize the word attempt. i also want to emphasize that it's not my -- it's not my intent to support the idea of shutting down the program. it's the issue of the process of the gentleman's resolution. now, according to the congressional budget office, the official bookkeeper of congress, this amendment would net -- would net to zero. they believe the organization would need at least $1 million to ramp down their organization. that is the c.b.o.'s impartial

analysis. that means that this amendment has no effect. maybe the gentleman did not know that or maybe he disagrees with the congressional budget office, but the congressional budget office is a fine arbitor and has concluded this amendment would not save one red cent. this is a process of zourg out. you need that -- zeroing out. you need that money. let me emphasize again it's not my intent to support the idea of closing down the program at all. it's just my comment on the process. and i would like to yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida controls time. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, former ranking member of the legislative branch. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, not only do i oppose the amendment, i don't think we should be shutting down this program. this was a bipartisan program whose principle sponsor was senator ted stevens from alaska and what it does is give voice to leaders within countries who

are suffering under oppressive forms of government. i just met with a ukrainian delegation. my friend, mr. crenshaw, may have an opportunity to meet with them as well. they come through the congress of the united states, the executive branch. they learn how our government works, and at a time when we're spending 2/3 of $1 trillion on military security, this is the kind of program that can promote smart power by working with leaders in other countries. they want freedom of the press, they want democracy. they don't -- they can't stand what communism did to their countries, but they don't want russia. they don't want russian domination. they want to be like the united states and they want to come here and learn how to adopt the best principles that empower our democracy. .

it's a good program, not much money, and the dividends it yields is far greater than anything it costs us. i certainly agree we ought not eliminate the $1 million placeholder, but i wish we wouldn't eliminate this program at all because it's a program we ought to be proud to fund. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i'm prepared to close, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i would first like to address some of the issues that were brought up during this discussion. as it relates to the idea of having exchanges with people from foreign countries. that's why we have a state department. and in fact the state department has programs that does just that. the open world leadership center is a program run by the library of congress. if this program was so important to national security and relations with foreign

countries, then the state department would pick it up. but they haven't chosen to do that because they already do programs that are similar. they probably do it a lot more effectively and a lot more coordinated with the state department because it's run out of the state department. you have a separate, duplicate program, that congress, both republican and democrat members, for three years now has been saying, it's time for you to go. i go back again to the june, 2009 committee hearing. the committee recommends, the committee recommendation begins a phaseout of legislative branch financial support for the open world program. that was the committee recommendation in 2009. republicans weren't running the house back then. that was under democrat leadership. and of course in 2010 the chairman at the time, ms. wasserman schultz, from the opposing party, said, quote, our subcommittee stated goal has been that we would begin to wean you off your reliance on legislative branch funding. yet that same year they asked for $2 million more.

this is an agency that just doesn't get it. this represents what's wrong with washington. we are going broke. we are going broke right now. every single day, every dollar spent here in washington, 42 cents of that dollar is borrowed money. borrowed from countries like china, sending the bill to our kids and grandkids, and here we have program that even congress, republicans and democrats, said it's time for the program to end. and yet they still have $1 million. sitting in their budget. so what you would have is seven employees -- they have a staff of seven people. you have taken $10 million away, and i applaud again the chairman for doing that, so you said there is going to be no more program. there will be no more exchange. that's been a decision made by the committee. the subcommittee. but are you leaving seven people to be paid to do nothing with money we don't have. now, how many small businesses across the country that have been facing these tough economic times are given $1 million check by the federal government to close down? unfortunately, so many businesses have closed down because times are tough, but

they don't get $1 million from the federal government to do it. especially with money borrowed from china. now i would go to address the c.b.o. issue. we asked c.b.o. about this amendment. we asked them monday. here's a letter from c.b.o. on monday, they said, quote, at this point we estimate your amount will have no score. so it has no cost to doing this. but it's $1 million less than we'll be borrowing from china. and at some point they say $1 million here, $1 million there, pretty soon you are talking about real money. we need to start making these tough decisions. frankly this one isn't that tough. eought to eliminate this program. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. scalise: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5, for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the gentleman offer his amendment? mr. moran: i have an amendment at the desk. and i ask -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, and the gentleman from opposed to the amendment each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: this amendment which i am offering jointly with congress members welch and pingree, would ban polysty reason products from our food services here in the house. mr. chairman, in 2011, the new

republican majority in the house instituted the use of polysty reason -- polysty reason containers in our food service facilities. this amendment would prohibit upes of funds to purchase the products for use in the house cafeteria and eateries. removing it would show our concern for the health of our visitors and employees and for the fuhr of our environment. we should be using recyclable and biodegradable products and avoiding foam packaging. over 20 years ago mcdonald's and other for-profit fast food restaurants replaced the foam with paper board containers. the house of representatives is the only place within the capitol complex to revert back to styrofoam products. neither the senate, library of congress, nor the capitol visitors center food services use the foam products out of concern for the health of their patrons. we should be leading by example. and this amendment provides a way through which we can show environmental responsibility to

the thousands of constituents who visit our offices each year. we should be concerned about their health and that of our employees. polystyrene is also difficult to recycle. those containers end up taking up inordinately large amounts of space in land phils or incinerators. the problems include cancerous chemicals used during manufacture, minimal repsychibility, and toxic byproducts released during incineration. the e.p.a. report on solid waste saying the manufacturing process, the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste. and toxic chemicals leak out of these styrofoam containers into the food an drinks they contain and thus endanger human health and reproductive systems. that's our employees and visitors to the house office buildings. with this amendment we can reduce environmental hazards and land phil waste and protect the

public's health. i encourage my colleagues to support what i think should be a no-brainer amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. million crenshaw: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i just want to say we don't use any appropriated funds to buy these containers. just want to make that point. we don't use any appropriated money to do that, but i want to recognize a valued member of the subcommittee, mr. calvert from california, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, appreciate the time. my friend, and he is my friend, mr. moran, amendment is certainly misguided. and costly. and a step backwards. let's talk about the facts. the house composting program in the last congress increased our operating cost by a half a

million dollars a year, all for the luxury of using, remember weak utensils that literally melted in your soup. an ineffective cups, soda cups, not including the extra paper insulators to keep your hands from burning once you use those ineffective paper cups. the cups, by the way, were two to three times more expensive than the foam cups. and the environmental benefits. pier reviewed studies confirm that foam, food, and beverage containers which are recycleable and used by mcdonald's use significantly less energy and water than their supposed ecofriendly alternatives. they use fewer raw materials, create less solid waste, and the carbon emission differences are nomal. -- are nom inal -- nominal.

he needs to be up-front with the american people and let them know how much it costs. in fact this product costs less and is a better product. and i think that's something we ought to do here in the government is find ways of saving money and produce a better outcome. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i would say to my good friend from california, this amendment doesn't reintroduce the composting program and it doesn't deal with those utensils which i admit some of them were not the best. but this deals with the foam containers only, which is the greater source of concern for the health of visitors and our employees. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to friend and colleague from maine, ms. pingree. the chair: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to my colleague, mr. moran, for allowing me to speak and joining

him with this amendment today. i rise in support of this amendment which would prohibit us from using taxpayer money to stop the house cafeteria -- stock the house cafeteria with the styrofoam. maybe to some it might seem like a small thing, but stocking it with styrofoam sends a terrible message. when i was first elected to congress in 2008 it was a pleasure to see biodegreadable -- biodegradable materials in the cafeteria. maybe bamboo forks which didn't work great but they were recycleable. we ate out of containers that looked like what we see in fast food restaurants. when the republicans took control that changed. we are back eating from stay row foam. when my constituents read about it they were frankly quite shocked. they don't imagine -- couldn't imagine why congress was moving backwards. styrofoam takes hundreds of years to biodegrade and is a suspected carcinogen because of

the chemical it leeches into food and liquid. i urge my colleagues to support our amendment to get rid of styrofoam in the house cafeteria and thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house administration committee, mr. lungren. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: i thank you for yielding. last year we had this argument. last year it was criticism of the fact that i had approved a contract that got rid of the composting. and instead started a pilot project, i believe in the gentleman from virginia's district, where we are taking all of this and we are converting it from waste to energy in the gentleman's district, one of the exemplary programs in the country. we are not putting this into land phil -- landfil, we are converting it. in fact these products are one

of the best means of creating energy from waste. the second thing is, this is a condemnation of an industry that employs about 50,000 americans around the country. that deal with the production of this product. and i would say they have come to me and said, can you at least defend us with the facts that the f.d.a. has to approve use for sale of these products that come into human contact? if it were carcinogenic, it would not be allowed. the fact of the matter is we use common sense. we actually took up a recommendation by the democrats when the republicans took over, one of the recommendations that was made in writing was that we

eliminate the composting program because it cost too much money, it was unsuccessful, and, in fact, it caused more energy than it was supposed to save. we did that. i thought you were going to thank us another following your suggestion -- thank us for following your suggestion, we even put it in the gentleman's district, proud employees of the gentleman's constituency are reducing this waste to energy, yet the gentleman comes before us and says, the program that you have in my district, we just don't want it. sometimes people around here can't take yes for an answer. the chair: the gentleman from the state of virginia. mr. moran: certainly, the gentleman makes a compelling argument here in terms of employment, but it is clear that when you talk to people who regularly use our calf tearases -- cafeterias, they are concerned about the containers. in fact there is a facebook group crated called, stop the

styrofoam invasion, bring cardboard back to the house cafeteria. i'm sure these gentlemen see that effort on facebook. communities across the country have rallied against these products and bans have been instituted statewide in california, massachusetts, illinois, maine, washington, oregon, new jersey, new york. these are not statewide bans in all of these states,ping of them they are cities and counties, but this is not something that's unique to the people supporting this amendment. across the country people are realizing that it is not healthy to use polystyrene as a material. it is does take up too much land space and we ought to support this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: yield back my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. .

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the amendment's adopted. mr. crenshaw: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. harper: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-518 offered by mr. harper of mississippi. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, and a member opposed to the amendment, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: mr. chairman, this amendment would limit the printing of paper copies of the u.s. code for the united states house of representatives to 50 copies. as chairman of the joint committee on printing, i have been working to cut wasteful

printing and the u.s. code is a prime example of what needs to be cut. every six years the united states code is reprinted to incorporate new statutory changes. currently, the 2012 edition of the u.s. code is slated to be printed by g.p.o. in fiscal year 2013. however, the printing and production of the code takes anywhere from 14 to 16 months, guaranteeing that the code is outdated before it even is in print. mr. chairman, my amendment would reduce the house's allotment from 213 to 50 copies. this reduction will ensure the long-term preservation of hard copies in the house while freeing up over 369,000 dollars for f.y. 2013. money that would be better spent modernizing and improving access to legislative information, including the code. the printed copies of the u.s. code in the house are used less each day because of increasingly available, more up-to-date electronic

alternatives. is amendment is a simple reduce of printing. i want to thank chairman lungren for his support of this effort. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. harper: if i may i yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: thank you for yielding. i want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. i think it's well-intentioned. i think it's a good idea. i'm just curious as to how you decided to have 50 copies instead of 213. mr. harper: well, there's certainly an assessment of the number of copies and the need and each agency that controls those and gets those and we believe that on the distribution of those copies that those agencies that get them which include 43 copies to the house leg council, 48 copies to house committee on appropriations, the house legislative resource center

receive four case copies. house parliamentarian receives three and the list goes on from there. i believe the house committee on appropriations, for example, will not need 13 copies for those. those are things that even though going back to law school days you learn how to share the available copies. mr. crenshaw: if the gentleman will yield? how many copies will the appropriations committee get under your amendment? mr. harper: well, under the amendment we do not determine how many copies each will get. if we go to the numbers -- if we get -- mr. crenshaw: i just want to say i think that's a very good amendment. mr. harper: thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. harper: if i may i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? seeing none -- mr. harper: i yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. harper: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. i'm sorry. no recorded vote. apologize. thank you. the chair: the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-518. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 7. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-518 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 679, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. this amendment would simply prohibit members, committees and leadership offices from using taxpayer funded m.r.a.'s to purchase online 'tisments. these ads are a little -- online advertisements. these ads blur the line between

official duty and campaign activities. i believe, and i think most of us would concede. it's an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. i know some will stand up and say we got to advertise -- to advertise town halls and whatever else that we're doing. let me tell you, all the online advertising that is being paid for by the taxpayers from members' offices right now, town halls and those other notices represent a tiny fraction of that. most of it are things like this, ads reading, congressman x is fighting the madness. you know, click on this and then it sends them to their official page. just boosting their name i.d. representative x is working to lower gas prices by increasing american energy production. find out more and like my page today. another one, congressman x is committed to creating jobs, driving down spending and shrinking the size of the federal government. that's pure electioneering or

campaigning. the taxpayers have no reason to fund that kind of purchase in online advertising. we already see the abuse that takes place with regard to franking. when you receive in the mail a full color glossy that you can't tell between the difference these days and a campaign mailer unless you see the very, very fine print in a is at the bottom of the mailer, paid for by taxpayer expense. enter the internet world and the potential for abuse is that much greater. when members can target ads, say, if i want to run for governor next, i could say that i want an ad to pop up on my -- or my name to pop up when google search arizona governor. i can tell you that kind of thing is happening right now and we got to stop it before it brings a dark cloud over this body. we all know what happened with

earmarks in years past. it got so rampant and the corruption set in that we had to get rid of it completely. let's stop this before it really balloons. there is abuse going on right now, but let's stop it before it gets big. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, members of the house, if the gentleman has a problem with communicating with constituents, then i think he ought to take his gripes to the franken commission. i think everyone knows in this house that members have an office account, and the philosophy is that you have an office account, you run your office. you are held accountable for how you spend those dollars. some dollars are spent for salaries, for equipment, for rent and for communications.

and when the communications are paid for with taxpayers' dollars, they are subject to review by what's called the franken commission. that is a bipartisan commission made up of democrats, made up of republicans, and before any kind of communication is put forward, whether it's a newsletter, maybe it's a postcard, before anything goes out there are very strict guidelines that the commission uses to decide what goes in to those communication pieces. and under the rules, members are allowed to use their m.r.a., their office account, that's funded by taxpayers' dollars. they can -- if they want to announce they are going to have a town hall meeting, they can send out a postcard. they can send out a letter. they actually buy advertising in a newspaper as long as it

meets the requirements of the franken commission and they are very strict about how big your name can be and how many pictures you can have. you can also buy time, buy advertising on the radio if you want to say, i'm going to have a meeting and we're going to decide whether or not to appoint people to the military academies. they can do that. and you can use the internet for that. and quite frankly, in today's world, that's how most people get their information. now, i'm not a tech guy, but i understand that the social media is how a lot of young people and old people as well get their communication. and if you want to communicate through the internet, then you have the same rules and regulations in a apply to the print. you have to go to franken commission and they approve it. again, democrats, republicans and they're making sure that these are official notices.

they can direct you to your own website. most members have their own websites. so it seems strange to single out this new social media where the world seems to be going, that's how people get the information and it's a lot cheaper to communicate on the internet than it is by mailing a letter or mailing a postcard. so it seems to me this is an effort to micromanage how the members use their m.r.a.'s and so it's a step backward to you can communicate. you can buy advertising on the radio. you can buy an ad in a newspaper as long as you comply with these rules but can't do it with the internet. it seems like a strange way to go. all of this is subject to review to make sure all of that is appropriate. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

florida reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would simply respond, the gentleman mentioned people want to announce town halls and what not, that is a tiny, tiny fraction of what occurs and the money being spent, taxpayer money through franking on the internet. you have things like this. this from a member. like my facebook page to find out what i'm doing to create jobs, reduce spending and put our economy back on track. i want to know do you support a balanced budget amendment? members want to get traffic and name i.d. to their webpage. now, i'm not a -- i have my own webpage. i have the facebook account. i do all of that. butry do it when it's appropriate. campaign funds. not official funds to campaign.

the gentleman mentioned that we ought to kind of trust the member. there's a franking commission. let everybody do it. i should mention in 1997 when this bill came to the floor, members thought there's some abuse going on with the franking of mail. and so requirement was put in to put in the printed at taxpayer expense. that was done by amendment on this bill, on this floor in 1997. also, there was abuse with franking too close to an election. so there was an amendment on this floor in 1997, put a requirement that there is a 90-day blackout period where you can't do it so there is recognition that sometimes you go too far here. i tell you members are going too far. i'd invite anyone to go down to the franking commission and take a look at what's going on. take a look at what members are sending. so we're going to be voting on this quickly. i would submit that if you come to the floor or watching this debate, you don't want to be on the other side of this issue

because we will be here sooner or later banning this practice. i hope it's sooner rather than later. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the chairman of the house -- the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lungren: i'd like to advise all members that we have full-time employees working under the direction of members of the franking commission and the house administration every single day that review the product of the offices of members. there's a limitation on the number of references you can make to yourself. there's a limitation on the number of pictures you can have. there's a limitation on how large the pictures can be. there's a limitation on some of the language that can be. we don't try to censor it. that which is a communication to our membership. and if someone is trying to

suggest that we ought not to be allowed to ask our constituents, what is your position on a balanced budget amendment, i'd like to say, you have that right. if you don't want to ask that question, you don't have to ask that question. but that's within members to be able to do that. and frankly i think the idea that somehow we ought to limit our communications to the old-fashioned snail mail is just wrong. when we attempted -- what we attempted to do is use the principles established by the franking commission over the years to the new technology. that is simply what we have done. it is no more or no less. if people want to complain about particular messages that have come out, we can look at that and in fact we turn down many, many suggested pieces to be sent out by members of congress. . we have tried to adjust to the new communications and the gentleman's amendment would not allow us to use new means of

communications. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire -- the chair: 30 seconds. mr. flake: we have a franking commission. they are making determinations like this and we are still getting this stuff. people saying, congress fighting the madness, like my facebook page now. i would suggest that the bipartisanship of this franking commission is part of the problem. both parties say they are doing it, we'll do it, too, and we'll both turn the other way. that's why we get into problems with this. i'm just saying, please, get ahead of the curve here. and get ahead of where the taxpayers are going to be on this issue. i urge support of the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is oned amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from florida.

mr. crenshaw: record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-518 upon which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one by mr. gosar of arizona, amendment number two by mr. broun of georgia, amendment number four by mr. scalise of louisiana, amendment number five by mr. moran of virginia, and amendment number seven by mr. flake of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-518 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 213, the yeas are 193, the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 prinned in house report 112-518, offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, upon which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2

printed in house report 112-518, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a vorded -- recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a a sufficient number having arisen having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 214. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-518, offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, upon which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in favor of the recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 204. the nays are 200. and -- 203. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5, offered in house report 115-518, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. moran of

virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in the support of request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 178. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-518, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, upon which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-518, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 148, the nays are 161. the amendment is dot nopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5882. pursuant to house resolution 677, i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted by the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5882 and pursuant to house resolution 667, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported to the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their seats. membering -- members will clear the aisles. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the

bill? ms. pingree: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. pingree of maine moves to recommit the bill -- ms. pingree: i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. pingree: madam speaker, every day my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about cutting spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will be in order. >> madam speaker, the house is not in orer. ms. pingree: madam speaker, every day my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about cutting spending. a fir number of them came here, getting elected by promising to

cut wasteful spending and be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. and they've voted for big cuts. they've cut money in food stamps, making it harder for people to put food on the table. they've cut spending on unemployment, making it harder for the millions of americans looking for work to make ends meet. they cut spending on pell grants, making it harder for working families to put their kids through college. but these put the entire burden on working families and seniors who are already struggling to get by. and none of it on big oil companies or wealthy money managers. the problem is the burden of spending cuts is not now being shared equally or distributed fairly. today, madam speaker, i am offering my colleagues a chance to share that burden by cutting our own spending on fancy taxpayer-funded mailings that our constituents don't always want us to spen. the amendment i'm offering represents a 10% cut in our

franking budget. this means giving up expensive glossy self-promoting mailings and getting back to straight talk to our constituents. don't get me wrong, part of our communicating is with our constituents, that is our job, and letting them know about our work here in washington and in our home districts. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlelady suspend? the house is not in order. ms. pingree: in my office -- the speaker pro tempore: just a moment. the house is not in order. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. in my office, we've designated simple, straightforward mailings in house to communicate directly with our constituents. we've designed them in house. we've been able to cut the cost of communication dramatically

but still effectively communicate. in fact, we recently sent an up jate do -- update to veterans explaining options to them and two or three constituents have received lifetime benefits because of that. asking working families to sacrifice and bear the burden of spending cuts while protecting big banks, big oil, and congressional perks is one of the reasons our approval rating is at an all-time low. madam speaker, we all agree we need to get budget deficits under control. but asking senior, young people and working families to feel the pain while passing tax cuts for the rich, protecting big tax breaks for big oil and spending millions of dollars on glossy self-promoting mailers is unfair and americans know it. if we want the american public to think we can be responsible and serious about cutting wasteful spending, we'll pass the amendment today and take a big chunk out of our franking budget. let me be clear. this is a final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended and if adopted the american people might have a little more faith

that the money they send to congress are really serious about cutting wasteful spending, and not just looking at perks for thems. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to speak in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, i want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to recommit and vote for this very good bill. now i'm not surprised that the democrats don't like this bill. this funding bill spends less money than last year. and last year's bill spent less than the year before. mr. crenshaw: so for three straight years, we have reduced spending in the legislative branch. we've reduced spending on ourselves. don't tell us we haven't shared in the pain. we are doing in this bill what

we asked every agency of state government to do. we are doing in this bill what every american family does. we are setting priorities. we are tightening our belt. we are reining in spending. we are doing more with less. no wonder they don't like it. so i say, let's pass this bill, reject this motion to recommit, and cast a vote for fiscal responsibility by voting yes. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is order on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ms. pingree: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 the 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five minute votes on passage of the bill and the motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 101. the nays are 309. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 307, the nays are 102. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on h.r. 4348 offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct

conferees on h r. 4348, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 323. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south dakota

rise? >> madam speaker, i would like to ask for unanimous consent to be removed as co-sponsor of h r. 2942. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on agriculture be discharged from further consideration of s. 3261 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3261, an act to allow the chief of the forest service to award certain contracts for large air tankers. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is granted. third -- the bill is read the

third time and passed this notion reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: also, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 2, 2012, when the house adjourned on that day, it adjourns to meet at 10:00 a.m. on friday, june 15, 2012. when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourns to meet on monday, june 18, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> last week, this body took up h.r. 3531, which would prohibit abortion on the basis of an unborn baby's gender. many advanced nations have laws preventing this. recognizing the importance of

all life, i vote nerd bill and had high hopes that it would be signed into law. adly it wasn't passed. surprisingly, some members were not willing to society for it. every representative, every physician, every american needs to be reminded that at the center of our struggle is the protection of all human life. we cannot live in a nation where some human life is valid and other life is not. all life has value and the casual taking of life is morally wrong. let us join together to prayner protection of the unborn. the intersection of prayer and action can produce amazing results. we can -- through prayer and perseverance, we can accomplish our goals and innocent human life can be protected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from m.d. rise? -- from maryland rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, some of the most pressing legislative items were nowhere to be found on the floor this week.

we had an opportunity to make headway on critical legislation. unfortunately, the leadership provided no action. not solutions, not action, only obstruction and delay. first, student loan interest rates will double on july 1 if we do nothing. and we have done nothing. secondly, after losing 28,000 construction jobs last month, congress still has not passed a highway bill. not bith standing the fact that the senate -- not withstanding the fact that the senate passed a bill with 75% of its members in support. half of the republican conference in support. but it's nowhere on this floor. as construction jobs languish. and people look for work. speaker boehner is now saying we might have to wait until november even though it would create thousands of

construction jobs. it seems to be my way or no highway. third, we're headed for a fiscal cliff if congress can't achieve a serious deficit reduction this year. and we've seen appropriations bills this week to break the budget agreement. this has been another wasted week by a do-nothing congress and we're about to begin a week-long recess once again. congress could do better. congress must do better. americans expect congress to do better. it ought to take action now, not delay. -- not delay until it's too late. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for

one minute. ms. jackson lee: speaker, we can do better. as we work to ensure the tranquility of this great land and the opportunity for those who desire and deserve jobs i frankly think it is likewise a devastating disaster a crisis, that the world has not risen to stop the bloodshed in syria. i realize that we are not ready to engage in war and i say that we do not have to. syrian americans are just pleading for the world to intervene, for dr. assad to step downfish for the cease fire to take place and for the killing of women and children to stop. i join with the administration to ask for dr. assad to be removed and i ask the arab league, i ask the surrounding neighbors, to stand up against this increasing violence.

to the syrian americans i have stood with in houston, i stand with you until dr. assad is removed and the violence is stopped. the united nations moved toward a resolution of peace and russia and china must stop standing in the way and watching bloodshed pour. children are dying. dr. assad in syria must leave and peace must come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: 30 years ago, president ronald ray dan -- reagan delivered one of his most important speeches he delivered an address to westminster in which he talked about the imperative of our supporting the notion of self-determination around the world and he called for the establishment of one of the most important national security items that we have in

place today, it's known as the national endowment for democracy. mr. speaker, in that speech, president reagan said, we must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. the objective i propose is quite simple to state. to foster the infrastructure of democracy. the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universitys, which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means. three decades later, the vision that ronald reagan put forward in that speerble is not only alive but it's well and driving -- and thriving all over the world, so i'd like to congratulate all of those who have been part of the effort that was launched by that speech 30 years ago today by ronald reagan and to people all over the world who want to

determine their futures, we stand with them in their quest for self-determination. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, on july 1, student loan interest rates are due to double. we also have seen numerous, very short-term transportation bills as an extended longer transportation bill which could give real certainty to workers and firms is sitting there in the senate and is ignored by the house. but despite the fact that the transportation bill is sitting there, we haven't taken proper action and student loan rates are due to rise, you wouldn't know it from being on the house floor. you wouldn't know it because the majority has not taken up these issues that are the most pressing issues of the american

people. you know, i'm not here to say that the republicans are sabotaging the economy in order to gain advantage in the election. but there are a lot of people who believe that is the case. if the republican majority wants to make sure that the people of america know that they're operating on their best behalf, i urge them to take action to preserve low interest rates for students to go to college and to pass a transportation bill and take the one up that the senate has already passed. jobs are the key, but you wouldn't know it from being in this body based on the action or inaction of the majority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the lady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. our economy continues to recover from the worst recession we have faced in generation and progress is being made despite the best interest of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who

stated their singular goal is not creating jobs but in making president obama a one-term president. in the 18 months since they took the majority, the republicans have had one constant and that's been to obstruct, obstruct when it comes to commonsense legislation to move the country forward, having a transportation bill -- passing a long-term surface transportation bill that would put two million back to work. they're obstructing in their unwillingness to keep college loans affordable, making sure that on july 1, seven million students across this country will have their student loan interest rate double. they've been obstructionist when it comes to the paycheck fairness act, the simple task of making sure that women who do the same job with the same are experience are paid the same money. obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. and they could have done their part to make things happen for the american people, but they haven't done that, and so, mr. speaker, the actions of this congress will speak louder than words. it's time for the republicans

to show that they're concern with the american people and not just partisanship. stop obstruction. let's create jobs for the american people. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week i join with some of my colleagues to introduce the bipartisan startup jobs act 2.0. mr. dold: mr. speaker, students come to america from all over the world. then upon graduation they're forced to leave our country. forced to go back home and in essence compete against us. and with them goes their knowledge, their ideas and their aspirations to change the world. many of these students want to stay here in america, to make

something of themselves here because america is still the best place for ideas to become realities. these ideas become solutions which in turn turn into job-creating companies. according to a study by the national foundation for american policy, immigrants founded or co-founded almost half of the top 50 venture-backed companies in the united states. since our nation's founding, immigrants have flourished right along with our economy. america becomes richer and more dynamic society by encouraging the best and the brightest from all over the world to set up shop here in on our soil. that is why i'm honored to be an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan, bicam rell startup jobs act 2.0 that will help america get back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. connolly: mr. speaker, if congress were a musical then republicans would be little orphan annie. because with the urgent challenges facing our nation, americans staring at a pending fiscal cliff, an economic calamity that the g.o.p. simply said maybe we'll get to tomorrow. let's revisit the little orphans the g.o.p. has left behinded. needed transportation and jobs bill, the medicare doc payment fix, the debt ceiling recollection tension, the student loan interest rate hike, the sequester, indiscriminant cuts, the expiration of the bush tax cuts, the a.m.t. taxes, the payroll tax cut which would collectively cost families $4,000 more next year. the impact to our economy of these poor -- for these poor little orphan is a staggering $10 trillion.

c.b.o. said this will send america back in a recession. the republicans need to recognize that every orphan deserves a home and work with us in a bipartisan responsible solution or it's going to be a hard knock life for us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. much emphasis has been put on the deficit and we do need to deal with the deficit, but at the same time one way to deal with it is to stimulate the economy. and there's no better way to stimulate the economy than a transportation bill that repairs our infrastructure, puts people to work here in america and improves the ability of industry to move its product and for consumers to get product. and yet the transportation bill that's been passed in the house, passed in the senate, differing bills, is stuck in a conference committee. we need to pass a transportation bill and put america back to work with american-made products by american workers.

my city of memory cisis a transportation center. we -- memphis is a transportation center. we know how to move products. i urge that the conference committee comes back, doesn't have extraneous provisions and does what is necessary to put americans back to work and pass the highway bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for -- excuse me -- the house will stand at ease for just a second. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. a leaves of absence for the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, and with that the gentleman -- the clerk: leaves of be a requested for mr. cicilline of rhode island for today after 11:00. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the request is granted. and now the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. the gentleman is recognized for 60 minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you for the privilege, and good to get the housekeeping work out of the way. we all like to think about what if. what if i had actually gotten an a rather than an f in that high school class? what if i had hit that home run instead of struck out? the what if game is part of our life, but i want to take that up today in a very, very serious way. this is about what if this congress, led by our republican colleagues, had taken up and passed president barack obama's american jobs act.

last september the president made a very bold proposal to put americans back to work. comprehensive piece of legislation that covered many, many different parts of the american economy. it's called the american jobs act. fully paid for. not increasing the deficit at all, but paid for with the elimination of unnecessary tax breaks for big oil, unnecessary tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy 1% of americans. a fully paid for american jobs act proposed by the president last september. what if? what if this house, under our republican leadership, had taken up the elements of the american jobs act, modified them as is our nature and our responsibility, but nonetheless

passed those very significant proposals that would, according to economists, create somewhere between 1.2 million and 1.9 million jobs immediately? not somewhere in the future but now. what if we had done that last september? what if our republican leadership had allowed those measures to come before the committees and on this floor to be signed by the president? 1.3 million americans or maybe even 1.9 million americans would have a job today. we're going to talk today about the most tragic, what if this nation is pondering at this moment. what if the american jobs act had been implemented?

let's talk about what it is. what are the elements of the american jobs act? bear with me, if you will, as we go through these. i'll go through them rather quickly. if you've been watching here in the gallery or if you're watching c-span, you would have heard my democratic colleagues talk about the transportation bill. the president said last fall, we need to have a transportation bill and we need it now. we need to put men and women back to work in the construction industry repairing our bridges, building our highways, paving our airports, building the infrastructure that this nation needs. student aid bill. we know that if america's going to compete, we have to have the best educated work force in the world, and so the president

proposed a student aid bill. legislation that would provide additional sources of funding so students can go to school in community colleges, in four-year schools and in the master and doctorate programs. the president took up one of the great conundrums and problems that this nation faces from our competitors. yes, china. china manipulates its currency and the president said that has to stop, and he asked for the house of representatives and the senate to pass a piece of legislation dealing with the manipulation of the chinese currency which gives them somewhere between the 20% and 25% price advantage on all the things that they manufacture and import into the united states. said do something about that. give me, the administration the

power to put a tariff on these chinese goods if the chinese government continues to manipulate its currency. he said, we ought to buy american-made products. we ought to use our money, our taxpayer money to buy american-made goods, and i have a piece of legislation that would do just that and i'll talk about that before this hour is done. . buy american. enhance the buy american provision. do away with provisions that have created a 12-lane freeway for foreign products finding their way into america despite laws. there are millions of homes in america that are inefficient, leak energy an cost the homeowner or renter vast amounts of money. he said we could put people to work, putting in new windows, caulking, putting installation in the attics. we could put people to work and

in the process reduce our consumption of energy and create jobs. he said there ought to be a permanent research and development tax credit so that our industries would stay ahead of the competition around the world, so that they would know, year after year after year, that the research and development tax credit would be there and the more that they invested in research, the more that they took that research and developed products, the more jobs would be created and they didn't have to worry that, well, maybe it won't be there next year, so this five-year research program, we won't do it. no, we want certainty. his american jobs act would have given certainty. in this adership house refused to take up all of those provisions.

the president went on and said, we need a payroll tax cut for businesses and for the worker. we did a little of this. businesses didn't get a tax break on the payroll. however, the men and women that do work and do get a salary did get half of what the president proposed. he said, we ought to put veterans to work. fortunately, on veterans day last year, we did pass a bill to do that. and we should consider even more. 285,000 teachers have lost their job this is year across america. the president said that we cannot survive as a stable, growing country with a just society if we don't educate our kids. so he said, let's put those teachers back to work. 280,000 of them. and bring some firemen along with them so we'd have the

public protection. he said that in addition to transportation enhancement, an additional $50 billion over and above the transportation bill, he said we ought to put people to work and give a jump start, just like you would to the dead battery on the car, he wanted to put those jumper cables on the american construction industry, $50 billion, get it up and going. and he said we need a permanent infrastructure bank. i'll finish this up quickly because it gets to be a rather long what if, but what if, what if we had done these things? how about rebuilding our schools and houses? again, putting people to work. and how about allowing americans to refinance their homes. to stop the inevitable decline of the housing industry as more and more people were forced into bankruptcy and losing

their homes. the american jobs act proposed by the president of the united states last september, to this day, two of those policies have been adopted. what if? what if. the economists say 1.3 million americans would be working today if this legislation had been allowed to be brought to the floor of this house, had been allowed to be brought to the senate and the president to sign it. and don't forget this. it was fully paid for. fully paid for. the deficit would not have been increased. however, the oil companies would not have $12 billion of your money in addition to what they've taken at the gasoline pump. the wealthiest industry in the

world. we kick our tax dollars back -- take our tax dollars back and put those people to work. for those with $1 million of annual income, after all the deductions and all the credits, for those with $1 million of annual income, their taxes would have gone up. to pay for putting 1.3 million americans back to work. what if? i'd like now to call upon my colleague from the state of oregon who for years has fought for transportation, one they have senior members on the transportation committee, mr. defazio, you were here late last night, fighting one of the most foolish proposals i have heard of to cut the transportation budget by $37

billion. thank you for fighting that ight and informing us. unfortunately -- fortunately, the house rejected that foolish proposal. mr. defazio. mr. defazio: i would like to key in on one of the aspects of the proposal, to invest $450 billion in our crumbling infrastructure. some people say to me, well, congressman, i don't work in construction. these aren't just construction jobs. we have the strongest buy america requirements in the area of transportation investment. underlie -- underline two words. investments and jobs. now, those investments, if made under buy america in, say, transit vehicles, involve engineering, manufacturing, they involve, you know, steel manufacturing, they involve sophisticated fabrication of vehicles, tires for buses, all those sorts of things. we could put millions of people back to work and begin to revive the devastated american manufacturing sector and for once keeping the chinese from

stealing our jobs because of the buy america protections. but no, the republicans don't want to do that they don't like the buy america provisions in the bill and they don't want to make the investments. we were here until midnight last night. the gentleman from georgia investments in transportation infrastructure on october 1. there would not have been one penny more. all of the money that he would allow in next year's budget would only be enough to pay for ongoing projects. when the states finish a project, we reimburse them. we authorize the project the states build them, we rim re-imburst them. the money he would limit us to would only pay for projects already ongoing. that would bring it all to a halt, despite the fact that the system is falling apart. we're living off the legacy of dwight david eisenhower, that's mid 20th century legacy. it needs to be rebuilt.

an we need to build a 21st century infrastructure. i heard a lot of nonsense last night and 82 republicans voted for this today. this is a problem. the republican caucus -- or conference is having an internal war among themselves, they have 82 members who believe the federal government, the federal government, the people of the united states assembled -- assembled, the 50 states and territories, should not invest in transportation and infrastructure, it should be done by the 50 states. it should be devolved. that's crazy. that's crazy. in the 21st century, we're going to have a 50-state transportation policy? and how are the states going to pay for it? we tried that until 1956. we had turnpikes built in kansas that ended at the oklahoma border because oklahoma didn't have the money until eisenhower passed the legislation and the federal government could invest. they want to go back too those

good hold days. they say, these are just government jobs. government. they hate government. they are not government jobs. the government does not build bridges. the government does not build transit systems. the government doesn't build highways. they don't build any of those things. we go out and contract through the states for the lowest qualified bidders under buy america requirements to build these projects with american workers and american products. so let's stop all this nonsense on the republican side of the aisle about the government can't create jobs. the investments the government makes can create jobs in the private sector. we have an infrastructure that's falling apart. the president wants to rebuild it. the senate wants to rebuild it on a bipartisan basis. but the republicans in the house of representatives have stopped forward progress on this legislation. we're going po ten -- foregoing, potentially, millions of jobs. i only hope the senate and president prevail on this issue. i thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the house.

mr. garamendi: mr. defazio, for years you have been fighting for infrastructure. in't -- i didn't watch last night's debate as you fought fiercely to prevent one of the most foolish pieces of legislation, well there have been many foolish pieces of legislation proposed by our colleagues but you couldn't be more correct. let me put this up. i came across this yesterday. basically, what this is, it's a diagram of the employment in the construction industry. we had about, what is that, 5,570,000 men and women working in the construction industry in january. here we are in may and we're just over 5,500,000. some 20,000, almost 30,000 have lost their jobs. and the po posals that our

republican colleagues are making would guarantee that once the -- and the proposals that our republican colleagues are making would guarantee that once these projects are over, there would be nothing more. but the president laid out not only a transportation bill but he laid out a very robust jump start to it, $50 billion of additional money invested. let's understand, this is not government money. this is an investment by the american people. it is their gasoline tax, they diesel tax. it is their investment in the highways and bridges and transportation systems of this nation. well, i guess if you're anti-tax, you're anti-road, you're anti--- and you're pro-gridlock and you're guaranteeing that the economy will slow down and eventually, who knows, even collapse. fortunately, there's a gentleman here from the great northwest, excuse me, mid northwest, mr. keith ellison.

you've been on this issue for a long time. i know in your area, you have been very, very concerned about the issues that are in the american jobs act. please join us. mr. ellison: i thank you, congressman, for making the issue of jobs the front and center issue. we've been here all week long and one of the things i find just shocking is that we have not dealt with the issues that are really in front of the american people. the number one issue is jobs. we haven't dealt with the future jobs that students cowl perhaps get if they got the education which is -- has to do with doubling of interest rates on student loans, which is due in a few weeks unless the republican majority acts. certainly they have not taken up a transportation bill that would extend, you know, extensive work to people. as many as 280,000 education jobs on the chopping block in the upcoming school year due to pressure on state budgets. so the bottom line is that the

-- this is an interesting week that we live in. there's no doubt no up with of the 435 members of this body are under any doubt. student loan rates are doubling, unemployment is at a record high and yet we didn't deal with any of these critical issues. i'm really shocked, i'm astounded, i'm under the impression we're all here to work hard. i'm one of those who doesn't like to sort of imply or even say that the republicans are sabotaging jobs for political advantage because it's hard for me to imagine that any true public servant would ever do something like that, but there's a lot of folks who believe that is the case. i want our republican colleagues to disprove that premise. by getting some pro-job, pro-education legislation that we all can agree on. you know, one of the things i'm

glad to talk about with regards to the obama job plan, under the american jobs act, obama laid out a plan, he has set forth a set of ideas, and one of the elements i want to talk about a little bit is the job program for the long-term unemployed. obama has talked about dealing with the issues of the long-term unemployed, people who have been out of work, and you know, who have been chronically unemployed for a long time, they call them the 99ers. it's model ofed -- modeled of after an unemployment program in georgia, workers continue to collect unemployment benefits and a stipend to cover transportation and other expenses at no expense to the employer, after eight weeks of training, the company could hire the person or not, it could amount to a free tryout. i think the obama administration, under the american jobs act is being responsive to the needs of the american people.

the same cannot be said for the house of representatives under the republican majority. under the american jobs -- jobs act, the republicans could bring it up to date. some of these ideas are things that they have proposed and they won't even take those up. this is really disappointing. i think people who have been chronically unemployed for weeks and weeks and maybe perhaps years, i talked to a woman who had been out of work for two and a half years. this woman has a college degree, she's a highly trained professional from my district. if you're watching, lauren, you know that i'm talking about you. i think the affordable -- the american jobs act has just what the doctor ordered if the republican majority would take it up. i yield back. . mr. garamendi:, in your community and my community, people want to go to work. they want to be part of the american machine. they want to have the

opportunity to provide the money for their family, take care of the needs. they take pride in their work. they're hardworking people. but they can't make it. and we have a long, long tradition in america that dates back really back to the very first day of the american modern government. the day george washington was sworn into office, he undertook an industrial policy. i know our republican colleagues like to talk about the founding fathers. they really ought to listen to the founding fathers. and if they had listened to the founding fathers they would have paid attention to the president's proposal on the american jobs act because here's what george washington did. he turned to his treasury secretary, alexander hamilton, and said, mr. hamilton, we need to grow this economy. we need to put people to work.

we need to be a strong nation, a strong economy. and i want you, mr. hamilton, to develop a policy to do that. hamilton came back a few months later with an industrial policy . about 13 different items on about five pages. now it would probably take 5,000 pages, but nonetheless he did it. you know what was in it? what was in that industrial policy that hamilton presented to washington and to congress and mostly implemented over the next decade or so were policies that -- let me put this back up. let's see here. how many of these were in it? and here's the great what if. there was a transportation part to those policies. in fact, two different ones. one, hamilton said if we're going to grow this economy we need to have good roads. we need to have good canales and we need to improve --

canals and we need to improve our ports. some of it by the national state, some of it by the federal government in a created the canal systems, put the roads in place and improved the ports of america. very beginnings of this nation. pay attention, my colleagues, who like to talk about the founding fathers. the founding fathers said, we need an america to have a transportation program. currency reform was on the agenda. yes, it was. hamilton, treasury secretary, said we need to pay attention to the currency issue. there was a huge fight going on at the time about federal bank, about the currency issues, but he said we needed a common currency and we need to be aware of the international exchanges, exchange rates that were going on so we would not be put at a disadvantage. there was a buy american program. hamilton told george washington, the founding fathers, that we need to put in

place a buy america provision. you just heard our colleague from oregon talk about a robust buy american provision. sometime before i end i'll talk about my piece of legislation that says if it's our tax dollars, it's going to be spent on american-made equipment and american jobs. we're not going to use our tax dollars to buy foreign equipment. that's precisely what alexander hamilton told george washington and the very first congress of this nation. and they began to implement it. energy efficiency wasn't there. he did, however, talk about this one. this was one of the 13. he said, we needed to have a robust research and development program. they called them patents at that time. we need to be ahead of everybody else. and he wanted to put in policies and they did become law. and here we have it today just on these issues alone, these six issues. the founding fathers said

transportation. they said watch the currency. they said buy america. and they said we need to be ahead with research and patents and be in the cutting edge of technology. what if? what if president barack obama's american jobs act had been taken up by the republican leadership that controls this house? what if they had listened to the founding fathers and actually implemented what the president wanted to put in place? 1.3 million. 1,300,000 jobs, perhaps as much as 1,900,000 jobs, americans would be working today. the great what if question of our time. what if they had listened to the founding fathers? mr. ellison, i know you have more to say, so please go for

it. mr. ellison: we would be quite a ways ahead. it's interesting today in the political rhetoric you hear, some people claim the founding fathers, but they don't claim the real founding fathers, the one who -- the ones who actually had the foresight to make america a strong economic country by making sure that the government played an important role in making sure our economy was working by promoting transportation, patents, currency protection and things like that. but i would say that, you know, as we work here today and as we think about all of the things that our nation needs, none are more important than putting americans back to work, i think, and the american jobs act is something, a plan set forth by the president, and he set this forth at a time when

he's reaching his hand out, he's extending his hand, he's trying to get the republican majority in the house to work with him but apparently they just won't do so because they have -- they have ideological and political considerations. one of those ideological things is they don't think the government is any good. doesn't think the government can do any good. doesn't think the government can help. so you see proposals and amendments to simply eliminate the federal roll out of transportation and, of course -- role out of transportation and, of course, we have seen it out of environmental protection and a whole host of things. you would think the reason we would have high unemployment is because of job-killing regulations. they love this refrain. i'm sure frank lunts is very proud. he's -- lunt glmbings is very proud. -- luntz is very proud. he comes up with these phrases. any small business person will tell you the key to their success is customers.

the key to customers is people who have jobs, who have some money to spend. you got no customers, and your customers are broke, then they're not going to buy your cakes, your pies. those folks are not going to be able to pay the taxes they need to keep our valued public employees working, teachers, firefighters, police officers, public health nurses, people who make the water and the meat safe to eat. and, you know, what we argue for, they like to throw around terms like socialism. what we argue for is a mixed economy, a balance between the private sector and government which enhances the performance of both, all in service to the american people. so today i am in favor of us getting a strong, long-term, six-year transportation bill. i am absolutely in favor of helping our students who are fearing that education is

getting out of their economic reach. absolutely we have to be there to reform currency, to level the playing field with china. we should buy american. what's wrong with buying american? i think buying american is good. i'd rather prefer buying american. in fact, whenever i get a product and it says made in america, i get a warm fuzzy all over. mr. garamendi: wouldn't you love to go into k-mart or target and see on the shelves made in america? mr. ellison: made in america. mr. garamendi: that's where the currency reform would -- mr. ellison: maybe we would make it if we made it in america. mr. garamendi: we have those middle-class jobs. mr. ellison: you know it. you know it. mr. garamendi: that's where it is. let me just do something here. this is part of the -- this is part of the -- mr. ellison, thank you very much. i know you have a plane. you have to get back to minneapolis. thank you so much for joining us. this is part of the democratic

agenda. this is something we have been working on for well over two years. and we call it make it in america. this is rebuilding the american middle class. this is about the american middle class coming back. over the last 20 years we've seen a decline in american manufacturing. in the early 1990 teas we were a little more than 19 million, almost 20 million americans were in the manufacturing sector. those were middle-class jobs. you can go to work, earn a living, live a middle-class life, by your bass boat. you know, take the kids on a vacation. today, we're just over 11 million. 11 million middle-class manufacturing jobs in america. so looking at this dismal situation couple years ago shortly after i arrived here, we began looking at, what do we

do about this? why did this happen? why is it that the american manufacturing sector declined? we did our studies, we did the economic analysis, but mostly we looked at public policy. we looked at the laws of this land. we looked at what was going on in the public policy sector, and what we found was the policies of this nation discouraged manufacturing and in fact rewarded american corporations that would offshore jobs. literally, actually giving american corporations a reduction in their taxes for every job they offshored. total about $16 billion a year. i know you don't believe that. how could there be such a policy, that was my question.

what? you mean to tell me that the tax policy of the united states gives a tax break to american corporations when they ship a job offshore? can't be. in fact it was. and so in the last year, the last months of the democrats control of this house in 2010, we undertook to change that. we put a bill on this floor that would eliminate $12 billion of that $16 billion tax break that american corporations had for offshoring jobs. it passed without one republican vote. not one member of the republican party voted to end a tax break for american companies that offshored jobs. senate took it up.

it passed. president obama signed that legislation. public policy matters. public policy matters a great deal. we talked here today about the buy america provisions. been in law for 30, 40 years. basically says if it's our taxpayer dollars it ought to be made to buy american-made equipment. over the years, probably beginning in the 1980's and carrying on, those provisions began to gain loopholes. one after another so that at the end of 2010, the loophole was 12-lane freeway that you could drive any project through and buy whatever you wanted to buy from wherever it came from. so much so that in san

francisco, the oakland bay bridge between oakland and san francisco had to be rebuilt because of earthquake safety issues. some of it fell down. the largest construction project, public works project ever in california. the main central steel column for a uniquely designed bridge, $1 billion or more, chinese steel, chinese welders, 6,000 jobs in china to save 10%. turns out the steel was faulty, the welds were faulty. the jobs were still in china and the inspectors were chinese. if we had a buy american

provision that meant anything at all we would have had 6,000 jobs in america. the inspectors would have been american. and there would be american jobs. so my legislation says this, h.r. -- house resolution 613 says that if it is your tax money it's going to be spent on american-made equipment, american-made steel and the jobs will be in america. . where's that bill? hasn't even been taken up for a hearing in the transportation committee. we are nibbling around the edges here. every bill that comes to this floor that's relevant to this issue, we try to shoehorn into it a buy american provision. we try to increase the buy

america laws. we try to make certain that your tax money's going to be spent on american made equipment. that's our agenda. have we been successful? no. no, we have not. when the half-baked worthless transportation bill that was brought to the floor by our republican colleagues, who could not even get agreement in their own caucus, we tried to put a provision, an amendment on. it was rejected. it was rejected. americans want to go to work. public policy matters. will your tax dollars be spent buying chinese steel? give you another example. in los angeles they went out to

buy new light railcars. two bids. the final bids. one by seamans, yes the german company who has a manufacturing plant for light railcars in sacramento, california. seimans said that their light railcars would have a minimum of 80% american made content. the japanese company came in and said, we'll do it for 60%. there was a slight difference. i think it was about 2%. the difference in the bids. so what did the m.t.a., metropolitan transportation authority do? they chose the japanese company. american jobs. lost immediately in sacramento.

as a result of that decision. now, whose money is going to be spent buying those cars? those light railcars? whose money is it? your money. it's your tax money. good for japan, they are going to get some jobs. bad for sacramento. layoffs already occurred. and more to come. you want another example? i just use california, that's where i'm from. the bay area rapid transit system, bart. $3.2 billion for new trains over 10 years. $3.2 billion. two bids. one from a fine canadian company said they would build them with 60% -- 66% american content. ok.

that's good. not good enough. because austin, a french company, said they would build them with 90% american made content. yes, a little more expensive. but we are talking $1 billion of american jobs here. the pay area rapid transit system said, well, the federal government says it's 60%, and we are going to have to go with 66%. i said, and thousands of californians said, and new yorkers where most of these jobs would be, austin has a plant in new york to manufacture light rail and heavy railcars, they said, wait. let's take two months. two months and let's rebid this. and let's see, let's see what we

can do. austin was prepared to lower their bid if they would have had an opportunity. and $1 billion, $1 billion of american jobs are not here. they are somewhere else around the world. public policy matters. public policy matters. i think it's about time to wrap up here. so i'm going to go back to where we started. what if? what if the house of representatives under the control of our republican colleagues, totally under their control, and the senate also under the control of the republicans because it takes 60 votes there, what if the president's american jobs act had been taken up and passed?

or modified. don't forget, it was fully paid for, 100% paid for. no increase in the devers. the economists said clearly, 1.1 million jobs would immediately result from the president's american jobs act. what if? what does it mean to you in your community? would that road have been built? would you have had the job? paving that road? repairing and painting that bridge? down at the local school painting the school, cleaning up the playgrounds, putting new toilets into the rest rooms. or specifically, a new

laboratory in the high school. not laboratory, not lavatory. what if? -- not lavatory but laboratory. what if? we put aside partisan politics and keep this in mind the republican leader of the senate, the day or shortly after the president was -- president obama was inaugurated he said that his number one goal was to make sure that this was a one-term president. so how do you do that? when the president proposes an american jobs act that would employ 1,300,000,000 americans immediately, you make certain that it doesn't become law. you slow it down. everything has to be 60 votes in the senate. here in this house you do not even take it up. you don't do a transportation bill. you don't take the $50 billion

injected immediately in infrastructure, totally paid for, you don't do it. even though that would employ tens of thousands of americans. you make certain that the 288,000 teachers that have been laid off across america are not rehired so that my daughter's classroom is not 22 students, it's 35 students. how do you destroy a president? you make certain that this economy doesn't move. you take his american jobs act and you sit on it. that's what's happened. the great what if. what if we put americans back to work? maybe obama would get re-elected, maybe i'd get re-elected.

but i'll tell you this, americans would be working. americans would be working. what if? mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 5890, an act to correct a technical error in public law 112-122. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california have a motion? mr. garamendi: of course i do. we ought to go home. madam speaker, i note that having accomplished absolutely nothing this week on jobs, we may as well adjourn and i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is adopted.

accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on also there, information on the nation's governors and president obama's cabinet. you can take up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. [applause]

>> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, mark the 23rd anniversary of ronald reagan's speech in west germany. also, our series "the contenders" -- 14 political figures that changed political history. this sunday, james blaine. >> they are often referred to as the conscious of the congress, and having worked there for almost two years i cannot think of a better name. >> executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus angela rye. >> it is designed to make sure members of congress who are african-american can come together on issues that are plaguing the community at large.

it is a way to discuss legislative solutions and proposals to advance the causes of people that do not have a voice. >> more with angela rye sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> president obama called claims of the white house was involved in making national security information offensive and wrong and said his it administration has zero tolerance for leaking classified information and will investigate the release of drone and cyber attacks on terrorism information. the president spoke on the state of the u.s. economy, urging congress to pass the remaining parts of the american jobs that. this is about 30 minutes. >> morning. -- good morning. i just want to say a few words about the economy, and then i

will take some of your questions. today, we are fighting back from the deepest economic crisis since the great depression. after losing jobs for 25 months in a row, our businesses have created jobs for 27 months in a row, 4.3 million new jobs in all. the fact is job growth in this recovery has been stronger than in the one following the last recession one decade ago, but the whole we have to fill is much deeper and the aftershocks have been greater, so we have to keep on pressing with actions to strengthen the economy. one concern is europe, which faces the threat of a renewed recession. this matters to us because europe is our largest economic trading partner. if there is less demand for our products it could mean less business for manufacturers in

places like the spring or milwaukee. there is a path out of this challenge. the decisions are fundamentally in the hands of europe's leaders and they understand the urgent need to act. i've been in contact with them over the past several weeks and we know there are steps they can take to prevent the situation from getting worse. in the short term, they have to stabilize their financial system. part of that is taking clear action as soon as possible to inject capital into weak banks. just as important, leaders can lay out a framework and a vision for a stronger eurozone. getting there is going to take time, but showing political commitment will be a strong step. with respect to greece, which has important collections next

weekend, we've said it is in everyone's interest for greece to remain in the eurozone while respecting commitments to reform. we recognize sacrifices they have made and leaders understand the need to provide support if the greek people choose to remain in the eurozone. they also need to recognize that there hardships will likely be worse if they choose to exit from the eurozone. over the longer term, even as countries with debt half -- they have to promote economic debt and job creation. as some have discovered it is harder to rein in deficits if your economy is growing. it is positive the conversation has moved in that direction and leaders like angela merkel and francois hollande are willing to put in place a growth agenda alongside responsible plans.

the bottom line is solutions are hard, but there are solutions. the decisions are tough. the europeans have the capacity to make them, and they have america's support. their success is good for us, and the sooner they act, the sooner that markets and people will regain confidence and the cheaper the costs of cleanup will be down the road. in the meantime, given the signs of weakness in the world economy, not just in europe, but also some softening in asia, it is critical that we take the actions we can to strengthen the american economy right now. last september, i sent congress a detailed jobs plan full of the kind of bipartisan ideas that would put more americans back to work. it had broad support from the american people, it was fully paid for. if congress had passed it in full, we would be on track to have 1 million more americans

working this year. the unemployment rate would be lower, our economy would be stronger. of course, congress refused to pass this jobs plan in full. they did act on a few parts of the bill, most significantly the payroll tax cut that is putting more money in every working person's paycheck right now, and i appreciate them taking that action. but they left most of the jobs plan just sitting there, and in light of the headwinds we're facing right now, i urge them to reconsider. there are steps we can take right now to put more people back to work. they are not just my ideas, not just a democratic ideas. they are ideas that independent, non-partisan economists believe would make a real difference in our economy. keep in mind that the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace last 24 months. cit over the last 27 months, -- or the last 27 months,but one of

the biggest weakness is half in the state and local governments, which have laid off for order to be thousand -- has been and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 americans. giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring. in addition, since the housing bubble burst, we have more than 1 million construction workers out of work. there is nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix your roof until it caves in. we have a lot of deferred maintenance in this country, and we could be putting a lot of people back to work fixing roads and bridges and schools. there is work to be done, there are workers to do it. let's put them back to work right now. the housing market is stabilizing and beginning to come back in many parts of the country, but there are still millions of responsible homeowners who have done everything right but still struggle to make ends meet. as i talk to buy just a few weeks ago, l -- as i talked about just a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them the chance to refinance their mortgage and take advantage of historically low

rates. it's something we could do right now, it would make a difference. instead of just talking a good game about job. -- job creators as, congress should give the small business owners that actually create the jobs in america a tax break to hire more workers. these are ideas that come again, have gotten strong delegation from independent -- strong validation and independent, non-partisan economists, would make a difference in our economy, and there is no excuse for not passing these ideas. if congress decides, despite all that, that they will not do anything about this because it is an election year, they should explain to the american people why. there will be plenty of time to debate our respective plans for the future. that is a debate i am eager to have. but right now, people in this

town should be focused on doing everything we can to keep the recovery going and keeping our country strong, and that requires action on the part of congress. i would urge them to take another look at the ideas that have already been put forward. with that, i am going to take a couple of questions, and i will start with you, who was with orders, but as we know, is about to -- with reuters but as we know, is about to get a fancy job with "national journal." congratulations to you. >> do you think that european leaders have a handle on what is needed to stem the crisis? you talked about a number of ideas to put forth to shield the american economy. do you plan to give a speech or that additional ideas now that the crisis seems to be escalating? >> a couple of things. first of all, the situation in europe is not simply a debt crisis. you have some countries like greece that generally -- genuinely have to spend more

than they are bringing in, and they have problems. there are countries that were running a surplus and had fairly responsible fiscal policies but had weakness is similar to what happened here with respect to the housing market or real-estate markets, and that is wea and -- has weakened the financial system. it is not simply a debt crisis. what is true is that the markets, getting nervous, have started making it much more expensive for them to borrow, and that gets them on the downward spiral. we have been in constant contact with europe over the last -- in leaders - -- european leaders -- over the last three years, and we've consulted with them both at the head of government and head of state level. i frequently speak to leaders not only in formal settings

like the g8, but also on the telephone or via videoconference, and our economic teams have gone over there to consult. as i said in my opening remarks, the challenges they face are solvable. right now the focus has to be on strengthening their overall banking system, much in the same way we did back in 2009 and 2010, making a series of decisive actions that give people confidence that the banking system is solid, capital requirements are being met, various stresses that may be out there can be of torpor by the system. -- can be absorbed by the system. i think the leaders are in discussions about that and are moving in the right direction. in addition, they have to look

at how they achieve growth at the same time they are carrying out structural reforms that may take two or three or five years to fully accomplished. countries like spain and italy, for example, have embarked on smart structural reforms that everybody thinks are necessary, everything from tax collection to labor markets to a whole list of different issues. but they have to have the time and space for those steps to succeed. if they are just cutting and cutting and cutting and the unemployment rate is going up and up and up, and people are pulling back for their f -- pulling back further from spending money, that will make it harder for them to carry out reforms in the long term. there is discussion now about, in addition to sensible ways to deal with the debt and

government finances, there is a parallel discussion taking place among european leaders to figure out how do we also encourage growth and show some flexibility to allow some of these reforms to take root? now, keep in mind that this, obviously, can have a potential impact on us, because europe is our largest trading partner. the good news is that a lot of the work we did in 2009 and 2010 put our financial system on a much more solid footing. our insistence on increasing capital requirements for banks means that they can absorb some of the stocks that might come from across the atlantic. -- someo f the shocks -- some of the shocks that might come from across the atlantic. folks in the financial sector have been analyzing this and are prepared for a range of contingencies. but even if we were not

directly hit in the sense that our financial system stayed solid, if europe goes into recession, that means we are selling fewer goods, fewer services, and that is going to have some impact on the pace of our recovery. we want to do everything we can to make sure that we are supportive of what european leaders are talking about. ultimately, it is edition they have to make in terms of how to move forward -- it is a decision they have to make in terms of how to move forward and accomplish the needs of reform and growth. the most important thing we can do is make sure that we continue to have strong, robust recovery. the steps that i have outlined are the ones that are needed. there are a couple of sectors in our economy that are still weak. overall, the private sector has been doing a good job creating

jobs. we have seen record profits in the corporate sector. the big challenge we have in our economy right now is that state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction. you have seen teacher layoffs, cops, firefighters being laid off. the other sector that is still weak has been the construction industry. those two areas we have directly addressed without jobs plan. the problem is that it requires congress to take action, and we will keep pushing to see if they move in that direction. jackie calmes. where'd jackie go? >> i want to know if you agree with former president bill clinton who said in the past week that the european policies

being described here today are much like those of the republicans in this country, the politics of austerity that would take us in the same direction as europe. the republicans come up for their part, have said that you simply blaming the europeans for problems that have been caused by your own policies. i would like you to respond to both of those, and also, tell us precisely how much time you personally spent on the european situation. >> any other aspects of the question? [laughter] um -- [laughter] first of all, in terms of the amount of time i spend, i think it is is fair to say that over the last two years, i've been in consistent discussions with european leadership and consistent discussions with my economic team. this is one of the things that

has changed in the world economy over the last two or three decades, is that this is a global economy now, and what happens anywhere in the world can have an impact here in the united states. certainly that is true after the kind of, we saw in 2008 and 2009. you know, if you think about the situation in europe, they are going through a lot of the things we went through in 2009, 2010, where we took some very decisive action. the challenge is there is that they 17 governments that have to court and ei -- coordinate. that makes things more challenging. what we have tried to do is be constructive, to not frame this

as us scolding them are telling them what to do, but to give them advice based in part on our experiences here, having stabilized the financial situation effectively. ultimately, though, they are going to have to make a lot of these decisions, and what we can do is prod, advise, suggests. ultimately, they are going to have to make these decisions. what is absolutely true -- this is true in europe, true here in the united states -- is that we've got short-term problems and long-term problems. the short-term problems are how do we put people back to work out how we make the economy grow as rapidly as possible, how do

we ensure that the recovery gains momentum, because if we do those things, not only is it good for the people who find work, not only is it good for families to help them pay the bills, but it actually is one of the most important things we can do to reduce deficits and debt. it is in lot easier to deal with deficits and debt when you are growing, because you are bringing in more revenue and you are not spending as much because people don't need unemployment insurance as much, they don't need other programs that are providing support to people in need, because things are going to get. -- going pretty good. that is true in the united

states and and he europe. the problem president clinton identified is that when the economy is still weak and the economy is still fragile, you resort to a strategy of let's cut more, so that you are seeing government layoffs, reductions in government spending, severe cutbacks in major investments that helped the economy grow over the long term -- if you do all those things at the same time as consumers are pulling back because they are still trying to pay off credit-card debt, and there is generally weak demand in the economy as a whole, you can get on a downward spiral where everybody is pulling back at the same time, that weakens demand, and that further crimps the desire of companies to hire more people. that is the pattern that europe

is in danger of getting into. some countries in europe right now have an unemployment rate of 15, 20%. if you are engaging in too much austerity too quickly, and that unemployment rate goes up to 20 or 25%, that actually makes it harder for them to pay off your debts. and the markets, by the way, respond when they see this type downward spiral happening -- they start making the calculation that if you are not growing at all, you are contracting, you will have trouble paying us off, we will charge you more, your interest rates go up, and it makes it that much tougher. i think that what we want, but for ourselves but what we have advised in europe as well, is a strategy that says let's do everything we can get to grow now even as we locked in a

long-term plan to stabilize our debt and our deficits and start bringing them down in a steady, sensible way. by the way, that is what we proposed last year, that is what has been proposed in my budget. what i said is that make long- term spending cuts make long-term reforms, let's make sure we have a pathway to fiscal responsibility, but at the same time let's not under-invest in the things we need to do right now and the recipe of short-term investments in growth and jobs with a long-term path of fiscal responsibility is the right

approach to take four, i think, not only the united states, but also for europe. >> republicans saying you are blaming europeans for the failure of your own policy? >> the truth is we have created $4.3 million needed jobs for the past 23 months, over 800,000 this year alone. the private sector is doing fine. where we see weakness is in the state and local government, often times in the cuts initiated by governors or mayors that are not getting the kind of help they have in the past from the federal government and do not have the same flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues

coming in. so, if republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help industries because what they are promoting policies that would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market and would result, i think most economists estimate, in slower growth and fewer jobs, not more. all right? >> there are reports of terrorists killed.

there are reports of cyber attacks on iranian nuclear program said you ordered. what is your reaction to the information getting out in public and lawmakers accusing you of leaking the details to support your reelection bid? >> first of all, i will not comment on the details of what are supposed to be classified items. second, as commander-in-chief, the issues that you have mentioned touch on our national security, critical issues of war and peace, and they are classified for a reason, because they are sensitive and because

the people involved may, in some cases, be he in danger in these missions -- be in danger in these missions. when this information or reports, whether true or false, surface on the front page of newspapers, that makes the job of folks on the front lines tougher, and it makes my job tougher. that is why since i have been in office my attitude has been the zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation. now, we have mechanisms in place where if we can root out folks that have leaked, they will

suffer consequences. in some cases these are criminal acts when they released information like this and we will conduct thorough investigations as we have in the past. the notion that my white house would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. it is wrong and, you know, people, i think, have the better sense of how i approach this office and how people around me approach this office. we are dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and security of the american people, our families, or our

military personnel, or our allies, so we do not play with that. it is a source of consistent frustration at not just from my administration but from previous administrations when this stuff happens, and we will continue to let everyone know in government, or after they leave government that they have certain obligations. as i think has been indicated by these articles, whether or not the information they receive is true, the writers have stated it did not come from this white house and that is not how we operate. >> is the investigation going on now? is that what you are saying? >> what i'm saying is we

consistently, whenever there is classified information that is put out into the public, we try to find out where that came scrum. ok? thank you -- where that came from. ok? thank you barry much, everybody. -- thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house speaker john boehner and majority leader eric cantor responded to the president's comments and mr. john boehner said the house would vote to extend current tax rates. this is just over five minutes. >> good morning, everyone. mr. president, take it from me,

the private sector is not doing well. listen, the american people are still asking, where are the jobs? stopping the looming tax hikes will help job creators because they will have more certainty about what the tax rates are going to be and it will create a better environment for them to create jobs. we will vote next month on extending all the current tax rates and the president should assure the nation that when the bill gets to his desk he will sign it into law. we know that the president is making it harder with the health-care bill law for companies to hire and we are learning more about the back room deals that led to its passage. e-mails obtained show the white house treated billions of dollars in policy concessions to pharma for millions of dollars

worth of advertising. the administration created and managed a super pac paid for by pharma and run by the west wing of the white house. this is wrong and the administration must be held accountable for their actions. >> good afternoon. as the speaker said, we just listened to the president said the private sector is doing fine and my question would be to the president, are you kidding? the private sector is not doing fine. frankly, i would ask the president to stop engaging in the blame game. it is not because of the headwinds of europe. it is not despite of his attempts in congress, it is not because of house republicans.

it is because of failed stimulus policies and other items in his agenda that small businesses in this country just are not growing, and we know, as the speaker said, it is to talk to start a small business. small businesses are facing uncertainty, facing the prospect of the largest tax increase in history, on end but did -- connected with health care costs because of obama-care, and uncertainty because of a hostile regulatory posture taken by the obama administration in washington. our summer agenda will be focused on making the environment better for small business men and women to grow and create jobs in this country. we will take a bill to the floor that will ensure that taxes will not go on anyone. we will take several measures to the for the begin to cut red tape and roll back regulations this administration continues to turn out, making it more difficult for businesses to

create jobs. yes, we will take to the floor a bill that calls for a total repeal of obama-care so we can start over, tell the american people we are on your side, we care about your health care, and we want quality care and affordable price because many americans are looking for that to happen. >> do you think the lack of federal money to state and federal jobs is hurting the economy? >> i believe the government continues to spend money we do not have. the fact is was looming tax hikes and regulations coming out of washington we have frozen employers in place. if he would have a moratorium on regulations and expend all of the current tax rates we would free employers, provide more certainty for them to go out and begin to hire american people. [unintelligible]

>> europe is a drag on the economy? >> europe is a problem. there is no question. it is providing a liquidity issue to the global economy. there is certainly a sense that governments on that continent are not addressing their problems and it should signal to all of us that we have to get serious. we have continued to put forth solutions, to tell the truth and say we are here to solve problems. >> just because europe has problems does not mean we cannot begin to solve our problems. we can help american job creators by taking the actions we have outlined. there is no excuse why we should wait for the convenience of an election. let's get to work. >> part of the reason you are in the situation [unintelligible]

second, -- [unintelligible] >> the reason here is in the shape they are in is because they waited too long to deal with their problems, so that is why i was insistent that we deal with our deficit and debt problem and called for us to address our deficit and debt problem. remember, it is bedecked in europe. if we do not get busy dealing with our debt, we will be in the same shape. we have time to deal with this, but understand that the debt is also tied to jobs. this $16 trillion worth of debt is like a wet blanket over our economy, schering and players of all size, and if you want to create more certainty, let's expand tax rates, stop the regulatory onslaught and deal with our debt. we will give jobs created the

freedom to create the jobs they want to create. thank you. >> tonight, president obama news conference on claims of the white house was involved in leaking national security information. he said they will conduct an investigation into the release of information on drone attacks and cyber attacks against terrorism. you can see the remarks added o'clock p.m. eastern on c-span. also, the congressional correspondents dinner. it will hear remarks from comedian wayne grady and house speaker john boehner. this past week first lady michelle obama and ann romney were on the campaign trail, speaking in support of their husbands presidential campaigns. it started it 8:00 p.m. eastern in virginia with michelle obama

who talked about her family and women's health issues. it is followed by remarks to cuban-americans by ann romney in miami. you can see both tonight and c- span 2. >> two days of live coverage this weekend on booktv. starting saturday, the making of present-day chicago. rich cohen, when people shouted yankee go home, they had him in mind. and, r. dwayne betss coming to age. at two o'clock, the story to tell in "watergate, a novel." also, madeleine albright in growing up in nazi-occupied

czechoslovakia. >> the be-52, everyone thinks back to vietnam. they think linebacker operations. they think the cold war, there is a different kind of power associated with the be-52. >> you had union and confederate fronts, they fought against each other in 1862, and here they are at age 100 talking about the old days. >> we of one to the east marked 901. to the west, it is marked 9 03. they really reference the moment of the bomb which was at 9:00 02. >> watch the travels of c-span's local content vehicles and look for the history and literary culture of our next stop in

jefferson city, missouri. >> to a discussion now on a study looking at the potential effects of pending sequester cuts from this morning and tell "washington journal." >> made our final guest, steve bell. this town gets wrapped around big words. defined sequestration. guest: across the board cuts. this? guest: in 1985 the said we need to have process, and that is the first time i heard the word sequestration as across the board cuts. we have been signed into law by

president reagan, but that was the first and only significant sequestration, so for 25 years it has been dormant. host: is a useful to study what happened to the economy after the first round of cuts? guest: probably not. we're in the middle of the recovery and not have the same problems. the united states was a superpower, so this is different. host: i am guessing that people watch this not work watch congress closely, but sequestration is discussed because of what sequence of events? guest: in 2011, the new congress came in and they wanted to cut spending, especially in the house and they passed a bill that they thought would save $33 billion.

it only saves about $432 million dollars. they were angry about that, especially in the republican caucus. the debt ceiling was been reached, which means the united states could not pay all of their debts on time and in full. using that debt with the vote which is required in the house and the senate, they put together something called the joint select committee a committee of 12 the deliberated four days and days, months and months, and came up with nothing. if they came up with nothing, automatic cuts of $1.20 trillion would take effect january 2 of this coming year. host: congress often treats these as a trigger to act. in this case it did not work? guest: it is a great idea except it does not attack the

national debt and our spending, which makes our debt go up. two, it takes one of the% of the cuts out of 33% -- 100% of the cuts out of 33% of our budget and does not touch medicare and medicaid. host: your study released this week projects these automatic cuts could cost up to 1 million jobs. how does that work? guest: it is starting right now. when we say project, we need to understand it is starting now. contractors are required to tell people that sub-contract when they will get their contracts, will it be renewed? they are telling sub- contractors that i am not sure

in five months i could give you the same contract i gave you before. as that goes down the line, what happens to small businesses especially, is they suffer losses and we have seen the pentagon has slowed down its contract in and procurement schedule. if you are a budget officer and you have been told by the office of management and budget to presume you will get 5% less, the contractor slows down, you will not take any chances. bet: i'm sure some will happy to see that defense contractors are hiring fewer people. why you think it is a bad thing? guest: we are in the most fragile economic recovery since the great depression. europe is collapsing and already in a recession.

china has slowed down. this does not seem like the time to cut the 1 million jobs out of the economy. host: your organization is called the bipartisan policy center. people always call themselves bipartisan and it is really just a tag line. is your organization truly bipartisan? guest: sherer. -- sure. we had a democratic congressman on the task force. we had jim jones, who was national security adviser under mr. obama, and the former head of the budget committee. we had a republican, a former obama administration official,

and a former clinton department official. host: why did you put the task force together? guest: we were concerned, those of us that wrote the first sequester, seven or eight of us still alive in this town, we were concerned that this was misunderstood by congress, put together in a rush and we will have devastating consequences at a time when our economy is really growing slowly, despite what everyone wants to say. host: the report has a longer headline. here is the official title. we will only skimmed the surface in this short time.

let's get to calls. the concern that automatic spending cuts might effect as many as 1 million jobs according to a report produced by a bipartisan policy center. houston, texas. democrat. gail, you're on the line. caller: first of all, i want to sit i apologize. i'm telling a white lie. what happened to all of the truth from the newscasters? when walter cronkite was sotheby's he presented actual truth. host: i am not following you. what is your topic? caller: lies. host: are you referring to our last section above leaks?

caller: people that run for office did not tell the truth and no one is correcting them. host: we're talking about the economy. william, republic -- marie, republican in west virginia. caller: i think that most of these government contractors are stealing the country blind because their only interest is soft interest and they don't really give a hoot about patriotism and the country as a whole. they have a selfish you point. iewpoint.

guest: that is an extraordinary charge. most defense contractors i have dealt with including former staff that worked for me not only served in the military, but are truly deep patriots. i think to tar everyone with a brush in the defense industry is going to far and is a little bit of a caricature. yesterday, the former national security adviser to president obama said there are lots of areas where savings could be made in the department of defense, and i think that even the most profit-oriented member of some business that is a defense contractor would agree. it is the only agency that cannot be audited because things are so messed up and everyone on our test scores agrees we