Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  June 19, 2012 10:00am-1:00pm EDT

10:00 am
under 13. certain kind of financial information. this is a space that is largely unregulated. the question here is are regulations necessary? certainly sec come out in favor of this. the obama administration has released consumer privacy bill rates.
10:01 am
tracking. >> tying into that, they say sharing information should be against the law. we have been talking about her story looking about targeting voters on line. thank you so much for joining us this morning. >> it was a pleasure. >> we will now go to the floor of the house of representatives, where they are in mourning hour. mr. blumenauer: thank yo u, today on capitol hill, there are hundreds of nurses, chaplains and social workers, the people who deliver hospice care at the bed side here to promote an honest discussion and careful analysis of how to help individuals and their families grabble with the final
10:02 am
chap -- grapple with the final chapter in life. it is the fear that invokes can be a powerful weapon. for most of us, the majority of health care we receive in our lifetime will be administered in those last few months. it's when we need the most doctors and nursing care, medical procedures and oftentimes in hospitals. we know from scientific studies that when patients are educated about their treatment options they make decisions that are not only aligned with their personal preferences but shared decisionmaking relieves stress and anxiety. ironiccally, sometimes getting the less intensive care, like in a hospice, not only improves the quality of life, these patients, many of them actually live longer. it is perverse that medicare will pay for almost any medical procedure yet not reimburse doctors to have a thoughtful conversation to prepare patients and their families for the delicate, complex and emotionally demanding decisions surrounding the end of life.
10:03 am
that's why i sought to direct medicare in the affordable care act to cover a voluntary discussion with a doctor about living wills, power of attorney and end of live preferences. helping families clarify what they want and need should be an element of any rational comprehensive health care system. despite our recent history, it's also a rare common denominator in health care politics because it's something that most people actually agree on. in fact, the majority of my republican colleagues supported a similar provision for terminally ill elderly patients that was part of the 2003 prescription drug bill. i had a friend of mine, a republican cardiovascular surgeon here in the house who told me he had many end of life conversations, but unfortunately they were often too late. he wished he could have spoken
10:04 am
to patients and their families when they could properly reflected, not just when the surgery was merely hours away. during the early debates on the aktakt, i thought we were making -- affordable care act, i thought it was something that would bring us together because of the shared agreement. but unfortunately battle lines were drawn and you know how the rest of that story went -- death panels, rationing, forced consultation. in war, truth is the first casualty. the same goes for politics. as a country we have a difficult time talking rationally and thoughtful ly about end of life issues. that's why -- thoughtfully about end of life issues. that's why it's so important that we have these dedicated people on capitol hill today, the hospice workers, the nurses
10:05 am
to have this thoughtful conversation from people who do it every day. their work to help patients and families can help congress understand that the work is not finished. i urge my colleagues to take a look at the personalize your health care act, h.r. 1589. join me in making sure that the federal government is a better partner in helping families prepare for this difficult chapter. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. today a number of us are rising to commemorate an individual out of the now more than 2,000 who have lost their lives during operation enduring freedom. i would like to submit for the record 11 names of brave service members who were recently killed in afghanistan.
10:06 am
today i'd like to recognize a man in particular who is not counted in the,000. sergeant tom, a combat veteran, took his own life on may 10, 2010, at camp lejeune marine base in north carolina. tom's wounds were mental, but he is no less a casualty of the war in afghanistan. tom is not counted in this 2,000 number speaks to the fact that our country does not fully understand the effects that a generation of war has had on those who fought it. we do not understand the future cost of care for caring over 300,000 returning veterans with mental wounds. tom's death, like those of the 154 active duty service members who took their lives at a rate of one per day this year was preventable. tom left behind a wife, katie, and two children. today, katie is working towards becoming a mental health
10:07 am
counselor so she can support the thousands of veterans coming home today with mental wounds. we should be aspired by her efforts. mr. speaker, i want to share with the house a letter that katie wrote to her husband, tom , who died in may, and she wrote this letter august 23, 2011. these are her words. i wonder what life would be like if you didn't die that day. i wonder what we would be doing right now in this very moment instead. i hate playing the what if game, but i'm playing it any way right now. i could really use a hug and kiss from you. i love the way you kiss me. i wish your arms were around me right now. i guess wishing is all i can do. love always, katie. mr. speaker, it's time now that our congress stands up and
10:08 am
says, let's bring our troops home now. let's start the process -- if we brought them home now, it will still take months, maybe even years, but 2014 is the date that the president says we'll start bringing them home. then, there's also going to be a security agreement with afghanistan. 10 years spending about $4 billion a month, we need to be spending that money to take care of our wounded, both physically and mentally veterans. we need to start spending that money here in america and build our streets and roads and bridges. mr. speaker, it is time that the congress do its job based on the constitution. we have the authority based on the constitution. i don't know how many this poster of sergeant bagacy, and his wife, katie, how many -- how many are coming back from afghanistan and those who came
10:09 am
back from iraq that are mentally wounded. it's time that this congress start thinking about the wounded and think about the families who lost loved ones in afghanistan and iraq. let's not cheat them out of their benefits because we want to spend money in afghanistan that we can't even count for by the inspector general. mr. speaker, i will at this time ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who've given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. ask god to please bless the house and senate to do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today. i ask god to please bless the president of the united states to do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today. i ask god three times to continue to please bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman
10:10 am
from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, unless congress acts in the next 11 days, the interest rates for the subsidized stafford loan program will increase from 3.4% to 6.8%. it has topped the $1 trillion number, according to the federal reserve bank. this is a program which will provide relief for over seven million college students who literally today are already trying to budget for next fall's semesters at colleges and universities, two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and yet this congress left for 10 days, up until yesterday, with another recess, the ninth recess this year. this number, 11 days until the rate hike increases, should probably be six days because that's all the number of days that the speaker has scheduled between now and july 1. how do we get to this point? in 2007, when the democrats controlled the congress, we
10:11 am
voted for the college cost reduction act with republican support that cut the rates for the subsidized stafford student loan program from 6.8% to 3.4%. that helped over 15 million college kids over the last five years. it was a sunset measure, like many other bills that pass in this congress, and last july 25, on that podium, president obama challenged this congress to avoid allowing that rate to double on july 1. for three solid months, we had absolutely no action in this congress. no hearings, no harkup, no bill. luckily external pressure was exercised on this chamber. we had 130,000 college students drop off petition signatures to the speaker, demanding action, and finally the speaker rushed a bill to the floor without a hearing, without a markup, a totally hyperpartisan bill that did delay the rate hike for one
10:12 am
year, and yet was paid for with a measure that was so unacceptable, cutting programs and funding for cervical cancer screenings, diabetes screening, cardiac screening. it was dead on arrival. there was a flicker of acknowledgment that there was a real problem out there for middle-class families around the country. now, on january 5, when the president announced his challenge to the congress, i introduced legislation before midnight that night which would have locked in the lower rate at 3.4%. we have 152 co-sponsors in the house for that measure and in the senate there is a back and forth going on right now for a one-year extension which again there are hopeful signs. leader reid, harry reid, introduced a measure with a pay-for which was not greeted with immediate criticism and denounceation. so there is actually a chance that between now and july 1 we can come together and do our job and actually be here to work on the people's business
10:13 am
to make sure that, again, seven million college kids don't see their interest rates spike at a time when student loan debt, again, has shattered all records. the stakes could not be higher. the graduation rates have fallen to 12th in the world. we were number one in the 1980's. there are a variety of reasons to explain that but the high cost of college is one of those reasons. and we are seeing an alarming trend of individuals who take on debt to go to college and then never get their degrees. debt without a degree is an almost death sentence in terms of a lifetime of struggling, in terms of trying to get ahead. and we as a congress have a responsibility to make sure that that doesn't happen or at least doesn't add to the problem by allowing these rate hikes to go into effect on july 1. again, mr. speaker, if you look historically at the stafford student loan program, if you look historically at the pell grant program, if you look historically at the land grant program, instituted by
10:14 am
president abraham lincoln, this is an issue that we have always been able to put aside partisanship and move forward together to make sure that the real crown jewels of our country, which is our people, particularly our young people, is always protected, and that test is now before us over the next 11 days. let's do the right thing. let's work together. let's compromise and come up with a plan to protect seven million college kids and for once send a signal to the people of this country that we are listening and that we are actually responding to critical needs that face this nation's future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tex, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: request unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, our nation's income tax system is a giant mess.
10:15 am
it's complicated, it's not fair, it's outdated and not everyone follows the law. hypothetically, suppose tomorrow the president issued an edict from the white house directing the i.r.s. not to enforce tax laws for certain special people. for example, people under the age of 30. why? maybe the president just doesn't like the law so he issues that new order. well, mr. speaker, last friday, much to the surprise of all of us who believe in the constitution and the separation of powers, something very similar did happen. in his latest friday afternoon surprise, the president issued a decree unilateral discarding the law of the land. the president disagrees with the law and since he had to have his way in spite of the constitution he improperly ordered his way to be the law of the land. the president's temporary amnesty plan applies to those who are under 30 years of age. they also can obtain a work permit. it would be nice if the
10:16 am
president was as concerned about the 23 million americans who are looking for work in america as he is about the 12 million undocumented individuals the president claims are looking for work in america. news reports even show 50% of new college graduates can't even find work. mr. speaker, here is a chart we all saw probably in ninth grade civics class. the bill is filed in the house. if the house of representatives debates it and passes the bill, it goes down the hallway to the senate, and they discuss and vote on a bill and if they pass the bill it becomes the law if the president signs it. we call that the law of the land. but the president, it seems, has ignored most of this and just issued new orders from the white house, not paying any attention to the senate or to the house of representatives. mr. speaker, like most of us learned in ninth grade civic's class, it's congress' job to write laws and the president's
10:17 am
job to execute the law. that means enforce the law. it does not supposed to mean that he ignores the law, like kings do. once upon a time the president even claimed to believe in the constitution. here's what he said last year. with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. but that was a year ago. that was then and this is now. the president doesn't -- if the president doesn't believe he likes the law, he can ignore it, come up with his own set of rule. our founders envisioned a country where freedom was protected from government and was limited from the policies of kings. you see, oh, king george iii of england did that without the consent of the people. that was one of the reasons why we rebelled against the merry ole king of england. our ancestors structured the
10:18 am
that law. the immigration system needs fixing. congress should do its job and fix the problem. in the meantime, the president should do his job, not ours and he should enforce the law. otherwise, we have lawlessness in america. the president says he can use prosecution -- prrl discretion to not enforce -- prosecutial discretion to not enforce laws. i dealt with that as a former prosecutor and judge. it is when a prosecutor does not prosecute a specific case because the accused is innocent. there is insufficient evidence, witnesses have disappeared, the government violated the rights of the accused, etc. prosecutial discretion cannot be used to ignore a specific law because the government just doesn't like the law. it is true through no fault of
10:19 am
their own, young undocumented individuals are here as a result of decades of a failed broken immigration system. but the president has no interest in fixing what is broken. he's more concerned with picking up a few votes to further his re-election. the law gets in the way so his policies look like it comes from an emperor instead of a president. what new orders will be issued next week by the president and the white house? is he going to ignore the tax code for some in the name of prosecutial discretion? i guess it depends on what pushes him to new orders and decree. we shall see. stay tuned for another day and life of the republic. it's time for the farmer, constitutional professor to follow the constitution. not make up his own rules during his on-the-job training. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes.
10:20 am
ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i had the pleasure of chairing the congressional children's caucus for a number of years, founding it almost a decade ago. delighted to have as part of our agenda a number of issues dealing with mentoring, nutrition, obesity, issues dealing with now phenomenon that is raging across our nation, bullying, and introduce legislation just six months and now revised legislation that deals with renewing the juvenile accountability block grant and as well providing for intervention on these issues. i'm looking forward to bipartisan support because as we've seen statistics across america, children as young as pre-k and kindergarten can now interpret actions as bullying. we need to give help and relief
10:21 am
to school districts and parents and families and now a public statement that that action is inpistol herbal, and -- intolerable and we want them to go places that will find comfort and enjoyment as a child. that brings me also to my commitment to science, technology, engineering and math. i was very pleased to be involved in a program that provided opportunity for sixth and seventh grade boys at risk. it gave them math and science in the morning with what we call the smart board. then the afternoon, they played with college football players and learned the skills of football with various sports leagues. and, of course, we had the corporate support. so i raise the good friend, halliburton, and asked their c.e.o., who is supportive of this program last summer, to recognize the value, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and respond to the needs of these inner city boys
10:22 am
in houston, a place where the company is located, with so many employees. i am reminded when k.b.r. was owned by halliburton and they lost employees in iraq tradgecally. it was my intent to go and respond to that crisis and to give my sympathy. that's the way we are as neighbors. but they are not acting neighborly now, and there are a number of boys, same kind of children that i see that come here to washington all the time , of course, these at-risk boys probably have never been outside houston, but there are school districts across the city, and isn't it a shame that we can't get a response, to be able to support these children? so i asked the c.e.o. to respond to these at-risk boys. i'll certainly be looking forward to engaging and making
10:23 am
sure it happens. it's very important. and i understand that there has been some question about an executive order that deals with helping children, again, across this nation, children who've come to the united states not of their own accord brought by their parents who have been here since the age of 16, who have attempted, like many children that i see, to do the right thing, to get a high school diploma, to be in the united states service, to get a go-ahead. and this issue has been -- to get a g.e.d. and this issue has been before the congress for many years. it passed through the house, moved to the senate, as instructed, and the senate refused to move forward on something called the dream act. if you look at all our cases and our caseload and in our districts, particularly those of us in the southwest, tons of cases that would bring tears to your eyes. children being deported or separated.
10:24 am
let me tell you there is a regulatory scheme under the homeland security department that allows discretionary determination about deportation or whether or not someone should go into deportation. these are children. the president did the right thing. by having an executive order that utilizes the powers by the secretary of homeland security under the code of federal regulations to be able to use that discretion. the right thing to do. but congress, it's not too late, my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to come forward and support the dream act that has been introduced over and over again, that had bipartisan support. in fact, it's not too late to help the farmers, to help the high-tech industry and pass comprehensive immigration reform. who are we other than americans who are humanitarians, who are empathetic, who love the values of this flakes and believe in opportunity? -- of this nation and believe in opportunity? i don't want to allow a few children to be saved from deportation when they have --
10:25 am
whether they come from south and central america, they come from ireland, they come from italy, they come from the continent of africa, the caribbean, it is time to be the nation that we know we are which is lifting up people, giving opportunities and this is the greatest country in the world, and i look forward to corporations responding to at-risk boys, mr. speaker, and as well, that we recognize the importance of helping children wherever they are. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: mr. speaker, last week the white house decreed partial amnesty for an estimated three million illegal aliens and mandated the acceptance of illegal alien worker permits. first, mr. speaker, it's unconscionable to pit unemployed americans and illegal aliens in a competition for scarce jobs. in 2009, the pew hispanic center, found 7.8 million
10:26 am
struggling american families have already lost job opportunities through illegal aliens. america suffers an 8.2% unemployment rate. even worse, hispanic americans suffer an 11% unemployment rate. even worse, african-americans suffer a 14% unemployment rate. even worse, american teenagers suffer a 25% unemployment rate. all are hammered by a white house decrow that grants as many as three million illegal aliens work permits. i understand heart felt compassion for illegal aliens, but where is the compassion for millions of americans who are unemployed and suffering from jobs lost through illegal aliens? where is the compassion for american taxpayers who must pay higher taxes to support millions of extra unemployed? second, the white house decree grants amnesty to illegal aliens. websters defines amnesty as,
10:27 am
quote, the act of an authority as a government by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. pardon is released of a penalty for an offense. a penalty for breaking immigration laws is not lawfully getting a job. the white house releases illegal aliens from this penalty. hence, the white house grants amnesty, while the amnesty is admittedly partial, it is amnesty nonetheless. third, mr. speaker, the 1980's amnesty taught foreigners that the united states will not enforce immigration laws. the result is 10 million illegal aliens in america and an immigration mess that is destructive to america. a 2011 federation of americans for immigration reform study found that illegal aliens cost american taxpayers a net loss of $99 billion a year. illegal aliens overcrowd our schools and need costly english interpreters. in 2011, illegal aliens drove
10:28 am
up america's k-12 education costs by $49 billion per year. illegal aliens overcrowd our emergency rooms, delay treatments for americans and drive up health care costs. illegal aliens committed crimes, sometimes heinous, against american citizens and burdened taxpayers for higher jail costs. in my home county, more madison county people have been killed by illegal aliens than they lost their lives in afghanistan and iraq combined. amnesty did not solve illegal alien problems in the 1980's and nor will it today. those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. we must not give blanket amnesty to illegal aliens. the white house decree questions the constitutionality. the constitution states, and i quote, article one, section 1 -- article 1, section 1, says it congress shall have the
10:29 am
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. the congress does not empower a president to make law. hence, the only changed immigration law is as our constitution demands, through congress, not by imempeerorial decree. on march 28, 2011, the president stated, and i quote very batum, with respect to the notion that i -- very, with respect to the notion that i can suspend deportation, that is not the case, because there are laws on the books that congress passed. the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. last september, the president again stated, quote, i just have to continue to say this notion that somehow i could just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. the fact of the matter is there are laws in the books that i have to enforce, and i think
10:30 am
there's been a great disservice done to the cause of the dream act that somehow by myself i can go and do these things. it's just not true. mr. speaker, the president's own words speaks volumes about the constitutionality of a white house decree that undermines america and the rule of law. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, this congress' failure to extend renewable energy tax credits is already costing my home state, the commonwealth of virginia's jobs. a cbs news reported last night, virginia is losing a wind turbine development to spain because the united states doesn't have the right policies and tax incentives in place for renewable energy development. a spokesperson for the wind energy company, says the uncertainty of the future of those tax credits for wind energy and the lack of federal
10:31 am
energy policy caused the company to invest in spain instead of virginia. the jobs to construct and maintain that turbine will be spanish, not americans. the so-called strategic energy production act, coming to the floor this week, actually perpetuates the problem by doubling down on oil and gas to the detriment of developing renewable energy sources in virginia. even the governor of virginia said the lack of energy policy was one of the reasons we are not moving forward with this project in america. president obama's called on congress to pass a clean energy standard that would guarantee a market for wind, solar and other clean domestic energy sources. that legislation has not received any consideration in this house. the house republican leadership won't even bring legislation to the floor to extend critical renewable tax credits for wind and solar energy. republicans consider -- not
10:32 am
suggest we consider oil and company gas breaks in the face of industry profits. yet, while the extension of renewable tax credits would encourage the development of an innovative industry that would support america's energy independence, they allow it to wither. in fact, house republicans actually attacked renewable energy sector through a number of different amendments to the energy and water appropriations bill, earlier this month. as part of the recovery act, congress and the president extended production and investment tax credits for the production of wind and solar energy. as a result of those investments, wind energy and electricity generation has grown by 40,000 megawatts in the last two years. between 2007 and 2010, wind energy represented 35% of all new electricity generation in america. solar energy production in america more than doubled in that time period. approximately 173,000 americans work now in the wind and solar
10:33 am
industries with 70th growth in the number of wind energy jobs since 2007. what other industry can we point to that has seen that kind of significant job deprothe? in fact, the growth and renewable energy jobs has helped us in job losses in the coal industry which has been declining for many years. as our nation continues to recover and as monthly job growth moderates, we need to support industries such as wind and solar with extended growth potential. the generation creates american jobs throughout the supply chain. for example, a sem econductor company in my district had solar installation. the value of solar installation completed in america was $8.4 billion. thanks to buy america and those
10:34 am
in the recovery act, we're increasing the components in america. over 470 factories in the united states now build components for wind turbines. but as tax incentives expire, where will that future growth go? in the global hunt for scarce resources, the renewable energy industry will not just be a job creator. it will create jobs. it will also help support national security. if america is not at the forefront of this burgeoning field, then we will be left behind as global competitors seize that. the republican house leadership ignores renewable energy tax extensions. they need to extend tax credits for renewable energies. if not we will lose jobs. the failure to extend these tax cuts in a timely manner is already hurting what would
10:35 am
otherwise be a growth industry. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i enunited listening to my republican colleagues talk about the constitution and how a bill becomes a law. i taught freshman civics, and a bill passes both chambers, the bill then goes to the president. the president then signs the bill. it becomes law. the job of the chief executive is to enforce the law as signed and as tasked. like the 1982 nuclear waste policy act, it is the law of the land. the amendments passed in 1987 identified yucca mountain as the sole geological repository for nuclear waste in this
10:36 am
country. the problem is it's not being enforced by the president. who's complicit with the majority leader in the senate, senator reid, and stopping the project. over the past year i have been coming down to the floor and identifying where we're at on the status of what do we do with high level nuclear waste. i've gone through the country and identified all the senators and where they stand. we actually have a majority of senators, 55 of them, who support high level nuclear waste and yucca mountain being stored there. we have 23 that either have -- made statements of no or 22 that we don't know their position. can you imagine being a u.s. senator on a very important position never having to state your position on what to do with high level nuclear waste or defense waste, especially if it's in your own state, and never being forced to come to a position? so over the past year we've
10:37 am
been going around the country identifying all these locations and now the truth has come to really start narrowing down on individual states and senators who should at least state their position. so i returned to my -- the next door neighbor state, missouri. i represent parts of 30 counties in southern illinois but very close to the state of missouri. in fact, i root for the card anonymous, the rams, the blues. if the university of missouri's not playing the fighting illini, i'll root for the missouri tigers. missouri has a nuclear power plant called callaway. and what i did months ago i came down on the floor, these are old posters, and compared callaway to yucca. it is 650 metric tons of spent fuel on site.
10:38 am
yucca has none. waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground. waste is being stored above ground. waste would be 1,000 feet from the water table. at callaway is 65 feet above the ground. waste is 100 miles from the colorado. at callaway, it is five miles from the missouri river. the state of missouri needs an answer by their elected members of how should we handle the nuclear waste at callaway. well, senator blunt has already stated that he supports moving nuclear waste to yucca mountain. in fact, on a floor vote just two weeks ago, eight of the nine members of congress, a bipartisan majority, said nuclear waste should be in yucca mountain or at least we should finish the scientific study to see if it's feasible versus keeping it in missouri.
10:39 am
the members of the house who voted in support of the shimkus amendment was representative akin, representative clay, representative cleaver, representative emerson, representative graves, representative hartzler, representative luetkemeyer. of course, we know senator blunt supports it. now we focus on senator mccaskill. this is no surprise. i talked to her penally about this. there -- personally about this. there would be a time when she needs to state, does she support high-level nuclear waste being stored in missouri, does she support a long-term geological storage underneath a mountain, in a desert in nevada? if she would make a statement, we could then move her from the undecided to either a nay or a yeah. -- or a yea. and if a yea it will bring it to 56.
10:40 am
we are trying to get 60 united states senators to say, yeah, we support moving forward. we only spent $15 billion. start going back to 1982 to prepare, locate the site. yucca mountain is not a mountain on its own. it's at the nuclear test site. it's bigger than the state of rhode island. it's federal property. and so we come down on the floor. we'll be doing this the following weeks highlighting individual senators who are either undecided, no commitment, no position on what high-level nuclear waste in their state, what should be the disposition of it, where it should go, and at least get them on the record as far as this issue. again, this law was passed it in 1982. the amendment passed identifying yuck -- yucca mountain was then signed in 1987.
10:41 am
we would just ask the administration to follow the law. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, while the house was out of session last week, the nation suffered its 2,000th fatality in the conflict known as operation enduring freedom. the overwhelming number of those deaths coming in afghanistan. for more than 10 years now, we've been losing young, courageous service members on a mission that isn't bolesering our national security -- bowlesering our national security, isn't -- bolstering our national security, isn't supported by the american people, but is costing billions of dollars every month. what a disaster and what a tragedy. mr. speaker, from this chamber i regularly hear members of the majority invoking mortality in support of our -- morality in
10:42 am
support of efforts to cut effective programs that help the most vulnerable members of our society. so where is the moral outrage and where is the budget act when it comes to the most expensive government program imaginable that has killed 2,000 of our troops? two of those 2,000 come from my part of the country, from the sixth congressional district of california. army specialist christopher gathercole, and army sergeant ryan connelly, both of santa rosa, california, were killed less than a month apart in the year 2008. and we had others who were killed during the nearly nine years that our troops were in iraq. but 2,000 deaths doesn't again to tell the story of the human cost of this war. more than 15,000 americans have
10:43 am
come home wounded, many in ways that will alter their lives forever. even those who returned with their bodies intact often suffer from devastating posttraumatic stress that may never go away. it has reached epidemic levels. the other 2.5 million men and women have served in afghanistan and iraq and i actually can't say that i trust the veterans health care system is prepared or will be prepared to deal with the huge demands that will be placed on the services in the coming years. a recent report prepared by v.a. doctors outlines the unique and varied health care needs of returning iraq and afghanistan veterans. in addition to traumatic brain injury, depression and substance abuse, there's
10:44 am
chronic muscle pain, slope disturbances, hypertension and complications from environmental exposure. many of our returning heroes have difficulty readjusting to civilian life, integrating once again in their families, their workplaces and their communities. we had better be willing as a nation to write that check for their care as we were as willing to write that check that damaged them in the first place. and as critical, mr. speaker, -- and it's critical, mr. speaker, that we remember the human costs are not just here in the united states. 2,000 americans have died in nearly 11 years of war. 3,000 afghan civilians, many of them children, were killed last year alone for the cause of their so-called liberation. it's not enough to acknowledge the casualties of this war to
10:45 am
memorialize the dead and pay tribute to their service. what we need is an immediate change of policy, to extend the war through 2014 is to sentence hundreds more service members to their death. all for a policy that isn't achieving its stated objective. while strengthening the very terrorists and extremists that we're trying to defeat. there's only one solution, mr. speaker, there's only one choice that will finally keep the death toll from climbing. that choice is bring our troops home, bring them home now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for five minutes. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: thank you, mr. speaker. plans, rumors and war
10:46 am
propaganda for attacking syria and disposing assad has been around for many months. this past week, however, it was reported that the pentagon indeed was finalizing plans to do justice just that. to justify this attack is bogus. it is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of iraq or for the 2011 attack on libya. the total of those wars should cause us to pause as the regime change is initiated against syria. there is no national security concerns that should have a fully escalation of violence in the middle east. there should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in syria. we are already too much involved in supporting the forces within syria, anxious to overthrow their current government. without outside interference, the strife, now characterized as a civil war, would likely be nonexistent. whether or not we attack yet
10:47 am
another country occupying it and sending a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious constitutional question for where does a president get such authority? since world war ii, the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. it has been replaced by international entities like the united nations and nato or the president himself. . sadly the people don't object. our recent president explicitly maintained the authority to go to war is not the u.s. congress. this has been the case since the 12950 sees when we were first taken into war in korea under a u.n. resolution and without congressional approval. once again we are about to engage in military action against syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the cold war with russia. we are now engaged in a game of chicken with russia which
10:48 am
presents a much greater threat to our security than does syria. would we tolerate russia in mexico demanding humanitarian solution to the violence on the u.s.-mexican border? we could consider that a legitimate concern for us, but for us to be engaged in syria, where the russians have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the russians being in our backyard in mexico. we are hypocritical when we condemn russia for protecting its neighborhood interests as we -- as we claim we are doing the same ourselves, thousands of miles from our shore. there's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance, and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in syria. falsely charging the russians with supplying military
10:49 am
helicopters to assad is an unnecessary provocation. falsely blaming the assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda. most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against syria is merely the next step to take on the iranian government, something the neon cons openly admit. controlling iranian oil just as we have done in saudi arabia and we are attempting to do in iraq is a real goal of the neoconservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past couple of decades. war is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy and soon. this agreement between our two political -- disagreements between our two political parties are minor. both agree to sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the middle east and south asia.
10:50 am
this crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the american people have grown to accept or ignore. it's time the united states tried a policy of diplomacy seeking peace, trade, and friendship. we must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an american empire. besides, we are broke. we can't afford it and worst of all we are fulfilling the strategy laid out by osama bin laden. whose goal had always been to bog us down in the middle east and bring on our bankruptcy here at home. it's time to bring our troops home and establish a nonintervention foreign policy which is the only road to peace and prosperity. this week i am introducing legislation to prohibit the administration absent a declaration of war by congress from supporting directly or
10:51 am
indirectly any military or paramilitary operations in syria. i hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last thursday, 2,000 u.s. military service members was killed in operation in enduring freedom in afghanistan. i send my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of each individual who has been killed since this war began more than decade ago. those losses are a cause for sadness beyond what i can adequately convey in my words. having just celebrated father's day with my daughters and son, i reflect on the fact that each fallen soldier was the child of some parent.
10:52 am
many were husbands and wives and many were parents themselves. we are a nation at war. but the burden of this war has been primarily borne by a very few. by our military service members and their families. less than 1% of the united states population is in the armed services. many americans were not aware of last week's tragic milestone and perhaps they may have find the fatality count in their local paper and continue with their daily events. this is a war that for many goes on in the background while most americans carry on their daily lives. it's imperative that we stop and think deeply about the human cost of this car. we must read the names of those who have been killed. look at their pictures, imagine the grief of those who have been left behind. we must also think about those
10:53 am
who have been wounded. every day outside this chamber we see yet one more military woman or man who have lost a limb. who have been harmed. they are in our military hospitals now. their futures uncertain. we must think about those service members whose lives have been so shattered by the experience ever war that they cannot continue living -- of war that they cannot continue living. most servicemen took their lives this year than killed in combat in afghanistan. only when we feel those losses can we fully comprehend the cost of this war. recently this house passed its version of the national defense authorization act that i opposed, but the majority pushed forward. a bill that has no meaningful time line for ending combat operations and bringing our troops home. no concrete plans for
10:54 am
transitioning full responsibility for afghanistan's security to afghan forces. the sporters of the national defense authorization act had no way to slow down the withdrawal of our troops. they would have american troops continue to fight against the domestic insurgency in afghanistan and they would have american troops fighting for the corrupt karzai government. as members of congress, we are responsible, we are responsible for authorizing the funds to sustain this war. if we believe this war should continue, we should pay. that this war is absolutely essential to our nation's security. this war is not. can we look into the eye evers of the mother -- eyes of a mother or father of a service member and say your child died for a mission that's absolutely essential to our nation's
10:55 am
security? i can't do that. and i believe most of us cannot. i believe it's time for the war in afghanistan to come to an end. for our troops and our family they have given enough. we should welcome them home as heroes and we should ensure that they receive the support and care that is due when they return. we sent our brave service men and women to afghanistan to eliminate international terrorist organizations that threaten the united states. as president obama said last month, our goal is to destroy al qaeda. our troops have successfully executed this mission with phenomenal dedication and capacity. we have virtually eliminated al qaeda from afghanistan. no expert says there is more than 100 there, and they have no bases, and they have no operation of any meaningful way. they have demonstrated that we can take terrorists out wherever they are in this world.
10:56 am
we have captured or killed most all of al qaeda's top commanders. one year ago we celebrated historic moment when osama bin laden, the 9/11 master mind, was killed. he met his just end. the cost of this war in blood and treasure has been staggering, even those who have not given their lives have given -- have given of their lives. it's time for this war to end. the loyalty and dedication of our service members, our most sacred resource, must be conserved. we must not squander it. end this war now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fitzpatrick: i rise today to honor and commemorate the 60th
10:57 am
anniversary of levitytown, pennsylvania, the place i called home my entire life. located in bucks county began in 1952 and completed in 1958, one of the first planned communities in the united states, it became a popular first home for thousands of returning veterans from world war ii and korea. over the course of its rich history they have developed into a model middle class community. now it is home to over 50,000 residents with schools, churches, and businesses. it helped create a sense of community and foster a warm environment for families to live and to work, to raise their families, and to retire, too. levittown's residents have worked in our steel mills, served in our military, all while raising their children and
10:58 am
grandchildren. it was a pleasure growing up in such a close knit, hardworking community. i'm proud to say i'm from levittown raising my own family there. the highest honor of all is being given a chance to serve them in the united states congress. i will continue to listen to and work with members of my community to ensure that all of their voices are heard. congratulations to all who have called levittown home over the last 60 years. with such a rich history it deserves our recognition and praise. i'm honored to live amongst these great families and wish them all the best on this momentous occasion. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: notwithstanding you, mr. speaker -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to wish a well deserved happy 100th birthday to a pillar of roy tauga county, mr. robert gray shipley senior. mr. shipley was born in valley
10:59 am
cruces, north carolina, on june 23, 1912. growing up on his parents' farm, his aat this tude for agriculture and ranching was evident from a young age. he put that skill to use working his way through college milking cows, judging livestock competitions, and maintaining records in virginia polytech nique institute's dairy department. he began teaching upon his graduation from virginia tech in 1933 and aside from the time he spent in the united states air force as a gunnery instructor on b-24 bombers, teaching agriculture in an innovative and hands-on manner is what he did for most of his professional life. in fact mr. shipley counts among his many students, my husband, tom. today if you take a trip down there, evidence of mr. shipley's involvement in the community is everywhere. he helped organize roy tauga --
11:00 am
wautaugahereford organization, he taught sheep shearing, meese he's a member of the north carolina state fair hall of fame, the western north carolina agriculture hall of fame, and the north carolina livestock hall of fame. he's a charter member of the boone rotary club and is a mainstay in the ruri tafment n club working faithfully at every monthly fish fry. throughout his busy life, mr. shipley has had a wonderful partner, his wife of nearly 70 years, agnes. together they are the proud parents of three children, grandparents to six, and great grandparents to nine. this weekend friends and former students of the shipleys will be gathering at the historic high school in sugar grove to celebrate mr. shipley's 100th
11:01 am
birthday, and mrs. shipley's 95th birthday. i speak for the community when i express gratitude for the lives of the shipleys and for their being the wonderful role models that they are. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until the hour of 12:00 noon today. >> members will be back at noon eastern to start legislative work, including a bill to deal with a number of federal lands and water bllaws. today also note this wearing-in ceremony for representative ron
11:02 am
barber, who won a special election last week. watch live house coverage when lawmakers return today at noon eastern. the senate gaveled in at 10:00 this morning to continue working on the farm bill, which includes conservation programs. esther date they came to an agreement on amendments to a bill. they will debate and vote on those today. the chamber will also take up a resolution of disapproval on a december epa rule on mercury emissions from power plants. you can watch live coverage of the senate on c-span2. jamie dimon returns to capitol hill today.
11:03 am
stine he is testifying before the house financial services committee. right now the committee is hearing about the bank's risk management process. last week during a senate hearing, he apologized about the losses, but said no client, customer, or tax payer money was lost during that incident. that hearing is underway right now. we're showing it on c-span3. we plan to carry live his testimony this afternoon and again on our companion network c-span3. now live to a house oversight subcommittee hearing on the energy department loan guarantee program that gave millions of dollars to solyndra. witnesses include executives from other companies that receive funding through that program. this hearing started at 10:00 this morning. >> would that be a reasonable
11:04 am
statement to make? >> your generalization that california is a difficult place to permit, every type of powerful plant is a generalization. a solar photovoltaic plant that does not use water as less issues, no commissions, less issues than traditional power plants, but it has land issues. we were not responsible for the permitting. >> somebody thought this progress -- this process was going to go forward. >> i do not know how they initially thought. i guess they started to vomit before the financial crisis. it was not inconceivable the private sector would have come up with a billion dollar loan, but after the crisis there was no way this sector would come up with a billion dollar globaloan.
11:05 am
>> have there been any solar panels put on these rooftops? >> no. as of right now there are no solars. >> what has happened with this project? you are still going ahead and get you have not build anything, have not put construction on the rooftops to get a loan guarantee from the department of energy? >> right, and let me say that that is almost by design. the first couple, 15 to 18 months we did not do too much. >> how much money did you get? >> the total commitment was $1.4 billion. >> you can use it whenever you
11:06 am
want, god bless america not right there whenever you need it. a pretty good deal. >> with all due respect, that may explain the way the project works. we go out and we identify utilities that are looking to side power-purchase agreements. >> have you done it in the construction and phase 1? yes, we prepared 15 roofs. >> and you put up no panels? >> yes, we have not put panels up. >> have you purchased in the solar panels? >> we have not. >> i would like to enter for the record, and we can get you a copy of this e-mail from our
11:07 am
staff to a lawyer from the bank of america, where we asked questions regarding the project. [unintelligible] their representative says note to everyone of them, and you get to keep the money? this is amazing, and this is back in march, and we are supposed to be moving on this by september 30. we will give you a copy, but without objection, i would like to enter this into the wreckage -- rec. >> how much was the money again? >> the total amount of the loans for those three projects is about $4 billion. >> you received those on the merits of the project? there was nothing based on
11:08 am
friends in high places and political connections? >> i believe so. >> that you been to the white house ever to discuss this issue and talk about how important these loan guarantees to borrow? >> to discuss loan guarantees? >> have you been to the white house? >> yes, many times. >> between the bush white house and the obama white house, 14 or 15 times. since the project? >> this administration? >> six or seven times. >> hoop detox what? >> i was part of a large group. >> did you talk about what? >> climate change. >> who else did you talk to? >> joe biden, but mostly about
11:09 am
the nuclear loan guarantees. >> you are involved with the bright source project as well? >> yes. >> are you familiar with this email which was brought up in the last hearing when it person was here with bright source, an e-mail to the department of energy asking him to edit and preach a letter that bright source was going to spend from tobryson to bill daley. are you familiar with this? >> i do not think i am copied on this. i have nothing to do with this. >> did you know anything about it? >> no. >> did you talk to anyone there
11:10 am
about this project? >> never, i never spoke with anybody at the white house about this product or any renewable loan guarantee, only about the nuclear loan. >> do you think it is out of the ordinary or not customary to have a company send an e-mail to the department of energy asking those folks who is got to be responsible to determine whether you get a loan or not -- do you think it is unusual to ask the department of energy to edit a letter that there chairman of the board was gone to sent to the white house chief of staff? do you think that is unusual? >> i do not know. it is nothing i have ever done. whether it is unusual or not, i do not know what common practice is. >> you have been to the white house six times, but you do not think it is common practice?
11:11 am
you are supposed to ask somebody who says yea or nay that it is ok for the department of energy to edit a letter to the white house? >> i did not have experience in this area. >> you were going there all the time. you got to talk to them in person. we will now go to our second round of questioning and i will yield to the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. all the members of congress from both parties have supported 1705 loan guarantees, it now appears that some of my friends in the majority have had a change of heart. in a report published in march, the majority party,doe "and last and excessively risky loan
11:12 am
portfolio." there are experts who disagree with the majority's assessment, recognizing the inherent risk in the emerging green technology loans. congress authorized to set aside money for potential losses in doe 1705 loan guarantee program. even after accounting for the collapse of solyndra, the default rate on the doe loan guarantee program and it up being a fraction of what the government budgeted for the losses. bloomberg government came to a different conclusion than the majority. their recent report which was an analysis of the loan guarantee program concluded the 1705 loan portfolio is composed of predominately lower risk projects. mr. bronicki, you believe this
11:13 am
is excessively risky or is a lower-risk project? >> from a technology point of view, there are many megawatts' that had been built using the same technology. it was only about expending geothermal innovation -- bailout but the risk was low? one reason why the portfolio can be considered low risk is because most of the projects that received loan guarantees are for power generation. doe required these companies to have long-term agreements in place with nearby utilities to purchase the power once it was
11:14 am
built. this means the project have a guaranteed income stream, which greatly limits any risk of default. mr. mancini, can you explain the difference between the power generation projects like the cogentrix loan guarantee and project finance deals, and d you already have agreements to sell power to major utilities once the projects are completed? >> we do have a long-term power purchase agreement with the public service co. of colorado to purchase the power. that is one of the requirements of a loan. >> you could not do it if he did not have guarantees in place? >> it would be very difficult. >> otherwise you would be stuck with a white elephant? >> there are few of those projects that have been successful without long-term
11:15 am
contracts. >> it was found thatdoe support of public-private partnerships in states like california ensure loan guarantee recipients have a steady and predictable funding source. mr. crane, do you agree with this assessment? ? rakowich, it has been demonstrated that prologis has yet to generate any energy. how has the project -- as the project amp loan guarantee designed to mitigate -- how was this guarantee designed to mitigate test their losses? >> i would say three things. one, we will not move forward unless we have a long-term power purchase agreement, which is a
11:16 am
20-year agreement with the utility. the second thing is that we are not going to -- we're putting up the equity, us and our financial part airs, putting up the equity, as well the lender as 20% at risk that is not guaranteed. nearly 40% of the project is at risk before the government -- we're not like to put up -- >> the question here is performance. it is clear if this program is performing better than expected in financial terms. one of the goals was to spur technological advances. now, do you believe your project funded by the financing is spurring technological advances? are you spurring technological
11:17 am
advances with the progress that has been financed by 1705? are you creating technological advances? >> not in this program. >> mr. crane? >> yes. particularly, the solar project is a huge technological advance. >> mr. mancini? >> the technology used in this product was used in the space program, but never employed in a utility-scale project. i am happy to report it is operating successfully. >> i just want to say, mr. chairman, that when we have an isolated look at what the program has done. we have testimony that suggests that it could be working in the context in which it was designed. there are questions that are de rugy. dr/ .
11:18 am
i think we still need to have some caution here. i ask unanimous consent -- i asked -- i have three documents which i would respectfully suggest would refute that, an engineering assessment by the bank of america's independent consultant, by a doe consultant. it refutes the allegations that have been made. i ask. >> without objection. mr. crane, i will pull back this e-mail again, because i am flabbergasted that we have an e- mail where the ceo of bright source relative to the project is asking doe to proofread a
11:19 am
letter that there chairman of the board, now commerce secretary, plans to send to the white house chief of staff. a couple of the highlighted things, send me any suggestions in ways i think we can improve these methods. it is asking for edits from the department of energy. contained in the draft letter is a statement, we need a commitment from the white house the quarterback known closure knownomb and the department of energy by march 18. later on in the draft letter, they said we need guidance to support from the white house. this takes place in march of 2011. the loan guarantee is approved on april 11, 2011. there are seven bits you had to the white house. were any of them during this
11:20 am
timeframe? >> i would think that probably there were some. >> some prior to that april 11, 2000, approval -- 1022, approval -- 2011 approval? >> more before that after. you have to understand two things. we were involved, but it was still bright sourced's project root this may seem like a big deal to you, but my focus was on our nuclear project in texas, which was a much bigger project. >> right source got billions of dollars -- this is not a big deal to you? >> we had not invested. the righ
11:21 am
bright source invested in this party. >> support now but was not important than? that is what you're saying? >> we had an opportunity to invest in the project? >> you at the department of energy to check over their homework and a letter they were going to sent to the white house -- that is not important to you? >> if we had not had a chance to invest -- but not in any of those meetings that took place in the spring of 2011, he did not bring up this project and this issue at all? >> absolutely not. >> you did not know about the email, the draft letter, and did not bring it up in the meetings at the white house? >> no. >> could we get the second e-
11:22 am
mail up because i want to see it. i want to let the doctor, at on this one. this is an e-mail from prologis, to the department of energy, and this is going the other way. this gets right to the point where you get so close and you have to grease the skids of government to get a pro, we have made adjustments to the memos which we believe are necessary to reflect the situation. we have outside folks -- pardon? this was just entered into the record by mr. kucinich? now we have it going all the way around where we have doe having private sector at it and draft internal documents that are communicated within the department of energy. if the tax payers could see what
11:23 am
is going on in this program, and i don't believe it was your third point in your testimony, he talked about this is what happens when cronyism gets to this level and as much money is at stake. >> when a lot of money is at stake for a company, whether cash or loan guarantees which would give them lower rate than they would get on the open market -- it schists and not of the incentive for the company itself to expend energy rather than to please the company, to please the government, or to meet the standard expected by the government. but i believe the reverse is true. there is a huge amount of economic ledger all about the way that reverse is true, too, where governments designed programs in order to feed some companies and some industries. it goes both ways. >> i find it amazing that on one
11:24 am
hand we have a company saying that it this letter for us, that we will send to the white house chief of staff, and then we also have the department of energy saying, private sector, at these internal memos we are going to sent to the books -- to the folks in the department of energy. i have never seen this kind of communications golan in a loan guarantee program or any program. -- those kinds of communications and a loan guarantee program or any program. >> i do not fault you for taking advantage of the government that continues in this dependence -- codependent type of model, and is sometimes hard to walk away from it once it is their break is just so easy why would we not do it? it comes down to what is the
11:25 am
return on the investment for the people whose money is at risk, and that is where the disconnect comes, because people think it came from the government, it did not hurt anybody. he asked where the government got the money, and you find out that it is people paying taxes. some of us pay taxes and some of us did not, but for those that do, a lot of people still carry a little lunch bucket. by the time they get it done paying their school and municipal and state taxes, federal taxes, there is no money left for them to take care of their kids and to plan their future. that is where the disconnect comes from because we believe that is free money. it is not free money. it is taxpayer money. mr. rakowich, how much money did cogentrix get -- >> i am sorry, i am not with
11:26 am
cogentrix. >> the amount was $90 million. >> do you know how many permanent jobs that created? >> we created 10 permanent jobs. >> let me ask you -- you sitting at your kitchen table, and i would tell you, we just made a $90.6 million investment, and this is all by jobs picked this initiative was about creating jobs. here's the good news -- 10 people got jobs. is there any reason why the american people no longer have faith in what is going on in washington? the disconnect is so great here, it is so poor and to people who live in this area that this money actually comes out of working people's pockets. no, it is free trade know, it is not free crate this drives me absolutely not.
11:27 am
can you imagine going to a bank, asking for $90 million, and they say -- and you say i can hire 10 people with that. you do not know a lot of what is going on. this gentleman, mr. thompson, before he worked for you he was an -- he worked for mr. reid. an outside lobbyist for your firm? the you know who he worked for put he was harry reid's deputy chief of staff. mr. thompson worked for harry reid. mr. anderson work for harry reid. that is your son? he was a big donor to senator reid's reelection campaign? there is nothing wrong with this. here's my point. this is not to embarrass you.
11:28 am
when we consider taking money from the cover, there are strings attached and repercussions, and it gets the point where people start to wonder. this feeding frenzy to come after this money -- how in the world did 25 of you get to the table and others were left out the cold? how did they get there? the guys worked for kerry reid and the other guy worked for harry reid and all this and harry reid gets involved in it and the money starts to flow, and people start wondering. that tough part of the sitting there, the american people have a right to know how did this happen. >> if i may prove been absolutely. >> i sincerely believe our record is one [unintelligible] it was advanced.
11:29 am
the construction started when we submitted the application. the financing was not available to provide the financing for such projects in 2009. this facility the -- this facilitated the construction -- >> you are geothermal people. let me ask you, and, mr. crane, source -- where it did they sell the power they generate? >> they sell it to pacific gas and electric. >> why is the market's strong? >> california has a 33% grenoble portfolio. this means by certain year, 22%
11:30 am
of the power -- >> by government mandate. the government says you must by this energy. so the market was treated by government mandate. >> which was endorsed by the people -- >> you will supply it at this level. the market was not created by a market demand, but by government saying this is what you are going to do. >> that is correct. >> 1703 did address nuclear. 1705 did not. when it comes to a government treating the market through mandate, that does not make it, because no of mount of money ith, itu subsidize it we'l
11:31 am
will not fleapit we create these markets and then create a business opportunity. i do not fault you. we forced it down their throats. they did not buy it because it wanted to. we create a market and then we said we are going to creep the funding for you to go after it. at the end of the day, every single penny can out of taxpayers' pockets. it did not come from the governed. it was funneled through the government. any government money is flat out taxes trick we have disconnected ourselves with the revenue source. it is hard fooling the american tax payer. i appreciate your patience, but where i come from, these people are struggling, they tried to figure out things, they're working two and three jobs, and are wondering what the heck are you doing with the people -- with the money be sent you? it does not make sense to the
11:32 am
american people. >> >> thank you. i appreciate the courtesy extended to be to participate. mr. crane, i want to talk about your statements near the end of your oral testimony, which is a port. you mentioned nrg has invested over a billion dollars. the notes i had said $400 million of that were in a california program. it is an important -- you went on to say in blunt terms we do not get repaid, the government has been paid. a lot of the frustration that you hear today is a reflection of what folks back home are hearing, which is why are these folks getting paid? now they see the owners and
11:33 am
officers of these companies making money when the tax payers are on the hook. aren't you telling us on that $400 million there is no preferential payments, no return on that equity until the debt has been repaid? >> in a waterfall of payments, the debt service happened before there was any return to equity. i do not know the month on month, but that as a higher priority than repayment on equity. >> about the repayment of the principal on the loan? >> the debt service is interest plus principal. >> you did not collect fees and management consulting fees for the management of the project, correct? >> operating fees for the project are pretty small because there is no moving parts.
11:34 am
operating peas for any project go about debt service because you have to keep the project operating. >> i have no problem with that. at the owners of the company extended any debt to the cvsr program? >> no. we do not ever put any type -- we do not ever put that in any type of project. >> how long will it take to pay the $1.2 billion government- guaranteed loan? >> i should know, but i do not know what the term of the repayment is on the projects. usually i but say that that is tied to the length of the power purchase agreement, and these are 20-, 25-year purchase agreements. >> you have a guaranteed flow of funds coming in because you have an agreement to sell the
11:35 am
electricity endured that would be close to the loan terms. >> usually that that ends before the power purchase agreement. >> i am struggling with a statement that you made where he said we did not get paid unless the government gets paid. you make a statement to analysts saying your company was going to get all your capital back in two to five years? >> do you want me to explain that put that statement, later to get out of context, had to do with a project that has no doe loan guarantee. >> your testimony today is there will be no return on equity and overturned of equity on the cvsr program until after the government-guaranteed loans are paid in full? >> i would have to see the profile, but i am not saying
11:36 am
that because we're not like to give you a dollar back for 20 years -- there is never wrong to the equity in a project. what i am saying is that that service under the terms of alone is will be serviced if for any money can come out, out of the waterfall, to equity. debt pape for equity. >> when you say it is going to get serviced before equity, it does not mean that that is gone to be paid in full? >> yes, that is probably correct. >> you will get repaid something on that equity before the tax payers completely off the hook? >> i am sure before that that is off the hooks. >> thank you to all the panelists. >> were you taken out of context in these other quotes in the "the new york times" piece?
11:37 am
was that out of context? >> no, that was in context. >> you can do as much of this business as you can get your hands on? >> yes, and keep in mind that we are a company that is trying to build a nuclear power plant. a solar project in the california desert is about a leased riskiest project you can do in the power industry. >> i want to be clear. mr. rakowich got your knowledge, before you got any loan guarantees conditional or final, did doe air any documents which you or your company? >> i am not sure i follow. what type of document? >> northeast document. i put up the 1 email where you guys -- does he work for you put
11:38 am
>> yes, he does. >> and does this other person works for your company? >> no, i believe he worked for bank of america. >> got to edit an internal memo. were there any others? >> i did not know. i will say we were completely transparent with doe as to the situation that was evolving at that point in time in relation to solyndra. we want that certain documents in the final the document. we. doe and acknowledge that, so there was back and forth that took place relating to that particular email, and that is not unusual. >> you do not think that is unusual? >> mr. chairman, i do not think
11:39 am
it is unusual given the back- and-forth that needed to take place before the loan document was signed, that there would be back and forth conversation, editing and the like that needed to take place between the parties. >> but he did not participate in any of that? >> i did not. >> as a ceo, he did not participate? >> i was not a whare. >> -- aware. >> another email to a man who works for you? "feel free to use the concept we articulate in your own words if we do not have this in your message," and that refers to a
11:40 am
document they will send you the information that you can use in your presentation. way theink about the american citizens will see this. this is like the teacher telling the students caught two other students, this is what is not to be on the tests, we will give it to you. do not spend beyond the two of you. did not tell anybody else we're giving you the answers to the exam, and you say that is fine, the normal course of business, back-and-forth? you did not have any knowledge of it as ceo? >> as it relates to what was sent, which was a presentation -- -- >> mr. crane, did you get that kind of presentation? if he said these things you will be more likely to get billions of dollars in taxpayer loan guarantees? >> i have never seen a department of energy memorandum.
11:41 am
>> mr. manzi knee, did you get that type of document -- mr. mancini, did you get that type of document? >> no. >> is this part for the course when you go down this road, when you have this type of cronyism in government? do you think it is a little unusual? maybe the man who work for you is a great guy, working hard, we will tell him answers to the example >> chairman, i cannot think sending a presentation as to what project is about -- sending the presentation is not unusual. >> "feel free to use the concepts we articulated in
11:42 am
your own words." you might want to use this language -- that is the implication i draw from that statement. that is not what you conclude? >> ike do not know. >> we got to take this -- this is why we had several hearings on this. 26 companies got taxpayer money, 22 of them had credit mostgs of double b-minu8ss, of the companies, a significant number of companies had strong connections to the obama administration, either during the campaign, or in the bright source case, the chairman became the commerce secretary. we see all this and now we at emails going back and forth saying say it this weekend at it this letter that we want to send -- when you put it in the big picture, no wonder the
11:43 am
taxpayers are st. what the heck is gone on with our government? this is not the way it is supposed to work. it is so frustrating to look at this is what is god on, doe, where they are picking the winners and losers. 26 got a 15 by an dollars, and such a deal. you think this is customary and the way it is supposed to work? >> what i said was send a presentation of our project that we are working on back and forth does not seem unusual to me, no. >> does not seem unusual that doe is telling you this is how you need to say it, here are the answers to the test. that is not unusual? >> "feel free to use the concepts we articulate in your
11:44 am
own words. >> is a presentation about our project, and going back and forth on a presentation that ultimately we will use or somebody will use in the future does not -- i do not understand the context of why this was set. >> did you personally have communication personally with doe? >> no. >> did you speak to the secretary? >> no, i did not. >> did you talk to the white house chief of staff or mr. biden? >> no. you got different treatment from mr. crane, but i and the stand. i yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you very much. i want to go back to the email
11:45 am
that you discussed. again it goes right to the bank of america, because the only party to this e-mail that has not provided public testimony regarding its involvement in the loan program is bank of america. the attack and import of this particular memo which you cited as a matter of concern, we really did not understand it until we get bank of america's perspective. i would like to ask my friend if there is a way that you and i could work together to see if bank of america and for that matter goldman sachs -- the guys at the top -- that they be invited to come in to explain the point of view about this. could we see if we could work together -- which to consider that? >> yes, i could consider that,
11:46 am
and i appreciate the ranking member bringing that up today. >> i want to also say in listening to this discussion, and my friend come mr. kelly -- my friend, mr. kelly, as a way of hammering home about the benefits that are going to some at the exclusion of others. that is a valid question, always in this town. as you were talking, one of the things that occurred to me about this particular model in this discussion we're having, to look at it from a different level, is all about centralization of power. literally. we could have a different model. we could be decentralizing power. we could it be investing in decentralization of power where more could be involved, but
11:47 am
when you have a centralized government and a centralization of power and the business part, you put those two things together, there is a different philosophy at work, and that is something i've wanted -- that is not the subject of this hearing, but i want to put that out there as an ongoing concern i have because inevitably people's elite rates under one model are likely to be higher than they are under and other model. i want to say when congress created 17 05 program, the subject of this hearing, which a corporate it $2.47 billion to pay credit subsidy costs for the energy projects, and that this program became a partnership between the government and the private sector. this committee held a hearing where we learned the 1705 loan guarantee portfolio was no risk, where the projects will achieve a degree of success with this
11:48 am
particular model. there are some who feel the 17 05 companies are on the verge of bankruptcy spirit that does not appear to be the case, but a collection of projects which sought public and private- sector backing, and i would like to hear from the witnesses on why they feel their products will benefit their bottom line, the environment, but most importantly, and it is the question mr. kennett he's raising at a valid question, how to the taxpayers benefit? i want you to tell me that, too. i am interested. mr. mancini, their company was able to build this project in southern colorado. you obtain a $90 million loan guarantee from doe to successfully build the project. clean energy is being sold to a public utility. tell me how this is a win-win.
11:49 am
>> ranking member, a point of information, i want to clarify that i am a managing director of goldman sachs. there any questions you like to sachs, io goldman will be happy to answer any questions. goldman sahe ceo of coleme chs. to answer your question, what we did is advance the technology and took it from a context in which it was being applied in the space program and put in a different context to prove that that technology could be applied on a utility scale, a commercial scale project to produce green
11:50 am
power for the citizens of colorado or citizens anywhere in the country. one of the benefits was to prove a hypothesis that this particular type of technology could in fact be deployed commercially. >> i want to thank you, and i want to respond to your calling to our attention that you are a managing director, and that is in the commodities -- >> yes, in the commodities business unit. >> we want to talk to the person sachs?s colemgoldman >> with respect to the loan guarantee program, there was no political favor. >> thank you for saying that. you just said that for the record.
11:51 am
thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. mancini, let me ask you this -- if the program had not been in place come up with goldman sachs, would you have a capital at risk in atcogentrix project? >> if the program had not been -- >> you are a subsidiary of goldman sachs. would this be a worthy project believed in this? >> our first up was no less than 10 commercial banks. [unintelligible] >> the answer is no?
11:52 am
>> we would not have done it. >> i think that proves a point. is goldman a major investor in and another company? >> we own 3% of the company and did not have any board seats. >> what about excel energy? >> have no connection with that company. there are funds that are managed pipe by asset management, which is much like fidelity or vanguard, that puts together a portfolio of securities for investors in the mutual-fund for which we earn a fee that is based not on the returns of any particular company which in that portfolio, but based on the
11:53 am
wall dollar amounts invested across -- >> would it be fair, and indirect relationship? >> i would say it is tenuous, frankly. >> the lunt and arrangement about the $90 million he got from the department of energy, did that agreement also include the fact that cogentrix needed to buy -- or excel would buy electricity? >> excel owns or controls public service of colorado. they sell that electricity at no profit to its customers. there's no markup because it is regulated in a specific way in respect of this project that does not allow them to pass through any additional costs or marked up other than the cost of
11:54 am
the power. >> the loan agreement included the details -- part of the agreement is that the companies have their relationship. correct? >> relationship between cogentrix is with public service of colorado. it has a power purchase agreement, and excel as a parent company, but we do not have a relationship with that. amenex is the power provider. >> you have a direct financial interest with amenex? >> public service of colorado record as to use a certain type of technology. amenex was one of the four companies that had the technology. we evaluated those four
11:55 am
companies -- -- >> do you have a financial interest in the others? so it did not work out. there were four possibilities, and by the way the one that was elected is the one that goldman has a financial interest with? it certainly benefits goldman? >> how it greater thangoldman is almost inconsequential because it has a 3% interest and does not mean -- >> it is inconsequential of the company that was chosen of the four possible is is the only one that goldman has a financial interest in. that is inconsequential? >> you got to go back to the point where cogentrix is a wholly owned subsidiary of goldman sachs?
11:56 am
part of the deal says the solar panels, for companies you can choose from -- the increments as you will pick the one goldman as a financial interest in -- that is a good deal for them, particularly when you said we would not finance this, but we can put the taxpayers on this, but we will make a lot of money. you put panels and the desert, this is a great deal for everyone. vdot + america, except for the -- god bless america, except for that tax payers. >> the process we went through to select a manufacturer was last from the independent engineers from doe -- >> he said independent folks at doe? if there is one thing that is completely cleared it is not
11:57 am
independent. we have emails going back and forth. this is the letter we are current is sent to the white house. here are the answers to the exam. make sure you can paraphrase, plagiarize -- if there is one thing we haven't proven, it is not independent. ngineeri >> engineers greater thandoe -- engineers advising doe -- at the end of the day a company has to bless amenex as the lowest cost provider. >> you would have preferred -- is it a benefit that amenex the one selected?
11:58 am
it is better for gold and that -- goldman that amenx was selected? >> put our capital into a project -- >> i suggest the deal was pretty good and you are a wholly owned subsidiary. as he said to mr. kucinich, you sit on the board. self want to associate my s with your line of question putting -- with your line of questioning. >> in order to benefit itself in some way to 80% interest in -- >> suggest there is this close- knit relationship up and down the line and there is this cozy relationship between the department and folks who are getting a loan guarantee.
11:59 am
that is what i am suggesting. i am not saying is that it marked out this way. this is what is involved here and this is why we're having a hearing and why the american taxpayers are saying this is not what we are supposed to be doing. this is not the way this system is supposed to be working. >> this depiction is incorrect rate to suggest we have an interest in excel energy is not correct. >> focus of my questioning, once you put it back out, my question was not on excel. i am coming down the right hand side. i will concede that. >> if we put a decision to put as much as $116 million at risk for a tenuous and minimal return, it would be completely irrational on the part of all of
12:00 pm
our constituencies, including our shareholders. >> it raises concern in what we have seen with the department of energy with prologis, in light of the fact that mr. crane has been to the white house many times, that we have letters going to the white house -- at some point you have to say where does this anend? the ones that took advantage of this were supposed to of the month -- >> we are living at this point. the house is gambling in this afternoon. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the members of this assembly to be
12:01 pm
the best and most faithful servants of the people they serve. purify their intentions that they will say what they believe and act consistent with their words. help them, indeed help us all to be honest with themselves so that they will not only be concerned about how their words and deeds are weighed by others, but also with how their words and deeds affect the lives of those who look to them for support, help, strength, and leadership. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from vermont,.
12:02 pm
>> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side of the aisle for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? without objection. mr. wilson: last friday the president revealed a new policy that promotes illegal illens from leaving our country to deportation. this shifts jobs from lawful americans to illegal aliens. we welcome legal immigrants. in 2009 and 2010, congress refused to pass legislation giving amnesty to the same individuals included under the president's new policy. not only is this decision a presidential abuse of power, it also shows this administration
12:03 pm
is out of touch with the american families who are suffering from lack of jobs. instead of encouraging policies aimed to help our law-abiding citizens find jobs, the president believes that he should reward those who have broken laws by granting them work permits. at a time record unemployment, i urge the president and liberal control senate to take up the dozens of party bills that have passed the house to help american families find jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. i yield back. and madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1380, the new alternative transportation to give americans solutions act of 2011. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker.
12:04 pm
imagine you got up every day of your adult life working for the same company, helping build the american auto industry. you were tired but proud because you are part of something bigger than collecting a paycheck. you are part of rebuilding the economic engine that gave us the middle class. ms. hochul: you count on a pension, life insurance, and health insurance when you retired because that's what you were promised. you thought you lived the american dream until one day that dreamed turned into a nightmare. that's what happened when g.m. sold off adelphi corporation in 1999 and later filed for bankruptcy and over 20,000 employees were left out to dry. family finances were ruined across this country, including the towns of rochester and and others in my district. this must be is recognized. that's why i'm delighted to see the re-emergence of g.m. as a global powerhouse. we cannot forget these individuals. i called on this administration
12:05 pm
for their help. i have not received an adequate response from the department of labor and treasury. i call up the president to take up the cause of these retire years. they need -- retirees. their heart is broken. they need help. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, successful agriculture is vital for america and for my home state of illinois to thrive in the future. the farmers in my district in northern illinois are saying that they can do without direct payments as long as there is some protection from catastrophe. that's why i'm looking forward to supporting a broad plan for strong, reliable, and affordable crop insurance when we take up the farm bill next week. a successful farm bill must have strong protection from uncontrollable risk for our nation's agricultural sector. mr. hultgren: farmers take large risks every year to require the feed and supplies they need for the season. crop insurance gives them the certainty to take these risks knowing that they will be
12:06 pm
protected from conditions beyond their control. we have an opportunity to empower farmers by giving them choices and the abilityle to protect their needs while also asking they share the risk so the taxpayer isn't picking up the whole tab. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: thank you, madam speaker. in 11 days the interest rate on the stafford student loans will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. it's unthinkable that congress would allow this to happen. but here we are only 11 days from the deadline and no closer to a solution than they -- we were month ago. this is only one of those only in washington situations. nearly every-r everyone agrees we can't let these rates double. doing so would be a real blow to the middle class and those trying to climb their way into the middle class. it would be bad for the economy and makes no practical sense.
12:07 pm
the federal government is borrowing at 1.6%. yet congress has been unable to extend the lower rate is now only 11 daysway. -- days away. take jesse who will be affected despite financial supports from scholarships and her family, she's graduating from nursing school with over $150,000 in student loan debt. at age 26, she worries that she'll not be able to start family or put a down payment object a home because of this debt. she worries if interest rates increase a. bad situation will be even worse. madam speaker, we have 11 days. it's time to get this done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: last week i received
12:08 pm
an extremely disturbing report about china's one child policy from china's central province. ben was seven months pregnant and home alone when she was abducted by a government family planning official. she was taken to a hospital and bound while her child was administered a powerful poison. after she gave birth to her dead child without the aid of painkillers, the baby was then left beside her on the hospital bed as shown in this picture. her husband is a common worker. he has no recourse for the crime that has been perpetrated on his wife and child. family planning officials took this gruesome step in order to meet their quotas under china's brutal one child policy. this is further evidence that government officials routinely take extreme measures to enforce china's barbaric one child polcy. it's a human rights issue. it's far past time that the chinese government stop this terrible repression and end the destruction of lives. i call on secretary clinton to condemn this policy in the strongest terms. i yield back.
12:09 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. the american public deserve better. they serve more from their congress. the sacrifices that so many millions of americans have given, whether it's in military service or the service of this nation to allow us to stand here and self-govern ourselves needs to be repaid with maybe the words of daniel webster above us up there. let's do something great in our time. the differences this nation has is what makes us strong. the differences of opinion. but compromise and common purpose is the glue that holds us together. if there is anything we can agree upon, it's that this nation should have a world class transportation system, to move people and goods in an efficient, effective manner, and we are sitting here not passing a transportation bill. we have never had this problem in this congress. the last five transportation bills have passed with an average of 375 bipartisan votes.
12:10 pm
we have a bill that passed the senate 100 days ago that passed with 74-22 in the votes. i'm not sure they could agree it's tuesday in the senate, and they compromised on a transportation bill. i urge my colleagues here either get the compromise done this week or bring the senate bill forward and let us vote up or down to put america back to work and do something great in our time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: madam speaker, president obama's regulatory war on coal is having an effect. in the 2015-2016 capacity auction by regional transmission organization, p.j.m., interconnection, the market clearing price for the middle atlantic area was $167 a megawatt, and northern ohio was $157.
12:11 pm
the average over the last eight years has been $89. capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements existing coal-fired generation resulting from regulations which go into effect in 2015. a study published from 2010 by the edison electric institute identified seven different new regulations and will raise the cost of electric generation by 2017. the costs are huge. the e.p.a.'s estimates of costs for its hue tilt is $9.6 billion per year starting in 2015. the house of representatives has taken action to prevent the imposition of new economic burdens in the midst of this fragile recovery. the senate has yet to follow that lead. madam speaker, prices are rhyme climing and americans will suffer. i yield back -- prices are climbing and americans are suffering. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for
12:12 pm
what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, last thursday, june 14, marked the 2,000 american fatality in operation enduring freedom. today that number is 2004 of which, 1,887 happened in afghanistan. suicide rates by our veterans are now one every day. this is the human cost of war. it is heartbreaking. 43 hail from massachusetts, including eight from my district. these are not just statistics, they were living, breathing men and women in uniform. at this solemn moment i would like to send my condolences to the family of army private mo quinn jr. 19 years old, army master sargen simmons, army major maskell, marine captain van door he's, u.s. national guard sarent barrett, 21 of fall river, army specialist, andrews of fall river, u.s. army national guard private first class, gone salo, and air force
12:13 pm
major david broder, 34 there you -- from auburn. are you not forgotten. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. altmire: madam speaker, we all agree rebuilding our nation's infrastructure is the best way to create jobs today and ensure long-term economic growth tomorrow. our failure to pass a long-term fully funded transportation authorization has undermined our competitiveness as a nation, overpurded our local and state governments -- overburdened our local and state governments, and hurt american businesses. it prevents the state and local governments in every single one of our districts from funding repairs to their bridges, roads n, and railways. it leaves our infrastructure crumbling and it discourages business from creating construction and manufacturing jobs that american workers could
12:14 pm
be filling today. madam speaker, i urge the transportation conference committee to finalize their work before the current authorization expires at the end of next week. we owe it to the american people to get this done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: madam speaker, president obama laid out in his state of the union address a blueprint for an america to last. to do this, he said, we need to rebuild american economy by reviving manufacturing, new and innovative energy source, educating and creating a strong, more skilled work force, and more importantly, renewing our american values. i want to talk about the new and innovative energy sources. remember when the arra was
12:15 pm
passed president obama spoke about building the green economy. jobs in the energy field that looks to the future. hawaii chose -- our recent unemployment rate shows it does work. our u.i. rate are 6.3% though we would like to see it lower. note that our initial claims are down 16%. total claims are down 10% from last year, and the area where we have seen job creation is in the solar energy market. we have an 18% increase in the permits in the first five months of this year. our department of labor projects 2,900 jobs by the end of this yee, green jobs. 25% over the past two years. president obama has got it right. let's look to the green economy. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
12:16 pm
mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, each year americans write a check to uncle sam in the hopes that their money is going to the right places. unfortunately, the federal government has lost credibility as the steward of taxpayer money. in the past three years, millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered in risky green energy products and many of those companies have failed. the beneficiaries of these shady ventures happen to be the president's men. half a billion tax dollars to subsidize a company that was doomed to fail. 1,800 americans lost their jobs but the cronyism continue. last week the department of energy awarded $2 million to solar mosaic, the president's former green czar is an advisor to that company. imagine that. time to quit gambling taxpayer money for projects for all the president's men and that's just the way it is.
12:17 pm
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you. madam speaker, in 2003 the current senate minority leader told n.p.r., and i quote, money is essential in politics and that's something we should feel squeamish about. provided that everyone knows who is supporting everyone else, end quote. i agree with that version of senator mcconnell. but there's a new version he revealed last week that he doesn't think we should know who is buying our dreaks democracy. i understand why nixon came to mind but i think the senator's projecting here. after all, he now believes unanimous donors using secret money should be able to influence election, all out of public view. nixon wrote that playbook. anonymity allows people in campaigns to distort the truth at best or to lie outright with
12:18 pm
no chance of being held accountable. if you oppose the exposure of campaign financers you're endorsing dishonest campaign. madam speaker, the voters have a right to judge the credibility of campaign adings and that is simply -- ads and that is simply impossible without the disclosure of those influencing our election. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
12:19 pm
from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 688 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 688. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2578, to amend the wild and scenic rivers act related to a segment of the lower merced river in california, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate the bill shall be considered for
12:20 pm
amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-25. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
12:21 pm
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker, and for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, and also congratulate the gentlelady from new york who has been incapacitated for a while. it's nice to see her back on the floor with her health starting to recover.
12:22 pm
pending that i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. and i also ask, madam speaker, that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this particular resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of h.r. 2578, the conservation and economic growth act, which contains 14 titles, containing important legislation impacting our nation's public lands and our national parks. the rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate and makes in order of a vast majority of amendments which were filed at the rules committee so this structured rule is extremely fair and will have a fair and open debate on the merits of the bill. it was only a couple congresses ago, madam speaker, in which the senate sent over an omnibus bill, had over 100 particular
12:23 pm
bills added to it. i should have been happy. three of them were mine. even though mine were really great bills, some of the rest of them were really bad. that was 1200 pages. what was most -- 1,200 pages. what was most egregious is 75 of those 100 bills had no hearing whatsoever in the house. one in particular that dealt with my state, although not my district, not only had not had a hearing in the house, it hadn't even had a hearing in the senate when it was put into this pile. and it was brought to the floor under this closed rule. this bill, every single title has gone through regular order. the kerr of jurisdiction has had a -- the committee of jurisdiction has had a full debate on each of these sections and they had a markup on every one of these bills. the committee has heard and has done the work. the amendments that were germane to the issue and were not assigned to other committees were made in order to be heard on the floor. so once again this is a bill that's unique in the spectrum
12:24 pm
of traditional omnibus bills, tying things together, because it did go through regular order, the committee did hear of these provisions and it's appropriate to send it over to the senate so they can try to consider something at sometime in some order. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, first, i want to say how happy i am to be back and i appreciate the welcome i've gotten from all my colleagues. and i missed you terribly. missed you, like we say in kentucky, like a front tooth. the bill before us, madam speaker, is another wasted opportunity, i'm afraid. today's legislation is composed of 14 separate bills, serve of which are even bipartisan. but regret plea, these worthy proposals will not be signed
12:25 pm
into law because the majority has packaged them with other proposals that endanger our environment and public health. several of the controversial provisions before us are based on democratic proposals, but unfortunate the democrat bills that were taken and rewritten in such a way extreme lea that they can no longer receive bipartisan support. two provisions in particular illustrates extremely partisan approach. first, title 3 would unnecessarily change a long standing agreement and endanger the biological sensitive alaskan wilderness. this would open up our nation's largest national forest for logging and allow rare forests to be cleared, cut and sold for private game. second, the most extreme proposal before us, title 14, would impose a so-called operational control zone over almost 100 million square miles of american land.
12:26 pm
the federal land within this zone, partly homeland security, ignore 36 environmental laws. and federal border agents will be able to operate with few limits on their power. my good friend from utah has put forward an amendment to pair the 36 laws down to -- pare the 36 laws down to 16 but that's too many. title 14 talks about a problem that doesn't exist. the environmental protections prevent the u.s. customs and border patrol from stopping illegal immigration but however sworn testimony by both border patrol officials contradict this claim. in fact, the department of homeland security oppose this legislation. my entire sdrigget, all of it would fall under the newly operational control zone and as a result u.s. customs and border patrol could take
12:27 pm
control over these landmarks, such as the theodore roosevelt national historic site, build anything on it they need. and i know my constituents pretty well after these many years. meanwhile, the sacred and historic sovereign lines in the indian nation would also be open to federal -- such an extreme federal overreach would violate the sovereignty of the indian nation there. many other tribes around the country whose land falls within this zone would face the same problem. the eastern tribes, they wrote, many indian tribes have lands and sacred places located near the u.s. international borders and we believe the sovereignty and culture and integrity of our member tribes and others is unnecessarily put in jeopardy of the sweeping approach of this bill. federal cooperation, not federal overreach, is a proven
12:28 pm
and prudent way to protect our borders. a recent g.a.o. report confirmed what we learned in sworn testimony. every time federal cooperation between the border patrol and our land management officials was requested, it was given, every time. the only time between environmental laws and border enforcement was when border patrol officials didn't bother to ask the department of the interior nor the usda for cooperation. finally, it is worth mentioning that the majority violated the rules of the house when they combined 14 unrelated bills into the one bill before us today. however, the rules committee gave itself a waiver, despite repeatedly having waivers for democratic proposals throughout the year. once again, the majority wants to break the rules. whenever we ask for a waiver for one of our proposals, all of a sudden the rules of the house have been written in stone. i urge my colleagues to oppose today's extreme and partisan
12:29 pm
legislation and to stand up against the federal overreach contained in this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, again, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: within this bill, there are some -- there are several proposals that are there dealing with federal lands and all of them dealing with overreach that has taken place unfortunately by this administration. let me just highlight a couple of them and why these bills are useful and very much important. title 10 of this particular section deals with cape hatteras in north carolina. cape hatteras in north carolina was established as a recreation area. in fact, the economy of that particular county was established as a recreation zone and a recreation area. authorized in 1937, that's still 37,000 acres for
12:30 pm
recreation purposes. u.s. fish and wildlife service started negotiations with the community of how they would actually try to manage that land, especially governing off-road vehicles. they established certain restrictions that were -- would limit local residents who were there. the residents agreed to those even though they weren't quite happy about it. everything was going well until -- until special interest groups started the litigation process. see, the fish and wildlife service had issued opinions saying that this strategy that was established in the cooperative and collaborative process and indeed had actually had indeed solved the problem and that they would never be in any kind of jeopardy to any kind of endangered species listed in that particular area. everything was going well until once again there was a lawsuit. a year after this agreement had been made, there was a lawsuit which this administration unfortunately decided to
12:31 pm
negotiate out of court. . no judge made a decision. basically the administration caved to the special interest groups and they rewrote the opinion that had been ruled by the fish and wildlife service, their biological opinion, that it did not -- it did not jeopardize any endangered species. that went into effect and unfortunately in march of this year they even shararning the rule again to make it more restrictive. what this bill, this section of this particular bill does in cape hatteras is do what's logical. goes back to the coverage concern, the original land management plan that was done with cooperation of the fish and wildlife service and the local constituents that had been agreed upon but had nothing to do with endangered species and did not jeopardize anything. simply going back to what had been done before the administration decided simply to cave into special interest groups and settled outside of court. there is another section, i
12:32 pm
believe it's section 11, that deals with grazing rights. one of the things that businesses feel, especially those 40 deal -- who deal with grazing rights, they need a constant to make surety business is not uncertain. that is almost a significant part. one of the things we are finding right now, though, with grazing, especially in the west, excessive paperwork within the department means we create missed deadlines that causes environmental litigation. once again stability is a constant that is necessary in business and grazing is a business. it's one of those problems that to redo a permit to allow grazing will take four to seven years for a permit that's only 10 years in the first place. what this bill does is say those permits now go from 10 to 20 years. once again to give some constant -- consistency to those who are engaged in grazing activity. it also codifies appropriation language that has had bipartisan support for over a decade. and makes sure that the crossing
12:33 pm
and trailing of livestock on public lands is not going to be subbed to another layer of red tape. this industry puts $1.4 billion into our economy every year. and if indeed we do not treat our ranchers well, the 22,000 ranch horse have these federal permits, the ability of maintaining thises is a viable occupation is put in jeopardy, this amendment, this section, fixes that. it solves that problem. there are some other good ones. in fact the one i am proposing i will talk about in a minute but for now let me simply reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the just utah reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: i thank the gentlewoman. madam speaker, i rise to focus attention upon one provision in this legislation, perhaps a few
12:34 pm
rose petals hidden in a very unnecessary thicket of painful thorns that are the center of this legislation. recently nominated as a world heritage site, the spanish missions in san antonio are a very unique treasure for parishioners, for tourists, and texans everywhere. in 2010 our able former colleague rodriguez introduced bipartisan legislation both to expand the san antonio missions national historical park by about 151 acres, and to require a study by the secretary of interior about even further expansion of this important park. in 2010, this very house approved the rodriguez legislation. though a companion bill was offered by senator kay bailey hutchison and she got it out of
12:35 pm
the senate committee, the full senate failed to act on the rodriguez bill. during this congress i have been one of five members who joined represent canseco in reintroducing the rodriguez bill. instead of approving a bipartisan measure, receipt sources committee has merged only a fraction of that bill into a totally unrelated piece of legislation that is little more than a giant give away and exploitation of public property and which will endanger irreplaceable natural resources from the seashore in north carolina to the tongass wilderness in alaska. while senator hutchison continues to work on a bipartisan basis, this particular measure really includes little of the protection that our missions deserve. now any purchase of additional land for this park, an original purpose of the bill, that's
12:36 pm
prohibited. and even a mere study of the possibility of additional park expansion, that's denied in this bill. now the only way that the park can be expanded is if a private or public owner donates land to the park. in other words, it makes future expansion and protection of these san antonio missions dependent entirely upon charity. no matter how public minded some private property owners may be, some are likely to be unable to afford to donate the land. does the gentlewoman van additional minute? ms. slaughter: i do. let me yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: some property owners will be unable to donate their land. instead of continuing the previous bipartisan commitment to the mission, this bill reflects the same ideological extreme so evident in larger public policy debates.
12:37 pm
like that over the fuhr of our national transportation system. yes, our republican house colleagues are all for good transportation. it's just paying for that transportation that they are opposed to. and so today we hear about private property rights, but what about the private property right of an individual landowner to sell their property for a legitimate public purpose such as expanding this vital national park? that is denied in today's bill. this bill will not grow the park in the way necessary to fully enhance the missions that are so very significant to san antonio and to the culture and history of our nation. the better approach is to wait and follow senator hutchison's lead and approve a prestanding bipartisan bill and give these missions the protection they deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah.
12:38 pm
mr. bishop: once again i appreciate the opportunity to talk about a couple other elements of this bill. i appreciate the gentleman from texas and his comments. unfortunately, yes, it was taken out because it would be a replication of what has already been done. and the land that could be used to expand this is already in the public domain. and what we are simply saying with this particular bill is, no, we don't need to try to force private property to sell their lands. if they want to donate it, it's fine. it's not essential to this particular park. it's the appropriate thing to do. let me, madam speaker, if i could talk about the other provision, title 15 in there, which deals with our border security. it's one of those things i happen to think fairly significant. if i could start with just a few charts so the people understand what is going on, this chart is simply division of this country by border patrol section. you'll find out that certain sections have a lot more people
12:39 pm
coming into this country illegally than other sections. for 2009 and 2010, the last years we have full data, about a half million people were illegally apprehended coming into this contry. of those half million a. quarter million, 51% or more were coming through one sector which happens to be the tucson, arizona sector. that's not even the entire state of arizona. why are 200-plus thousand people being apprehended in arizona. it looks like you got about 39 people apprehended in min. why is this area the entrance of choice? i think it's undeniably one of the reasons is because the territory on that southern border. everything in red on this border is land that is owned by the federal government. you'll see 80% of arizona is federal land. much of that being wilderness and endangered species habitat or conservation rights of way. one of the ironies is our border
12:40 pm
patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights do what they need to do to protect our border on private property and no one objects to it. which is why the statement of the gentlelady from new york is somewhat disengine win because most of her district is private property. border control already has these options. it is only own federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal government. -- job. that seems bizarre and unusual. this is what the border actually looks like. when the world is turned upside-down. that's the fence and that's the one road that the border patrol is allowed to use if this happens to be federal wilderness designation. the break in the fence by the way happens to be there so that animals can go freely from mexico and the united states and back and forth. i think i could contend not only animals are using that kind of break in the fence. but needless to say the issue at
12:41 pm
hand is simply why is the border patrol prohibited from going in to certain federal areas when they need to do it even though the bad guys, the drug cartels, the human traffickers, the kidnapping rings, prostitution rings, are allowed to go in there? we have on these federal wilderness areas, 8,000 miles of illegal roads created by illegal drug traffickers going in this area and the border patrol by our rules and regulations and laws is prohibited from going into that same area. is it right that they in hot pursuit would have to go to the edge of one of those wilderness areas and wait? indeed that is what has happened. secretary napolitano when she was first put in there simply said, one of the issues is in the southwest border, it can be detrimental to effective accomplishment of our mission. in fact, it may be inadvicible for officers' safety to wait for the arrival of horses for pursuit purposes or attempt to
12:42 pm
apprehend smuggling vehicles within wilderness with less than capable forms of transportation. border patrol clearly recognizes they actually tell us they don't need more money, manpower what, they need is access into that area. which currently they are denied. let me show you how that works. this is simmably one of the censors that's used. instead of having -- you use a censor, a truck with a censor on the back of it. in this federal national monument, which is almost all wilderness designation, the border patrol wanted to move this truck from point a to point b. it took the land manager, it took the land manager three months to grant approval to back up the truck and move it to some other place. during that three months there was a seven-mile blackout area in which there was no surveillance possible. at the end of that seven months his manager said that area is
12:43 pm
too sensitive. i don't think you should go there. i would have objected but i would understood. unfortunately after three months review, he let them move the truck which was too late to do it then. that kind of example of what is happening on our border is replicated time and time again. let me give you some examples, 2007, the border patrol asked permission to improve two forest roads in the national forest. four, five miles on the border, edge of this area. they wanted to be able to move their mobile surveillance system to a higher ground to actually get control of the particular area. they would use the road at most once a day. but the fish and wildlife service delayed the decision because they were afraid some of the dirt may eventually get into one of the streams in the particular area. the net result is in 2011 permission's still not being granted in this particular area, a catastrophic wildfire burns
12:44 pm
68,000 acres, three illegal aliens were arrested, and one admitted for actually starting the blaze. in 2010 the border patrol requested three helicopter landing sites, the forest service liked the idea they could use those sites also for fire suppression. once again the fish and wildlife service, the competing agentcy, had concerns because there was -- it would have an impact on the mexican spotted owl. unfortunately when they did the survey they found there were no spotted owls in the area. nonetheless, the fish and wildlife service stopped the construction of those helicopter pads and in 2011, you guessed it, one year later, a 32,000 acre fire that destroyed dozens of homes took place and once again it was found that illegals coming in this country started those fires. the citizens of tombstone, arizona, are allowed to go five at a time with hand tools into these wilderness areas to repair the pipeline that supplies water to the city that was damaged in these fires once again the
12:45 pm
federal service saying the mexican spotted owl is the reason for those limitations. g.a.o. did a survey, they did a report, 17 of the 26 border patrol stations experienced delay. 14 of those 17 reported being unable to obtain permission or permission from land managers to use the station that is were found in california, texas, arizona, and new mexico confirmed that they were unable to control the border due to land management position. even on the northern border, the spokane sector, they found once again they were being blocked from a road in national forestland due to environmental concerns. . the g.a.o. report found it could take six months or more understood needed to patrol in new mexico. another reported eight months in delay to remove a sensor. the land management required a specimen. a station in california said it took nine months for
12:46 pm
permissions for road management on federal lands. these are the factors that inhibiting our border patrol from doing their job. now, in the g.a.o. report, it did say and some people look at the executive summary and are looking at it improperly. said that 22 of the 26 agents in charge reported that the overall security status had not been affected. what that meant was their status of being a controlled sector, a managed sector, a monitored sector had not been changed. but what they did say they were being inhibited and impeeded in doing their job to try and control -- impeded in doing their job to try and control our borders. the drug cartels, the human traffickers, they don't care about our jobs. this is a human species. it was cut down to do a roadblock across a public road in the united states so they could use it to stop cars and then mug the participants of those cars. whether those were meashes or other foreign nationals coming
12:47 pm
in there and the rape trees that are taking place. violence against women on these lands. it simply means, these coyotes have these women. at the end of the rope they will rape the women and leave an article of clothing on one of the trees as a trophy for their action. this heinous activity taking place on american land, not being prohibited now and will not be prohibited unless the border patrol is allowed to maintain access on this property. that's why this bill, this section, is so essential. it is the war on women. we had 19 people in the month of may this year who died in the tucson sector alone. unfortunately that is an increase from what happened a year ago in may. we need to end this problem. there are three reasons why this section is supported. sovereign countries secure their border. we need to be able to say we
12:48 pm
control our borders. number two, i want to see a comprehensive immigration package go forward. every time i hold a public town hall meeting i know the first question that is kd me, when will we control the border? there is a great deal of anger and anxiety out there. we will never get consensus for other immigration reform to take place until we have first reduced the anger and anxiety. you do first thing first, second things will be added to it. if you do second things first you will neither accomplish first nor second things. this administration do second things first. the first is to control the border. when we can trulyly look with app honest answer in the eye of our fellow citizens and say america's borders are secure, then there will be a reduction in the anger and the anxiety that will allow us to move forward. the third reason we have to do this is to stop the violence against women. these rape trees on american property, on federal land in american -- on american
12:49 pm
property, that take place because the border patrol don't have access to this area to patrol it effectively, it must stop. it's our duty and obligation to make that stop. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the committee on natural resources, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. kosta: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today -- mr. costa: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to speak on the conservation and economic growth act. first, i want to thank the gentlewoman from new york to speak on what i think are some of the good things in this package but unfortunately some of the elements of this package that i think is not the appropriate way that we ought to be debating the challenging issues of immigration reform in the house of representatives. first, these bills should be taken on their individual
12:50 pm
merit, not as a package. if we consider them together, we should then have an open rule that would allow us to then debate the merits of each individual bill. now, some of the bills contained in h.r. 2578 are supportive in the past. as an example, the measure offered by mr. denham allows the federal energy regulatory commission to consider spillway improvement on the project by the said irrigation district. this will allow expansion of the capacity of that reservoir, some 1,800 feet of the merced river would be impacted, but as a result of it we will gain perhaps as much as 78 acre-feet of additional water supply, water that is much needed in the san joaquin valley. that's a good portion of this package. there is also other areas that i support. language within the bill to provide certainty to the
12:51 pm
grazing community that i am an original co-sponsor for. grazing land of public lands provides opportunities for america's bofe industry that is very essential and very important. however, this bill also contains controversial provisions that would be damaging to my constituents. h.r. 1505 gives the customs and border protection authority to waive numerous laws pertaining to federal land management. it's just not the protection of those lands. it's farm lands. it's coastal zone management, mining, public health safety and public -- i ask the gentlewoman's time has expired for another minute or 30 seconds -- i ask gentlewoman for another 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: h.r. 1505 would waive numerous laws that pertain to very important elements of not only the coastal zone by mining, public health and public review with
12:52 pm
100-mile -- within 100 miles of the u.s. border. i oppose this measure because it is too sweeping in its efforts. this bill also pretends to provide border security problems on language management laws. we have challenges with our border, no question about it. i supported additional funding for the border control agency. we must protect our borders, but to do so in a land management bill makes simply no sense. we should be taking up immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform separately from land management bills. and that is i think the method that we ought to apply. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: once again, madam speaker, i appreciate -- i take one second before i yield to the gentleman from iowa -- i
12:53 pm
yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from california's comments, although i am going to have to push back slightly on a few of those if it's at all possible. this particular bill deals with 100 miles from the border simply because that the is the legal definition of border land. it does not deal with coastal areas. in the committee those areas were taken out because it's maritime area. border patrol uses land in those areas. the 39 rules that are waiveable is press kent established by this -- precedent established by this california. when they wanted to finish the fence in california and it was being held by certain kind of litigation, homeland security came up with 36 -- sorry, not 39 -- 36 specific rules and regulations they wanted to be able to waive so they could do it. that was the precedent. the rules and regulations that are in particular bill that is now part -- that is now title 15, are the exact same 36. that's where the precedent comes. that's what homeland security
12:54 pm
wanted that time to finish their job. that's what they needed this time. however, i'm also making an amendment to this bill that will reduce those 36 because, to be honest, some of those never really were a problem. it will reduce it to 12 that the border patrol thinks have the most egregious but there is precedence for that particular thing. all we're trying to do is give the border patrol the same rights they have on federal land that they currently have on private property. there is no expansion of power, no expansion of jurisdiction. it's the ability to say our number one goal is to have border security. and if there is a rule or regulation getting in the way, and there are, according to a g.a.o. report, those shall be waived for the purpose of border security. that's the whole purpose. we're not expanding a power. we're not taking anything more than that particular way. with that, madam speaker, the gentleman from iowa would like to speak about this particular rule. i'd like to yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah
12:55 pm
for yielding and particularly appreciate given the subject matter i'm about to bring up. madam speaker, i have introduced legislation months ago in this congress, in fact, as far back as last august, h.r. 2942. it's the result of the massive flooding that we have suffered in the missouri river bottom last sum ir. the corps of engineers released unprecedented discharges of water coming down the missouri river. it was 70,000 cubic feet per second. we went through 160,000 cubic feet per second. it was the secret flood. no one could drive there. no one could boat there. you had to fly over to see it. it was a mile wide downriver in sioux city, iowa. 11 miles wide south of omaha. it became four to six miles wide all the way down into
12:56 pm
missouri. st. joseph, kansas city, on toward st. louis. this was a massive flood of historic proportions. it could have been prevented. yet, i have not challenged the corps of engineers on that. i said to them, we need to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again. they have declared this was a 500-year event even though the usgs statisticians said it's between a 70 and 1,000-year event. this is a piece of legislation, h.r. 2942, that enjoys the support of almost everyone that represents the missouri river watershed area and yes, naturally, it will be nor downstream. from sioux city downstream to the mouth there's only one that represents the river that has not signed on to this bill. it's bipartisan. it's entirely -- the entire iowa delegation and most of nebraska, but yet the rules committee turned down my request for -- to offer an amendment even though there's no discussion and no disagreement. my amendment was germane to the
12:57 pm
bill. they raised an issue of jurisdiction after i was dismissed from the committee. i don't think that was by plan or strategy. my preparation of this that if a member of congress can't have a voice heard on an amendment that's germane, all of the boxes are checked and everything was done right to present it before the committee, and by the way, i want to thank the gentleman from florida for calling for a recorded vote on this. a party line vote. this time democrats deciding with steve king. the second time the rules committee has turned me down this year on a legitimate request. but i'd ask if the house is going to work its will, as speaker boehner said, we must have a rules committee that will allow, when it's in a proper form, allow that kind of a vote happen here on the floor house. i am not going to get that debate. i am not going to get that vote, and the people i represent and all of us from sioux city downstream to st. louis now have been covered not by water for more than a summer, more than three months
12:58 pm
of epic proportions flooding, but now what's left for us, madam speaker, is sand, camel habitat. i don't intend to try to bring down the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a valued member of the committee on rules, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady for her time. i rise in opposition to the rule. i agree with my colleague from iowa. i voted for the amendment to the rule offered by mr. hastings of florida that would have allowed his amendment and others. what are we scared of here? this is what we do. we are the house of representatives. let us work our will. some of them will be for amendments and some will be against amendments. but to hold all the power to a select group of people rather than allow the entire membership of this party to offer, again, we are talking about relevant amendments that meet the requirements, meet the rules of the house, what are we scared of in bringing that
12:59 pm
forward? let's have a discussion on the merits. instead, what we have here under this rule, we have 14 separate bills all cobbled together with a limited period of time to debate -- to debate all of them. debate all of them. and without the opportunity to amend them for many on both sides of the aisle that would have been afforded either under an open process or structured process that would have allowed all the rules that met the requirements for a period of time. now, i want to discuss in particular what i find to be one of the most egregious provisions of the bill which is really a solution in search of a problem. namely, this is an aspect of the bill that would waive over 40 environmental safety and public health laws and give department of homeland security complete authority to seize control of federal lands within 100 miles of our northern and southern borders. now, this provision's reach is broad.

101 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on