commitment to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. what did i say in dropped the commitment. dropped it poorly, dropped it with a negative impact. dropped it impacting women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses. we've got to get back in order to be able to show that the utilization of those businesses creates jobs. small businesses have lost an estimated $3.8 billion in business opportunity because they could not fairly compete for federal contracts because larger companies are allowed to bundle contracts. in essence, s.h.t. -- s.r.t. has several performed instead of sharing those dollars. it recognizes this impact of big businesses that pose to small business success. since the osdbu's creation, they ensure they have the maximum ability to participate,

these divisions are numerous. each impacts entrepreneurs. the women's assistance committee provides women-owned businesses with best practices of business growth and increases awareness of opportunity. . i met a woman who had taken over the business of her husband who had died of cancer. she had a household to lead and was trying to do this kind of construction work. at the time, she had been given by h.r.t. safety work just by holding up a sign. i'm encouraged by the out lization of this particular office, that she is now more advanced. but it has to be encouraged. and this amendment is to ensure that we don't leave out small, disadvantaged, women-owned and minimum--- minority-owned

businesses. in conjunction, the business resource septemberer is responsible for promoting the use of small businesses. texas has been chosen as the representative of the gulf region and more than 60,000 american-owned businesses and thousands of other businesses, asian and latinos. i'm asking my colleagues to support this amendment because it is an amendment that ensures that we put minority, women -owned and disadvantaged to work under this legislation. the chair: the time has expired. mr. latham: we will be more than happy to accept the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered -- ms. jackson lee: i thank the

gentlelady. the chair: in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: the chair: the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 4, line 3, $10 million to remain available through september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. after the first dollar amount reduce by $5 million. page 35, line 7, after the dollar amount insert increase by $ million. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: my amendment underscores the point that we need to be doing more, not less, to combat the dangerous habit of distracted driving on our nation's highways. we voted on a motion to instruct conferees to reject the senate's bipartisan proposal to partner with the states. and the bill before us now provides no additional funds to address what transportation secretary lahood has identified

as an epidemic in this country. traffic accidents caused by distracted driving are on the rise in communities everywhere in this country. many my home county, our police department in fairfax county reported a 48% in increase in the number of citations for distracted driving in the last year. a recent study points out 80% of all crashes and 65% of all near crashes involved driver distraction. nationally, the department of transportation reports more than 416,000 people were injured in distracted driving accidents in 2010. and tragically, mr. chairman, 3,100 of those were killed. according to a recent a.a.a. traffic survey, 94 of

respondents recognize the risk of talking, texting while driving. 87% said they support laws against reading, typing or sending text messages while driving. yet, more than one-third of those same drivers reported they still read or send texts or email while driving. in fact, the national highway traffic safety administration estimates more than 100,000 drivers are texting, more than 600,000 drivers are using their cell phones at any given time. sending or receiving diverts attention from the road. while it is not a long time at 55 miles an hour it is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field without paying attention to the road. another report says using a cell phone to talk or text delays a driver's reaction just as much

as having a blood alcohol level of 0.8, the legal limit. we can congratulate the 39 states for taking steps to band texting. the force of these laws vary. in my home state, it is the secondary offense so drivers cannot be pulled over or cited. we need to beef up prevention efforts. i host add teen driving summit when i was chairman of fairfax county a few years ago. distracted driving is the number one killer of teen drivers in america. alcohol-related accidents amongst teens have dropped. fatalities have remained unchanged because of the growth of accidents caused by texting or talking on the phone.

35% of teens who talk or text while behind the wheel do not think they'll get hurt. i hear my colleagues talk about their support for traffic safety. but i don't see any tangibles actions to address these challenges. and as blueprint for ending distracted driving, secretary lahood wants to apply technology to block cells while in motion or to improve crash warning and driving monitoring systems. the secretary has also proposed partnering with states on top of prevention efforts and public awareness campaigns. mr. chairman, today's mobile-driven-device society is our greatest obstacle to ensuring safety. i urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment. it is a modest transfer of funds

from an administrative account for resemp and prevention efforts. this will save lives. there was a tragic accident of a young lady driving in iowa, texting and causing an accident, a fatality. in my home county of fairfax, when i was chairman i remember having to talk to the grieving parents of a young women who had been texting while driving and died a few short blocks from her home. looking in the face of a parent and having to explain why tcha could have been prevented is something i hope none of my colleagues ever have to do. i plead to accept this amendment and save teenaged lives. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i rise in opposition to this amendment. charkte the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. latham: i rise reluctantly in opposition to this amendment. it takes $5 million from the.'s financial management capital account and there is no guarantee that they will use this money as the gentleman has talked about. there's no dedication of funds here, obviously. this would eliminate half of the funds that.has to make sure its financial systems are current and i don't need to say how critical that d.o.t.'s financial systems which are responsible for the reimbursement of millions of dollars each year need to be kept in good working state. and second, this would increase the vehicle safety system. we are already giving this account $12 million more than last year, after being frozen for the last three years straight. we simply don't need an

additional increase, and again, these funds, there is no way to dedicate them to distracted driving. so, with that, mr. chairman, i would urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. further discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from massachusetts? mr. olver: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: thank you, mr. chairman. i find it a little bit difficult here where we are taking from one place and putting it into another place. and i don't dispute wha the chairman has said about not being certain that the money will be used for the right purpose at that point. however, the place where the offset is being made from the financial management capital program under d.o.t., that

amount, leaves that account with the same amount that was in the account in 2012. so that should not particularly changed on that score. on the other hand, the issue that the gentleman from virginia has raised, the issue of the distracted driving and how important it is, we are just losing a lot of young people to the distracted driving. there seems to be no sense that being on a cell phone or an ipad or some other one of the common programs that's now available, i.t. programs that's now available, working with that doesn't seem to lead to any sense that their driving

capacity has been impaired. so in 2010, it was estimated that more than 3,000 people were killed and more than 400,000 were injured in distracted-driving crashes. and secretary lahood has made the elimination of distracted driving one of his key safety priorities and requested funding in the last three budgets to do that. so it seems to me with the sense that nitsa views this issue with 3,000 killed in 2010, a few years ago killed >> and 400,000 injured and the secretary's very strong interest in the distracted driving issue that this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. so i will support the gentleman

from virginia's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield back? mr. olver: i yield back. the chair: any further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 4. office of civil rights, $9,773,000 thourk the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? broun broup i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: insert reduced by $839,000. after the dollar amount insert

increased by $389,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: my amendment is very straightforward and would reduce the office of funding to the office of civil rights by $389,000. this is one of 13 in the underlying bill which are slated to receive increases despite the fiscal emergency we are currently facing. . this amendment would bring this account back to 2012 levels. i see my good friend from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee, she knows -- she and i have fought together for civil rights and civil liberties here in this house, in committee as well as on the floor and believe very strongly that we need to protect our civil

liberties and our civil rights. but the simple truth is that we are broke as a nation. this amendment would just simply keep funding at the current level. instead of raising it. so it would just turn it back, what's proposed in the underlying bill, to the current level of spending. would not reduce any functions of this office, it would not prohibit this office from doing any of its work. but it would help in a small way to put us back in a more realistic fiscal state as a nation because, mr. chairman, we just have to stop spending money we don't have. and it's across the board. every bureau, every office, every bit of the federal government needs to not have increases in their cost to the taxpayer.

not have further borrowing of money we don't have we've got to stop spending money we don't have. this simple amendment keeps funding at our current level. that's all it does. i urge support of my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. olver: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. oliver: may i yield bush mr. olver: may i yield from that time? i yield from my time to the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has to remain on his feet. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairperson again. my good friend from georgia knows we have had opportunities

to work together on a lot of different issues. it seem as if he is raising an issue that would have sense of agreement but i have to reluctantly but vigorously oppose the gentleman's amendment. the office of civil rights in the department of transportation losing the amount of money he has suggested will deprive that office of viable and important staff and resources for compliance. frankly this agency governs huge amounts, billions of dollars of federal dollars. in addition, it governs actions that deal with accommodations, the utilization of dollars for small and minority and disadvantaged businesses.

the civil rights section has been a section that has assured -- ensured that federal dollars in transportation are used in a way that are not discriminatory. i don't believe we need to be in 2012, rising to eliminate opportunity. we need to expand opportunity. the civil rights section of the department of transportation has always been a consistent and efficient subsection of the agency that has been the guide post of ep suring that our federal dollars are used appropriately. used appropriately as it relates to native americans. used appropriately as it relates to latinos, african-americans, caucasians. it is a civil rights office that balances and ensures nondiscrimination. nondiscrimination against the

disabled. i frankly believe that because of the massiveness of that responsibility, particularly as we look at the needs of the disabled in transportation, re-- in transportation resources or transportation utilization, that it is crucial that we do not cut to the existing amount of dollars. this is not a lot and so the impact is greater than what the gentleman believes he will have because he's suggested it is a small amount. it's a great impact. i would ask the secret to consider this amendment as one that has a far-reaching impact and that at this point we do not want to make a statement that civil rights and the equal accommodations that are necessary in the utilization of federal dollars is acceptable, meaning discrimination is acceptable, nondiscrimination being if you will, limited by the funding that has been cut through this amendment. i would ask that our colleagues

oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman has the time. mr. olver: reclaiming my time, i strongly oppose this amendment. i think in this instance we should understand that the office of civil rights, its major task is to ensure that discrimination doesn't occur in the implementation of d.o.t. programs. the chairman of the subcommittee has already carefully weighed the needs of the office and made, i think, a responsible judgment as to the correct funding amount and i urge members to oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yields back in -- yield back his time? mr. olver: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise?

mr. latham: just so everybody knows, the increase in the build is a simple increase for inflation to pay for costs such as g.s.a. rent and one extra compensable work day, transportation, -- transportation is important to all parts and all people in america. i don't think this is the right cut and to take this kind -- to take in this kind of bill. i think we should always keep in mind that we have on our allocations, we have written the total appropriation bills to the 1028 number rather than 1047. this bill cuts about $4 billion under last year's funding levels, so with that, i express my opposition to the amendment and i would gladly yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: --

mr. broun: i believe in equal under the law. we all ought to be considered equal. no matter what color the skin in, so -- is, no matter who our fathers of our own families are, etc. i think everybody should be treated equal under the law. certainly, as i stated, i apologize if the gentlelady from texas thought i was insinuating that she would agree with this amendment because i never had any dream that she would, frankly but with that, i -- i'm introducing a lot of amendments to this bill to keep administrative expenses and salaries for many, many of the different pieces of this underlying bill and this is just one of many. but i'm convinced that i need to withdraw this amendment and i just ask unanimous consent

that i withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 5, line 1, transportation planning, research and development, $8 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk designated waters-162. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. waters of california, page 5, after line 6, insert the fol logue, national infrastructure investment, for capital investments in service and infrastructure, $5 million to remain available through 2013. provided that the secretary of transportation shall distribute funds thunder heading as discretionary grants to be awarded to a state, local government, transit agency or collaboration among such entities on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the

nation, a metropolitan area or a region. provided further -- the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, the reading iscy spenced with. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentlewoman is reck thesed for five minutes on her amendment. ms. waters: i thank my colleagues, laura richardson, wonny rush and others for co-sponsoring this amendment. our amendment will provide $500 million for the tiger program which creates jobs through investments in transportation infrastructure. the economy is struggling to recover from the recession. the unemployment rate has remained above 8% nationally for 40 straight months and is even high for the minority

communities and in many areas of the country. meanwhile, the american society of civil engineers 2009 report card for america's infrastructure estimated that there is a $549.9 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges and -- and an additional shortfall in investments. tiger, formerly known as transportation infrastructure investment generating economic recovery, is a nationwide grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure by states lork call governments and transit agencies. tiger funds projects that will have a significant impact on our nation's highway and transit infrastructure. tiger would finance a wide variety of innovative, bridge and transit projects in urban and rural communities all

across this country prorkvided there's sufficient funding. one such project is the l.a.x. transit corridor in los angeles county a light rail project that will run through my district. tiger grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of west commester and lamerd park, ensuring that these communities have access to light rail. according to transportation secretary ray lahood, these are innovative, 21st century projects that will change the u.s. transportation landscape -- landscape by strengthening the economy and creating jobs, reducing gridlock and providing safe, affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation choices. tiger received an appropriation of $500 million in funding year 2012 and the president requested $500 million for the program in funding year 2013.

unfortunately, that does not include any funding for tiger. our amendment would create jobs by funding tiger at the requested levels without cutting funding for other programs. last week, i introduced h.r. 5976, the tiger grants for job creation act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next two years for the tiger program. and 44 of my colleagues have already co-sponsored this bill. and so, i would ask my colleagues to take a look at what is happening in our economy. i think we can all agree, this economy needs stimulating and certainly i'm not talking about stimulating for just -- just stimulating for stimulating's

sake, i'm talking about stimulating for job creation and for the repair of the infrastructure of this country. we have too many bridges that have been rated unsafe. we saw what happened in minnesota just a couple of years ago when the bridge failed and i want to tell you, when the bridges start to fall and the infrastructure simply disintegrates, we are all going to sit around and scratch our heads and say how sorry we are, we're going to go tour constituents and tell them we will never let it happen again. we have the opportunity to get in the forefront of providing this stimulus to our economy and creating jobs. our constituents want to work. they want jobs. and so i would urge my colleagues to support the tiger amendment, invest in our crumbling infrastructure and create good jobs and communs across the country. i yield back my type to the gentlelady -- i yield the

balance of my time to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i rise in support of the waters tiger grant amendment. i agree with the gentlelady that there's no stronger job creator than investment in transportation, bridges, transit systems, port development, passenger rail, it makes america more efficient and makes us more competitive. there's never been a more critical moment than now to do it. as kids we used to sing the song, london bring is falling down, falling down, london bridge is falling down, one, two, three, we all fall down. in cleveland, the project did not receive the funding it needed to replace the i-90 bridge. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation and appropriation -- in an appropriation bill and

violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill should not be in order if exchange -- if it is changing existing law. the amendment gives affirmative direction in effect and imposes additional duties and mr. chairman, i ask for a the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: i rise to speak on the point of order. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: in the limited time to speak on these important issues, i have tried to point out the high unemployment in this country and how we can put americans to work repairing crumbling roads and building transit facilities across our great country. i don't see any need to have to expand on this anymore. i think the point is perfectly clear that we need to fund this

tiger grant. with the economy still struggling to recover from the recession and millions of americans looking for work, we should not be arguing about offsets. tiger has always been funded through the appropriations process. tiger was first appropriated -- the chair: the gentlelady needs to speak to the point of order. ms. waters: the point of order being -- a point of order has been raised because there is no offset. and i agree. there is no offset. but i make the point that we have such a critical need for jobs and investment in our infrastructure and this economy that we should not stop this from going forward simply because of the offset. we can afford to fund investment in this country. that's my opposition to the point of order. the chair: the time of the

gentlelady has expired. any member wish to be heard on the point of order? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i congratulate the gentlelady from california for an insightful amendment and understand the dilemma that the chairman of the subcommittee is in, but what i would suggest is that we are in the such a crisis as relates to both jobs, the needs of urban america, rural america, that the point of order should be waived and it can be waived. we have waived points of order on a number of occasions and this instance, i think we have a moment when you have zeroed out, for whatever the purposes or reasons for zeroing out, there isn't minimal amount of monies in the tiger funding. none at all. and my district having received $15 million in tiger grants, the fourth largest that the city has

ever received, but there were urban and rural grantees that were able to -- the chair: you must address your argument to the point of order. ms. jackson lee: that this is warranting to the point of order, $500 million that will be utilized to create jobs and rebuild urban and rural america. i yield back. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? >> i rise to speak against the point of order. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i wish to say, amazing what we can find money for and what we can't. when wall street came in here, $700 billion walked out the door. thousand times more than what the gentlelady is asking for. there has never been a more

critical time in our country to waive in order to do the job of america. we have a bridge in cleveland that is ready to collapse. the same design. what can be more important than creating jobs and meeting the unmet national needs. in western ohio, we have mccord road, the site of a mainline and many young people were killed there and they have delayed that project rather than doing the grade crossing that is needed. mr. chairman, you can talk about points of order, but the most important point of order is keep the nation in order. and i think the most important way is to keep the transportation funding flowing and making our nation more competitive, creating jobs and leaving the legacy better than what we found it. i ask along with my colleagues

that the point of order be waived. the chair: any further member wish to speak on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language in part in direction to the secretary of transportation. the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 221. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 5, line 7, working capital fund $174 million. minority business resource center program, $418,000. in addition for administrative expenses, $867,000. minority business outreach, $3,234,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. airport and airway trust fund

$114 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. after the dollar amount insert amount reduced by zero dollars. increase by $114 million. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. if the house is to live up to the promises the republican majority made to the american people to bring spending under control, some tough choices are going to have to be made. this amendment, however, is not one of them. this is about the easiest choice that the house could possibly make, to put an end to the so-called essential air service that lavishly subsidizes some of the least essential air services in the country. this program shells out $200

million including $214 million of direct taxpayer subsidies to select flights in tiny communities which are a few hours' drive from major airports. a reporter investigating this waste took one of these flights from ely, nevada and only passenger on that flight. our constituents paid $1.8 million for this air service that carried just 27 passengers during the entire year. eli is a 3 1/2-hour drive from salt lake city airport. an airport in minnesota is one hour and nine minutes to grand forks airport. hagerstown is 175 miles from

baltimore but subsidizing their air flights is considered an essential air service. now it's true there are a few tiny communities in alaska that have no highway connections to hub airports but they have plenty of alternatives. one enjoys year-round ferry service to juneau and alaska is served by a thriving bush pilot. rural life has advantages and disadvantages, but not the job of hard working taxpayers who choose to live elsewhere to level out the differences. it is said that it is an important economic drivers for these small towns. i'm sure that's so. whenever you are giving away money, the folks are better off. but the folks you are taking it

away from are worst off. indeed, it's economic drivers like this that have driven greece's economic lifeline off the cliff. this would bankrupt itself. as we can plainly see the same principle holds true for government. this was a temporary program set up when we deregulated the aviation administration and it was to last a few years to give rural communities a chance to adjust. that was 34 years ago. in 2010, in one of the most decisive congressional elections in american history, voters entrusted the house to republicans with a crystal-clear mandate, stop wasting our money. last year, the house responded to this mandate by voting to eliminate essential air service

subsidies in the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. what is the response of the house appropriations committee? they do not eliminate funding or reduce funding for it. they increase funding by 11% in a single year to a new historic high. mr. chairman, our nation is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that it is spending and lost its a.a.a. credit rating and its treasury is empty and children are staggering under a mountain of debt and yet the house appropriations committee in defiance of last year's decision by the house to eliminate this program has just voted a double-digit percentage increase for a program that flies nearly empty planes around the country. i think we can do better than that. i offer this amendment to stop fleecing taxpayers for this

expensive fawley. i believe that house republicans will utility mayly prove themselves worthy of the trust people have given them in this perilous hour in our nation's history. republicans can summon the fortitude to save our count friday from financial wreck and ruin and i offer this amendment to put that to a modest test. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. olver: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: mr. chairman, i think what we have is a classical kind of a situation. the gentleman from california, i suspect, has no essential air service site in his district. but there are 100 communities, more than 100 communities around the country, some of them in

very isolated circumstances. i don't know them as the situation in the case from the one from baltimore, but someone who is on the east shore and gets essential air service out of cam bridge, maryland or some other place like that that is of great significance to them. it might be of some significance to the person who represents that eastern shore of maryland. uses several times the example -- in several ways the example of alaska. alaska happens to be a territory with huge distances and relatively unpopulated. and they don't have any roads in much of alaska and the only way they can get in and out is by air or maybe in the winter time by dogshred.

so i think it's it is presumptive of the the gentleman from california to attack all of this program of essential air services covering services in a lot of the rural parts of this country. i have none in my district. many of the urban areas obviously do not have any in their area. but the montanas and much more rural states elsewhere, in the mountain states, there are numerous of them that use the essential air service and i think that the idea of simply zeroing this one out in a petulence is quite inappropriate. i hope the members will not agree to this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the essential air service program ensures that small and rural communities have access to the national air transportation system. this program plays a key role in the economic development of many rural communities ensuring that air service continues. does the practice need reform? absolutely that's why we capped the program to existing communities and remove the requirement that larger and more expensive planes must be used in the program. in addition, the authorizers institute $1,000 per passenger per subsidy cap and limited participation in the program to communities that have more than 10 enplanements per day.

this amendment would be devastating to at least 150 rural communities in places like iowa. it plays an essential role as far as the economic development of those communities. and with that, i urge defeat of the amendment. and i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. further discussion on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. .

>> i rise to recognize the tiger amendment. projects funded few tryinger -- through tiger strengthen the economy, reduce traffic and provide safe, affordable, environmentally sustainable transportation projects. tiger delivers projects faster and saves taxpayers' dollars by reducing construction costs. in my los angeles district, tiger has provided significant opportunity. ms. bass: in facting tiger provided resources for the crenshaw-l.a.x. corridor project a light rail line to connect key communities to the los angeles international airport. i look forward to continuing to work with my rped the clerk will designate the amendment -- colleague, maxine waters, to continue to work for a corridor project to include a station at vernon avenue a neighborhood

which serves as the central arts and cultural hub of los angeles county's african-american program. the tiger grant program is critical to the success of the crenshaw-l.a.x. light rail line as well as many projects like it throughout the country. i'm sorry that the amendment was ruled out of order. i think that that was a mistake on our part and i yield back the rest of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page , line 1, administrative provision, office of the secretary of transportation, section 101, none of the funds made available i may be obligated to approve assessments. the secretary may engage in activities with respect to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. section 103, the department's working capital fund is authorized to provide payments in advance to vendors for

benefit programs. section 104, the secretary shall post on the website a schedule of all meets of the credit counsel. federal aviation administration operations, airport trust fund $9,718,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clark of michigan -- mr. clark of michigan, after the dollar amendment insert redued by $10 million. page 9, line 19, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order on the amendment. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would add $10 million to the federal transit administration's formula and bus grant. i do this to give elderly and physically disabled a chance to get around their community. many of our disabled and elderly aren't working, they don't have the money to afford

a car, afford car insurance, especially in the city of detroit where insurance rates are really prohibitive for many people. this allocation of an additional $10 million would provide the elderly and our citizens who are physically disabled with the mobility that they need to enjoy their lives. i urge your support. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time? mr. clarke: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. chairman, the amendment proposes to amend, i must insist on my point of order. the amendment may not be considered en bloc because clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment does not propose to transfer funds among objects in the bill as required by

clause 2-f. i would ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the amendment? or on the point of order? the gentleman from michigan is recognized on the point of order. mr. clarke: yes, mr. chairman, i would request that the bill be read to the extent that the gentleman had an issue about the bill not being read. the clerk: does the gentleman ask that the bill be read to incorporate the en bloc amendment? mr. latham: object. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the objection? to be considered en bloc to clause 2-f of rule 21 an amendment must propose only to

transfer appropriations among objects in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentleman in michigan proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely, increases -- increasing a limitation on obligations from the highway trust fund, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. therefore, the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: i rise today in support of the waters-mccullen-bass-richardson -matsui amendment which was not found in order and i would hope that the members here of the leadership would reconsider that decision. i'm strongly in support of seeking to restore the $500 million for an additional year of the widely popular and highly successful tiger grant program. as a member of the committee of

transportation and infrastructure and as a representative of one of the most transportation intensive infrastructure dribblingts in the country, i know how important it is to maintain efficient transportation infrastructure that will help our country remain competitive globally throughout this country and in the world. the tiger program enables d.o.t. to use a rigorous process to select projects with exceptional benefits to explore ways to deliver projects faster and save on construction costs. it also enables to make investments in the nation's infrastructure and make communities more livable and sustainable. the 2012 tiger program received 703 grant applications, requesting a total of $10.2 billion from all 50 states including the u.s. territories and the district of columbia. the first three tiger programs received nearly 2,250 programs

requesting more than $95 billion. some might say certainly we must have our financial house in order and we have to really look at how we spend the dollars that are available, but i would argue before the committee today that tiger grants was actually a program that was used, it was well monitored, the programs were brought forward and they were done at a benefit not only for the funding initially of those programs but for the jobs that they provided as well. clearly there is a need for an additional investment in our country's infrastructure. we have reports in my air cra, for example, in california, of many of the roads and highways where we receive a d grade due to the lack of quality of infrastructure in our community -- in our community. of the 47 projects funded in the most recent round of tiger grants, nearly 16% went specifically to port train structure, according to the american association of port authority which is calculated

69.7 million would be directed to the ports. funding these projects is crucial to the u.s. port facilities. it supports 13.3 million jobs and accounts for 3.-- for $3.15 trillion that by having better roads and infrastructure we can continue and the tiger grants help us to do that. in addition to restoring the full $500 million for the tiger program, i believe the conference report that comes before this body should contain the senate's map 21 national freight program and the programs of national and regional significant program. since copping to congress i have advocated for a national freight program and policy and that's why i introduced h.r. 1122 the freight focus act. the freight focus actest tablies the office of freight planning an development within the department of transportation to coordinate a national freight policy. by creating a national freight advisory committee, private and public sector entities would have direct input into funding

priorities and planning. the national freight program would provide over $2 billion a year to upgrade our nation's movement system that equates to $336 million to the state of california alone over two years for freight infrastructure upgrades. these funds are critical to areas like mine, a district where over 40% of our entire nation's cargo goes through the port of los angeles and long beach and ultimately through my district. in addition to map 21, which would authorize $1 billion for the projects of national and regional significance, according to the bloomberg government report, the cost of congestion to the trucking industry totaled $23 billion in 2010. almost a quarter of the cost of congestion to the entire economy. investing in key intermodal links such as the gerald desmond bridge a project that was funded through the projects of national significance, these links and the jobs associated to them are vital to us moving

fwoods throughout this country. without programs like tiger and pnrs, critical infrastructure like the gerald desmond bridge that has a diaper ubbeds beneath it catching concrete, which chairman mica visited and saw himself, these types of bridges could bont -- would continue to crumble and put a vital link to our nation's ports and consumers at risk. i would like my colleagues to accept, even though it's been considered out of order, to reconsider that. there will be greater precedence for the national freight program and the projects of regional significance. i look forward to the decision and support in the future. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. i do understand the procedural

limitations raised by the gentleman from iowa on my amendment. my goal here was to provide those citizens with physical disabilities some way to get around their community because many times, even if they can afford to buy a vehicle or auto insurance they may not be able to drive that vehicle. and i look forward to working with the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from iowa, on other ways that we can better serve our citizens who are elderly and who have physical disabilities. i yield back my time. the chair: -- i yield my time to the gentleman. i yield my time to the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. latham: i would just say, i hope the authorizers come back with a robust number for you and that we have to try to -- we'll be happy to try to work with the gentleman. mr. clarke: thank you very much.

i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 12, line 8, facileties and equipment, airport and airway trust fund, $2,749,596,000. research engineering and development, include regular sigs of funds, airport and airway trust fund. $175 million. grants and aid for airports, lickyation of -- liquidation of -- >> madam chairman. the clerk: airport and airway trust fund. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 34, line 23 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that

portion of the bill? if not, the clerk will read. the clerk: page 35, line 1, national highway traffic safety administration operations and research, $152 million of which $20 million shall remain available through september 30, 2014. operations and research, liquidation of contract authorization, limitation on obligations, highway trust fund, $122,360,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brailley of iowa. page 35, line 16, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $10 million, increase by $10 million. page 35, line 21, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $10 million, increase by $10 million. page 35, line 22, after the dollaran amount insert, reduced by $10 million, increase by $10

million. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. braley: i thank the chairwoman. and i want to make a specific point of emphasizing that i'm offering this amendment in honor of one of the gentleman from iowa's constituents, a young 7-year-old girl named caden halvorson, who on may 10 of 2011 was struck and killed by a pickup truck while exiting a school bus. and this particular section of the bill deals with the report language that talks about, among other things, the ability to talk about safety and pupil transportation relating to the national highway transportation safety administration. so to understand the purpose behind this amendment, it's important to know how this tragedy happened. this young girl was crossing the street to board our school bus, the bus had its red lights flashing, the stop arm was activated. and a pickup truck traveling at 60-mile-per-hour -- 60 miles per hour struck and killed her. the driver tested positive for

marijuana and later pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and -- homicide and has been sent to prison. this is one isolated incident in my home statea but statistic shows that -- state but statistics show that 13 million violations occur in this country every year of vehicles passing stopped school buses. it's obvious we have a serious problem and my amendment would use this funding for the purpose of working with states to create tougher sanctions and tougher enforcement to reduce this alarming problem of people violating the law and passing stopped school buses. the intent of my amendment is to require the national highway traffic safety administration, otherwise known as nhtsa, to prioritize $10 million for school bus safety work, and specifically to work with state and local law enforcement to improve enforcement of state law concerning illegally passing stopped school buses. my amendment would ensure that

we are enforcing the laws on the books pertaining to stopping those school buses. it's a part of an ongoing effort to provide safety to kids who are going to school and returning every day. 13 million violations a year is way too many. we have an obligation to work with states. my amendment would do that by directing nhtsa to use this opportunity to help those states become more effective in preventing these tragedies. it wasn't the only one that has become of significance in my state. 11-year-old justin bradfield of janesville, iowa, was tragically killed in 2011 after being struck by a school bus. that's why earlier this year i introduced caden's act in the house, the bill would encourage states to toughen their penalties for those found guilty of passing a stopped school bus. i'm honored to have the subcommittee chairman as a co-sponsor of that legislation. host: that my colleagues will support this -- legislation. i hope that my colleagues will

support this amendment and i urge them to work to pass both these bills, to make it safer for our kids to get to school and back. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i thank the chair. i would like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairwoman. i appreciate the intent of the amendment of the gentleman from iowa, the gentleman introduced legislation that would require states to enact harsher penalties for reckless drivers who pass stopped school buses. and this amendment compliments that legislation and i think sends a very, very important message. the legislation named in memory of the little girl the gentleman spoke about from iowa that was killed so tragically, this is extremely important i think to raise the profile. i would hope that the authorizing committee in conference on the highway bill would take this into consideration.

and act on this very provision. as a co-sponsor of the act i commend the gentleman's effort and would accept the amendment. i thank the gentleman. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 36, line 11, highway traffic safety grants, liquidation of contracts authorization, limitation on obligations, highway trust fund, $501,828,000. administrative provisions, national highway traffic safety administration, section 140, an additional $130,000 shall be made available to pay for travel

expenses for state management review. section 141, the limitations on obligations shall not apply to obligations for which obligation authority was made available in previous laws. section 142, none of the funds shall be used to implement section 404 of title 23, united states code. federal railroad administration safety and operations, $184 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 39, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $5,404,000. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $5,404,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam

chairman. my amendment would simply reduce funding for administrative expenses within the federal railroad administration by $5,404,000. this office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which are slated to receive increases for administrative expenses. expenses despite the fiscal emergency that we're facing as a nation. this, like many of the amendments i'm bringing, would just reduce funding back to current levels. back to the f.y. 2012 levels. we have many sections of this bill that are slated to be increased. but as we face an economic emergency as a nation, as we're spending money that we don't have, we're spending 40 cents of every $1, that's being borrowed. and we just have to stop the

outrageous spending that's going on here in washington. this amendment would simply bring the administrative expenses for the federal railroad administration back to current levels. would not reduce the functions of administration, it would just keep funding at a current level. it makes sense to just stop increasing. so i urge support of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the gentlewoman. i must oppose the gentleman's amendment. this would not allow the federal rail administration to hire additional safety inspectors and fully implement risk reduction

-- the risk reduction program. these investments have a proven record to reduce the amount of crashes on our nation's railways. while we appreciate the gentleman's concern over the debt, this is an arbitrary way to budget and negates months of work on this committee to try to determine the proper funding levels for these different functions. the bill already cuts $4 billion from 2012 which is a very fiscally responsible level and i would urge a no vote on the amendment and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. broun: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask for the yeas and nays.

the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. broun: yes, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 39, line 6, railroad research and development, $35,500,000. railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program, the secretary is authorized to issue direct loans andoan guarantees pursuant to sections 502, 3504 of the railroad revitalization and regulatory reform act of 1976, public law 94-210. operating subsidy grants to the national railroad passenger corporation, $350 million. capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger corporation.

$1,452,000,000. next generation high speed rail rescission, $1,973,000 are hereby permanently rescinded. northeast corridor improvement program rescission, $4,419,000. administrative provisions, federal railroad administration, section 150, funds provided for the national railroad passenger corporation shall immediately cease in the event that corporation contracts to have services provided from any location outside the united states. section 151, the secretary may receive and expend cash and utilize spare parts from non-united states government sources to repair damages. section 152, the secretary is authorized to allow the issuer of any preferred stock to redeem such stock. section 153, none of the funds

provided to the national railroad passenger corporation may be used to fund any overtime costs in excess of $35,000 for any individual employee. section 154, the unobligated balance of funds shall be used for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings. federal transit administration administrative expenses, $100 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise tone gauge in a colloquy with my good friend from iowa, distinguished chairman, mr. latham. first i'd like to acknowledge the difficult and challenging job the chairman has had in crafting this bill. mr. lipinski: i'd also like to acknowledge all the work of ranking member olver, not just this year but in years past here

in congress and especially on this -- as head of this committee. in 2008 congress passed the mandate requiring commuter and freight railroads to implement positive train control by 2015. while p.t.c. provides a very significant safety improvement, it is also very costly. federal railroad administration has sfimented that the total cost doctor has estimated that the total cost will be -- has estimated that the total cost will be $13.2 billion industrywide. i was able to add language authorizing the rail safety technology grant program at $50 million per year. since the program was authorized, hour, congress has only -- however, congress has only appropriated $50 million for one year. this mandate is especially hard on commuter railroads. in the chicago region, metrorail has 300,000 commuters every week

day. metro estimates that p.t.c. will cost $200 million. there are many other commuter railroads in this country facing similar situations and needs some help implementing this safety technology. but recognizing the difficult choices the chairman has had to make on this bill, i will not offer amendments. but would ask that if this bill moves forward to conference and in future appropriation bill wes work together to find a way to find -- bills we work together to find some way to help fray the cost to our nation's railroads to implement p.t.c. with that i yield to chairman latham. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman for his hard work on -- in this area and for his efforts on the transportation committee. commuter railroads are an extremely important mode of transportation and are critical to many regions of our regional economies. i would be more than happy to

work with the gentleman on ways to address the p.t.c. funding issues as we go to conference and in the future. . mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him on this funding issue. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? broup broun i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broup of georgia, after the dollar insert 1,287,. page 150 line 9, insert increase by $1 mill -- $1,287,broun broup my amendment would reduce funding to this office.

this office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which is slated to receive increases for administrative expenses despite the dire fiscal environment we have in our nation. we have to stop the outrageous spending. passage of my amendment, would simply bring the funding level for this -- for these administrative expenses within the agency back to the level of this year. it would reduce the increase back to current levels. i urge support of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. olver: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: what i understand of this amendment is that the the gentleman from georgia is now

removing a little over $1 million, 1,300,000,from the $100,000 that is assigned by mr. latham's bill for the administrative expenses of the f.t.a. but now, the f.t.a., according to our -- in my opening statement, we now have 65% of all of our population in this country and it's going up every census is now living in metropolitan areas with populations of greater than half a million people, and that the remarkable thing about this is that among the 50 largest

metropolitan areas, there are a series of very swiftly growing by 25% every decade, 25% increase in the populations of those metropolitan areas. it is in those metropolitan areas of which georgia has one major one, the whole atlanta area which is growing by 25% by every decade and the gentleman is trying to constrain the number of dollars that f.t.a., which is the agency that provides the services that provides the development of transit services for all of these major metropolitan areas around the country, i think this is an exceedingly amount of

increase that has been been proposed and virtually everybody has metropolitan areas that are in need of this enormous increase in investment for transit services, for public transportation services, whether they be by commuter rail or by light rail, any one of those programs, i just think that this is an exceedingly shortsighted amendment to be trying to impose upon the f.t.a., which has increased in its total services to the urban parts of the country year after year the number of grants that are being given out, the amount of administration of those grants

goes up, and it must continue to go up if we are going to have a a growth in population which we expect to have at 10% per year per decade as it has in the last decade. so i just oppose this amendment and think that it is -- urge a no vote on the amendment. i think that it is clearly a nonproductive thing to do, a counterproductive thing to be doing, no matter what our economic times may look like at the present time. we have to get back to a growth program in this country. we have to get back to building more infrastructure and to administratively through the f.t.a., the programs through which those infrastructure

improvements get made in all of the metropolitan areas that are growing around the country. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. this is a minor 1.3% increase over the prior year with all of the increase going to uncontrollable costs such as additional exensabble rent day, work day and i.t. maintenance costs. we have rejected $66 million of funds for new activities requested in the president's budget. this is also where we shouldn't cut funds. f.t.a. personnel has increased

by 19% and the number of grants f.t.a. administers and oversees has increased 118%. i'm not sure cutting funding is the right thing to do in an agency that oversees this many of the federal funds. we're talking about .00005 full-time equivalent for every $1,000 that the grants are dolled out. i thank the gentleman. we have cut $66 million and oppose any attempt to reduce funding. i ask for a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. broun broup i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 49, line 1, formula and block grants, limitation on obligations highway trust fund, $8 billion. liquidation of contract authority, highway trust fund $9 billion. research and university research centers $44 million. capital investments, $1 billion. grants to washington metropolitan area transit authority $150 million. administrative provisions, federal transit administration, including recision of funds. the chair: --

>> federal transit administration shall not apply. section 161. funds appropriated under the federal transit administration discretionary program shall be directed to programs eligible. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: we have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will kindly send his amendment to the desk.

the chair: the gentleman was on his feet at the time. the paragraph in question was read. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey, page 50, line 18, after the dollar amount insert amount reduced by zero zol arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: it is the desire of this house that we put an end to earmarks and yet, some might say that in this bill there contains $150 million solely for the benefit of one project, the

washington metropolitan transit agency. this is 1/10 that congress intends to spend on the d.c. metro system. this may or may not be considered your average earmark. the heritage foundation has dubbed this, the largest one in american history. why? well, the amendment is simple before us. it would eliminate this subsidy that it has received ever since back 2008. at a time of record budget deficits and debts. the american people can't afford this subsidy when it takes into effect that the area already receives funds from several transit programs and given the performance of this agency, i find it amazing, astounding that this year the american people should be expected to give them another $150 million of their hard-earned money. in addition to the daily service

interruptions of lax management and poor performance, metro has a significant record of wasteful spending. in 2005, the "washington post" reported that metro spent $382 million to rebuild cars only to have them breakdown more than than those that weren't overhauled. when two agency attorneys wanted window offices, they spent money to accommodate them. why not? it is just taxpayers' dollars. it was reported that the office of inspector general found unwarranted expenses on metro's credit card, 200,000 of credit cards and camcorders and $180 for head phones alone. we cannot afford to pour money into an agency that hasn't done a job of cleaning its own house. and it is curious to note that the money is $15 million more

than the president requested in his budget. do we want to be outspending the president of the united states in this area? finally, hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the transportation system that has failed to get its own fiscal house in order. we owe it to the american people to do better than that. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts . fro what reason does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. olver: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: well, madam chairwoman, the amendment that is offered here in this instance is really quite a curious one, it seems to me. the gentleman offering the amendment is from new jersey.

the largest overall metropolitan system with its commuter rails, with its expansions needed, always repairing, always upgrading, always expanding the systems that serve the whole new york metropolitan area, serves northern new jersey, which is partly serves people in his district. now the amendment that is being proposed is an amendment that affects the washington, virginia, maryland, metropolitan area, which is our sixth largest area over five million people. my staff is trying to figure it out how many riders are in that

system each year. . it's fully authorized by the act in 2008 signed by president bush at that time and this is about the third or fourth year of the $150 million guarantee, the commitment in the altogether riding bill -- authorizing bill, toot the $150 million -- to do the $150 million per year, not in a specific place, not in a specific congressional district although there are several congressional districts in which it functions. and it's matched dollar for dollar, it's 50% matching moneys

that the maryland and virginia and d.c. have to match the $150 million along the way. and we do have, occasionally, safety problems. we've had some crashes here in washington and some people who have been injured or killed in those crashes and i find it really quite curious that the gentleman from new jersey would be trying to take away the money that is fully authorized -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. olver: i'd be happy to yield. >> i find it odd that i'm in the position here of defending the president of the united states, in defending what his recommendations are in this area. but i gladly do so. the president suggested that all those factors that you just laid out, take noon consideration, it was his opinion that we -- taken into consideration, it was his opinion that we should not be spending this full amount of money. mr. garrett: it was president

obama's suggestion that we actually curtail the money. mr. olver: all right. reclaiming my time. it has been the position of our subcommittee, looking at, realizing the authorization in the act and the commitments that had been made to this metropolitan area, which many of us and many of our staffs use for their transportation, we have had serious safety problems and serious -- a serious need has been shown through those safety problems for upgrading of the equipment and systems that we use in this area. so i don't -- i think it is -- it is certainly my approximation and i think it is -- position and i think the chairman of the subcommittee's position that this was a choice well made, critically made, with critical thought to why this was being

done, for the safety of people using the public transportation system. mr. garrett: will the gentleman yield? mr. olver: all over maryland, d.c. and northern virginia. mr. garrett: the gentleman will yield, then the question is, are you suggesting that president the -- suggesting that the president does not care for the safety of this administration, are you -- mr. olver: i'm not suggesting any such thing. i'm suggesting that this is a legislative position that this should be done, that it was agreed to be done. i now have the number of riders. we have 217 million riders in this system in 2011. that's a huge number of riders. and they deserve some activity

and some consideration for the safety of the system. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: this language came about as a result of our former colleague, tom davis. there were many ideas behind it. i didn't know the amendment was coming up. i think that's part of the problem around here on the prefiling. just to let members know what is coming up so they know. one, the number of federal employees. it serves the pentagon, it sembs most of the federal agencies in -- serves most of the federal agencies in the government. but if you look at the me row today, most of the people riding it today were tourists from new jersey and from texas and from other places like that around.

when you look at metro with regard to the inauguration and many of the other events, that was the whole concept, that the administration, both republican and democrat, and this was a republican amendment offered by congressman tom davis, to have this funding over a period of, i think if my memory serves me, over a period of 10 years. so i rise in strong opposition to the garrett amendment and ask the congress to maintain the integrity of what congressman davis and many other congresses have done in the past and i don't know if i can retain the balance of my time. mr. garrett: will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: i yield to the gentleman. mr. garrett: i understand all the points you raise as far as who is using the system, it's new jersey people and new york people. but i can make that exact same argument about the new york-new jersey metropolitan area and our transit system as well and we don't have $150 million extra earmark in for our area. already you're getting -- the

d.c. metro area is getting $1.5 billion from congress, from the u.s. taxpayers, from colorado to oklahoma to tennessee, for this system. and now they're getting $150 million more. all the tourists that come up from all over the united states to visit my metropolitan area in new york and new jersey, we're not getting an extra $150 million. and we have the exact same concerns as far as safety and maintenance and the rest. so the constituents in my area are saying, why is it that only the constituents down here get this extra earmark and we don't see the same thing for other metropolitan areas? i'll yield back to the gentleman. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman. if i can, this is a nation's capital. and we are the nation's capital. we represent people from all over the world who come here and the new york system, and i want to be sure, things are thrown around on this floor many times that are not accurate. a large proportion of the new york system was paid for with

regard to federal taxpayer money. this was the agreement that was made by the government operations committee i think in conjunction with congressman davis, congressman hoyer and others a number of years ago. congressman davis is no longer here. but that was the whole sentiment with regard behind it. so i urge the members to vote no on the garrett amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> madam chairwoman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i thank you, madam chairwoman. i do understand that since i have claimed time in opposition, i retain then the right to strike the last word. mr. olver: so i have struck the last word, thank you very much. just to continue this one. new york at the present time is benefiting from enormous additional investments. two major projects, one that reaches out into long island, the so-called east side access, which you wouldn't know or care perhaps much about, because it reaches to all the population out on long island, to the east, to that direction for you, to the east, and the second is a new subway. so that new york system has those two very large programs,

each one of them is about $2 billion. $2 billion going on concurrently with what this 10-year program is for the maintenance of the system here in washington, when we have had clear evidence of safety difficulties and equipment difficulties that had not been taken into account. we were not putting enough investment in to the maintenance of the washington system. and to add to the gentleman from virginia's comment about this, our constituents from every district, all over the country, come to washington and deserve to have a really good public transportation system in washington. so it is in all of our interests to make certain that that system is up to snuff on safety and the equipment is in good repair.

so i have no apology whatsoever for supporting this one and would strongly urge that we defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to be sure to point out to the house that the account is authorized under the passenger rail improvement act this money has to be, in order for the metropolitan d.c. area to receive the funds, virginia, maryland and the district of columbia have to match the money which certainly helps and also note that the committee has included language which is very important that now local entities have to provide -- the federal government cannot provide more than 60%, is that i

believe correct? for the first time. that's important that the local community does their fair share. and all of the money in this -- in the passenger rail and improvement act for the d.c. area has to be used for safety and capital improvements only. mr. culberson: they conal use the money to buy new cars and equipment to improve the safety of the system and as my good friend from new jersey has pointed out, if there's clearly evidence of misuse of the funds, the inspector general can investigate that and bring criminal charges against those responsible for using the funds for a purpose other than that authorized by the passenger rail improvement act. i think it's also important to point out that the bill overall cuts new starts funding by $419 million and cuts administrative -- the request for administrative funding for the f.t.a. by $66 million. these bills that chairman rogers has presided over, that all of us on appropriations have worked so hard on, for the first time we've got a whole series of bills reducing spending year after year. there's much, much more to do

and while i'm certainly in fiff sol calf agreement with the gentleman -- philosophical agreement with the gentleman's amendment, because of the careful balance the bill strikes and in funding an authorized program that can only be used for a limited purpose that must be matched, the committee would like to ask for a no vote on the gentleman's amendment. mr. garrett: would the gentleman yield? mr. culberson: i'd be happy to yield. mr. garrett: i'll make three quick points. one is, again, it is really odd that here i stand with you next to the microphone that i am actually defending the more conservative position and actually defending the position of the president of the united states who says we should be spending less money. secondly, in a time when we all said, let's eliminate earmarks, here we have something that says that the largest earmark in american history. because this is not simply an issue of saying that this program has a safety program, a safety need and no one else does. if it wasn't a grant application process where new york, new jersey or any other system around crit could have applied

and say, our safety needs are x times high or less than washington washington, d.c., maybe there wouldn't be a concerned. but that's not the case here. all the other metropolitan transit systems in the country aren't being weighed as far as what their safety needs or what their maintenance needs are. it's just simply made a decision here that washington, d.c., and the congressional districts that it contains around it somehow or other merit greater service than do the other ones in chicago or new york or new jersey, what have you. and i think that's where the difficulty lies. mr. culberson: reclaiming my time. the gentleman and i work together on so many conservative causes. in this one area we do have a slight disagreement. i would point out that the statute requires that the metropolitan washington transit entity has to submit a grant application. under the law they're required to -- they can't just automatically access these funds. they have to submit a grant application that complies with all of the federal transit

administration's requirements. they have to demonstrate that the money will be used for the narrow purposes authorized by the act, for safety and capital and improvements and they must comply with all of the other requirements and every other transit entity in the nation complies with. to keep the careful balance the committee has struck, the overall reduction in funding, the committee would ask for a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i'd like it recorded. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. . the clerk: page 51, line 7, administrative provisions, including recision of funds, section 160, limitation on obligations programs for the

federal transit administration shall not apply. section 161, funds appropriated under the federal transit administration's discretionary program shall be directed to projects eligible. section 162, funds appropriated before october 1, 2012 that remain available may be transferred. section 163, funds made available for new system projects may be used during this fiscal year. section 164, unobligated funds that are available for reallocation shall be directed to projects for the purposes for which they were originally provided. section 165, the secretary may use for program management activities 1.5% of the amount made available to carry section 5315 of the united states code. section 166, none of the funds made available shall be available to carry out 49 u.s.c.

and section 167, none of the funds made available shall be used to enter into a full funding grant greem. section 168, the secretary shall conduct a former ajudication in section 554. section 159, the secretary may consider the costs and ridership of any connected projects. section 169 a, $70 million are hereby permanently rescinded. section 169-b. none of the funds may advance a new capital projects for the metropolitan transit authority. section 169-c, fuel for vehicle operations shall be treated as an associated capital maintenance item. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee

rise? >> i rise to raise a point of order against section 169-c. mr. duncan: madam chairwoman. this section violates clause 2-b of rule 21 and changes existing law and constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of house rules. i would also note that the issue when transit agencies can use transit funds is part of conference negotiations on the highway bill which hopefully will be resolved by the end of this week. it will incrude a better more targeted policy on this issue. so i request a ruling in favor of this point of order. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair will rule.

the chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law and constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, section 21 and this amendment is stricken. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 56 line 17, st. lawrence sea way development corporation, the development corporation authorized to make such expenditures available to the corporation and in accord with law. operations and maintenance, harbor maintenance trust fund, $33 million. maritime administration, maritime security programs, $184 million. operations and training, $145 million. ship disposal, $4 million. maritime guaranteed loans, title 11, program account including transfer of funds, $3 million.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 59, line 7, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $1,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia i recognized for five minutes. broupbroup my amendment would reduce funding for the maritime guaranteed loan program by $10,000. it freezes spending at the current level. i believe firmly that we ought to cut spending in this house. we have cut our m.r.a.'s, our own operating accounts for our own administrative expenses by 11% and what this amendment is

freezes the current fiscal year 2012 levels and i think -- not a lot of money to most folks. $10,000 is a lot of money to this ole georgia boy. so i encourage adoption of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. latham: i would just accept the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 59, line 10, administrative provisions, maritime administration, section 170, the administration is authorized to make necessary

rerepairs involving government property. section 171, none of the funds shall be used to negotiate or perform fee for service contracts for disposal. pipeline and hazardous materials, operation expenses, pipeline safety fund including transfer of funds $23,030, mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 60, line 25, after the first dollar amount insert reduce by $1 million. page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increase by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: this like many amendments i'm offering tonight would freeze spending at the f.y. 2012 levels. we have to stop spending. and i recommend adoption of my

amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other member seek recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts . mr. olver: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: it was -- what we're talking about here is pipeline safety inspectors. the increase in pipeline safety inspectors in a situation our agency -- what is the agency? the agency is pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration. that organization has over the

last few years had an ever increasing responsibility. just about 18 months ago, we had a pacific gas and electric pipeline that ruptured in san bruno, california. the ensuing fire and explosion leveled some 35 homes and killed eight people. the national transportation safety board's investigation found that pacific gas and electric poor quality control and integrity management systems contributed to the cause of the pipeline rupture. it's a prime example of why we need strong enforcement and en forcement -- insight of the ever expanding pipeline system. now so that section 31 of the pipeline safety reauthorization

bill enacted on january 3 of this year authorized 10 additional pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel if the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration had filled all 135 of its existing positions by a certain deadline. we need to be doing more rather than less on pipeline safety. and so i oppose this amendment very strongly. and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this program was authorized just last year. the funds that are being cut here are for safety inspectors.

and we have had explosions in iowa. and the gentleman referred to very tragic pipeline explosions elsewhere around the country. we have seen a number of these explosions, incidents. we simply cannot compromise safety in this regard. it's a small increase and consistent with the authorization that was passed by this congress, i can tell you from personal experience, a small town alexander, a pipeline exploded and we had to evacuate a 15-mile area and it was a huge issue. fortunately no one was killed in that explosion, but this is a very important function that we need to have these inspectors

and foge cuss on pipeline safety and i would urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. amendment from georgia. broup broun ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, will be postponed. the clerk: $42,546,which $1 million shall remain available until september 30, 2015. pipeline safety, pipeline savet funds, oil spill liability trust fund, pipeline safety design review of funds $111,252,000.

emergency preparedness grants $188,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. research and innovative technology administration, research and development, $13 ,500,000. surface transportation board, salaries and expenses, $31,250,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? broun broup i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broup of georgia, page 65, line 11, after the dollar amount insert reduced by 1 million. page 150 line 9 ininsert by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. broup broun my amendment will

reduce funding for salaries and expenses for the surface transportation board by $1,940,000 this office is one of 13 in the underlying bill would receive increases for administrative increases in this underlying bill. passage of my amendment would simply bring funding levels to current levels of f.y. 2012. we are spending money we don't have. we have reduced our own operating expenses as members of the house by 11%, over 11%. and this amendment would just freeze -- prevent any increase the salaries and expenses for surface transportation board to this year's level. we've got to be fiscally responsible, madam chair, as a nation. we've got to stop the outrageous

spending going on here in washington. and this doesn't even stop it. this just freezes it at the current levels. this hopefully is going to put a little spotlight on the fact that we need to stop spending money we don't have, stop borrowing 40 cents on every dollar the federal government doesn't have and freeze spending at the current levels. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i accept the amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the clerk: general provisions, department of transportation,

section 180, during the current fiscal year appropriations to the department shall be available for maintenance. section 181, appropriations shall be available for services as authorized by 5, u.s.c., 589. none of the funds shall be available for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and presidential appointees in the department. section 183. no recipient of funds shall disseminate personal information obtained by state department of motor vehicles. section 184, funds received by the administration from states, counties, other public authorities and private sources may be credited to the administration's federal aid highways account. section 185, none of the funds may be used to make a grant unless the secretary notifies the committees before any agreement totaling $1 million or more is announced by the department. section 186, rebate minor fees

and other funds received by the department are to be credited and allocated to the department. section 187, amounts made made available that -- amounts made available that the secretary determines made improper payments to the department to a third party contractor which are recovered shall be available. to reimburse expenses incurred by the department and recovering improper payments. section 188, funds provided in or limited by this act are subject to a reprogramming action. section 189, none of the funds may be used by the surface transportation board to charge or collect any filing fee. section 190, funds appropriated may be obligated for the cost related to assessment or reimbursable agreements. this title may be cited as the department of transportation appropriations act, 2013. title 2, department of housing and urban development. management and administration, administration operations and management, $518,068,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capps of california. page 71, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $10 million. page 72, line 3, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $2 million. page 72, line 8, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $5 million. page 72, line 20, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $3 million. page 102, line 2, after the dollar amount, after the first dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: madam chair, this is a straightforward amendment to increase funding for the h.u.d. housing counseling assistance program. as we all know, the foreclosure crisis continues to ravage our families in many parts of the country. this is a problem in my home city of california -- state of

california but also in many other states. nevada, florida, ohio, illinois and georgia all have foreclosure rates well above the national average. there are many efforts aimed at solving this crisis, but local housing counseling agencies have proven to be among the most effective tools we have to help struggling families stay in their homes during these tough times. these local nonprofits are filled with dedicated staff who work tirelessly to help owners -- homeowners make informed decisions and stay in their homes. they provide a wide range of free counseling services, including post-purchase counseling, renter counseling, reverse mortgage counseling and counseling for homeless individuals and families seeking shelter and they depend pend on federal funding from h.u.d.'s program to provide these services. every dollar allocated to these local organizations helps to ensure that all homeowners in financial distress may have a

trusted third party resource, to turn to, free -- resource to turn to free of charge. congress more than doubled funding for this critical program from 2007 to 2010, to help combat the rapidly expanding foreclosure crisis. and that money was money well spent. local counseling agencies use the funding to create jobs, by hiring additional counselors and extending their services to meet the rapidly growing demand created by the recession. sadly, however, funding for housing counseling assistance was abruptly eliminated in the f.y. 2011. this was a devastating blow to these local organizations resulting in layoffs and more important elimination of a valuable and much-needed service to homeowners who are in trouble. thankfully we were able to restore some of this funding last year and i thank the chairman and the appropriations committee for maintaining last year's funding level in the bill before us.

but frankly this is not enough. the foreclosure crisis is far from over. and the need for this funding has never been greater. just last month one in every 639 houses nationwide received a foreclosure notice. that's why my amendment would increase funding for h.u.d. housing counseling assistance by $10 million, matching the president's request of $55 million. the amendment is fully paid for with the $10 million reduction in the administration's operations and management account. this additional funding will make a tremendous difference in the lives of middle class americans in my district and across this country who are desperately trying to stay afloat. in my district on the central coast of california, where the foreclosure rate remains well above the national average, every little bit makes such a difference. i know my local counseling -- housing counselors, like people self-help housing. they're going to be able to help

many more of my constituents with this extra funding. i know some states have been harder hit than others by the foreclosure crisis. but the benefits of counseling extend to all home -- homeowners, not just those facing foreclosure. in a recently released studdy, h.u.d. examined both families seeking to purchase their first homes and those struggling to prevent foreclosure. in the prepurchase counseling study, h.u.d. found that of those participants that became homeowners, all but one of them remained current on their mortgage payments after 18 months. this study shows that housing counseling is not only helping address the current foreclosure crisis, it's also helping prevent future crises by helping homeowners find mortgages that they can afford and fully understand. while homeowners understand their mortgage and properly plan, they of are much more likely to make -- they are much more likely to make their payments on time and avoid foreclosure in the future and the housing counseling assistance program helps make that happen. this program has broad national support from respected nonprofits like catholic charities, national counsel on

aging, and the national council -- the national council on aging, and for-profit groups. and it should also have broad bipartisan support here in the house as well. i'm willing to bet that most of my colleagues in this house have referred constituents in the need of help to their local housing counseling agencies. i know i certainly have. i have no reservations about referring my constituents to local h.u.d.-certified counseling -- housing counselors because i know they will receive excellent advice and guidance. but as the foreclosure crisis has dragged on, demand for help has far exceeded the resources available. my amendment will not immediately solve this enormous problem, but it will certainly help. this shouldn't be a partisan issue. i know we must make tough choices to balance our budget. but we must also make smart choices. voting for my amendment is a smart choice, it's also the right choice for americans who are still struggling to stay afloat and so i hurge my colleagues to support -- urge my

colleagues to support this and vote yes. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank you and i oppose the gentlelady's amendment. this bill provides $45 million for housing counseling, the same as last year, and $45 million more than in fiscal year 2011. h.u.d. just reorganized into the new office of housing counseling and i would say that before we give them additional resources to the housing counseling, we need to make sure h.u.d. has the capacity to effectively implement this program. i think they ought to be able to walk before they run here. the housing counsel agencies are still complaining of the pain staking bureaucracy involved in applying and receiving these funds. on the other hand, people could get housing counseling from many

government sources, including neighbor works. neighbor works gives funding out the door quickly, has extensive metrics, ensuring proper use of the funds. we increased neighbor works by $10 million over last year. we need h.u.d. to do this thing right so until they can prove to us they could, taking funds from h.u.d. salaries and expenses would not be an effective use of government resources and again, madam chairwoman, i would urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the chairman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. olver: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: i am inclined to support the amendment that the gentlewoman from california has proposed.

recognizing that the request on the part of the administration was for $55 million, and that the -- it's an interesting juxtaposition because the h.u.d. counseling program, the question is for $55 million. the request for the national reinvestment corporation, which does -- that's neighbor works, which does also counseling, that request was for $213 million, for a total of $268 million. the other body in the legislation that they put forward, with a much larger allocation than we had in our budget because of the position

on what the -- discretionary expenditure limits would be on the house side, the other body gave $55 million, the president's request, but also gave $215 million for the national reinvestment corporation's account. which put them on the other body's side account to $2 million above. in the wisdom of the chairman, on the house side, in our bill, we have $10 million less for the h.u.d. department's program but $10 million more for the reinvestment corporation's program. to my view it doesn't make much difference there, but i will support the gentlewoman from

california, one of -- for her passion on this one. i think it is certainly very clear that if the economy covers more americans who are going to be buying homes texas crucial that we have programs in -- homes, it is crucial that we have programs in place in both of those locales that ensure that homeowners and new homeowners and people who are perspective homeowners do not repeat the same mistakes that led us into the financial crisis in the first place. so, i think it's a small difference but i'm going to support the gentlewoman's amendment and i hope the amendment would be adopted. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. page 71, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $24,437,268. page 71 -- mr. gosar: madam chairwoman. i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: madam chairwoman, i rise today in support of my amendment, to h.r. 5972, the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act for the fiscal year of 2013. the purpose of my amendment are straightforward and simple. first, the amendment aims to

hold one particular federal agency accountable for its terrible mismanagement of resources. the department of housing and urban development or h.u.d. second, the amendment saves over $24 million in taxpayer dollars during these trying economic times. i was per teshed to read the appropriations committee report, numbered 112-541, as it related to h.u.d.'s administrative operations and management. i will read an excerpt from page 71 here. . the committee is appalled with the quality of the information that the department that the agency uses to justify their budget request. h.u.d. doesn't have the adequate knowledge to implement a program and the information is often wrong and contains math errors and calls into its entire justification and the department's confidence in

managing its resources. the report goes on to show that h.u.d. cannot account its salary and benefit levels for its employees and violated the anti-deficiency act multiple times in 201 in which the department had not enough resources to pay. and i appreciate the desire to lower funding levels. but i believe that h.u.d.'s administrative management resources can and should be reduced to 2008 levels. this is a reasonable level of funding that allowed them to function. and the fact combined with their negligence means they must operate with less. business incompetence is president an answer and cannot be rewarded. i ask each member of the house

to support my amendment to the underlying bill. this is a win-win. you can cast a vote to hold government accountable and you have the ability. join me in supporting this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? rathe mr. latham: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i'm very pleased that you have read our comments about h.u.d. and the management problems that they've had. obviously they have a long ways to go and they are making real strides and improvement. we work closely with the secretary to try and have some management involved finally. but this amendment ash temporarily cuts the budgets to the 2008 levels. we have already reduced funding

by over $14 million from last year in this account. we have met the budget resolution levels and cut overall in the bill almost $4 billion from last year's appropriated levels. while again, we really appreciate the concern over the debt, and this is really an arbitrary way to budget and negates the amount of work that the committee determined in terms of funding, but again, i would love to have you read again the committee's comments because it has been an extraordinary problem at the department. again, they are making progress, not fast enough for any of us and we have already in the bill cut $14 million from last year. with that, madam chairwoman, i would urge a no vote.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: before i get to the substance of the amendment, i cannot allow the occasion to pass because it may be my last comment on the floor on this bill and the occasion is that this is the last time this bill will be sheparded by mr. olver

who is the former chairman of the subcommittee and has done a wonderful job and help to all of us and help on amendments like this. and i want to say that i regret that he will not be here next year. mr. olver: will the gentleman yield? mr. olver: the hour of this evening, we will accept the amendment. mr. latham: we want to get onto the series of votes. mr. nadler: let me describe it in one septemberens. this amendment increases the housing for people with aids by $2 million. i appreciate the cooperation. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the air, the ayes have it. the amendment is goad to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 74, line 3,

program office and salary expenses, public and indian housing -- mr. latham: madam chairman. i move that the committee do now rise. -- i withdraw my request. the chair: request is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 6 ever rule 18, proceedings will proceed on those amendments. amendment by mr. connolly of virginia.

amendment by mr. mcclintock of california. amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. amendment by mrs. capps from california. amendment by mr. gosar of arizona. the second amendment by -- first amendment of broun of georgia, second amendment of mr. broup of georgia, third amendment of mr. broun of georgia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the rest of votes. the request is on a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. connolly on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redeath the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 175 and the nays are 222. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, on which proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the cler amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded

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

the chair: on this vote --

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164 and the nays are 233. the amendment -- 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed and

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

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 160, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are -- on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 218. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179, the nays are 224. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 230. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 215. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the requesfor a recorded vote on the fourth amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: fourth amendment

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 138, the nays are 265. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: madam chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair? the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under

consideration and reports to the house that the committee has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5972 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. clarke for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for m theyill appoint a special counsel to investigate classified information. that is next. then the pentagon hold an event recognizing gays and lesbians to serve in the military.

>> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have. what role should the government play? degretchen morgenson tell the housing collapse. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees that it is something we should subsidize, and put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident. make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when he delivered it through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidies to companies with private shareholders in executives and attract a lot of subsidies, that is not a very big way of subsidizing home ownership. debt think we have seen the end

of that movie in 2008. >> more on sunday at 8:00. >> armed services committee ranking member of john mccain along with other republican senators held a briefing on security leaks that have occurred during the obama administration. he called for an independent investigation. this news conferences 30 minutes. >> good morning. i am joined by my colleagues, the ranking republican on the intelligence committee, senator cornin, and senator wicker is also a member of the armed services committee.

senator gramm was an able to join us. it is important for us to recognize the seriousness of this issue. according to senator feinstein, the chair person, "these disclosures had seriously interfered with ongoing programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act and the future. each disclosure put american lives at risk, makes it difficult to recruit assets, and threatened imminent damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide." that is the words of the chair person. that is an indication of how serious this issue is. i understand that the immigration and health care and other issues are getting the american people's attention. these leaks go on and on.

in the new york times he says almost every single member of the president's national security team was generous enough to sit down and talk through their experiences more than once. he said some of these seven play refuse to be identified because what they were talking about -- specifically brief used to be added the five because what they were talking about was ongoing programs. when i " key characters, i do so only if it was relayed to me by acer's to personally hearby a sd it. the notion that my white house would purposely released classified national security information is a thin said.

-- is offensive. people allow the around him approach the office. according to david, almost every single member of the president's national security time was generous enough to sit down and talk through their experiences more than once. most were willing to place at least some comments on the record. as an example of how incredible, how bizarre this entire situation is is one antidote i would like to quote. he depicts a curious meeting as often happens when the president

travels, there were a number of other reporters and several political aides including david axelrod. just as copy was being served, a senior official tapped me on the shoulder. he said i should take the elevator to the floor of the hotel with the president had his talk about iran. obama was not baffle me gathered. most of the rest of the staff was present and armed with the intelligence that have been collected about the secret site. they have mapped construction of

the building. it was clear that the united states had interviewed scientists who had been undeinse the facility. when this is offensive. it is contradicted by the facts. to think that the people appointed as prosecutors from mr. holder's office is also offensive. we need a special counsel. we need someone who the american council can trust. we need to stop the leaks that are in danger in the lives of those men and women who are serving our country with valor and courage. they deserve a lot better.

roughout these books and other information, saying that the cia was a betting weapons may go into syria, will always have one purpose. for one at that. that is to make the president of the united states look like a brave and strong leader. this was taking place. i've never seen anything like it in the many years i have been here. i have seen leaks. i have seen things happen that endangered our national security. it put american lives at risk. >> thank you for continuing to

lead this effort. i have been involved in the intelligence community for 10 years. i have dealt with leaders who are partners of the united states in every part of the world. i can tell you that our partners are very concerned about what is happening in washington right now with respect to these leaks and the reaction of the administration. even though this town is known for having leaks from time to time, we never seen the number coming out. nor have we seen the level of the leaks that are now being reported in virtually every .aper i for the president to come out and say that it is offensive to him to think that his white house would intentionally leak

classified information offends me to no end. what the president ought to be saying is that this is damaging to the country. we will do everything we can do to get to the bottom of it whether it involves my white house or wherever. for him to be politically offended by this makes no sense what record isense. let me say some of the statements that have been said publicly. president obama is quoted from inside the situation room. it is located in the white house. you do not go in the situation room unless you have the highest classified readinating. someone with in that situation room who is associated with the

national security council theously is quoting president. they quoted what happened. senior officials were quoted time and again. the security adviser is quoted as having a covert action program. we cannot even confirm whether these exist. you have the national security adviser talking about a covert program. three dozen current and former administration officials were interviewed. part ofelrod who's not the national security team was apparently in the situation room on a number of locations. this is a political adviser to the president.

lastly, at the deputy national security advisor goes on "good morning america" and says "we had the device under control." this is all classified information. yet we have both in the white house going on television and talking about it. while these are part of news stories, and these are direct accusations toward the white house with respect toward the source of the leaks. these are news reporters just like you in this room. they are professional that out to get a story that is quoting white house officials on information. i have no question about the competence or capability of the

two u.s. attorneys who have been nominated now by the attorney general to investigate. this is important. there are other additions to this. you notice what he said yesterday is that he has asked his ig to investigate those scenarios and weeks that the attorney general is not investigating. do we really think that when you have someone who is appointed by the it administration are they really going to be unbiased in the administration that

appointed them? one of these individuals worked with the obama and campaign. he was not just a casual volunteer in the campaign. he was obviously an important member of the campaign team. i was told by attorney general holder when he called me friday to say he is going to name them to do the investigation that if during the course of this is accomplished developed then he would consider the appointment of a special counsel. guess what? the more we find out about the folks who were doing the investigation, the more common sense determination is. there is a conflict of interest today. because that exists a special counsel should be appointed.

>> i agree with center mccain anthat the council should be appointed because the administration cannot be trusted to appoint itself. when the independent counsel statute expired, the special provision has been created. unfortunately the special counsel, political appointees of the obama administration, our task to with the a demonstration and appointinreporting to eric r who has not demonstrated any independencen this as a chief law enforcement officer. i will not go into the let me. let me just call to your attention the double standard under which our democratic

friends operated during the time that pregnant bush was in the white house. patrick fitzgerald insisted upon a letter from james delegating all the investigative authority of the department of justice to the special counsel. he declined to exercise any kind of supervisory control over mr. fitzgerald. that was an independent investigation. this is not. if in fact attorney general holder continue to promote this pretense of an independent investigation, my hope is that congress will take up their responsibility to do what is obligated to do, investigate this matter ourselves.

i have talked specifically to sinister collins and senator lieberman of the governmental affairs committee. my hope is that we will have a truly independent investigation. you cannot investigate yourself in claiming have no conflict of interest. in thise is the outrage tha administration? where is there any indication that with in the obama administration officials are outraged with the criminal leaks of classified information. here is what has been disclosed

by members of the administration. classified details to kill osama bin laden, issues in pakistan, a double agent has been out it and is of no use to us in the future. the predator drone protocols. the cyber war involving iraq and overt operations in africa. all of these sensitive pieces of administration have been spread out in a book. we have yet to hear any outrage and the president of the united states. any other administration in my memory would have been apoplectic looking for the culprits trying to find out who

were the people who had actually committed these criminal weekle. instead the president is offended that someone would suggest such a thing. frankly, members of the administration are smugly happy that information has come forward that appears to make the president seemed tough. national security does not exist to help president won elections. it is not a tool to advance one's process. this administration is more interested in advancing the prospect of the president's reelection and the outraged about criminal weeks. this is a bipartisan concern at

least in the senate. senator mccain quote chairman feinstein. she says "this has to stop. when people say they do not want to work with the united states because they cannot trust us to keep bases a secret, that it. serious serious." she said her heart stopped reading the book. she said you learn more from the book than i did as chairman of the intelligence committee. that is very disturbing. to quote the chair. this is not going to be adequately investigated and must have an independent special counsel. -- unless we have an independent

special counsel. there's a lot going on. we had immigration decision yesterday. we have a reaction by the administration. we have health care within 48 hours. it tried to wrap up for the fourth of july. there are a number of things we need to get -- trying to wrap up for the fourth of july. there are a number of things that we need to get through. we are here today to say that it will not go away. we continue to press for a sensible and adequate investigation. we hope that by partisanship will prevail and a special counsel will be appointed. >> there was a mention of what they announced yesterday.

do you think the steps were sufficient? >> the professionals in the intelligence committee, not the political appointees, are beside themselves. they are distraught because of the the trail of things like the inside informants in the latest underwork bomber. the doctor that obviously has been in pakistan sentenced to 33 years. the information about seal team 6 and other methodology that compromises their ability to carry out future missions. professionals are outraged. i know that the director of national intelligence believes that within his realm of authority this is the best and most that he can do.

we need to have an independent counsel to look and how all this happens. >> this would make the move more quickly. instead of the outside counsel. is that reasonable? >> if you believe that an independent counsel -- if you believe a prosecutor who was an interval part of the obama campaign has credibility with the american people. then i guess so. we have already been told that this investigation could take months if not years already. i would like for may be the senator to comment on that. to somehow think they will get an objective assessment in the

minds of the american people in an and unbiased investigation from an attorney general who is being held in content i do not think cells with the american people. >> these u.s. attorney's report to eric holder. an attorney general has to make a base decision at the beginning of an administration whether they will be the chief enforcer of the country or whether they're going to be a political arm of the white house. time and time again the attorney general has made the political choice. there is no credibility here. that is why we believe that in an investigation is so important. >> if this is a bipartisan concern, why are there no democrats standing up here today? >> center lieberman has asked

for the appointment of a council. it lends itself in that direction. this is tough. there are pressures being brought to bear on the democrats to not call on an independent counsel. they called for one in the valerie case. that was a terrible thing. when you look at it and the consequences of compared to these, there's no comparison. >> how has the administration been prosecuting? >> at the lowest level. they have done very well with the private in the army. were you look at where this comes from, how does a person brought that to the presidential suite and briefed by "national security personnel" and must

bear at the highest level that private does not bring people up to the presidential suite to brief them on iran. the level of prosecutions is minuscule as compared to the level of what is obviously where these leaks came from. >> on thursday the house will vote on whether to hold eric holder in contempt. [inaudible] >> i do not know to tell you the truth. their separate matters. what it does is when any attorney general is held in content, whether it be republicans or democrats, it is a tremendous blow to that individual's credibility. >> what is the appointment you

are looking for? >> we will continue to push for it and do everything we can. this may rise to the level of a congressional investigation. that may have something to do with the majority of the congress. >> and need to follow the facts wherever they lead. while we cannot change the fact that we have republicans and democrats and independents, i think all of us are saying that this is more important now politics. this is about our national security about disclosing sources and methods of our intelligence community that jeopardize the safety and security of our allies that we depend upon to protect americans in a very dangerous world.

ts.is all about independenc i think this falls to congress to do its own independent investigation forever what structure may be incorporated. >> roger made a reappoint when he said where is the outrage? is it going to take one of our sources? who knows what may happen out there. before this administration gets serious about this. god forbid that happens. what is it going to take to get this and ministration outraged? >> we are working on our

intelligence authorization bill right now. we have already had briefings and fbi in general petraeus. we will continue to work on that to figure out a way. i commend chairman feinstein. she is very strong on this. we want to find the right kind of provisions we can put into legislative language that will do what we can legislatively to begin to do a better job from an oversight standpoint. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know. i really do not know. that is why we need to have an

investigation. i'm not ready to indict someone until an investigation is complete. the last legislation that covers this issue was 1917. it is clear that this whole legislation and situation has changed a lot since 1917. that needs to be updated. i know many people in the intelligence committee who have been working for many years. they have literally risked their lives in the service to their country. these professionals are outraged to a degree of the likes of which i have never seen. we are putting their lives in danger. the underwear bomber double agent had a lot of family members and yemen. the doctor that has to go to jail for prison for 33 years in

ongoing operations. it is unprecedented in the years we have been involved. >> does this mean that the steps are not enough? >> of course not. he is saying that people will have additional polygraphs. we ought to find out how this happened. that is some degree closing the barn door. i think it is laudable that he is taking that step. we need to find out how this happened. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on tomorrows "washington journal we'll continue the

conversation on arizona's immigration law. then mike, palin will weigh in on this thursday supreme court decision on the health-care law. -- mike pompeo will weigh in on this thursday's supreme court decision on the health-care law. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i could have told it at the beginning of this year that this is how we will run in it. these republicans would like enfeebled. there would be a nominee. republicans would then rally around that nominee. the race would reveal itself. i would have told you that the media would eat that up.

i would say but the next phase is going to be. the media's going to become more alert to the fact that governor romney has been completely evasive about his provisions. his try to play a game of hide and seek. i think the news people will be challenged to challenge him to be more forthcoming. then the story will be back for a while. that is the nature of this business. >> what these when you want at the c-span video library. >> the pentagon held its first lesbian, gay, and transgendered event.

his remarks are followed by a panel discussion on diversity in the military. this is one hour. >> good afternoon. welcome to the pride month event. please stand for the presentation of colors and remain standing for the national anthem.

♪ [playing instrumental version of "the star spangled banner" ]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. please direct your attention to

the center screen for the president lgbt pride month message. >> i've often said that the true genius of america is that america can change. we can pass laws to right wrongs. we can soften hardened attitudes. our union can be made more perfect. here is the thing. change of happens on its own. change happens because ordinary people, unsung heroes, stand up and demand it. the story of lesbian, gay, and transgendered americans is no different. as we celebrate pride month we remember the advocates who refused to be treated by second- class citizens. people like harvey milk who

believed in a better future. we also remember the unsung heroes, the millions of lgbt americans with whom everyday acts have required courage. the young people who came out as gay to their parents. the two months or two that you went to an open house for the pta meeting not knowing how they would be received. the couple who got married even if their bosses and neighbors would not approve right away. most of these heroes and not about to make history. that is what they did. bit by bit, step-by-step, it a bit of the ark of the universe toward justice. let's take the time to celebrate teachers and students to take a stand against bowling, openly gay service members to defend our country, families and friends who have seen their own attitudes evolve.

protecting our union is not something we can do in one month. we can remember those came before us. we can summon the courage to build on their legacy. we can renew our commitment day in and day out to be the kind of people who make change happen. [applause] >> i want to personally thank all of our gay and lesbian service members, lgbt civilians and their families for their dedicated service to our country. before the repeal of don't ask don't tell, you served your country with professionalism and courage. just like your fellow service members, you put your country before yourself. now after repeal you can be proud of serving your country and be proud of who you are women in uniform.

pursuit of equality is fundamental to the american story. the successful repeal of don't ask don't tell prove to the nation that we share different backgrounds, different values, different beliefs. together we are the greatest military force in the world. it reminds us that integrity in respect remained the cornerstones. this implemented the repeal with a focus on respect an individual dignity. as secretary of defense, i am proud of how we implement it repealed. going forward, i remain committed to removing as many barriers as possible to make america's military and model of equal opportunity. to ensure all who are qualified

conserve and america's military and to give every man and woman in uniform the opportunity to rise to their highest potential. diversity is one of our greatest strengths. during pride month and every month. let us celebrate our rich diversity and renew our enduring commitment to equality for all. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable jeh johnson, general counsel for the department of defense. [applause] >> thank you all very much.

can everybody hear me in the back? i have to say i look around this standing room only crowd and i am sorry we did not sell tickets. [laughter] thank you for being here. this afternoon, i want to share with you some insights on the process that led to the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law in december 2010. the implementation of that repeal between december 2010 and now in where i think we're going from here. as recently as three years ago, it would have been hard for many of us, including me, to believe that in the year 2012 a man or woman in the armed forces could be honest about their sexual orientation. that the "don't ask, don't tell" law would be gone from the books

and that the process of repeal would have gone even smoother and less of vengeful then general hamm and i predicted in our report. it is a remarkable story and it is remarkable because of the strength of the u.s. military and its leadership. this is the overall message but i hope to convey in these remarks today. we have the mightiest military in the world. not just because of our planes, guns, tanks and ships but because of our people, their ability to adapt to change in their respect for the rule of law, their commanders and their civilian leaders. this has been a remarkable thing about the last nine months but for anyone who knows the men and women of the armed forces, it is not a revelation. at the outset, a personal disclosure -- in 2010, general

him and i did an assessment. we did not advocate for a particular result. our only goal was a comprehensive and accurate report of the risk to military effectiveness "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed. i do not consider myself an activist on the matter of gay men and women in america. we are all the product of our circumstances and part of my circumstances include my formative years in the 1970's @ morehouse college, an all-male, all-black southern baptist school. in the 1980's, a good friend at the law firm in which i practice was openly gay but it was at least a year before i knew that and only because

someone else told me. i asked my friend why he had not told me directly that he was gay and he said to me, and i still remember his exact words, "because i did not think you could handle the." for the next 27 years, i asked myself what gave my friend that impression but it did not preoccupy me. in 2009, we never talked about "don't ask, don't tell" except in groups and no larger than about three or four people. secretary gates knew the president had pledged to seek repel -- repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" but both of them believe that if repeal was to occur, it to happen in a careful and deliberate manner. we did not want the issue to spin out of our grasp. then in his state of the union address on january 27, 2010,

president obama pledged to work with the congress and the military that year to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," which is exactly what happened. several days later, secretary gates and admiral mullin testified before the senate armed committee on the subject. it is there were the admiral gave his remarkable statement in support of repeal and secretary gates announced the formation of a working group to be headed by the general counsel of the defense department and army general carter hamm to conduct a assessment of the risk of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" on overall military a effectiveness. we were to take 10 months and we were told to systematically engaged the force on this issue. in fact, go have a conversation with the entire u.s. military about this issue and report back

to me, the president and the congress, what they told you. i did not know carter hamm, now commander of u.s. africa command, at all before admiral mullen volunteered him for this assignment. but over 10 months, i got to know carter and his wife extremely well to the point where my wife and kids spent thanksgiving 2010 with them in germany where we visited wounded warriors at the hospital there. carter began as a private in the army in 1973 and he knows the army at -- as about as well as anyone. he was right to navigate the sensitive assignment in the development of our report, i never let my own civilian legal thinking straight far away from his military perspective or his own voice. the study we undertook with the most comprehensive engagement

ever of the military on any personnel related matter. over the course of 10 months, we surveyed 400,000 service members and received 115,000 responses, surveyed 150,000 military spouses and received 44,000, -- 44,000 responses, solicited and received 72,384 e-mails, conducted 95 information exchange forms at 51 bases around the world and talk face to face to over 24,000 service members, many of them general ham and myself. we conducted smaller focus group sessions with service members and their families, visited the military academies, solicited the views of congress, for countries and groups for and

against repeal. finally the working group engaged in in an on-line conversation with 2006 and 91 service members on a confidential, anonymous basis and thereby gave voice to those who by virtue of the very law we were reviewing had no voice as self identified a active-duty service members. the results of the report are now well known. the bottom-line conclusion was this -- based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that when coupled with the prompt implementation of our recommendations, the risk of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to overall military effectiveness was low. as a basis for this conclusion, there was of course the survey results. they showed among other things that 69.3% of those in today's

military had already worked in a unit with someone they believed to be gay and that if "don't ask, don't tell" repealed, 70% of today's military said they thought would have a positive effect, it will be positive or negative affect or no effect at all on their units ability to perform as a team. also key to our conclusion was this -- "in the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that aside from the moral and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about open service is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if a service members were allowed to be open -- if gay service members were allowed to be open about their sexual orientation. repeatedly be heard the use that overt sexuality would lead

to overt displays a feminine behavior among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances, invasions of personal privacy and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality. based on our review, we conclude these concerns about gay and lesbian service members who are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members. in communications with gay and lesbian current and former service members, we repeatedly heard a patriotic desire to serve and defend the nation, subject to the same rules as everyone else. in the war g to 1ay service member, -- in the words of one gay service members, repeal

would take the knife out of my back. some of those separated under "don't ask, don't tell" would welcome the opportunity to rejoin the military if permitted. from then, we heard expressed many of the same values that we heard over and over again from service members at large. love of country, honor, respect, integrity and service over self. we simply cannot square the reality of these people with the perceptions about open service." last but not least, this noteworthy quote in the report which seems to be the favorite of a lot of people -- we have a gay guy in the unit. he is big, he is mean and he killed lots of bad guys. no one cared that he was gay." [laughter]

[applause] finally, key to my own views know where reflected in this report, the military members of the working group were side-by- side with me throughout the presence of large groups sessions who told me that in the course of the 10 month review, they started off skeptics and had become satisfied that our military can do this. by the end of the 10 months study during which i think we actually saw added -- attitudes shift as we stirred the pot, we have the overwhelming sense that with proper education and leadership, the military could be ready for this change. the report was issued publicly on november 30, 2010, in the middle of a lame duck session of congress. repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was passed by congress three weeks later, signed into

law by the president on december 22, 2010, and took effect on september 20, 2011. how has the military accepted this change? better than we anticipated. i attribute this to the strength of our military and its army, navy, air force, marine and coastguard leadership. i know i speak for these leaders when i say we hope this process continues in the professional and sober manner that it has taken since last year. in december 2010, as congress was considering repeal, the commander of the marine corps testified that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was not a good idea for the marine corps but at the time, his personal and public message was it my leaders give me an order to do this, your united states marine corps will get it done and get it done

smartly. following repeal, general amos step up and personally delivered messages as part of the education and training of their respective forces. his message was simple -- we will step out smartly too faithfully implement this new law. we will continue to demonstrate to the american people that discipline and fidelity which have been the hallmarks of the united states marine corps for more than 235 years, will continue well into the future. the marine corps was the first service to complete the education and training of its force. general casey of the army personally led the first repeal education and training session in the army for all of the four- star generals as part of the method of training by which the commander is personally responsible for training his subordinates. admiral profit of the navy said

this -- leadership, and respect are the basis for executing the change in the law. we expect sailors to continue to exhit the highest degree of professionalism and to treat each other with dignity and respect. general schwartz of the enforced -- we will successfully implement this change with the same unparalleled professionalism we of demonstrated with every transformation we have undertaken. in both peace and war. of the coast guard, i need you, commanding officers, supervisors and every coast guard member to create a climate that fosters -- foster's retention. the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will require your leadership and i'm counting on you to exercise it. if every coast guard member does his job, you must value your shipmates, no matter what their

background. since repeal, within each service, there have been isolated incidents but almost no issues or negative affects associated with the appeal on unit cohesion, including within war fighting units. as general amos testified, he and his staff were careful to look for issues during the training and told congress to be honest with you, we have not seen it. from the front lines in afghanistan, one marine major general reported to the commandant -- sir, honestly, they are focused on the enemy. the one forward, the personnel and readiness committee is in the midst of reviewing which military family benefits can be extended to the partners and other family members of the gay and lesbian service members. the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" exposes search and

inequalities between similarly situated couples in the military community. this troubles many of our leaders. on the other hand, we must comply with current law, including the defense of marriage act. though the apartment of justice has said it will not defend the constitutionality of this in court until final resolution of that issue. and here is to the law is basic for the military and central to our efforts. because of the number of benefits provided to our military community, in the complex legal and regulatory framework, the process has been comprehensive and time consuming but it will get done. one final note about today's event before i close. this type of event during the month of june has occurred in civilian society and civilian agencies of the federal government for years.

the cia, for example, posted a gay pride of that 12 years ago. this is the first time in history such an event has occurred at the pentagon. within the military, and events such as this must occupy a different and qualified place. because in the military, individual, personal characteristics are suburbanites to the good of the unit and the mission. service above self. from all that we learned in 2010 about the struggles and the sacrifice to remain in the military, i believe gay men and women in uniform readily agree with this. what should be honored today? for those service members who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real personal burden from their shoulders. they no longer have to live a lie in the military.

they will no longer have to teach a child to lie to protect their father's career. as one army reported, her commander told her this policy kept me from knowing you. for all of us, we should honor the professional and a near flawless manner in which our entire u.s. military implemented and adapted to this change. and welcome to their brothers and sisters to an unconditional place at the table. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome capt. jane campbell, united states navy. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is my great pleasure to serve as your moderator this afternoon for the panel discussion. mr. johnson, thank you for your remarks, and thank you for providing that behind-the-scenes perspective of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." before we begin our discussion this afternoon, i would like to take a moment to provide a brief introduction of our panelists. when i finished these introductions, i think he will see why we were extremely pleased to have these men and women seated in front of you this afternoon. her first panelist is sue fulton, a u.s. army veteran. a 1980 graduate of the united states military academy. the first class of women. she is one of six -- [applause]

she is one of six presidential appointees to the 2012 west point board of visitors. she served on active duty for five years as a signal corps officer for pours in to germany including platoon leader, staff officer and company commander. after leaving the army, sue worked in a brand management at proctor and gamble. she also took two years to work in parish renewal programs for the archdiocese of new york. she currently serves as the executive director of nights out in the communications director of out serve. our second panelist as captain matthew phelps. united states marine corps. he most recently served as the commanding officer receiving company support battalion,

recruit training regiment in san diego. i say most recently because people him out of their just after his change of command that took place lisa and -- late last week. he headed down the road to quantico where he will start the expeditionary warfare school shortly. he is a prior unlisted marine. after earning a bachelor's degree in music from the eastman school of music at rochester university in 2001, he enlisted in the marine corps. he was promoted to sergeant while a member of the marine corps air ground combat center. he applied for and was accepted into the unlisted commissioning program. he earned his gold second lieutenant bars back in august of 25 -- 2005. he has held a variety of assignments cent earning his commission, including a combat

deployment to iraq with first battalion 11th marine regiment in support of operation iraqi freedom. our third panelist is court and -- gordon tanner. a member of the senior executive service, he is the principal deputy general counsel of the air force. he works here in the pentagon. he provides oversight, guidance, direction regarding legal advice on all matters arising within the year force. he earned his bachelor's degree from the university of alabama and his jurist doctorate from vanderbilt university. he was commissioned in the air force judge advocate general corps and served on active duty for four years. while spending some time in private practice, he continued his military service in the air force reserves, ultimately

retiring as a colonel. while i am not a lawyer and i definitely will not make any lawyer jokes because i know there is more than a few of you in this room, i do want to point out it is significant to note that mr. tanner is a member of the u.s. supreme court to bar. i will not pressure him too much but it is important to point out that our of that here was the wind -- was designed for the pentagon work force, a work force of military and civilian pashtpersonnel. within their introductions complete, i will like to begin this discussion. i will ask each of our panel members to tell their own personal story and then i will come back to them to see if there are any points i think you might find interesting. now without further ado, i like

to turn it over to sue fulton. >> thank you. this is an extraordinarily special day. standing room only in the pentagon auditorium. but not lgbt because our special but because the service, the sacrifices of gay and lesbian service members are being recognized as equal to the sacrifices that straight airmen and others make every day. [applause] a lot of people seemed surprised that "don't ask, don't tell" went so smoothly. for a moment i was one of them. but i think back to when i arrived at my first duty station in 1980 as a wet behind the

ears bader ball with my airborne wings. i met the first people was a personnel nco. forgive the stereotyped but he was about 6'4 in the fiercest, most fabulous take no prisoners, flamboyant gay man i had ever seen and yet all of the captains and majors and colonels deferred to him and because he could play like a piano. he knew his job inside and out, better than anybody else. there was widespread respect for him. he would pass me in the hall and ma'am."w you doing, so many of us knew people like

him out there. whether it was the training nco who had a one liner for everything, the notion and certainly the vast majority of gay and lesbian folks in the military are not stereotypical, but some in the of us knew those gay and lesbian soldiers and we knew that at the end of the day, this would not be hard. when i was a company commander on a base in germany, there were four gay commanders on the base at the same time. we were all successful but none of us stayed in the army. because it was too hard. even before "don't ask, don't tell," we were told we knew there were things we could not talk about. do not tell anyone about that first date or your crazy fun

weekend or in a bad break up. don't tell anyone about who was waiting for you when you get back home from a deployment. the army redacted our lives. i think at the end of the day, one of the things that those of us working on this realize -- all of the military folks, gay and straight, as that being gay is not about sex. it is about life. it is about buying a house and bickering over chores. sorry, that as my partner over there. [laughter] it is about deciding whether to have kids, moving to a new place, it is about life. thanks to the leadership of this administration and pentagon and so many union leaders at every bubble, we can have those lives now and still serve the country we love. thank you so much for having me

here. [applause] >> as i listen to the biography of the distinguished panel, the first question that comes to my mind is why am i here? [laughter] i enlisted in 2002 because after the events of 9/11, i could not imagine anything else i could do with my life than to serve my country. as i was bound and focused on that idea, i thought there was no better way to do that then as a marine. the interesting thing or the complicating factor at that time was i had come out as gay to my parents when i was 18. and here was 25 years old, faced with the feelings so deep within

me that there was absolutely no denying it that i had to be a marine. i enlisted in the marine corps and i listened to my recruiter stumble his way through, exploiting the "don't ask, don't tell" in affect at that time but at the time, there was no chance of a going away. as he stumbled through the policy and asked "are you gay," because if not this does not matter. okay fine, i will sign the paper and let's do it. i realize at that point that the problem with a "don't ask, don't tell of the" policy was that it asked us to live when nobody even realized we were lying -- to lie when nobody even realized we were lying. it hit home for me when i was on deployment in 2007. i was in iraq and every saturday night, the officers got together and smoked cigars and watched movies.

usually "band of brothers" or something so we could make fun of the way the army did it. [laughter] as we sat there, thoughts would drift to home. everyone would talk about their families and their wives and the letters they got from their kids. i sat there in the back of the room not talking to anybody. because not only was it so hard to have let somebody at home, just like it was hard for everybody else, but when everybody was getting together and growing closer as a unit, by virtue of the fact that i was not allowed to say anything, i was growing more distant from my unit. we hear people talk about unit cohesion and how the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will affect cohesion. i would argue that it got better. because now you have a whole

portion of the military who was able to be honest with the people they work with. when somebody says you have anybody at home? we can say, yes. when the repeal happened on september 20, 2011, it came at an interesting point in my career. i was selected as a company commander and already is serving at the recruit depot. i went into work on the 20th of september thinking my life was going to change. i went in and sat down at my desk and i braced myself on the desk, waiting for everyone to ask me if i was gay. [laughter] believe it or not, nobody did. [laughter] i did i get any e-mails, i did i

get any phone calls. the phone did not even rank. i was waiting, somebody please talk to me today. because i felt like i was going to work for the first time. after almost 10 years, matthew was going to work. as a marine. in uniform, doing my job, doing the job i thought i had been doing for tenures. but i had only sort of been half doing. as we have progressed since then, i found myself cast into little spotlights because all i have done is the knowledge to the fact that i am gay, the fact that i loved serving my country, that i love being a marine. that is it. that is all that i have done very and somehow that is news. i cannot imagine having a panel

where we could say congratulations, these are all male marines, let's give them a round of applause. i happen to be gay but more importantly, i am a marine. and if i could touch on one more point, if i learned anything, the reason i am here is that it's still kind of is news. there are still relatively few of us wearing the uniform who are willing to go on record and say this is my life, i am proud of my life and i will serve as a leader with integrity with openness and serve as the role model for our younger troops and those will come after us to show them that it is not nearly as big a deal as anybody thought this was going to be. thank you. [applause]

>> terrific. just terrific. it is wonderful to be here to represent the 8000 or so civilians who work here in the pentagon, together with those other civilians in our military work force around the globe. but i am also awfully proud of the military connection that we all have because we have one mission together. that is the importance of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and the importance of today. i did retire as a reserve jag and remember the fear and concern i had about potentially being ousted during that time. it would have been awful. i cannot imagine what a relief

that is now. we have a great deal to be thankful for. we have a great deal to be thankful for and my husband, robert, wave your hand, is down here. [applause] we have been together nine years and married almost two. i am thankful that we are being joined today by military mumbles, civilian and military, from around the world. you may have already heard we had a request earlier this week from a group of in afghanistan that went to be sure they could tie in -- fly in and participate by video in this conference. within our reach this is for each of us to them as a service on the front lines. i also think we ought to use this opportunity to remember that we are standing on this shoulders of giants.

there are huge numbers of people who of gone before us and worked on this issue, many of whom are in this room today. while we cannot go through all of their names, on behalf of all of us connected with the military service, i want to say thank you for what you have done to make today possible. [applause] like a good lawyer but i have been trained by mr. johnson and others around the room, i have this laundry list of all the civilian benefits that we are now working on getting word we have some. if you want that list, i will be glad to e-mail back to you. might be helpful and it is available. but what i really want to talk about today is what each of us

can do in our own day to day lives to make a difference. first of all, and most importantly, we need to be as visible as we can be. everybody has it ever comfort level. everyone is in a different place. let me a career to to be as open -- let me encourage you to be as open and honest as you can possibly be. we have street allies -- we have straight allies to support us because it is the right thing to do and because they have loved ones, friends, neighbors, sons, daughters who may want to know more about their life. we may be the bridge to helping them understand that. help us be the bridge to our straight allies.

we civilians for those of you and in the room, we have military colleagues who are not yet comfortable about being more open. we as civilians have a unique opportunity to be that bridge to help them define themselves in a climate that is not as comfortable yet as it should be. we can be there for them. finally, we in the pentagon are often face to face with the policy makers, the people who are looking at the benefits and how those can be increased so that we have one class submarines and not first and second class marines or airmen or sailors or soldiers. we can be there for the policy makers. i want to ensure that our visibility is open and it shows

that we can become one marine corps where a marine can perform his mission and not be treated as second-class because he receives lesser benefits than his straight colleague. we can be won air force for a deployed airmen can perform her mission and not have to worry about her partner in children living in a shabby off base housing because they were ineligible for on these military housing. we can be won navy where a gay sailor can focus on his mission and not worry about the school that his children are forced to attend because they did not qualify for search dod school benefits. we can be won army where a soldier can focus on her mission without her wearing about her partner back home, not being cared for by the members are for

units that are back home. spousal support is critical for our success. our spouses, our partners need that support as well. so that we can focus on our mission. i will not tell my own coming out story but i do want to tell you one -- about mr. will. shortly after i came out, i was on the other team at st. mark's church in san antonio, texas, where i was stationed. i was the chicken for that team if you can believe that. the usher team must have been 80 years old. they had been on that same team forever. i was the new kid on the block. one of the usher team members, mr. will, came up to me after

church and asked if he could talk to me privately. he was a little sneaky about it. i agreed to talk to him. he looked around to make sure no one is listening and then he talked about his grown son and his son's partner who lived in houston. mr. will and his wife loved both their son and a partner. they spent thanksgiving with them, the best cooks you can imagine. but mr. will and his wife, although they had been active event of that church for their entire lives, did not feel they could tell one person about their son and their experiences. not one. there were just afraid that their friends with completely reject them because they had a gay son and that they actually liked it. [laughter]

i was i think maybe the first a person they had ever talk to. i did not do anything. i was just there. i was out and i listened. based on just being there, they began to open up to their friends and colleagues and brought them into the rest of their world. i have to tell you that mr. will and his wife's son died a few years later and they brought him back from houston to san antonio to be buried at st. marks. i wish you could have seen mr. will and his wife bring that partner arm-in-arm up to that front row. when the partner finished speaking at the funeral, there was not a dry eye in that house. everyone in that pact

convocation was right there -- packed room was right there. what does that have to do with us? allot. all we have to do to whatever extent you can do is be visible. you can be the bridge, you can be the face, you can be the friend. thank you. [applause] >> is there any doubt that we have the right to be up here to talk to you this afternoon? [laughter] i am cognizant of the time and i realize some of you may be fighting a busy schedule this afternoon. but what i would like to do is go back to each of our panelists and ask one at this point identify time, for one point i

think may have been something they drew out from their comments. for mr. tanner, as a career civil servant, what is the most significant thing that you have seen in this building, aside from the stories that you shared with us, that has been a key indicator that led up to this transition from the military side? as you stood from your civilian perspective, albeit with a bad 1 foot in that reserves side? >> i think i am drawn to the fact that people become visible in different ways. it may be simply putting a photograph of a loved one in your cube. it may be talking about -- just as a straight individual would

talk about what they did on the weekend. people are in various places and i think you have to come from a place where you're comfortable but you have to stretch that a little. i would the courage everyone who is thinking about becoming more visible to stretch a little and to take a step that you believe could help you meet that bridge i mentioned. >> capt. schulz, i do not think there is anybody watching or in this audience who was not moved by your words, by the strength in your passion as a marine first. i would just ask, has there been anything anecdotally -- use it every once and awhile have been thrust into the spotlight. -- you said every once in a

while, you have been thrust into the spotlight. is there any significant of repeal that you would like to share with the audience? >> i would say the most significant of that to me -- i mention that when i took command of my company in june of last year, i was in the closet. i was appointed in my career where if anybody had found out i was gay, even though the law had been signed an appeal had not gone all the way through, in the body found out i was gay at that time, i could have lost my job. a year later, last friday, the president hosted a reception at his house. you know, the white one. [laughter] and i was invited to attend.

i was invited to attend this private reception at the white house. i thought how amazing is it over the course of the year, i could go from being fired for being who i am to having champagne with the commander in chief on cocktail napkins with the presidential seal on them. so i would say for me personally, that was probably the most to the against the event. the fact that although there is a certain distance for us still to travel before we find full equality, the fact that the survice of gay and lesbian service members is finally being recognized on that scale. it is amazing to see. >> i will like to tap into one

thing that i think a number of people may be interested in. you describe your experience as a member of the class of 1980 at west point but today you are also involved on the executive director of nights out. from my chair to his chair to his, what can you tell us about that next generation of leaders that is now changed because of how they serve at one of our military academies and how they will serve as leaders with our next generation? >> the academies are learning institutions. i think the repeal was more -- one nco said to me, you know we braced for impact and it was not even a speed bump. the repeal. our students, the cadets do

this, they have had this preparation of going through high school with gay and lesbian and bi and trans kid so i think it is much less of an issue with this generation. it is not even a speed bump at west point. and on the board of visitors, it has not been an issue. we have much bigger fish to fry. but i do not want that to be taken as something we have volstead -- generational leap, this generation coming up now serving, they are the ones who get this. is this just the older folks.

but there are exceptions to that as well. i cannot tell you how many stories -- people came up and said i heard you are gay. if anybody gives you any crap, come see me. the navy was in a commander. i spoke to a senior chaplain, a southern baptist and i asked him why he was there and he said that want to make sure everything goes smoothly for my airmen. i does want to make sure there are not any problems. the folks, there are a lot of folks who are senior who are allies and get this. this is about readiness. this is about taking care of our troops and mission accomplishment. and getting this finished so this is never an issue again is so important. i know i have jumped off the

topic but the academies are doing great. [laughter] they have other issues but they have no problems with us. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we have gone past 1400 so it is my responsibility and honor to thank our three panelists. thank you for being in a standing room audience in the pentagon for this first ever of that. have a good afternoon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> sunday, award winning author and historian david pietrusza is our guest for in depth. he has written a dozen books, including "1960 - lbj vs jfk vs nixon." join us live with your calls and e-mails sunday at noon eastern on in depth. on c-span. pentagon officials have warned that budget cuts set to begin next january are too drastic. those cuts referred to as sequestration are the result of congress being able -- unable to agree on deficit measures.

next, we will hear from republican senator kelly ayotte users on the armed services committee. then, a panel debates the pentagon's budget. this is sponsored by the brookings institution. [applause] >> let me thank you so much. michael, i deeply appreciate being invited here today to be in front of the brookings institute. i appreciate you of come to participate in this and i am thrilled to see that the two panels are following me on this. it is a great array of national security experts, department of defense officials and members of our defense industrial base. i am sure they will give you even greater insight then i will provide today. what i would like to do is provide the context of where we are with respect to this issue

of sequestration. our country is facing a grave threat to our national security and the grave threat was created by congress in the debt ceiling deal that we did last summer. i am one who voted against that deal because frankly, i did not like the way this was set up from the beginning in terms of where it put our national security. also, i would have liked to see have -- to have seen as to what we should do in terms of the fiscal state of the country and put together a strong responsible fiscal plan for our country that takes into account the big picture. which obviously is not just defense spending and non-defense discretionary spending but also the 60% of our budget that includes mandatory spending. until we do that, we are not going to get our fiscal health in order that we need to. today we are here to talk about

the threat to our national security. i want to put it in perspective. i serve on the senate armed services committee and then the ranking republican on the readiness subcommittee. i am not someone who says we should not cut anything from our department of defense but we have to put into perspective where we are with our department of the fence right now because in addition to this issue of sequestration, the president's proposed 2013 budget that has come for has already been taken up by the senate armed services committee and the of the resin committees. that will be a $487 billion of spending reduction over the next 10 years. there are some tough choices in those initial spending reductions but our defense leaders and secretary panetta have testified before the senate armed services committee about

the choices made in those reductions. are difficult but doable. but we are here talking about today is an additional $500 -- five of the bill to in $600 billion dollars level, that did january of 2013 because of the super committee's failure to come up with savings. it hits both of defense and non- defense. my focus today will be on the defense and but that additional $500 billion is done in eighan across-the-board fashion. there is no strategic thinking to the way it would be implemented. therefore we do everything in sufficiently and if you listen to what our military leaders say about it, starting with secretary panetta, he has said we would be shooting ourselves

of that of the head to allow sequestration to go forward into january. he has described as devastating, catastrophic. it would inflict severe damage to our national security for generations. to understand why our military leaders are so concerned about this, again i said on the ranking republican -- i sit on the right republican subcommittee and i haven't focused on making sure we maintain the readiness of our forces to prevail and that of the conflicts we are involved in today. we still remain in a conflict in afghanistan and to deter tomorrows conflict. when that deterrence fails to defeat our enemies -- enemies decisively, that is why our national security exists. we now have one of the most confident and battle-hardened military forces in the history of our country. i know many in this room have met our men and women serving

right now. the training they have, the courage they have shown is phenomenal. they are the very best. we cannot at this time and moment in the history of our country gut our first-class forces or brick faced with our troops. if you hear what our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said recently, it is pretty shocking. chairman dempsey has said that a -- if sequestration goes forward, our advantages over potential adversaries will diminish. it will diminish deterrence and increase the likelihood of conflict. none of us wants to see that happen. if you look at other times in the history of our country where we have reduced defense spending, let's go back to the early 1990's. at that point, we had ended the conflict. we had thought that we were

going to take a peace dividend at that point and of course we but chilly had9/11, but at that point there was a feeling that we could scale back on the front spending. today we are not in the same position at all. we are in a position where according to secretary panetta, just last month he said the threats to our country have not receded. our troops remain engaged in the conflict in afghanistan. we continue to confront a real terrorist threat. emanating from somalia, yemen, pakistan and north africa. as secretary panetta has said, outbreak continue to see the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats from iran and north korea and turmoil in the middle east. we also see what is happening