rules are more stringent with more stringent capital requirements for the large guys then for the small guys. there may now be an opportunity for the small guys to make some inroads into win some business. host: sallie krawcheck, former ceo of merrill lynch wealth management and an author of a peace in the ." "harvard business review we appreciate your time today and thank you for your insight. guest: thank you for having me. host: we appreciate your calls this morning as well. it is now time for morning hour the house of representatives. they will continue their look at transportation, housing, and urban development spending. into the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 27, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable richard b. nugent to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr.

speaker. rising health care costs remain a top concern for many americans, particularly the baby boomers. heading off into retirement and individuals with disabilities. however, one service in particular, home companion care, has come under attack from the department of labor and faces a sharp rise in cost. currently the fair labor standards act provides exemptions for home care workers, and for more than four decades now the exemption has helped seniors and individuals with disabilities maintain access to affordable in-home care. companion care workers play a crucial role for those who desire to remain independent. performing a range of everyday tasks like helping to prepare meals, opening the mail, providing light housekeeping and even offering someone to talk with is immensely helpful.

however, the greatest service these individuals play is providing families with a sense that mom or dad or their loved ones are not alone when we need to be away. but in december of 2011, the department of labor introduced a proposal championed by president obama to remove the companionship exemption from the fair labor standards act, a move which would virtually eliminate the current exemption. on top of that it will raise costs for businesses and families and lead to reduced hours for home companion care workers. even the department estimates the cost of companion care under the proposed rule may increase by up to $2.3 billion over the first 10 years. it will be families and seniors and the disabled that will struggle to pay these costs out of their own pockets. these changes run in stark contrast to what congress intended when it first established this important exemption nearly four decades

ago. when i recognized the delivery of services has evolved over the years, the need to maintain access to affordable in-home care has not. seniors and the disabled in my home state of michigan have been devastated from the fallout from this flawed policy. in 2006, michigan made similar changes to the state law that the department of labor's currently considering. this was confirmed by a constituent in my home state who testified that his home companion care business, employees and clients are worse off since the change went into effect. seniors, those with disabilities and their families are often unable to pay for the overtime requirements, forcing them to take on different caregivers throughout the day. this disruption to their schedule takes away the certainty of working with trusted caregivers.

many seniors and individuals with disabilities are then left with no choice but to leave their own homes because of the cost. in response, i have introduced two bills to ensure seniors and individuals with disabilities keep their access to their access to affordable companion care. those bills will prevent the federal government from interfering with decisions that should be made by families. the first bill, h.r. 5969, the ensuring access to affordable and quality companion care act, will clarify that home caregivers employed by a third party employer or living with the individuals receiving care continue to be exempt from the requirements of the fair labor standards act. the second, h.r. 5970, the protecting in-home care from government intrusion act, will stop the secretary of labor from finalizing or enforcing a

proposed rule that severely narrows the fair labor standards act exemption from in-home caregivers. if the obama administration's proposal is not stopped, home care workers will lose hours and possibly their jobs. seniors and those with disabilities will lose affordable care they want and need. this is simply a risk we cannot afford to take and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a transportation agreement rumored to be in the works that would be shortsighted in the extreme if these rumors prove to be the case. the problem was created because for years congress and the last two administrations have been unwilling to deal meaningfully

with the large gap of funding for transportation created because we rely on an outmoded funding system based on the number of gallons of fuel consumed. with more efficient gas and diesel vehicles augmented by more hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric cars, the transportation trust fund is locked into an inevitable downward spiral. like the looming social security deficit, the longer we wait the worse it will get. not this year but over the next few years we should temporarily increase and then replace the gas tax with a system that is based on the amount of road use. the new legislation should be laying the foundation for this transition. unfortunately it doesn't. the rumored agreement would also take us backward on enabling alternative modes of transportation. in the last 20 years of transportation reform we've used enhancement funding to get

more out of the transportation projects. these include long, neglected and wildly popular bike and pedestrian safety programs such as safe routes to school. in a recent princeton survey, 83% of the public wanted these programs maintained or the funding increased. they place an emphasis on intermodalism so that transportation modes work together and minimize direct conflict between truckers, rail and commuters that can paralyze not just transportation but transportation planning. from what i hear, efforts to provide incentives to fix it first are being undercut. you know, it's never as popular to maintain what you've got in face of the drumbeat of a few focused special interests for a new particular project. but fixing it first creates more transportation jobs. it provides more safety. it alleviates congestion and

pollution and has more overall economic impact and, of course, alleviates long-term pressure to create more roads that we can't adequately maintain. the bill before us also misses an opportunity to reform the system to have more performance -base environmental protections. we absolutely can make the process work better and faster. but the answer is not to gut the protections which will only create more conflict and ultimately more delays. projects take more time when they're not done right, when citizens are not involved with the planning and the myriad of interests aren't working together. involving public in the planning process works. i'll never forget a conversation with a very conservative republican mayor of phoenix who told me that it was only when they got the citizens working together on a balanced transportation program of transit and roads that they're able to get the

resources and the momentum to go forward. i will be extremely disappointed if the legislation shatters a coalition that i've been working for years to develop for the big picture, the big programs and proper funding that's going to be necessary if we're going to be successful. it will be wrong if we have a scaled down two-year extension that will make it harder to give the american public what they need, adequate resources that are sustainable over time, more economic opportunity and more construction and maintenance employment. a good transportation program will protect the environment, enhance the quality of life, making our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank

you very much. it's really been very interesting the last couple of weeks. i've been listening to my colleagues on both sides talking about the debt, the deficit, spending, cutting, all of this going on and on. i went out and bought a book. the book title is "funding the enemy: how u.s. taxpayers bank roll the taliban" by douglas swissing. the book is a must-read for the american people. i want to share some of the synopsis of this book. with the intention of winning hearts and minds in afghanistan, the united states government has mismanaged billions of development and lodge cyclal dollars bolesered by the drug trade -- bowlesered by the drug trade -- bolstered by the drug trade. this is the war effort in afghanistan by investigative

journalist douglas swissing. according to him america has already lost the war. it draws on the voices of hundreds of combat soldiers, ordinary afghans, private contractors, aide workers, international consultants and government officials. from these contacts, it became glaringly clear as the author details that american taxpayer dollars have been flown into taliban coffers. mr. speaker, i'd like to read to you a critique of this book given by former state department foreign service officer peter van buren, and i quote. sober, sad and important. funding the enemy peels back the layers of american engagement in afghanistan to reveal its rotten core that the united states dollars meant for the country's future. instead, fund the insurgencey and supports the taliban.

it ensures america's ultimate defeat. mr. speaker, i bring this to the floor for this reason. i continue to be amazing that both sides want to continue to spend $10 billion a month in afghanistan. as borrowed money from the chinese and there's no concern. we just spend more and more money to support president karzai who is a corrupt leader. and as this book says, had the united states taxpayer bank rolled the taliban, the american people have already said in poll after poll, bring our troops home now. as many as 72% to 73% of the american people say, bring our people home now. our soldiers have won the war. bin laden is dead. al qaeda is dispersed. i hope that members of congress will find the time to read this book and i hope the american people will read this book and

be outraged and i am outraged. "how our taxpayers are funding the taliban so they can kill americans." let's get our troops home from afghanistan and do what's right for the american people and more importantly do what's right for our men and women in uniform. mr. speaker, i close by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform and god, in our loving arms, help those. i ask god to bless the house and senate that we will do what's right in the eyes of god. i ask god to please bless president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of god. i will ask three times. god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes.

mr. gutierrez: this week the u.s. supreme court declared the immigration policy of the state of arizona, a policy that mitt romney called a model for america, to be largely inconstitutional. i applaud the court for stating that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. the show me your papers law allows police to demand individuals prove they are legally in this country. this is not just a problem for people who are undocumented, immigrants, or anyone who looks like they might have come to america from somewhere else. it's a problem for every american who cares about freedom. it's a problem for all of us who believes no person should be treated as a suspect based on how they look, their access, or spelling of their names. in arizona today, all that stands between you and a legal nightmare is whether a police

officer feels there is a reasonable spigs -- suspicion to inquire about your country of origin. yet arizona politician also tell you with a straight face no less that they can apply this law without using racial profiling, without assuming that someone named gutierrez isn't less likely to be in this country legally than someone named smith. that's an amazing skill. maybe with practice we can all become like arizona politicians and police officers who are able tell patically determine who is accused of not -- telly pathically determine who is accused of not belonging in america. here are two journalists, her regardo rivera and ted koppel. at a traffic stop, to the un trained eye, we might guess that rivera, for some one, not with the way he looks, might not be from american. his mustaches wouldn't confuse

an arizona law enforcement professional. they would know that he was born in brooklyn, new york, and that ted koppel was born in europe, in england, where his parents moved to flee from hitler and nazi germany. round two, this is for our young c-span, justin bieber and selena gomez. these young people have overcome their very different national origins and become apparently a happy couple. i'm sure justin and gomez learned all about american customs and feel more at home in her adopted country. oh, wait a minute. i'm sorry. because i'm not a traped arizona official. i somehow got that backwards. actually ms. gomez of texas has helped mr. bieber of canada learn about his adopted country. justin, when you perform in phoenix, remember to bring your paper. the next round shows how tricky

arizona's game of pick out of immigrant is to play. here are two basketball superstars. neither one is latino, that's confusing already. you have to dig deeptory figure out who isn't the real american. so let's consider their names. jeremy lin and tony parker. clearly lin sounds foreign. while tony parker sounds american to me. but i'm not an arizona police officer who would know that jeremy lin was born in los angeles and tony parker, oops, you're up. belgium, once again. finally, here's just one more, in case the supreme court ever wants to meet in phoenix to consider its ruling about arizona's show-me-your-papers law, if these two justices step out to starbuck's, which one do you think is likely to be a

suspect? the angelo male or the latina? neither is an immigrant, but justice scalia's father came through ellis island from italy, and sonia sotomayor is a proud puerto rican with generations of u.s. citizen ancestors. we could play this game all day. but the point is simple. the idea that any government official can determine who belongs in america and who doesn't simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair, and un-american. and yet this absurdity is the law of arizona. the court signaled it would be watching this law closely, and it should. because we count on the courts to protect our liberties. not restrict them. and because in america people should always be judged by their actions, no person, not one, should be judged by the way they look, the sound of their voice, or the pronunciation of their

last name. not in arizona, not anywhere, not ever. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. as a supreme court is about to rule on the health care law, americans all across the country are focusing again on health care. health care makes up about 1/5 of the united states' economy. and it is increasingly taking up a larger share of our federal budget. so it's important that we look to implement strategies that bend the cost curve down. scientific research over the years has enhanced our understanding of disease and continuously led to many breakthrough treatments. however, it is critical that we emphasize not just treatment but civically cures to diseases as well -- specifically cures to

diseases as well. last year the united states government spent just under $32 billion to help the national institute of health carry out its critical mission. seeking fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems, applying of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. the n.i.h., mr. speaker, has earned a proud reputation for their research and has made a positive impact in the health care world. i'm a firm supporter of the n.i.h. and i spoke this past march to the house budget committee about the importance of funding n.i.h.'s mission. however, i also believe that we can always do more with the resources that we have and believe that we should refocus a portion of our health care resources towards a new mission, one idea that has been brought to me is the center that concentrates exclusively on eliminating disease rather than continuing the practice of just treating disease.

this center known as the american center for cures would be a public-private partnership that utilizes the resources of the government with the creativity and accountability of the private sector to find cures for the diseases that in some way affect almost everyone on the planet. diabetes, alzheimer's, parkinson's just to name a few. by bringing our nation's best and brightest minds together, from business board rooms to scientists from around the world, the center would singularly devote its efforts to curing diseases by establishing renewed lines of communication amongst the world's most reputable scientists. funding collaborative research, unblocking bottle next in clinical research, facilitating speedy clinical trials, and ensuring the research performed remains focused on outcomes and results. in addition to promoting the united states as the leading place for innovation and pioneering medical research, finding cures to some of manned kind's deadliest diseases would

also have local implications. the money saved by not having to dedicate it to treating or managing a disease could be freed up and invested in education, infrastructure, in deficit reduction, and we would be able to further help raise the standards of living for everyone in developing nations and around the globe. during these difficult fiscal times, mr. speaker, here in our own country, we have to start thinking differently. today we spend approximately $235 billion annually on treating diabetes alone. think about the cost if we add alzheimer's and parkinson's. if the american center for cures could find a cure, think about the possibilities. think about the good we could do, for instance, with $235 billion right here. that's what we spend in our contry. think about what gets spent all around the globe. we need to start thinking

differently, mr. speaker. change is hard, and change in washington is even harder. but i believe that we have an obligation as stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned money, not only to effectively allocate their tax dollars in a manner that produces results, but change the way that we look at all the possibilities for our future. this mission could impact not just every american life but every human on the planet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. let me first thank my colleagues in the congressional black, hispanic, and asian pacific american caucuses for coming to the floor to denounce the deeply partisan and divisive effort by congressional republicans to hold attorney general holder in contempt.

we need to be doing what the american people elected us to do, and that's to create jobs and to get our economy back on its feet. this contempt vote stands in stark contrast to our duties in congress. we should be devoting our time to creating jobs, addressing our nation's neglected infrastructure, and ensuring the student loan rates don't balloon starting next week. too many hardworking american families are looking for their next paycheck and yet this tea party-led republican congress is wasting precious legislative time and energy on a purely partisan effort to generate conflict where nonexists. the republicans claim against attorney general holder defy belief. the simple fact is the bush administration developed the inappropriate tactics and wants this justice department under president obama learn about it, attorney general holder stopped

the program. stopped it. but instead of handling our nation's priorities, this tea party-led republican congress is choosing to stick its head in the sand, ignoring the wide range of documents and open cooperation provided by the justice department, but now engage in a game of political theater with no regard for struggling families across america. the true note vation behind this contempt resolution is simple, as leader pelosi remarked last week, this is really about suppressing voter turnout. and the national rifle association, unfortunately, has insisted that their supporter members of congress vote for it or face political peril. let me tell you, these tea party republicans don't like it when their ideological efforts to prevent people from voting get blocked by the justice department doing its job, and that's defending the constitution of the united states. they know they can't win in judicial courts and they cannot win in the court of public

opinion. so instead they are doing all they can to undermine the justice department by dragging attorney general holder through the mud, making endless demands, changing the goal post, and monopolizing his time so they can continue their efforts to undermine the democratic process, and they are asking for information that would violate the law. furthermore, this is unprecedented. the house has never voted to hold an attorney general in contempt. mr. speaker, the american people are sick and tired of seeing these tea party republicans pursue a senseless and destructive agenda. there is a reason that congress has the lowest approval rating in history, and it has everything to do with efforts like this. contempt vote that does nothing to improve the economy, create jobs, and does nothing to strengthen our middle class or help those trying to raise themselves out of poverty. we need to invest in transportation, in education,

and in assuring above all that jobs and jobs, and more jobs are added to our economic recovery. we only have a matter of weeks before congress effectively shuts down for the august recess, and we cannot waste anymore time doing anything other than putting americans back to work. jobs should be our number one priority. our number two priority and our number three priority. so i join my colleagues in the tricaucus calling for an end to this useless path of petty politics. let us work during the remaining time which we have this congressional session to do the work that we were sent here to do. no more political witch-hunts, no more political fishing expeditions, no more excuses. it's time to get back to work. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. bar leta, -- barletta, for five minutes. mr. barletta: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, two weeks ago two

new words were added to the american immigration policy -- prosecutorial discretion. homeland security secretary janet napolitano recently ordered immigration and customs enforcement officials to not deport certain classes of aliens who are in the country illegally. instead, these illegal aliens will be given two-year work permits that can be renewed indefinitely. the reason secretary napolitano and president obama have given the american people for that de facto amnessy program is prosecutor -- an necessary at this program is prosecutorial discretion. they claim the tent of homeland security personnel can -- the department of homeland security personnel can use their discretion to decide what individuals they can and cannot deport. but in federal immigration law, this discretion does not exist. congress took it away from the

executive branch in 1996, when it passed the legal immigration reform and immigrants responsibility act. the law requires, and i will repeat that, this law requires immigration officials to address illegal aliens when they become aware that they are in the country illegally. . it spells the actions that must be taken by federal officials. in fact, according to one of the nation's leading experts on immigration, congress, frustrated at the time, because the clinton administration was using it to allow thousands of illegal aliens in the united states, wrote the law to remove that discretion. in other words, the discretion of president obama and secretary napolitano claim they use no longer exists because congress deliberately

eliminated it in 1996. by stating they still have it, president obama and secretary napolitano are actually ordering federal immigration officials to break the law. since the executive branch is citing a privilege that no longer exists and asking them to break the 1996 immigration act which was passed by congress and signed into law, today i'm calling on the judiciary and homeland security committees to hold hearings to investigate the legality of this decision to use so-called prosecutial discretion. just this week we heard from the united states supreme court that because the federal government writes immigration laws, state laws must work in harmony with the federal government. in striking down part of arizona's sb-1070, the high court majority said federal law should be the supreme law of the land.

when laws do not work in harmony with the federal scheme or when federal law is explicit. well, in this case the law is very clear. there is no prosecutial discretion. mr. speaker, my district of pennsylvania has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state and our country is still reeling from one of the worst recessions we have ever faced. the department of homeland security's unlawful action could have grave consequences on our labor force and on our economy, both at the local and national levels. additionally, allowing individuals with forged documents to remain in this country could pose a serious threat to our homeland security . let me also state that i am troubled by the expansion of the authority of the president that he believes he has. in the past, president obama clearly stated he had to follow existing immigration laws. during a town hall meeting with

univision in march of 2011, he said, and i quote, america is a nation of laws which means i, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. i don't have a choice about that. end quote. during that same town hall meeting, president obama also said, quote, there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. end quote. so what changed? in the last 15 months, did congress grant the president new powers? i don't remember doing that. 15 months ago president obama said he can't ignore congressional mandates, but suddenly two weeks ago he can.

again i ask, what changed? i'm concerned president obama overstepped his constitutional authority in this case just as he did in claiming executive privilege in operation fast and furious. that's why these two committees must hold formal hearings and investigate this claim of discretion and the unilateral rewriting of federal immigration policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. speaker. the centerpiece of president obama's 2008 presidential campaign was the promise of health care reform. he told us time and time again that every president has seen the urgency of reform, that all of them attempted reform and none succeeded. president obama reminded us of the fact that having more than 40 million uninsured americans is unacceptable. it is not only bad for the

individual, but it is bad for the american economy, it is bad for hospitals who absorb the loss for these indigent patients or shift the costs to other patients. during the campaign the president went on to painfully highlight the unfair practices of some insurance companies in making people think they have quality insurance policies when in fact in many instances it is not worth the paper it is written on. after fierce debate and after the right-wing tea party instilled unfounded fear in the hearts of good americans, the congress passed the affordable care act and it is good policy for the american people. but there are those who have exploited the legit mass see of the affordable care act and now we await a ruling from the supreme court on the act's constitutionality. should the supreme court decide to undermine the most vital provision of the law, the

individual mandate, one thing will be clear. it will be an act of judicial activism and judicial overreach, placing the court firmly in the role of congress. social security is a program by which all americans are required to pay into and participate. car insurance is mandated in almost every state. yet, the supreme court is on the precipice of possibly unfastening the lynch pin that makes true health care reform attainable. such a decision would confiscate things that they support. it could be imposed on 100 million americans. children could lose insurance coverage and six million young adults may be forced off of their parent's insurance plans.

preservation of this law means 40 million uninsured americans will be insured. it creates state-run health exchanges to give consumers maximum choice when selecting a policy and it contains skyrocketing costs in medicare. the affordable care act will lower insurance premiums driven by uncompensated care for the uninsured saving the average american in north carolina $1,400 a year. mr. speaker, the affordable care act has already paid great dividends in my district. 94,000 seniors have received medicare preventive services without paying a dime. more than 5,000 young adults have health insurance when they previously did not. about 400 small businesses received tax credits to expand care to their employees. 34,000 children with pre-existing health conditions can no longer be decide. as a policymaker representing 700,000 people, i hope the act

will remain intact. as a former judge, i hope the supreme court recognizes the impact and unfavorable decision will have on the role of congress. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. we should explore ways to improve upon the law instead further ways to deny access to affordable health care. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week i introduced legislation, h.r. 5993, that would prohibit the president from providing military or paramilitary aid of any sort to any sax to the internal fighting in syria. unfortunately, it appears the administration is already very much involved in supporting the overthrow of the assad government. there's criticism in congress over our growing involvement in the civil war in syria. the only noise we hear from

congress and repeated in the media is the complaint we are not doing enough and that immediate direct u.s. military action must be taken. tragically, our leaders show bad judgment and short memories when it comes to the downside of our foreign policy of mischief and intervention. our composure to engage ourselves in every conflict around the world is dangerous to our national security. in dealing with syria, the administration pretends to pursue diplomacy and provide humanitarian assistance to the people. in reality the u.s. government facilitates weapons transfers to the we believe so who are demanding immediate regime change. my goal is to stop our dangerous participation in the violence in syria, yet, evidence mounts we are already deeply involved with no expectation that the military will back off from military engagement. recent reports indicates the u.s. is providing logistics and

communication assistance to the rebel forces. assistance in getting arms is hardly a secret. cooperating with the rebels' propaganda efforts has been reported and used to prepare the american people for our coming involvement. there's every reason to expect that the well-laid plans to once again coordinate a favorable regime change will end badly. even the strongest supporters of our direct and immediate military involvement in syria admit the rebel forces are made up of many groups, including al qaeda, and no one is sure to whom the assistance should be given. all they claim is the need for the immediate removal of assad. this policy is nothing new and too often in our recent history, our assistance with dollars and weapons used to overthrow a government ends up with the weapons being used instead against us. the policy for intervention has caused a great deal of harm to

us since world war ii. propping up the shaw and iran overthrew the shaw in 1979. the hostages taken at the u.s. embassy at that time was a consequence of us putting them into power in 1953. working with the mujaheddin in the 1980's, we supported radical islam in an effort to help with the islamic radicalism. $40 billion given to egypt for over 30 years to prop up the musharraf dictatorship and buy stable peace is the takeover of egypt by the muslim brotherhood. they may turn them into a -- al

qaeda has a presence in parts of egypt and has been involved in the bombings of pipelines carrying gas to israel. this is hardly a policy that is enhancing israel's security. what are the possible unintended consequences of these policies if we fully escalate the civil war in syria? the worst scenario would be an all-out war in the region involving russia, the united states, israel, iran, turkey and others. the escalating conflict could rapidly make containment virtually impossible. chaos in this region could encourage the kurds and syria, iraq, turkey and iran to decide it's an opportunity to move on their long sought-after goal of establishing a kurdish state. significant hostilities in the region could jeopardize the free flow of oil from the middle east causing sharp increases of the price in oil. the already weak economy of the west would suffer immensely. some would argue erroneously

that a major war would be beneficial to the economy and distract from the peoples from their economic woes. war, however, is not an economic benefit. although, many have been taught that for many decades. if liberty and prosperity are to be our goals, peace is a necessary ingredient of that process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow will be a peculiar day in washington and in american politics. republicans will announce ideas that they enthusiastically supported until those ideas became associated somehow with the obama administration. we expect to hear the ruling on the individual mandate across the street at the supreme court. the individual mandate was the centerpiece of american health care proposals until the obama administration embraced it.

then, republicans decided it was an outrageous infringement on personal liberty. and here in this chamber we will debate operation fast and furious. most democrats, including me, don't really even quite get what the supposed scandal is about. but have always thought that gun sales in large quantities to drug cartels was just generally a bad idea. for republicans, on the other hand, the gun sales that were part of operation fast and furious appear to be the only gun sales they had a problem with. and we will have a 180-degree reversal on the issue of information that congress can require as part of our oversight powers. i was the oversight subcommittee chairman for four years. i believe congressional oversight is an important check on the executive branch of government and established an important part of our system of checks and balances. i support investigations that might make an administration of my own party look foolish or

worse. i want people who have the power of government of either party for accountable for their decisions. i want them to pause over how they will explain their decisions in public and if they can't explain it maybe they shouldn't do it. congressional oversight exposes and deters abuses of power and garden variety stupidity of which is plenty in the public sector, in the private sector and all activities in which human beings are involved. . the courts have also recognized uninhibited discussions can prove to good decisions. they are less likely to be stupid when they are discussed. and the courts protect the privacy of some discussions within the executive branch to further the goal of less stupid decisions. the courts recognize a strong privilege for discussions between the president and top advisors and lesser privilege, a qualified privilege, for other

debates within the executive branch. when i was an oversight subcommittee chairman, i read many of the court decisions that discussed those privileges and anyone who says that the law is clear, that what is privileged and what is not, is well-defined, is misinformed or dishonest. five years ago the democratic majority disagreed with a republican president over whether information we saw as part of our oversight powers was privileged. there was plenty of partisan acrimony at the time, but we found a simple solution. we filed a lawsuit to ask a judge to decide whether we were entitled to the testimony in the documents that we had subpoenaed. the bush administration argued that the court shouldn't decide the case. the judge disagreed. the judge said enforcing subpoenas, deciding what testimony or documents are privileged is something courts do every day. judges expect lawyers to make careful, calm arguments based on the law and facts and they have little patience for tedious,

dishonest talking points or personal attacks. the debate here tomorrow will not even remotely resemble a legal argument in court. so we could have gone, we could go now to a court to clarify the law. i would support that. many democrats would support that. but, no, instead house republicans are going to force a vote to prosecute the attorney general for the crime of taking a plausible decision on uncertain legal issues. instead of asking for a careful, calm decision by a judge on a legal issue, house republicans are choosing an intemperate acrimonious debate here in this chamber over legal issues about which few members have the first clue. why? the only possible reason is that house republicans just like partisan acrimony. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, for five minutes. mrs. economic morris rogers: mr.

speaker -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers mr. speaker, i rise today with sadness and sorrow to honor the life of jared larrier, he was a proud member of the prestigious 8 nd airborne division, serving his first tour in afghanistan. he was a graduate of need high school and lifelong resident of spokane, washington. he was an athlete, son, a brother, and an american hero. jared wasous 20 years old when he lost his life last week in afghanistan. -- was just 20 years old when he lost his life last week in afghanistan. he was 20 years old when men in uniform turned their weapons on him and robbed him in his life. he was just 20 years old when he said goodbye to his family forever. he would have celebrated his 21st birthday this week.

but since he's not here to do that, i want to celebrate the life he lived. and the country he served. today we celebrate a man who dreamed of serving america since he was young. we celebrate a man who fought for america, who protected america, who defended america. we celebrate a man who died in the name of american freedom. today my thoughts and prayers and gratitude are with specialist jared and all those who will carry on his legacy forever. his father, gary, his mother, kim, his sister, jessica, and his brother, jordan. may god bless this great american hero, his family, and all the brave men and women who have answered america's call to freedom. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes.

ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, this is a solemn place. and a solemn moment when members come to express their views. the previous speaker drew us to heroes, and we thank those who have served us in the united states military. this morning i draw towards constitutional and congressional responsibility. it is all intertwined in the honor we have in serving in this institution, this august institution entrusted to us by the american public, our individual constituents. i first suggest that earlier this week the supreme court established the superiority of

the united states government in immigration reform. and all of the points that were brought by the state of arizona, 2/3 were rejected under the understanding and the law that the united states government is in charge of immigration enforcement, immigration benefits, and that we should do our job. for the one provision that remains standing and as the ranking member formerly of the immigration subcommittee and homeland security, i see this every day having just come from arizona, seen the good work my good friend, congressman grijalva and others are doing, i know that we are working to ensure the safety of the border, but i also recognize the need for the dignity of human beings. i fight for the dignity. so congress should get out of the way in terms of being in the midst of confusion and stand in the way and close the gap on immigration reform. the only provision left standing was a provision that the court

warned the states if they engage in racial profiling, that, too, may be proven unconstitutional. law enforcement officers have always had the right and legitimate stop to ask for the credentials of anyone they stop. the question is now burdening those officers to see who they stop and why they stop. so again i speak to the issue of congressional responsibility. now i come to the act that is going to take place tomorrow and a number of us are writing the speaker and asking and imploring him as speaker newt gingrich did in 1998 refusing to bring forward a contempt charge against janet reno that was pointedly personal. we suggest now that there is much work to be done. as my colleague indicated, this case could be taken to the courts to determine what documents should be brought in. in addition, the work has not been completed. the man who headed the a.t.f.

has never been allowed to speak before the committee to explain that he never told any of the officials, none of the officials, including the attorney general, were told about the intricacies of fast and furious. the former attorney general who has appeared before the judicial committee a number of times, i know he would not in any way flee away from coming and telling what he knew, general mccazey, he has not been asked. documents, 7,600 have been presented to the oversight committee, but yet we'll be on the floor tomorrow in a purely personal relating of why attorney general holder, a lifelong law enforcement officer, the senior officer of the united states, the one who has come riding in and helping the most vulnerable in the united states, those who cannot get to vote, the disabled and others who have been denied, the oppressive rules that have been passed by many states, thank god for the federal government and the attorney general of the

united states. if it had not been for him, i would not be standing here because i would have still been bent down in the deep south with holders on top of me because the general of the united states in the 1960's and department of justice came in and helped dr. martin luther king after bill connor turned those hoses on in birmingham. so tomorrow we malign the very officer that will come to the aid of any american, those whose homes are being foreclosed, this jep led a massive settlement to be able to stand and to be able to provide for the most vulnerable of americans. congress has the responsibility of creating jobs, of passing important transportation h.u.d. bill that will provide housing and rebuilding of our highways and freeways. tomorrow we will stop and pause and begin to call each other names. and to take a man whose very life has been in public service. who has led the department of justice with dignity and

respect. who has answered questions, who has prepared, who has appeared before us with a demeanor that is respective of his position. and all i ask is that we not bring this to the floor and cooler heads will come and sit down and resolve the remaining documents. for the love of this nation, for the patriotism and the honor of serving in the united states congress, i beg of the speaker and this house, do not go down the pathway of contempt. i beg of you, raise this house to the level of dignity, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the comments and my friend from texas. we do have some disagreements, but i want to go back to the issue of jobs. people are hurting.

they are without jobs. the unemployment has been higher than the president said it would ever get if we would just simply give him about $1 trillion to give away to make it better. but it didn't. what we have seen over and over from this administration is a complete disregard for the rule of law. when you look at all the people who have been drawn into this country illegally, in violation of our immigration laws, even though there is no country in the world that allows the immigration that this country does and the wide open gates that we do, but we do have parameters. we have been told there may be a billion, 1.5 billion people who want to come to this country. if they did it all at once it would overwhelm us and there

would be no country for others to come to. so why do so many want to come here? it's because we have always had regard for the rule of law. and when there were those who would ignore the rule of law and put partisan and personal benefit above the law, eventually they had to account. some have gotten away, but this country has done a better job of being fair across the board than any country in the history, and that's why so many want to come here because we have had more jobs, a better economy, and made more advancements than any country in history. yet on the issue of immigration this president stands up and announces, we can ignore the law, just as i did on marriage. there is a proper law signed into law by president bill clinton, enacted by congress, upheld, and he says, we are going to ignore that. because we don't like it.

there goes the rule of law. when it comes to obamacare, we passed this law, but you know what? so many of the people that pushed this through and rammed it down the throats of america, they are asking for waivers and they are good friends so we are going to give them waivers so they can ignore the rule of law. how about the auto bailout? ignored the bankruptcy law, ignored the constitution, took away dealerships, gave them to others. this was a place where the rule of law was completely ignored. then this president stands up and says, you know what, not only are we going to ignore the rule of law, but as i speak, i will create law. and i now speak into effect new work visas, work permits that have never existed, but just as the agent -- ancient pharaohs, or the leaders of the ancient world, as i speak so it must be. i'm speaking into effect new

work permits. i'm speaking into effect an ignoring of the laws that were duel passed. i'm speaking into effect a chance to give them jobs that americans are hurting and trying to get. and we have an attorney general who was not only about fast and furious, he was asked about justice kagen on the supreme court. are you aware of any instances during justice kagen's tenure as so list -- solicitor general of the united states, where litigation was relayed or provided, he refused to answer. when did your staff begin removing solicitor kagen on meetings from this matter? what basis did you take this action? what other matters was such action taken? look, the rule of law required that when the -- there were possibly thousands of abuses of the national security letter in a republican administration, i

picked up the phone, called the chief of staff of my president, and said this is unforgivable. we need a new attorney general. where is my friend across the aisle who will step up and say the rule of law is too important? we have justice kagen, who is ignoring the law, 28 u.s.c. 455 that says you must disqualify yourself in any case in which an impartialality might reasonably be questioned. . you must reasonably expect that either she ignored the law, did not do her job as solicitor general, was totally negligent or she did her job and she should not have sat on this case. she should have disqualified. i beg and plead for my colleagues across the aisle, step up as i did when the attorney general was responsible for providing over an injustice and call for the

resignation. it is contemptuous of congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. davis: mr. speaker, you2 has a song that says some days are better than others. the lyrics go something like this. some days are dry, some days are leaky, some days come clean. other days are sneaky. some days take more and some days things just slip to the floor. well, mr. speaker, today it is certainly threatening to slip through onto the floor. the house is apparently preparing for an unprecedented floor vote to hold a sitting

attorney general, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, in contempt. the path that has led us to this sorry day is so long, so bizarre, so torturous, so fantastical, unglobal until it stretches the imagination -- unbelievable until it stretches the imagination to try to make some sense out of the actions. we started investigating the gun walking which was initiated under the bush administration. the department of justice produced thousands of pages of documents. the attorney general testified nine times and the committee found no wrongdoing by the attorney general. so the committee majority turned its attention to a february 4, 2011, letter sent by the department of justice to

senator grassley initially denying allegations of gun walking. the d.o.j. acknowledged the errors in the letter to senator grassley and provided more pages of internal documents, showing how the letter came to be drafted. the documents demonstrated that the staff did not intentionally mislead congress but relloyd on assurances from -- relied on assurances from a.t.f. leaders. did the committee call the head of the a.t.f. to testify how this happened as democratic members of the committee requested? the answer is no. did the committee call for former attorney general mukasey who was briefed on the botched effort to coordinate arms interdiction with mexico in 2007? the answer is no.

instead, the majority of the members demanded more internal deliberative documents from the department of justice after the grassley letter had been sent. instead, the committee leadership made a series of allegations regarding the involvement of the white house documented in youtube videos and news clips viewed on the internet which were subsequently withdrawn. the committee leadership has refused the attorney general's offers to resolve the conflict. the president has now claimed executive privilege over a very narrow group of documents from the department of justice in response to chairman issa's threat to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress. this is the first time the president has claimed executive privilege. in sharp contrast to recent previous presidents who used the claim on numerous occasions

in similar circumstances. should the house continue to pursue this irresponsible action, it is likely that it would lead to many years of judicial action and would, of course, further poison the highly charged partisan atmosphere leading up to the elections and criticizing and making allegations and affecting the budget and all of the other things that we really seriously need to deal with. so i join with others who are asking the speaker who are imploring this house not to take such an irresponsible vote, not to take an irresponsible action but to sit with the attorney general and let's resolve the conflict between the house and the executive branch. that's what reasonable people would do. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. speaker. money has taken over our political process. big corporations, high political schemers tell us everything is still mom and apple pie and there's nothing to worry about. but some of us have seen the effects of these hidden million dollar dark money donations. we've seen the ads to tell you what to think and who to vote for without telling you who's talking. we've seen the multimillion dollar lawsuits help any corporate interest without explaining who's paying the bill. we've seen more and more elections bought and paid for by the only people who can afford it. and those people are not us. it's time to start naming names, asking why these people won't tell us who they are. we must start to fight back and ask them what they have to

hide. a front group called the national federation of independent businesses is trying to block the affordable care act. the president of the group says he's doing this to help small businesses. when i and my colleague, keith ellison, asked who his members are he refused to answer. we asked him what crossroads g.p.s. political group gave him $3.7 million just when he initiated the lawsuit. he refused to answer. and he thinks that's good enough. well, it's not. nfib has never liked answering questions. in 2006 in an article in the national seen, the organization claimed 600,000 members and businesses nationwide. today on its website it claims 300,000. but when we asked nfib to disclose where its money comes

from, instead of providing us the courtesy of a written response, the group told the press that its membership has been growing by leaps and bounds since the lawsuit began. it described that shrinking 50% as a big new expansion. and it said new members have made small donations that covered the cost of a complex lawsuit before the supreme court. in other words, nfib won't tell us the truth about who it represents or how big it is. what does it have to hide? our democracy has always been about people. it's been about families and individuals and who they choose to represent their interests. it's about what kind of country we want to live in, not the kind of country the wealthy choose for us. today as we prepare for the supreme court ruling on affordable care act, millions of americans are pre-existing conditions, with sick children, with long-term medical needs,

with no insurance stand together on one side. a front group with bottomless pockets that won't explain its motives sits on the other. mr. speaker, this is not what our democracy is supposed to be about. our founding fathers did not believe wealth makes a man more important than his neighbor. they didn't believe money is more important than the dignity of the individual. they didn't believe that any company or organizations entitled to a special set of rules. and they certainly didn't believe that an incorporated business entity is the same as a human being. there is no reason we have to accept the choices that the very, very wealthy are making for us, the rest of the country. today we should stand up and be counted and demand that dark money donations come to light, that anyone who wants to influence our democracy step forward, state his name for the record and be honest and transparent with the american people.

democracy is not for sale, an election should not be an auction and i'm proud to be on the floor today and say that i am on the side of people that want disclosure, want fair elections and are tired, tired of the influence of dark money in our collective democracy. i challenge those front groups to put up or shut up. tell us who's funding you and what you really want. it's about four months and a little more time until america elects a new congress and a president. let the voters decide. they know where i stand, and we want these front groups to tell us where they stand, where they get their money, who they are and who they represent. the american people in this great democracy of ours should make the choice whether we like it or not. the influence by a very few

secretive groups that are fronting for others should not be the ones that decide who represents the american people, who will run this country and who will set the priorities for this country. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoa for five minutes. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this resolution, to hold in contempt attorney general of the united states, mr. eric holder. it this contempt resolution does no good in moving along the investigation of the gun walking operations across our borders, nor in the investigations of the death of border patrol agent brian pin tarey whose killing was associated with two firearms linked to operation fast and furious. last year the house oversight

committee initiated an investigation into allegations of this operation of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, a.t.f. field division in arizona. over the past year the committee has extended its investigation by requesting thousands of pages of documents from the department of justice and interviewing about two dozen officials. in response, the department has managed extraordinary attempts, in my opinion, to accommodate these requests by submitting over 8,000 pages of documents. attorney general holder has also testified before the committee about nine times on this matter. but the current contempt debate has lost its focus. this can he bait is no longer about combun walking and operation fast and -- gun walking and operation fast and furious. it is run by a.t.f.'s field division in arizona dating back

from the time of former president george w. bush's administration and finding no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the attorney general, the committee has now turned their focus to a single letter sent by the department of justice office of legislative affairs to senator grassley on february 4, 2011, which initially denied allegations of gun walking. the department has acknowledged that its letter was inaccurate and formally withdrew the letter. the department has turned over 1,300 pages of internal deliberative documents related to how it was drafted, showing that staffers who drafted the letter relied on inaccurate assurances from a.t.f. leaders and officials in arizona who ran the operation. again, the focus has shifted from the real matter of investigation and bringing justice to agent brine terry's family. during -- brian terry's family. the committee refused all

democratic requests for key witnesses and hearings as well as requests to interview any bush administration appointees. for example, the committee refused a public hearing with ken nelson, the head of a.t.f., as well as a hearing or even a private hearing for former attorney general mukasey. attorney general holder has worked in good faith in my opinion to respond to the committee's request and even met with a bipartisan leader from both chambers last week offering to provide additional documents regarding the fast and furious initiative. his offer was rejected and even yet the committee has continued to move the goal posts by demanding internal deliberative documents after the february 4 letter that is now in question. mr. speaker, this resolution is the concluding step of what has been turned out to be in my opinion an unfair process of defaming a public servant who has thus far made good faith

efforts to cooperate with the oversight committee. mr. speaker, to suggest that today's debate and deliberations on this proposed contempt resolution against attorney general eric holder as a profound example of democracy at its best may also be considered a sad day, a sad day for our nation and a recognition of the fact that there has been a failure of the system to function properly. i would respectfully urge that the speaker not to bring this resolution to the floor and allow the leadership of both committees of the oversight committee not to give up and continue the dialogue, continue the deliberation. . not to mention the motives and integrity of our colleagues in the committee but solve the problem that is before us today, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes.

mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. excuse me, mr. speaker. today, mr. speaker, i rise to give a special tribute to those fathers and their families who have come to america as refugees, escaping the harsh political and economic conditions in their home countries. on june 20 we celebrated world refugee day. like many of our forefathers, refugees came to america hoping for a better life. refugees received sanctuary in the united states because they were in harm's way. they cannot return home safely, and they have nowhere else to turn. for generations we have resettled millions of refugee from all over the world. they have come from many backgrounds and ethniesities --

ethnicities, america has offered sanctuary to countless jews, eastern europeans, and many others displaced during world war ii. we have welcomed people from cuba, vietnam, and asian countries who are fleeing repressive regimes. in my home state of georgia i have seen how refugees have become an asset, contributing to the local economy, and to the local culture. according to data from the matching grant program, on average 85% of refugee families in georgia are self-sufficient, 180 days after arrival. many americans know the remarkable story of the lost boys of sudan. thousands of sudanese boys were displaced and separated from their families during the second war between 1983 and 2005. they traveled by foot for weeks

and sometimes years to refugee camps in ethiopia and kenya just to survive. their resilience and hard work should be an example for us all. defying all odds, these young men pursued their dream of getting an education in america. and grew to become productive members of my congressional district in scottdale and clarkston, georgia. nonprofit organizations such as refugee family services and others located in my district provide refugees with the resources they need to become self-sufficient and adapt to life here in america. thanks to services provided by these organizations, rahm a. young man who grew up in a refugee camp, was awarded a

prestigious gates millennium scholarship, a full four-year scholarship to any kohl lemming in the country. rahm chose to -- college in the country. rahm chose to remain close to his family in georgia and he is attending georgia tech and plans to become a doctor. as we celebrate and recognize world refugee day this month, let us take a moment to think of those refugees, and let us recognize those organizations and volunteers working tirelessly every day helping refugees build a better future for generations to come. let us also be proud as americans for following our age-old tradition of welcoming those who have lost almost everything but have found in our great country a promise for a better tomorrow.

moreover, let us celebrate the generosity of the american people who have granted to refugees the best gift of all, freedom and hope. so i ask all of my colleagues not to cut funding for refugees just to score cheap political points, let us instead embrace refugees, except for native americans, we are all desendants of probegin tores who came here upped some form of duress. let us uphold our better nature of compassion and kindness that lies at the heart of who we are as americans. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

>> until then, a look at the u.s. banking industry with former banking executive sally cry check, she discusses her recent story for the harvard business review. >> we continue now with our spotlight on magazine series. today we are going to talk with sally craw check a. former c.e.o. of marilyn wealth management, joining us from new york city. we caught the attention of this article, that you wrote in the harvard business review, you speak about four ways to fix banks, i wanted to read the first paragraph and get you to respond to one of the central points you are making. you are right it's tempting to view the financial downturn whose primary causes have been resolved. perhaps not perfectly but fairly comprehensively by the dodd-frank act regulation, or reregulation of the financial services industry.

but big banks continue to have a governance problem, which poses significant risks not just to them but potentially to the entire economy during the next downturn. what is that governance problem you are seeing? guest: first of all one of the comments i should we view the chapter is closed, it's interesting because the "harvard business review" you right these articles before they publish them. the loss of jpmorgan. $2 billion and probably growing loss at jpmorgan which i think of as not a disaster versus what we've seen but a little bit of a dress rehearsal of how regulatory reform to date has worked. we clearly have holes.

not to suggest we have new regulations. you can see what's going on with the money fund debate in d.c., how very, very difficult that is. but instead to address the board. the boards of directors for these banks and give them some ideas on how they can use some of the tools at their disposal to work to reduce risk in banks which i think is -- what we'd like and is in the very best interest of this country. host: so you have some ideas laid out in the piece. let's get people phoning in. the ways to fix the banks, our guest is sally krawchek. she's written a piece for the harvard business review. on the screen we can begin to walk through the ideas that you've put forth. first one says pay executives with bonds as well as stock. what do you mean by that and why is that an important idea, do you think?

guest: well, the debate that we've had as a country has really centered on first of all for causes of the downturn greed and the debate around compensation has centered around bringing compensation down. so rather than add to that debate or expand on that debate, what i looked at was the former compensation for executives and for whatever reason as we came to the downturn we immediately went to pay executives more stock. well, think about it for a second. if you were buying a stock, you are not -- you are looking for upside. you understand you could lose your money on the downside but you are not looking to protect your money. you are really thinking about how can this company grow, how can it take on risk in order to grow. in other words, in order to look for a stock to go up you look for risk. wait a second. for big banks, are we looking to look for more risk?

if you invest in those bonds, the most you can get back is 100 cents. i ran merrill lynch wealth management. i was also a chief financial officer for a large institution. in my experience the equity investors were all about how fast can you grow and what kind of risk can you take in order to grow and the fixed income investors in that company were all about reduce your risk, be very careful because if you take risks and even if you get upside i don't get 100 cents on my dollar so rather than put executives in more stock. i don't think anybody would say they didn't have a stock in the company that he ran or his executives didn't. rush to put people in more stock, even holding it longer. how about we wait the compensation such that we are looking to reduce to risk profile the company and the executives. host: one of the other ideas is to pay dividends as a percentage of earnings. speak to that if you could.

guest: i know what we saw in the downturn is that corporate executives, once they have a stated dividend level, 10 cents per share or $1 per share, they hate to reduce it. they hate the signaling that it causes to reduce it. and by the way, they're not fully, you know, they don't see the future 100%. and so at influction point they don't see it's getting a lot worse, they see it a little worse. we keep the dividends stable. so what you saw in the downturn is that executives and boards were very slow to take down the dividend. and it would have saved an enormous amount of capital and not go to the government as quickly as they otherwise did. so by having dividends as a percent of earnings rather than a stated amount, those dividends will go up when times are good. they'll go down when times are bad providing a natural breaking mechanism that doesn't exist today. host: we'll get to your other points that you've written in

this "harvard business review" piece. our guest is sally krawchek in new york. want to get your views on dodd-frank overall since it became law a couple years back. what do you think? guest: it's a an enormously, enormously complex piece of legislation. if you look at the banking industry, it in and of itself is highly complex, and what we're doing is fighting complexity with complexity through this piece of legislation. you see it with the volcker rule which looks to ban proprietary trading, and i haven't gone through the questionnaire myself but in order to determine if a trade is a proprietary trade or not, if the bank is betting some money which is banned there are hundreds of questions that have to be asked for trade. for a trade. so, you know, you got complexity built on complexity. it is mind numbing and it's really i think a challenge for

regulators and boards and senior executives to try to deal with this mind numbing complexity. that's why with this piece i try to step back and say, ok, what are a few big ideas, because if you're trying to chase every last frayed, every last business within these institutions, i promise you, i promise you these banking executives are very bright. they find new businesses and get through the loopholes because they are profit seeking individuals. host: you talk about the complexity. what should viewers be thinking about folks who aren't steep in all of this as the country moves forward, as the financial future of the country moves forward, how should they be doing all this? guest: it's a very broad, broad question. i would say for the viewers overall, you know, happily if you're doing business with a bank, you have your deposits in the bank.

you have the fdic. assuming you are at the level which it is cut off, your money is guaranteed by the u.s. government. so in some ways, you know, from a day-to-day basis in terms of the safety of money, you know, this doesn't impact the viewers on a day-to-day basis. however, you mow, as we look at the health of the banking industry overall, it's clear that while maybe at the far end where people are saying the banks caused every last bit of this, well, that may be, you know, may not be -- it may be 100% correct. it may not be 1,000% correct. this isn't an area of interest to individuals because of the -- the bank can be the lifeblood of the economy. if they're functioning it's an important macroissue for our country. host: houston, texas, dwight, democrat, you are on with sallie krawchek.

good morning. caller: my question is, given the history of the last few years of our banking system, the last fewer, five years of our banking system, how is it that the trend now has been toward getting rid of dodd-frank before it even has -- from what i understand, hasn't been able to be implemented? for us novices out here, can you explain why glass-steagall wouldn't help? guest: well, i see a couple of things. in terms of the to and froe in terms of washington looking to regulate and the industry facing off with d.c., it's part of the american grand tradition. they say you have your roles, these guys have their roles. as long as everyone knows their role we are in good shape. what i see going on here is

nothing less than what happens during periods of reregulation, there is a push and pull. the banking industry has lots of lobbyists up there. yeah, they sure do. out of that robust debate you hope people become more informed, arguments are heated and dramatic but we come to something that kind of sort of looks like the right place. what's frustrating to me is dodd-frank for awful its complexity and all of its scope and all of its pages, you know, did not take care of all of the areas of risk out there. and what's frustrating to me is a proposal by the securities and exchange commission to further regulate money funds. so you have your money, your cash in a deposit, you can have your cash in a money fund. the money funds continue to have some risk to them. you know, continue to be a soft spot in the financial services industry that is liable in a terrible downturn, not a usual

downturn, but a terrible downturn to be liable to runs like the old-fashioned bank run. and the fact that mary schapiro who is doing a terrific job down there not able to reregulate that, needs it, it's frustrating because it's the sort of gridlock that occurs. now, in terms of glass-steagall many say they wouldn't have stopped it. lehman brothers wasn't a bank. fannie and fannie hadn't come together in investment banking and banking. bear stearns, the first one that went under, that didn't fall under glass-steagall. a.i.g. wasn't under glass-steagall. glass-steagall wouldn't have stopped what happened. if you broaden it out to say, let's not be so literal, the real issue is these institutions took on too much risk. quite frankly more risk than they understood. they didn't have enough

capital, enough of a cushion in order to absorb the losses when they came through. in other words, you'll hear people talk about too much leverage. that's really the core issue. the core issue is not are they proprietary trading over here. the real core issue is too much risk, not enough of a capital cushion and the key question today is, have we fixed that enough for the next downturn, are those things fixed enough? reinstating glass-steagall, the volcker rule, to me all of that is are different ways, different tools for potentially reducing that risk. host: we have nick on the line from pleasantville, california. republican caller. good morning, nick. you are on with salley -- sallie krawchek. caller: i have been trying to get through for a long time. i'd like to ask this young lady if she is aware of the house

bill that was passed last year that i think it's called h.r. 4646 that authorizes the banks or financial institutions to charge everybody 1% for every transaction that goes through their company. it sounds like a pittance. [inaudible] a friend of mine tried to get a hold of somebody. host: what does it mean to you? caller: i'm sorry. host: what does it mean to you? you brought up this bill. how did it -- why did it catch your attention? caller: because what it's for. it's for the banks to rip us off more than they are already.

host: sallie, can you speak to what the caller's referencing? caller: i'm sorry. i had trouble hearing it. it charges 1% for what? host: caller, are you still there? i think he said per transaction but i don't want to quote him. have you heard of h.r. 4646? caller: -- guest: here's what i would say. one of the things that dodd-frank did was take away some of the earning streams and revenue streams of these financial institutions and in fact if you're an investor today, you know, buying the stocks of the financial institution, the core question for you which is very, very difficult to answer is what is the earnings power of these companies going forward? it's not clear. by taking away some of the interchange fees that these institutions could charge on department cards, interesting on debit cards, didn't take it away on credit cards, they went

through billions of revenues away from those banks, from those institutions. the volcker rule, you know, no one discloses how much that is but that's billions of dollars of revenue that are taken away from the banks. so what you've seen the institutions do which, again, is a bit of the old capitalist american way is, ok, if we had these revenue streams that have gone away, where can we make those up? what are other places for which we are providing services to individuals and companies that we can make that up? i think jamie diamond, c.e.o. of jpmorgan, once said, if we can't charge more for the hamburger, you try to charge more for the french fries. what's fascinating, you've seen the institutions try to charge more. you've seen a backlash from the public saying we are not willing to pay for this and it's a bit of a see saw that's occurring during this period of volatility as those banks try to figure out how they are going to have real businesses. the stock market, by the way, is saying, guys, you know, your

stock price is trading below your intrinsic value. so the stock market is telling you, the stock market is telling the bank, we think you are going to bleed value from here for some period of time to come. this is all right now trying to shake itself out. host: back to sallie and the "harvard business review." one of the ideas on how to fix banks is don't judge managers just by earnings. and this is also the interesting piece in "the wall street journal" this morning about firms resisting some of the new pay equity rules they talk about being at issue a rule that could force zicktiffs to disclose the gap between what they pay their c.e.o.'s and their median pay for their employees, potentially embarrassing figure. put all that in perspective for us beginning with your idea about the banks. guest: the idea is banks earn a lot of money or lose highway of money based on what's happening

in the external environment. if the yield curve is steep and banks are borrowing short and lending long as they say because of the steepness of the yield curve, they earn a lot more than if the yield curve is flat. if equity markets go up, they will earn -- they tend to earn a lot more than if equity markets go down. i have been around the banking industry for more years than i frankly care to share with you, while everyone says when the markets go up, gosh, i'm so smart. there really are significant impact from those external factors from these institutions so earnings can be driven up or down by loss lots of factors that have nothing to do with what managers are doing. what's happening in the banking industry and your viewers are very aware of it is a lot of the customers are frustrated with the banks. but aren't leaving because they don't have better opportunities

because it's too big of a pain or it's too complicated. if you have unhappy customers who aren't leaving because of the difficulty of it, if you have earnings that are being driven from external factors that are out of the management team's control, you have a weak business model or innovations from other businesses can come through and take away shares. the point i want to make is you better be looking at these metrics because the earnings will go up or down and has nothing to do with the management team. you better be looking at the underlying metrics to judge these management teams. host: michael is on the line from california, independent caller. go ahead, michael. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i once read an article written about me called "the highly motivated black" and i have been looking for it since the mid 1970's and never have been able to find it.

that's number one. the second thing i want to tell you is i do not think that the deal made by the banks by the feds, the mortgage crisis truly works. some people are doing it and some people are not. in research i have found that bank of america are still up to their same old dirty tricks with mortgages and all of the things they are doing. and i was told by a bank of america employee that they actually have people working inside the o.c.c. that can hold up any complaints that you make. and i just wanted to tell you about that and i think people should know that they should take a look at the o.c.c. investigative unit to see what's going on. so anyway, sallie, thank you.

if you know how i can get a hold of the article written in 1972 about me called "the highly motivated black," i appreciate it. host: thanks for calling it. guest: you can go to the website which is hbr.org and try to search there. host: louisville, texas. we have 30 seconds left. our guest has written an article in "the harvard business review," four ways to fix the banks. we have dennis, democrat, louisville. go ahead, please. caller: yes. i'd like to comment about the comment about glass-steagall would not have kept this financial problem from happening. yes, it would have. everybody in the united states

that is in the business world knows that we need a separation between the commercial bank and a commercial business. we can't have an investment bank on the same footing as a commercial bank. investment bank was separated by glass-steagall and the other thing that would help banks is put all the banksters in jail and have you seen any one of them go to jail? that would be a big incentives for banks not to do what they're doing. host: sallie krawchek. guest: i think we agree that the downturn wouldn't have occurred or would have been less than it was if the banking institutions would have taken on less risk. and the rest of the discussion is really about what the best way is to reduce that risk

overall. whether that be a reinstatement of glass-steagall, whether that be the dodd-frank act which is what that is looking to do. what i am talking about in that piece which is engaging boards through the tools at their disposal to reduce risk. i think we can all agree the primary issue of how much risk should banks have, how much of a capital cushion is an important -- an important factor in the downturn and it an important factor for us going forward and that's why i think this jpmorgan $2 billion loss. and $2 billion sounds like a huge number. it is. they have i think $128 billion of what is called tangible equities to absorb it. they are fully able to absorb it. the market mechanisms work the way they are supposed to work which is the shareholders felt an impact from it.

the government didn't have to come in. what it does for us it provides a little bit of a dress rehearsal, a small-scale dress rehearsal for how the reregulation that's taken place so far is working. and what worries me about it was quite frankly not the size of the loss. what worried me about it was these institutions are so complex that it was actually the press that told jpmorgan that they had the loss. the c.e.o., who is as bright and smart and dynamic and engaged and into it as any c.e.o. in any industry anywhere, i probably say in the universe, that he wasn't aware of this and that actually whatever his reports were that were coming up to him said, you know, no -- the quote was it was a 10% in a teapot. it took weeks for them to figure it out. the problem is not the size of it which is handable but rather demonstrating the complexity of the institution. and then by the way when we

talk about, you know, the volcker rule, you can't do proprietary trading or trading for your own look, we went in a week's long discussion whether this is a pry pry tear trade or not. we should debate how many angels should get on the head of a -- they need to track it down. can they absorb it? how much capital do they got? host: there is a point to your piece if "the harvard business review" about the banks had a fix. give the board scrutiny to bombing businesses, too. you are talking about booming businesses. close look at them as well. explain what you mean there. guest: well, if you think about the time of the board, the boards are not full time and so in my experience -- and i have been at lots of board meetings -- they come in. they have all the regulatory stuff they have to do. they have all the governance stuff they have to do and then they spend their time focusing on the businesses that are in

trouble. it's human nature. ok. that one's down. what are we going to do to improve it. how many more customers are we going to look to get? are we going to cut expenses? how many more people are we going to fire? how will we get this thing back to profitability? in the banking industry on the trading side, on the institutional side, there are very few barriers to entry. companies can come and go. therefore, if there are businesses in that part of the banking company that are earning very high returns, you need to take a look at those because there is not any particular reasons those should persist. the reasons i gave were smrter, where we get it better, we're innovative. there are lots of reasons and some may be exactly the right reason. you have way martyr people than other institutions have. the other reason is you are taking on too much risk. you don't understand what you're doing.

you're skirting too close to regulation. and you're breaking some laws and not seeing that -- and i've seen that happen before. therefore, i can't tell you the number of times i've seen us, you know, in hindsight the return on this business was too high and it wasn't sustainable. indeed, in the jpmorgan lawsuit we're talking -- loss, we are talking about their chief investment office, if you read the stories that were coming out about it, what you read was, gee, i hadn't taken a close look at it because it was doing so well. jamie diamond, good chief executive, should have let it run its course. therefore, the recommendation for the bank boards is dig in the ones that are looking really good and make sure that there is a really good reason for it because i promise you the next issue, the next big issue that will occur is, geez, the returns that used to be very, very good.

host: more of your phone calls in a couple of moments. now to twitter. comparing the u.s. banks to european banks. are our banks better than european banks thanks to dodd-frank? can you compare, contrast? guest: it's been a challenge to compare and contrast because there are different standards between the two. but our institutions did raise capital. in 2007, 2008, 2009, they raised capital at prices they didn't want to raise. in some cases brought kicking and scrome -- screaming. the government did give them tarp which they paid back. if you look where they started to where they are today, they are quite a bit stronger. despite the moody's rating downgrade which we can talk

about, if you look, but they are certainly stronger. the european banks are several steps behind. and in fact not only have they been less well capitalized than american institutions, but you have the issues going on with the euro over there and the nervousness about the -- spanish and italy, and how that's going to resolve itself which make no mistake, if that happens there will be a domino effect around the globe but will impact the european banks well before it impacts the u.s. banks. host: you mentioned the downgrade. speak about that for a moment. guest: sure. it's interesting the debate that has occurred on this. because there's a lot of talk of moody's came in, downgraded five of the largest u.s. banking institutions. some, too, within -- maybe not

spitting distance but throwing distance of junk-type of ratings. and it's fascinating because the debate that then occurred was, geez, they downgrade the banks now but they're stronger than when the ratings were higher to which my reaction was, yeah, but the ratings before were wrong. it's pretty darn clear, you know, that the rating agencies have this completely wrong. everybody, you know -- not everybody but a lot of people did, including the bank executives, the boards, the regulators, the markets. i mean, a lot of people had a lot wrong but the rating agencies did as well. it's taken them this long to do what i'm sure is very thorough, very reasoned, very analytical work to get these banks the right ratings. and so in fact if the banks had been rated correctly before these would actually be upgrades that would be occurring, not downgrades. and so on an absolute basis let's hope the banks are rated

correctly right now. on a relative basis, the debate about they were downgraded is the wrong debate. because the ratings were just wrong. host: james in newark, new jersey. independent. thanks for waiting, james. caller: how are you doing, miss? i'm an insider for jpmorgan chase. i can tell you the financial cushion that you talked about, you said $128 billion. wrong. the financial cushion was $3 trillion. it is $3 trillion. financial cushion. so the $2 billion when this happened, i got involved and i tried making things correct by

correcting one of the deals that was made and one told me i didn't have to worry about it because we had a cushion of $3 trillion. not $128 billion. but $3 trillion. host: let's hear from that guest. he calls himself an insider and said he has a much higher figure. guest: well, i think if that's the case, jpmorgan should reveal that to the markets. that is an extraordinary -- extraordinarily high number. one above one would expect. i think maybe an afrlt k., you know, release demonstrating the markets, that kind of cushion would be helpful. host: let's go back to a twitter question asking about the role of the fed.

guest: it is a very challenging situation that they are in because they -- you know, typically you lower interest rates and by doing that you can, you know, spur demand. and, you know, these folks are clearly pushing on a string at this point. the rates are about as low as they can go. it's hard to take below zero and yet, you know, we are in the midst of a tepid recovery. this year interestingly has the feel of every other year. for the past handful of years it felt like at the beginning of the year. ok, here we go. january, february, march. you know, ok, the demand is really coming back and then you get into the summer doll drums each driven by given things. nervousness about europe. but we are starting to get this recovery going.

people have lots of reasons for it. people talk about -- get very heated about tax increases that are coming and uncertainty going forward and health care reform coming in and i think it's hard to point to one single reason, but business executive after business executive that i speak to just feels nervous maybe too strong a word but cautious, very cautious. so it's interesting, the business that i ran at bank of america, we -- the one place we were missing the budget was actually in loans that we were doing. and the client base that the business side had responsibility for was high net worth, ultra high net worth. people out there starting businesses and growing businesses and people talk about, gee, the banks aren't lending. banks were very happy to lend to companies and to those individuals. you couldn't get them to take a loan.

so, you know, the fed continues in operation twist with interest rates to look to reignite the economy. but it's in a very challenging set of circumstances. host: the years you spent in the industry, speak, if you can, about public perception. didn't know if you had a chance to see the "new york daily news." there is a cartoon where they poke fun. they show a young guy, a boy in high school being carried away. they got the cheating ring, mastermind genius, that's one bubble. another, kid asks, where are they taking him? and another kid says, they're taking him to wall street. so something about public perception here. what would you say to our viewers how to view industry there? guest: i thought, there is a lot of articles about this kid. and, of course, no one likes kids or anyone to cheat but it's a lot of ink being, you know, paid attention to one kid. clearly, you know, to state the

obvious, you know, there is a lot of anger and a lot of angst towards the financial services industry today as there is also and you know perhaps to a lesser degree to the government today and a feeling that these institutions have let individuals down overall. and a feeling, too, in good times when individuals feel like they have opportunities, feel like their kids have opportunity, feel like they see the country moving forward, then they're very willing to look at those institutions and feel that if they're not being helpful at least they're not standing in the way. but right now we have the feeling that those institutions, financial institutions are actively working against the individual and that feeling, you know, is perfectly -- reasonable, perfectly understandable until

the economy begins to recover in a way where the country is moving in the same direction, not certain parts of the country are moving in the direction. host: why hasn't anyone been held accountable for the financial crisis? is that true and what's your broader perspective? guest: well, i'm not a lawyer and the debate that occurs about, did these people break laws? what were the laws? was it this obscure law or that law, etc., i'll leave that to the lawyers to debate and to discuss. but, you know, make no mistake. individuals have lost their jobs. a lot of individuals have lost their jobs, and some of the ones who i know -- and i know this isn't popular and i'm sure this will get a lot of hate mail, but there are individuals who i know who are in these institutions who made mistakes, lost their jobs, you know, and feel terrible about it.

ok. i get it. here comes the hate mail. but, you know, the folks who are at the top of these institutions today, you know, had been determined to be people who had the experience and have the expertise to lead these institutions forward who were not part of the significant mistakes that were made. so i understand the desire for people to be pulled -- you know, brought away in handcuffs. i can't impact that or affect that. that's why the work that i'm doing really is trying to help the boards to show them the places where they can make a difference. all i can do, rather than look backward here is given my experience as a research analyst covering the industry and some roles within the industry is to try to say, ok, for looking forward, what are the levers we have to help keep this from happening again? >> and you can see the rest of this segment in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. the u.s. house is about to

gavel back in. they'll pick up where they left off last night with work on amendments to a 2013 spending bill that would fund the departments of transportation and housing and urban development. first and only votes of the day are scheduled for about 4:00 eastern this afternoon. the chamber will recess at about 6:00 for a white house congressional picnic but are scheduled to return later on to resume work on transportation spending. also, they'll consider several motions to instruct house negotiators working on the highway and mass transit programs bill. and now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the energy and tensions of

the second session gather, may there be peace among the members of this people's house. grant that all might be confident in the mission they have been given and buoyed by the spirit of our ancestors who built our republic through many trials ancon ten, debates. may all strive with noble sincerity for the betterment of our nation. many centuries ago, you blessed abraham for his welcome to strangers, bless this chamber, this day work the same spirit of hospitality so that all americans might know that in a people's house, all voices are respected, even those with whom there is disagreement. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his

approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. mr. coffman: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, americans will find out what we have beenen anxiously awaiting what we have been waiting to find out for two years, whether the government health care takeover bill is constitutional. tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. people

of america will be watching and listening as the supreme court announces its decision. former house speaker nancy pelosi outraged americans at as preconference by state, quote, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, end of quote. the american people now know this bill and overwhelmingly disapprove of this bill which the national federation of independent businesses reveals will destroy 1.6 million jobs. it is my hope the supreme court will set aside work the best interest of the american people, and overturn the job de-destroying, out of control spending health care bill which will hurt senior citizens with waiting lists, rationing and denial of services. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. congratulations john rice of myrtle beach. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. tomorrow we risk bringing dishonor to this house. for members who revere congress as the legislative branch of government, this unprecedented contempt vote is just another sad chapter in our institutional decline. mr. connolly: i implore my colleagues to consider if we want to be the first congress in history to hold a sitting cabinet member in contempt of congress. do we want this to be one of the most partisan house of representativeses of all time so clouded in judgment, so besotted with rain cor and partisanship that we're incapable of addressing vital separation of powers conflicts in a serious and fair fashion. further negotiations are clearly available if we want a solution. i urge my colleagues to join me

in restoring honor and dignity to this house by opposing the nuclear option, a contempt citation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask yams consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> a vital part of our economic viability is continued access to capital. they need to increase lending to small businesses. that's why today i have introduced the small business lending for jobs act of 2012. this bipartisan legislation will allow community banks to spread losses in commercial real estate over a seven-year period. mr. coffman: this will allow banks to retain more capital and use the funds to make loans to small businesses in their

community. it alsoest tablies a dual mission for federal banking regulators and the consumer financial protection bureau. mandating these entities promote credit availability so long as that credit is provided in a safe and sound manner. this will bring a greater balance to banking regulations, a dual mission will lead to regulators factoring in the impact on banks, communities and customers in making their decision. i urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan small business lending for jobs act of 2012. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i rise to recognize the work done in my home state of rhode island in preparation for the world

series. -- america's cup world series. teams have come from around the world for the america's cup world series. though new port hosted the america's cup from 1930 to 1983, this marks the first time in history that america's cup races are actually being held inside narragansett bay. this provides a source of real economic benefit for my state but also an intangible level of pride for all rhode islanders. thank you to the organizers for their hard work. i wish the competitors good luck and toal those likely to benefit from the economic impact of these events, i wish them much success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to hob nor the members of the mountain home high school robotics team who won the annual of inspiration

and technology championship. the team was made up of 14 students and four adults. they built a robot that competed in the robot rumble, a basketball inspired game. mr. crawford: they have been competing for 17 years and for the first time won the championship. the for inspiration and recognition championship has helped thousands of students across the country to pursue higher education in engineering and science realed fields. students are 50% more likely to attend college and twice as likely to major in science and engineering after competing in this. best of luck to baxter bomb squad. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> every day, cancer patients

across the cupry are denied coverage for smart drugs because insurance companies refuse to cover them. a resident of my district called my office to say her insurance company refused to pay for an oral chemotherapy drug because it only covered generic drug. that's why i've introduced h.r. 2746, the cancer drug coverage parity act to mandate parity in coverage for all forms of chemotherapy whether administered orally or through the vein. mr. higgins: i urge my colleagues to support this legislation because cancer treatment should be determined by a physician not by outdated insurance policies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. mr. broun: thank you, madam speaker. two years ago, the president signed into law one of the most egregious attacks on our freedom this nation has ever seen. two years later, almost 60% of the american people want to see obamacare repealed before the price of health care goes up even more than it has. believe me if we let this law take effect as planned, costs will skyrocket and millions of americans will lose their insurance all together. on top of stricter mandates, cuts and more government overreach, obamacare is flat out unconstitutional. we simply cannot force american people to buy health insurance if they don't want it. i'm hopeful that tomorrow the supreme court will do its job and apply the constitution as our founding fathers intended.

i look forward to repealing obamacare and getting started on real health care reform as soon as the court reaches a decision. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mccarthy: madam speaker work so few -- mrs. maloney: madam speaker, this is a time when we could be talking about how to create jobs and lower the deficit. that's surely what the american people really care about. instead, the greatest deliberative body in the world is quarreling about bringing a contempt charge to the floor of congress against the attorney general. it has never happened before and let's be clear, it's not about finding the truth. or creating reforms. or finding out how gun walking started.

we know how that started. it started under the bush administration. what this is about is just the republican leadership pursuing single mindedly a political vendetta, a political obsession, like ahas been going after the great -- like ahab going after the great white whale, they are hoping to spill political blood. this is the type of gamesmanship and partisanship that understandably makes the american people lose faith in their congress and in their leaders. so tomorrow, if it comes to the floor, vote no and let's get back to work on the real problems. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. tomorrow, the house is intending to vote on a contempt of our outstanding attorney general, eric holder. it's because the republicans

have been obsessed with fast and furious. mr. cohen: fast and furious was a plan that went awry. started by the bush administration and went awry. it was fatally flawed and resulted in the tragic death of a border agent. but nothing in this resolution will get to the bottom of it and nothing will change it. the fact is, fast and furious is misnamed. fast and furious is what the republicans, starting with senator mitch mccobble, have been doing since president obama was elected, in a fast and furious way they have done everything they can to taint the president of the quites and anybody associated with him. that's what they're after with eric holder, they want to blemish him and the president. their fast and furious attack on the health care bill which will save lives in america and on this administration is shameless. we should be creating jobs, helping the middle class and putting america on the road to recovery. instead what we've been doing is a fast and furious attack on

this administration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition? mrs. christensen: to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. christensen: while we decry bullying in our schools, unfortunately, it's going on here in the house. tomorrow, the issa resolution holding the attorney general in contempt will come to the floor. i urge my colleagues to put an end to this politically inspired attack on attorney general holder and president obama's administration. mr. holder has testified before congress nine times on the operation fast and furious which was started in arizona under president bush's administration. democrats are not aloud one witness or hearing that would have made this a fair, balanced, and likely close the investigation. at the end of this extreme, unprecedented partisan attack on the current administration which is what it's all about, and what can only be called a

political witch hunt what you will find in attorney general eric holder is an intelligent, competent, dedicated, humble public servant upholding the integrity of his office and serving this country with honor. madam speaker, i urge the house not to sully the history and decorum of this body with its first ever vote to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: tomorrow this house is about to do something unprecedented and unwarranted. motivated solely by politic the leadership of this house are planning to smear a dedicated public servant. for the first time in our history, they are planning to hold the attorney general of the united states in contempt of congress. this is shameful, not even during the nakedly partisan

speakership of newt gingrich has this house even considered such a resolution. but even more shameful is that they are ignoring the real issue, the easily available assault weapons and the gun-related violence that continues unabated in this country. madam speaker, they need to put aside politics and start caring about the safety of all of our citizens. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: madam speaker, i live in the village of cost could be, connecticut, where years ago a major bridge spanning the harbor on route 95 fell into the harbor killing a number of people, devastating the quality of life in the area, and hurting businesses up and down the coastline. it fell in the harbor because we

failed to invest in our transportation infrastructure. we failed to do something that we all understand is critical to our economy and just plain good sense. on june 30, thousands of projects like keeping the harbor bridge intact will come to a halt because this house will not approve a re-authorization of the transportation bill. that's bad economics. it's bad for jobs, and it's bad for safety. what do we do? 74 senators, lots of republicans and lots of democrats, passed a two-year bill that would keep the funding going and preserve or save or create two million jobs. but not in this house, no. in this house we've got to get the president to approve keystone. now, we should do that, but let's do it separately and invest in jobs and our infrastructure. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: unanimous consent

to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: madam speaker, tomorrow the united states supreme court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. let us all step back and recognize those portions of people like, these are the highlights. for seniors it closes the doughnut hole for prescription drugs. this means to date about 5.3 million seniors have experienced the savings of $3.7 billion. that doughnut hole will close completely by the year 2020. for women, we are no longer going to suffer the discrimination against us. 90% of the plans today charge more for women than they do for men for the same process. 2014, this stops. women can no longer be discriminated against for what they call pre-existing conditions. you know what these pre-existing conditions are? breast cancer, c-section, and childbirth, pregnancy, victims of domestic abuse.

and there will be a ban on maximum coverage in your lifetime for medical care. and you no longer need to have a referral to see an ob/gyn. children will also benefit. madam speaker, let's all recognize the value of the affordable care act. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker, if you know you are approaching a cliff, wouldn't you take steps to avoid it? mrs. davis: consumer confidence is flagging, it's flagging in part because some members of the house have taken to brandishing the debt ceiling as a weapon designed to undercut economic growth. well, that just isn't responsible. we have to put our heads together. we have to put our heads together now to find a responsible way to cut spending and increase revenues rather than play the blame game. we cannot allow this year's approaching fiscal crisis to go

the way of the budget supercommittee. that means both parties must find common ground, i know that's what people in san diego expect. it is critical that we deal with our real problems. those who are underemployed need jobs. doctors facing reimbursement cuts must be paid, and everything cannot be paid for on the backs of the middle class. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: madam speaker, it's my honor today to welcome to the house of representatives his holiness, ahmad. he is with us today in the gallery. his holiness is the worldwide

spiritual leader of the amadia muslim community which has tens of millions of adhereants around the world in 190 countries and tens of thousands of adhereants here in the united states. today in an historic event in the gold room in the rayburn building, we recognized his commitment to world peace, to brotherhood, justice, and religious freedom. i'm proud to join with our colleagues, zoe lofgren and others, in introducing a resolution today in honor of his hollyness' -- holiness' visit here to our nation's capital. in the united states the community someone of the oldest and most organized islamic communities. i also want to take this opportunity to recognize two distinguished leaders from los angeles, dr. mahmoud, and kareem ahmed, who are also in the gallery here and who showed such

leadership of the muslim community in the los angeles area. it is my hopor to recognize his holiness -- honor to recognize his holiness, to invite him to be with us here in the people's house. and i want to commend the ahmaddy motto, love for all, hatred for none. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestations of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. clarke: madam speaker, to the american people, to the over one million online supporters of

my legislation to forgive student loans, i want to thank you-all for creating a national movement, a movement so strong that we are now demanding that this house and this congress do something to cap student loan interest rates. but we can't give up. we can't stop there. we've got to cut this debt to bring people hope and to create jobs. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. costa: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. costa: thank you, madam speaker. every year california dairies produce over 17 million pounds of milk product that is provide families with affordable nutrient rich products that we consume. california is the nation's top milk producing state and much of the production takes place in the san joaquin valley that i represent a part of. many of these dairies in my district have been passed down from generation to generation, including the one that i grew up

on near fresno, california. over the last few years dairy producers have seen milk prices continue to drop and feed prices increase and skyrocket. in the coming weeks the ag committee is slated to begin the consideration of the 2012 farm bill. it's my hope that we can find a way to prevent the -- to bring more certainty in prices and prevent extreme market volume tillity to help our produces throughout the country stay afloat. as a national dairy mont comes to a close, i'd like to commend our dairy men and women for the work they do every day on the farm, 365 days a year, that allows families nationwide to enjoy the nutritious food that they are putting on our tables which is cost-effective. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, several weeks ago my friend from new york,

congressman hannah, and i sent a bipartisan letter to the international olympic committee asking them to hold a moment of silence during the opening ceremonies of this year' olympic games in commemoration of the victims of the 1972 munich massacre. mr. israel: september 5, 1972, two weeks after the start of the olympic games in munich, members of a palestinian terrorist group, black september, broke into the olympic village, 11 israelis were killed in that massacre. now, 40 years later in london, we are convening another olympic ceremony. we asked the international olympic committee to recognize this 40-year anniversary. and the response we got was no. that is the wrong response, madam speaker. we again on a bipartisan basis appeal to the international olympic committee in london when these olympics begin commemorate those israelis who were massacred. which fixed the ideals of the

olympics, that is international friendship and fraternity. 11 lives were lost. we should remember them in london when the olympics convene. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wilson: today i rise to draw attention to the fact there are only four days left until federal student loan interest rates double. on jewel 1, the interest rate for seven million students could rise to 6.8%. better to act now it would add $.3 billion debts burden in one year alone. frankly, madam speaker, there are rise in rate would happen at a time when our young people can least afford it.

our young people who are recent college graduates have the highest unemployment rate of any age group in the nation and more of them are graduating with debt than ever before. in fact, 2/3 of the class of 2010 graduated with student loan debt. madam speaker, this is a real problem. it should be solved now and it shouldn't be solved on the backs of the working class and the poor. i urge my colleagues to join me and do the right thing. let's stop the interest rate from doubling before it's too late. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. if there are no further one-minute speeches, pursuant to sclause 8 of rule 20, the -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is on the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 0418 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 4018, a bill to improve the public safety

officer's benefits program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that mifes -- all members be able to include extraneous material material and i include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 697 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5972. would the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5972, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, june 26, 2012, amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 74, line 6. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for an amendment. 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 74,

line 6, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $6,500,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment would reduced the proposed funding for the salaries and expenses of the public and indian housing by $6,500,000. this is one of 13 offices which would receive increases for administrative expenses in the underlying bill. . madam chairman, we're in an economic emergency as an a nation. we're broke. we absolutely must stop spending money we don't have. we're borrowing 40 cents or more on every dollar that the federal government spends. raising the funding for the office of public and indian housing by $6.5 million while we're broke makes no fiscal sense to me.

this particular increase is among the highest for all the offices funded under this legislation. my amendment would simply freeze funding for this office, for this next year. passage of my amendment would bring this account back to this year's f.y. 2012 levels. 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? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: madam chairman, i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. it's a good talking point, redeucing squad mrgs accounts that received increases. we've scrubbed these accounts, held hearings, asked questions and made recommendations about what should be funded rather than looking at an arbitrary number. the bill cuts $4 billion from

fiscal year 2012 which is a fiscal response -- fiscally responsible level. i would urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: thank you, madam chair. the amendment that's been offered removes a 3% increase in the administrative account for the office of public and indian housing. and i rise to oppose the amendment. in this instance, the cuts in the office of public and indian housing covers a number of things, including the vash

program, we're including an additional several million dollars for the vash, the veterans homeless benefits, and that has to be administered. the arbitrary $6.5 million doesn't help with that effort. it hurpts that effort. the office also implements the operating and capital funds for public housing and the native american housing grants which -- and the -- all of these require either layoffs, removals of people because the salaries and expenses of the

office are subject to normal increases, to small increases, year by year, for salaries for people in those places and they are clearly going to end up having to reduce the number of personnel while they're administrating -- administering more and more -- more and particularly the housing and homeless program for veterans. so on that basis, i think this is an unwise reduction and one that is unjustified as well as unwise and i would urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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. >> madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose -- the clerk will read. the clerk: page 74, line 7, community planning and development, $103,500,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. 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 74, line nine, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $3,500,000. page 150, line nine, after the dollar amount, insert increase

by $3,500,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized to explain his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses for the office of community planning and development by $3,500,000. this amendment, like the ones i presented last night and the one i just presented, would freeze the funding for these offices. i've heard my good friend from iowa and my good friends on the other side talk about how the underlying bill has cut expenses for this whole underlying bill. but here in the house of representatives, we reduced our expenses by over 11%. it seems to me that it makes fiscal sense to freeze funding for these offices in the underlying bill and not raise them. we're in an economic emergency

as a nation. we are spending money that we simply do not have. we've got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in washington. i'm just asking a simple thing, let's freeze all these offices at current year's levels for one more year. hopefully next year we'll have policy put in place that will increase our economy and start creating jobs here in this nation but we're not doing that this year, with this administration and the policies we see in the other body on the other side of the hill. so let's just freeze the expenses of this office and i'm proposing to freeze the expenses of virtually all the offices in this bill, most of them, anyway, and my amendment would bring the spending level that's proposed back to the current spending level of 2012. when families and businesses

get overextended they don't continue to raise their spending levels. and we should not be raising this one, either. my amendment would just freeze it at the current spending levels. 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 massachusetts rise? mr. olver: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the yell is recognized. mr. olver: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment, again, is, as the gentleman has said, an amendment that would freeze at the level of the 2012 funding here for salaries and expenses of the office of community planning and development. now, this office, it turns out,

administers and implements the cdbg program which in the bill as presented by my chairman is increased substantially, substantially, several hundred million dollars in the cdbg program, and increases the funding -- funding for the home program which had been -- which had been held at a much lower level in the last year's program, in both of those cases, they were considerably lower, and just last night, we added an amendment to increase the funding for the housing for persons with aids. one of those vulnerable

populations that we have and that our housing programs, as with veterans who are homeless, others who are homeless, those who are vulnerable, as with living with aids, and these have proven to be rather strong , strong programs that have strong support. furthermore, already across the board in h.u.d. there's been a reduction in personnel services and in the salaries and expenses of $20 million already compared with last year's overall, within the department of h.u.d. so this is a duplicate and

hitting at vulnerable populations that we do not want to, or should not want to be producing. and the reduction again requires that there be some some reduction in personnel because people's salaries go up, they go up because people get a cola or cost of living increase of some sort with their salaries or they move up in their sat goir within the -- because of longevity. so it ends up putting people who have jobs out of work and reducing the personnel to provide service to the american people and slows down the work of the offices in all these places where we, i think, all have a stake in making certain

that they are efficiently implemented. so i would urge a no vote on the amendment and i 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: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. latham: i just rise in opposition to the amendment, we went through all the hearing process, we have worked on these numbers to try and, number one, to stay within our allocation, which we have done, we're actually cutting $4 billion in this bill, but also to prioritize, there's no one more sensitive about hardworking taxpayer dollars than i am. but the fact of the matter is, this is an absolutely critical function. the increase that is here is extremely important so that these programs can be carried out properly without waste, fraud, and abuse, and for that reason, i would again urge a no

vote on this amendment. i 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 noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. broun: i request a recorded vote on this amendment. 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 74, line 10, housing. $396,500,000. mr. broun: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment by mr. broun of georgia, after the first dollar amount, insert

decrease by $5 million. page 59 line 12, after the dollar amount, inseert increase by $5 million. mr. broun: my amendment again would cut the spending on salaries of bureaucrats here in washington by $5 million this amendment, as well as all of my amendments will not cut the programs. will not cut the programs one iota. what this does is it reduces the salaries. i just heard my good friend from massachusetts talking about federal bureaucrats getting raises. i have froze then salaries of people who work for me and i know many members of congress have, for the last two years. why should we be giving federal bureaucrats more money when the american people are not getting raises?

it makes no sense to me, particularly as we are in an economic emergency, we're spending money we don't have, we've got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in washington. enough is enough. and raising this office as well as all these offices above the 2012 level makes no economic sense to me whatsoever. let's be fiscally responsible. my good friend from iowa, who i have the utmost respect for, has done a tremendous job in this bill and i do appreciate the tremendous hard work that he and his committee has done. i appreciate the $4 billion they've cut. but why raise the salaries of my amendment would simply reduce the proposed funding back to the 2012 levels. i urge support of my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek

recognition? million latham: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i again rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i think there's some factors that we need to take into consideration. for one thing next year, fiscal year, we have an additional compensable -- compensible day which has to be paid for. we have g.s.a. that has raised rents. we have already cut $14 million out of salaries and expenses. so we would not be able to meet our requirements. we are not giving federal employees raises. but there are additional costs that come into play because of rents, because of the additional day that our federal workers will be working next year, and for those reasons, and again i want to reiterate, we have cut $14 million out of this account. and i would just urge a no vote.

the chair: the gentleman 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. mr. olver: in this instance it is again a case of raiding a salaries and expenses account at the previous year's levels, but this one has an interesting side light in that in the legislation that we have before us we have adopted a presidential recommendation for a partial year funding for project base section eight vouchers which is going to cause considerable additional administration than

the usual program, not always but the usual program of doing full year continuation of those voucher programs, there is going to be much uncertainty if this goes on all the way to adoption, and there would be much uncertainty for the people who are the owners and providers of that housing and probably some loss in actual affordable housing available under a pro ject section 8 program. so this is a case where they need that assistance. this is where the -- where the housing programs for elderly and disabled, the so-called 202 programs and 811, chapters 202 and chapter 811 programs for elderly and disabled people, as well as the housing counseling

assistance. and in addition we have the federal housing administration, which is having much larger level of activity as we are trying to dig out of the foreclosure crisis in the past, and -- from the past, and that agency needs to have personnel that are qualified and able to do the right job. so, again, here, and by the way i made an earl roar in my previous comments -- error in my previous comments, when i said there was a reduction across the board for h.u.d., what i should have indicated was it was a reduction in the salary and expenses account over a period of time going back to 2010 of $20 million across the programs of salaries and expenses within

h.u.d. over that time so i made a mistake in saying it was $20 million reduction in one year. for all those reasons i urge a no vote on the amendment and 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. so many as are 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. mr. broun: 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 74, line 14, policy development and research, $22,326,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 74, line 16, of the -- after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $115,000, page 150, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increased by $115,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. again i rise to propose an amendment to just freeze the salaries and expense of this office of public policy development and research by a mere $115,000. i hear colleagues around here talking as if millions of dollars, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars is nothing, well, most of my constituents at home in georgia, most americans, think that $1 million is a lot of money. i certainly think $1 million is a lot of money. but we are proposing in this

underlying bill to raise the administrative expenses and salaries. my good friend from massachusetts in the previous amendment said we need to increase the salaries in the bureaucrats. i hope my good friend from iowa, mr. latham, when he stood up on the last amendment, saying that we weren't going to increase salaries of federal bureaucrats, is factual. and i hope that that goes in the record and it becomes true that we are not going to raise the salaries of federal bureaucrats. but they are proposing raising the administrative expenses and salaries in all of these offices. so i'm proposing just to freeze thee these expenses for -- freeze these expenses for one more year. bring these accounts back down to this current year's level of spending. we cannot continue on this road. madam chairman, i'm a medical

doctor. as a medical doctor part of my medical practice for many years as been involved in treating addictions. drug and alcohol addictions. and we have a saying, when there is no denial, there is no addiction. congress and government have a spending addiction. it's a spending addiction and there is a tremendous amount of denial here in this city. in all branches of government, actually. we need to face the fact we are broke as a nation. we've got to stop the outstage rouse spending. -- stop the outrageous spending. i am proposing a mere $115,000 to freeze the expenses for this office and salaries for this office for one more year. i don't think that's too much for me to ask. i don't think that's too much for the american taxpayer, the hardworking american taxpayer, to ask for us to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats

here in washington and freeze their expenses for one more year, not only for this amendment but for the amendments that i have already presented and the ones that i will present. let's freeze this spending for one more year, keep it at the f.y. 2012 levels. i urge support of my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. olver: madam chairperson, i rise to strike the last word. i guess that will be enough. the gentleman from georgia just wants to freeze everything, but our personnel in an agency like this, they are subject to the civil service laws, to the personnel laws under o.p.m., and they are assigned in grades and

then stepped, and they have several steps as they gain seniority and go from september one to step seven, then they may sit for a while. but you end up with people, unless you are really trying to put people out of work, unless you are trying to put people out of work, and there is no reason to do that, for this kind of an agency at all, then there has to be a slow, small increase for those people who move from step to step along the salary scale. and so this is an amendment that would cause disruption in the processing and in the personnel system for the agency which has lots of work to do. we should be worrying about how

to get productivity in the processing rather than about trying to jigger and freeze a step system pay scale for the people who are under -- who are the people who do the work at this agency. and i again urge this amendment not be adopted. and reserve the balance -- return the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to disagree with the rhetoric and the methology

propounded here by the gentleman from georgia. the mythology is we have a tremendous spending binge that we must reduce. that the country is broke, and it's broke because they are spending much too much money, and we got to reduce the spending. simply not true. 11 years ago, or 12 years ago in 2000 we were looking at a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. the chairman of the federal reserve board, alan greenspan, testifying in front of president bush's truckses said, we have to reduce taxes because if we don't we will pay off the entire national debt by 2012. that would be a bad thing for some reason, which i won't go into now, he thought it would be a bad thing if we paid off the entire national debt. how did we change -- and the entire debate between the two candidates, bush and gore then,

was what should we do with this $5.6 trillion surplus? how did we change from a $5.6 trillion surplus to the budget deficits we have now? not by increasing spending. if you look at the spending amount other than military, if you look at the discretionary spending the federal government, other than military, adjusted for inflation and population growth, it has not increased by a nickel since 2001. not by a nickel. why has it changed? what has changed to create the deficit? because if you want to solve a deficit you have to know what created it to undo it. what has changed to create the deficit is several things. one, 40% of the deficit is caused by the bush tax cuts. which will expire in tsh-at the end of the year unless we change that. 40% of the current and anticipated deficits were caused by the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. second, two unfunded wars in iraq and afghanistan. the first time in american

history we fought major wars without increasing taxes to pay for them. third, aside from the wars, completely aside from the wars, we have doubled pentagon spending since 2001 in real terms. and finally, we have a depression -- or recession. when you have a recession that started in 2007 or 2008, tax receipts go down, expenses and things like food stamps and unemployment insurance goes up, and that's when you should run a deficit. you should run a surplus in good times, deficit during a depression or recession in order to stimulate the economy and get it back up. if we want to deal with the deficit, and we should deal with the deficit, we shouldn't reduce necessary government spending and certainly not nickel and dime step pay increases to federal employees. if we want to reduce the deficit, we should undo most of the bush tax cuts for the rich. because most of the bush tax cuts went to rich people. cuts went to rich people. and to very large