certainly people in the d.c. area remember horror stories of the a facilities and treatment -- of va facilities and treatment. insurance companies are there for catastrophic risk bending the health care system denies the market forces. we cannot make good decisions all around the table. host: thank you so much for your time this morning. now we go to the house for morning our speeches. have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. our colleague, jim mcdermott, sent each of us a letter with a "time" magazine cover by joel kind entitled "how to die." this article is jarring to many because it's an issue that most would rather not confront. as a result, there's a great deal of unnecessary pain, confusion and suffering. it masks one of the most important issues in health care which, despite the manufactured controversy over death panels, is a rare sweet spot in the health care debate.

it can improve the quality of life, in some cases length of life, and most important, we can help people understand their circumstances and get the care that they want. if this happens, the cost of health care will go down even as satisfaction and quality goes up. for most americans, the protocols followed by almost every hopped and practitioner will be to give the maximum amount of the most aggressive care in end of life situation, especially if patients have the money or insurance, they will be hooked up in their final stages of life to be resuscitated, cracking their ribs, massaging hearts. there will be tubes inserted, chemicals will be pumped, defibrillators will be shocking people even if they have no awareness of what's going on, just that they're being tortured. when people are given the

information, the resources and the choices, the outcomes are much different. a telling story in "the wall street journal" last february pointed out how doctors die differently. these are people with knowledge. money is not usually a consideration. they can get any health care they want, but as a group they regularly choose less intense aggressive treatment and more pallative care. they're choosing the comfort and consciousness being with family and friends in awareness over being hooked up in an i.c.u. struggling their last minutes. doctors have a better quality of life, and it costs less money. why can't all americans spend their final days like doctors? well, the truth is they can. my legislation, personalize your health care, was developed with leaders in health care,

insurance, pallative care, doctors and patients alike would make sure that patients or other health care professionals work with patients to help them understand what they're confronting, what their choices are, determine what works best for them and their families and then make sure that whatever their decision is that choice will be honored. 90% of americans agree that this is the right approach. there's an interesting little secret here that extreme treatments not only deteriorate your quality of life but there are no guarantee of giving you hours to live. managing the pain, perhaps in hospice, along with the love and comfort of family in a familiar setting, in some cases actually leads to patients living longer. people can actually enjoy their remaining hours and there are

more remaining hours to enjoy. if most of us were to script our departure it would probably be to go quietly in the middle of the night in our -- in the comfort of our own bed. the second best scenario would be to go at home in that same bed surrounded by family and friends, comfortable and conversing until the end. the least favored option, i suspect, would be semi conscious with tubes in our bodies in an i.c.u. setting with the institutional hum around and strangers bustling about. is that anybody's hope for their final memories? sadly, that's the fate that awaits many people who do not personalize their health care. i strongly encourage my colleagues to look at this bipartisan legislation, h.r. 1589, and then to do what you can to have a thoughtful, rational conversation about

this policy. let's modernize health coverage, especially medicare, to give people the care they want, to find out their choices and make sure that those choices are respected. we owe it to the american public. we owe it to our families and friends to make sure that every american can have the same high quality of life in their final weeks as doctors have. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on the 6 of june, 2012, i offered an amendment to the water appropriation bill to certify yucca mountain as the

repository for high level nuclear waste in this country and i was joined by a large bipartisan amount from this chamber, 326 yes votes which i appreciate my colleagues who supported this amendment. among those in the michigan delegation, which has 15 members, 11 yes votes, only four no votes. why is this all important? because what we tried to do over the past year and a half is help the educational process, explaining where nuclear waste is in this country and where it should be. we did pass a law back in 1982 -- i wasn't here then. many of us were not, but -- and then amendments to that law in 1987 that said yucca mountain in nevada would be our repository, our long-term geological repository for high level nuclear waste. now, in michigan, five nuclear power plants, they're all

located along the great lakes. there's three on lake michigan. one on i think lake erie. right next to large bodies of water. so let's compare one of those, cook, which has high level nuclear waste on site next to lake michigan to where it should be which is yucca mountain. currently at cook there are 1,433 metric tons of uranium of spent fuel on site. at yucca mountain, which should be our single repository, there's currently none. again, we started this in 1982. if it was at yucca mountain it would be stored 1,000 feet underground. at cook it's stored above ground in pools and in casks. if it was at yucca mountain it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. at cook the nuclear waste is 19 feet above the groundwater or

the water table. at yucca mountain it would be 100 miles from the colorado river where this is right next to lake michigan. yucca mountain is i would say a mountain in a desert. there's no safer place. so as i mentioned in the vote total from my colleagues here on the floor, we addressed this on the floor, took a vote, 326-435. that's a huge bipartisan majority. where do the senators stand on this position? well, you have three yes votes and one no vote. actually, the no vote is a very good friend of mine, senator stabenow, who has voted against moving that nuclear waste out of her state to a mountain underneath the desert. and part of this process is because it's now politicized with majority leader blocking any movement on this. elections have consequences. elections have -- they matter, and it's time to educate the

people -- the public throughout the country of who senators -- which senators support moving nuclear waste out of their state to a single repository and who does not. unfortunately, my friend, senator stabenow, is on the list as not being helpful. so i have done this numerous times. i went through the country and covered all the senators. and we have 55 senators who said, yes, let's move this to yucca mountain. you would think, oh, simple majority. it should be done. but senate operates on interesting rules. they have to have 60. we have 22 who have never taken a position either yes or no or any public statement. some of these have served 5 1/2 years. it's pretty amazing that we have such a pending important issue and the senate has yet to get on record. if only five of these 22 would

say yes, we can continue to move forward on addressing our nuclear waste issues. now, nuclear waste is not just spent nuclear fuel. it's world war ii defense waste that might be in washington. it could be scientific waste that might be in idaho or in tennessee, but the basis is, especially after fukushima die eachy, we need to have a long-term repository. we've gone on record in the house. we passed a law that said it should be yucca mountain in nevada. it's time for the senators to get past their leadership and do what's in the best interest of this country and their own individual states. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. two nights ago six people were

shot inside of 15 minutes in my home, the city of chicago. seven more victims were killed just last week and by gunfire, including two 16-year-old boys. in chicago this year alone, over 200 people have been killed in shootings, and nationwide every day 34 people are killed by guns. in the hours following the horrific tragedy in colorado, we paused to reflect and send our prayers to families grieving an unimaginable loss. but now is the time to have a national discussion about how to stem these epidemic levels of gun violence. i wish this tragedy in aurora was an isolated inns department but it seems to be part of a recurring pattern. 19 people from shot and eight were killed in tucson in 2011. 29 people were shot and 13 died at fort hood in 2009. 21 people were shot and five were killed at northern illinois university in 2008. and 17 people were wounded while 34 people died at

virginia tech in 2007. when will we have enough? when we say, we can stop some of the crime and at least minimize the damage of the others? the gun lobbyists don't want us to have this conversation. first, they accuse anyone who tries to spark a national debate about how to mitigate gun violence with exploiting the deaths of innocent people. yet, no one was excused of exploitation after hurricane katrina. we discussed how to improve fema's emergency response. or after a deadly salmonella outbreak. after such national tragedies, society should engage in a discussion about how to address and potentially prevent such tragedies from happening again. we might not all agree, but this is a democracy, and this is how public policy is made. next, the gun lobby seeks to stymie the debate saying guns don't kill people, people kill

people. i don't buy this argument. i don't buy there's nothing we can do to stop criminals and the mentally ill from killing if they want to. sure, we can't stop them with 100% certainty but we can make it a lot harder for would-be assassins. 60% of guns is bought after a background check. finally, the gun lobby tries to argue that any attempt to regulate gun access is an attempt to restrict all gun access. this is simply not true. there is such a thing as commonsense, middle ground gun reform, and most gun owners support it. 81% of gun owners support requiring a background check on all firearm purchases. yet, 40% of u.s. gun sales are conducted by private sellers who have not required to perform background checks.

these private sellers operate at gun shows where anyone can walk in and buy whatever gun they want. convicted felons, domestic abusers, the severely mentally ill and even people on the terrorist watch list can and do go to gun shows and buy any gun they want. 90% of all americans also support strengthening databases to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. sadly, 10 states have still failed to flag a single person as mentally ill in the national background check database, and 17 other states have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill. over a million disqualifying mentally health records are still missing from the database. finally, we must have a conversation about getting assault weapons and high capacity magazines, machines designed exclusively for killing people, off the streets. . when you have a 100-round clip on your gun, you are not

protecting your home, you are hunting people. let's be clear. this is not about restricting anyone's second amendment rights. the supreme court has ruled and made clear the right of americans to own guns, but while reaffirming the second amendment, the court was careful to note that the amendment is not limitless. justice scalia explained in columbia vs. heller, like most rights the second amendment is not unlimited. it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. can we stop every shooting? no. but can we reduce their frequency and deadliness? absolutely. can we do it while still respecting the second amendment? of this i am certain. but the first step of keeping dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people is to begin the conversation. let's break the silence, stop the violence, and start that conversation. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr.

brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. as chairman of the science, space, and technology subcommittee on research and science education, i have seen federal overregulation stifle research universities. earlier this year the national research council of the national academies released its report entitled, research universities and the future of america, vital to our nation's prosperity and security. this report examined federal regulatory burdens on america's research universities. on june 27, the research and science education subcommittee held a hearing on that report and whether regulatory red tape stifles scientific research. i asked our witnesses how we can enhance university scientific research capabilities. their response is -- responses are instructive. the chairman of the national academies commission on research universities testified, quote, federal policymakers and

regulators should review the cost and benefits of federal regulations, eliminating those that are redundant, ineffective, inappropriately applied to the higher education sector or impose cost that is outweigh the benefits to society. dr. james mason -- dr. john mason, auburn university associate provost and vice president for research testified, quote, a comprehensive review of policies and regulations is perhaps the most important aspect of this report. streamlining the process, relieving unnecessary and costly administrative burdens, and coordinating research priorities among disparate federal agencies, will invigorate research universities exponentially. dr. jeffrey seman, texas a&m university, chief research officer and vice president for research testified, and i quote, federal agencies and federal regulators must reduce and/or eliminate unnecessary, overly

burdensome, and/or redundant regulatory and reporting obligations for universities and their faculty in order to maximize investments more directly into research priorities and allow faculty time to be optimally utilized. dr. leslie tolbert, university of arizona, senior vice president for research testified, again i quote, the growing burden of compliance with the increasing numbers and complexity of federal regulations consumes increasing amounts of time and money, having less for more direct support for research. finally, dr. james sedow, vice provost for research at my alma mater, duke university, testified that research universities have been subjected to and i quote, growing number of research related compliance regulation that is have flowed down from federal agencies over the past 10 to 15 years, and that record, the research related and quality assurance cost to duke between 2000 and

2010 rose over 300%. this perceived piling on of new reports requirements has led to negative responses on the part of faculty who see more and more of their time being consumed not to actually carrying out of funded research but to a myriad of mundane administrative duties. the extreme to which some of these regulations have gone of late seems well beyond that needed to accomplish the original regulatory end. consistent with their views, the national academy recommended, again i quote, reduce or eliminate regulations that increase administrative cost, impede research productivity, and deflect greater energy without substantially improving the research environment. i asked our witnesses to identify specific regulations to amend or appeal. excuse me, repeal. they are preparing their list. i look forward to receipt of their recommendations and

working to repeal counterproductive red tape that does more harm than good. according to the national academies, if we successfully cut these wasteful regulations, we, quote, can reduce administrative costs, enhance productivity, and increase the agility of research institutions, minimizing administrative and compliance cost will also provide a cost benefit to the federal government and the university administrators, faculty, and students by freeing up resources and time to support education and research efforts directly. with greater resources and freedom, universities will be better positioned to respond to the needs of their constituents in an increasingly competitive environment. mr. speaker, america's research universities are essential to america's scientific innovation. if we clear the red tape from their path, and free them up, they will produce the fundamental research that fosters american exceptionalism and equally important results in economic growth and jobs.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. it saddens me today to rise to pay tribute to the late james lightfoot, pastor of the mount zion missionary baptist church in houston, texas. who lost his life just a few days ago. i am delighted that i had the opportunity to visit pastor lightfoot in his church on their 44th anniversary. it was an exciting time and he looked forward to the celebrating of the 44th year of his pastoral leadership of that great church that he started in 1968. i'm gratified to salute this distinguished gentleman and

distinguished american for he used faith in a way of service, not only to his parishioners and those of whom he led as a shepherd, but to those outside those bricks and mortar. he concentrated on the philosophy, on philosophy and ministry. that was his concentration at southwestern seminary. he was -- he completed a master in education at texas southern university. he own as master of divinity from the heist graduate school of theology. a houston graduate in austin presbyterian, the interest was on philosophical implications of ministry as it affected the culture of today. he has done advanced training at texas southern university, and houston graduate school of theology in counseling. he did an internship with the bel air columbia general in their special unit. he served as a lecturer at the

central baptist convention, and teaches pastoral ministry. he was a conferee to the transitional church conference, southern baptist convention. and as well he was honored to be president or to be third vice president to the ippedpent general district sunday school and b.t.u. he is a gentleman that uses faith to be of service. he deals with the philosophical implications of peace and justice issued for today's church. how important that is when so many people are hurting. in the backdrop of the tragedy of aurora, it is imperative that our faith leaders are engaged in our community and pray for their deliverance. i am delighted to say that he also worked with young people. he was a kind spirit. he was a charitable spirit. he was a professor. that's how much he cared for young people. where he teaches bible and family. he is likewise an adjunct professor.

he served on the mayor's affirmative action committee. he served as a chairperson of a black ministers -- ministries committee of the union baptist association. as well he has served in many civic and community affairs as i indicated. he always had a summer program for young people who needed a place to come. he always had a smile on his face. he was always joyful. and of course he was a wonderful husband to his wonderful and devoted wife. he had the privilege of speaking to over 20,000 persons in january of 1992 where he spoke to the baptist general convention of texas, evangalism division to an attendance of over 20,000 persons. in january of 1992, he was a guest preacher for the mississippi baptist state eadvantagalism conference and delivered the martin luther king jr. day sermon at the austin

presbyterian seminary, his alma mater. what i would like to say most of all is that beyond the accolades he got on the outside, he was an outstanding human being, an outstanding minister, an outstanding civic leader. someone who continues to serve his community even during his time of illness. you never noted a lack of cheerfulness of reverend lightfoot. in the early stages of his illness, i had the opportunity to visit him at home and again what a cheerful believing person who loved america and served america in his capacity. and that was as a faith leader who believed in all persons, reached beyond his doors, helped build a beautiful new sanctuary on that same street, homestead. did not move. continued to serve the community, and was known as a light unto all. my sympathies to his wife and his beautiful children and his eight grandchildren, and being

the great grandfather as well. the diversity of his training has led him to be that light, that service, that special person. i believe it is appropriate to pay tribute to pastor james lightfoot who remains even in death a light to us all because of the great history and the great legacy that he has now left. may god bless him. god bless his service. and i know that he would want me to say that god bless his wonderful and most great nation, the united states of america. pastor lightfoot, may you rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair will now recognizes the -- recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, for five minutes. mr. westmoreland: i come to the floor today to honor mr. paul rogers pierce jr. for his 25 years of service to the state d.a. of georgia and the springer opera house. paul was born on january 19,

1953 in edison, alabama, to mr. and mrs. paul r. pierce. he attended east rome high school and graduated from the university of georgia in 1977. after graduation, he developed his passion for theater through working as an actor, director, designer, and booking manager on a number of national touring productions, such as the american repertory theater, flat rock playhouse, and circuit 21 playhouse. following his time on tour, he accepted the position of associate artistic director at the american repertory theater under the guidance of mr. riley. who was not only his mentor but his friend. paul's adventures led him across the country when he accepted the position of managing director of virginia's wayside theater and then as artistic director of the harbor playhouse in corpus christi, texas. he was led back to georgia where he became the artistic director

of the springer opera house in 1988. to say paul was passionate about his job is an understatement. he expanded the artistic mission of the springer opera house, and took his potential to new heights paul created the spring theatricals, a national touring company that reaches overly 60 american cities annually. he hired ron anderson and created the springer theater academy that mentors and develops over 16,000 children and families through the year-round character education program. with paul's additions the audience of springer has nearly tripled, and the bar for artistic excellence in the community has been held to a higher standard. paul has not only approved the artistic standards in the community, but the physical appearance of the springer opera house as well. paul oversaw the national historic landmark theater's $12 million renovation in 1998 and

his campaign for over 11.5 million for the construction of the mcclure theater for children's programs in education. . in 2008 the georgia council for the arts declared that one of georgia's top ranked art institutions. served on the state theater of georgia as art director with distinction and dedication and continues to further his mission through the pursuit of selflessness, innovations to improve the quality of life for the citizens and community of columbus, georgia. i'm proud to stand here today to honor and thank mr. paul rogers pierce jr. for all he has done for the great state of georgia, the city of columbus and for all the children and families that he has touched. paul's devotion and commitment to theater is an inspiration to us all, showing that with passion and hard work you can

make a difference and leave the legacy that will never be forgotten. thanks, paul, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. woolwools thank you, mr. speaker. -- ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, more than 2,000 u.s. troops have been killed in the line of duty in afghanistan. unfortunately, that dramatically understates the human costs of this war, a war that is now nearly 11 years old. a recent "time" magazine cover story details the silent killer of our brave service members, the tragically high suicide rate among iraq and afghanistan veterans and other members of the service. the article describes how one army helicopter pilot who had flown 70 missions in iraq over nine months, 70 missions over nine months, waited on the phone for 45 minutes to speak

to the pentagon crisis line when he was in severe distress. the last communication his wife received from him was a text in which he said, still on hold. several hours later she found him in their bedroom with a fatal gunshot wound to the neck. another victim, an army doctor, who wasn't deployed to iraq or afghanistan, wrote an email to his wife minutes before hanging himself. it read, please always tell my children how much i love them and most importantly, never, ever let them find out how i died. mr. speaker, we can no longer deny the devastating mental health impacts of repeated deployments, of continued exposure to explosions, carnage and destruction. of course, in an institution

like the u.s. military that values courage and toughness, there's a reluctance to admit to depression and anxiety. sometimes that manifests itself in the worst possible ways. for example, one army major general wrote something on his blog about the selfishness of troops who killed themselves or releaving others -- or leaving others to, quote, clean up their mess. act like an adult and deal with your problems like the rest of us. it's about time, mr. speaker, we lost that attitude because we're losing brave americans at a terror flying clip. in fact, according to the "time" article, more soldiers have taken their own lives than they have died in afghanistan. while veterans make up 10% of the adult population, they count for 20% of the sue -- suicides.

we are starting to see more awareness of this problem, thank heavens. secretary panetta says the right things, but it's time to back up rhetoric. it's time to back it up with more resources because the fact is only 4% of the pentagon's medical budget is devoted to mental health. about the same amount that we spend on the afghanistan war every day and a half. we spend $2 billion a year to treat service members suffering from psychological trauma, but we spend $10 billion a month on the war that is the root of much of that trauma in the first place. end this afghanistan war, mr. speaker and end it tomorrow. we will be left with a huge crisis that will require more resolve than we're seemingly repaired to muster.

i would expect every member who has enthusiastically support the war to just as eagerly support what it takes to fight the suicide epidemic the war has caused. it's time to stop the bleeding, to make sure our heroes are removed from the conflict that is inflicting so much damage. we can start winning the war on suicide by ending the war in afghanistan. let's bring our troops home now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. natasha's life changed because she was the prey of a sexual predator. here's the beginning of her dramatic story. in 1993 i was violently raped, sodomized and robbed at gun point by an unknown assailant.

when i escaped and thankfully found myself in my apartment, my roommate insisted i go to the hospital. i agreed to wait for an ambulance even though my first instinct was to take a shower. i'm so grateful today that i made that choice to go to that hospital. mr. speaker, natasha is one of many victims of this barbaric, dastardly crime. according to the information released by the center for disease control, nearly one in five women in america have been raped at some point in their life. as both a former prosecutor and a judge in texas, i was involved with the criminal trials of rape cases for 30 years. i learned firsthand the devastation that sexual assault victims experienced and i understand and learn that sexual assault does not just physically harm the victim, it harms their entire being, both

physically, emotionally and mentally, and a pain sometimes lasts forever. mr. speaker, rapists try to steal the soul of their victims, and they try to destroy the self-worth of victims, and sometimes they do. one of the most critical pieces of evidence for rape trials is the rape kit, a tool that gathers forensic evidence, including d.n.a. evidence, to link the rapist to the crime. but unfortunately rape kits often languish in evidence rooms across the united states, some untested for years, some discarded before ever being tested, and some gather dust so long that the statute of limitations on the crime of rape has expired and the criminal can never be prosecuted. this ought not to be. mr. speaker, natasha's story did not end in that cold hospital examination room. she says further, 10 years

later in 2003 i received a call from the new york city district attorney's office. my rape kit, which unbeknownst to me, had been sitting on the shelf for 10 years, had at last finally be processed. i had reconciled the fact that my perpetrator would never be held accountable for his actions, but now there was hope. after a long trial, victor rondon, who was tried before a jury of his peers in 2008 and found guilty of all eight counts of violent assault against me. he's in jail now for a long time. the best part of me is that he can never hurt anyone else. my rape kit sat on the shelf for many years. it was not just a number in a police department. my rape kit was me, a human being. every rape kit that sits on the shelf somewhere is a human being. mr. speaker, natasha's story

humanizes rape kits ignored in rooms across the country. victims of sexual assault deserve justice and their perpetrators deserve to be punished by courts and juries in america. stories like natasha compelled congresswoman care lynn maloney from -- carolyn maloney from new york and i to introduce the safer act in the house and senators cornyn and bennett to introduce the same bill in the senate. this bill would allow existing funds to be used to provide grants to states and localities to audit their rape kit backlog and would call upon the attorney general to have an internet-based rape kits. backlogs is as high as 400,000 in america, according to human rights watch, and according to the d.o.j.'s national institute of justice, 43% of the nation's law enforcement agencies don't even have a computerized system to track forensic evidence.

either in their inventory or after it is sent to the crime lab. the safer evidence would allow it to be processed and these do-bads to be held accountable for their dastardly deeds. they say there is no money for these rape kit testing. well, congress needs to find the money. maybe instead of sending money to foreign countries to help them, keep some of that money in america to help american rape victims like natasha. help them get justice because, mr. speaker, justice is what we do in america and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize mr. duncan of tennessee for five minutes. mr. duncan: i ask permission to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: later today we will vote on h.r. 459, the federal reserve transparency act of 2012. because this legislation comes

to us on the suspension calendar it will require a 2/3 vote in favor for passage, but i rise today in support of a full audit of the federal reserve. i have thought for many years there's too much secrecy and too much power invested in our federal reserve. this is an effort that i first joined in june of 1991, in the 102nd congress when i co-sponsored a bill introduced by the congressman of illinois to audit the federal reserve. even back then before our most recent major financial recession, congressman crane's bill had 56 bipartisan co-sponsors. that support has grown over the years and in the 111th congress, the last congress, congressman ron paul's audit the fed bill gathered an overwhelming 320 co-sponsors from both parties. now, that support, i believe,

is at 270 in this congress. thomas jefferson was one of our founding fathers who was concerned about putting too much power in a central bank, and he wrote in a letter in 1816, quote, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. that was not me, that was thomas jefferson. and listen to what people are saying about this bill today from both ends of the political spectrum. matt kibbie, president and c.e.o. of freedomworks, said, many you a ton mists said that the central bank's loose monetary policy played a major role in the current economic crisis. it is more crucial than ever that the federal reserve's monetary policy decisions be examined. without a comprehensive audit we will never know how the fed is manipulating our money behind closed doors. the national taxpayers union, one of most respected organizations said, quote, american taxpayers deserve to know more about the workings of a government-sanctioned entity

whose decisions directly affect their economic livelihood. arnold cling, an author and scholar at the cato institute said, if an audit would uncover flaws and decisions made by the fed, it's difficult to see why we are better remaining ignoreant of such flaws. rick sanchez said, quote, for an enter that wills so much power, we know relatively little about the fed. would you trust an unknown banker to decide what happens with your paycheck every week? why do we accept this for our country? and brent, a very liberal political opinion writer, wrote in support of an audit and said, quote, in my years of experience in politics, media and business, i have learned that secrecy is usually the enemy of common sense, fairness and policy. another liberal economist, famous john canes, said this,

there is no sure means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debotch the currency. and a very conservative, one of the most respective conserve tist economists said this, one one studies the history of money, one cannot help wondering why people should put up for so long with government's exercising an exclusive power over 2,000 years that was regularly used to exploit and defraud them. i have heard over the years, mr. speaker, people say that we need to have a federal reserve, and the federal reserve system in order to prevent depressions and recessions. well, that is certainly a very, very dumb statement to make because the federal reserve was created in 1913, and 16 years later in 1929 we started our

greatest depression. i think we have had more recessions and more downturns in the economy since the federal reserve was created than we ever had in the entire history of our country before that system was created. i'm not saying that it is a bad system or that it's wrong to have some type of federal reserve system, but it certainly is one that deserves more attention from the congress and surely it is one that has -- that is -- has too much secrecy and too much power in this day and at least the congress needs to look into it more than it has since that system and that board was created. 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

>> limiting federal rule making procedure. more live house coverage when they gavel back in here on c-span. in the mean tile, we are going to daycare you live now to a hearing with homeland security secretary janet napolitano. peter king is the chairman. he's hearing from the secretary and also from eric olson. live coverage getting under way here on c-span. >> my understanding of the immigration and national act is -- nationality act is anyone who belongs to a foreign terrorist organization, before receiving a visa, must apply and receive a waiver from secretary of state and secretary of homeland security. i know we have seen a number of them, for instance, you and secretary clinton, sign one for a member of the iraqi national congress, and this has been the procedure since 1996, 1997. if you are designated, if you belong to it, you cannot come into the country without getting a waiver.

my understanding is that elden, who is an elected official in egypt, was part of a delegation that came to washington, went to the white house, went to the national security council, and also met with members of congress. he is a member, according to his own facebook page, of the islamic group, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. yet he was given a visa, never applied for a waiver, no waiver was given. when he arrived at the kennedy airport, he didn't go through any secondary in13ecks, -- inspection. he was at the white house. met with members of congress. were never told he was a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization. now, the reason i ask this question, it appears as if the law was not complied with in that he did not apply for waiver, congress was not notified, which is also required, that whatever waiver is given congress has to be notified that one ever these individuals is in the country. my understanding also, i take all the information provided by your department in a letter to

me, but the reason said no waiver was required is because there was no derogatory information found. yet his own facebook page says he belonged to a terrorist organization. the concern i have is, this individual case is one thing, but as we see the results of the arab spling, whether it's equipped -- spring, whether it's equipped, libya, hopefully syria, and other countries in the middle east, we have people coming to -- coming to this country or attempting to who may have been involved in the pass perfect rifferly or real with various terrorist organizations. this administration, another administration, may feel some of these people can be dealt with, can be worked with. if that's going to be done, to me, it seems to me it would have to be an open process. transparent process, where congress and the people would know who is being let into this country, what were the factors that went in to giving this person a waiver, what level that decision is made. we went through a situation in the 1940's with people in the

state department said mao was an arare granular -- agrarian reformer. we can have people making bad decisions. my question to you is who in the state department, who in homeland security would initiate allowing someone from one of these organizations into the country. for instance, even if they are not designated as a foreign terrorist organization, you can have the muslim brotherhood without going into details which may be considered one way in egypt but another way in syria. members of it may have different types of relationship with the organization. who is going to be making those decisions? who is going to give the waiver? is congress going to be informed so we know who is going to be allowed into the country and who is not and why is a waiver being issued? i say in this case with all respect it does not appear that the letter or spirit of the law was complied with with elden who was a self-proclaimed member of a designated foreign terrorist organization. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a couple of things.

one is i think you are right in pointing out that as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that state department and others feel are useful to bring to the country, to have discussions moving forward. who in the past or who say members of a political party that in the past has been so designated. in the particular case you refer to, this was a state department selected group. originated there. he was vetted before he got a visa. against all known terrorist and other data bases for derogatory information. none was found. as he entered the united states, we, too, vetted him against all of our holdings, including terrorists and information from a variety of sources. no der roguetory was found. before he entered the white

house, he was vet add third time by the secret service -- vetted a third time by the secret service, no derogatory information was found. we have some confidence this was not a security breach in that sense. with respect to notification for -- to congress about this, that's something i will have to look into. i don't know what the status of that was. within our organization when we get a visitor like that, we have had some in the past, it's usually a combination of our counterterrorism group and c.i.s. that reviews the information and then oftentimes -- not oftentimes but occasionally will actually come up to the secretary. >> with all this vetting, the fact is his own facebook page, he said he was a member of the islamic group which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. how did that escape the entire vetting process? >> again, mr. chairman, i think we have to add more nuance to

that. we have to know what the group was. is it now a political party? that is running the government of a country that has strong ties with the united states, and if that is so, what is the actual information, what is the content of the information, substance of the relationship, and particular instance you raise. i think everyone who looked at this individual felt confident that he was not a security risk to the white house or to the united states. >> i think you have groven my point. that was a policy decision. it may or may not have been right. i'm not quibbling with the decision. i'm saying under the law people belong to a foreign terrorist organization, a formal process had to be gone through, reasons given why the waiver was going to be granted, and congress notified. that's the certain i have. even though he had it on his own facebook page, he belonged to a foreign terrorist organization, we could have hundreds ever people in this situation over the next several years coming in who may not brag on the facebook

page they are a member of a foreign terrorist organization. it raises questions to me how effective the vetting process is. or if a policy decision was made and it was made without congress intending to be notified -- under -- if he applied for a waiver, and it had been granted, you would have had to notify congress. congress was left out of it. he was allowed in without a waiver. >> let me just -- if i might, mr. chairman, if i might give you -- separate it into substance and process. on the substance there was no derogatory information. he was vetted multiple times. but on the process, that's a fair point to make. >> i would say that that's a significant point because i made it, but a significant point because, again, if a person belongs to an organization and he's allowed in without applying for the waiver, it's bad enough in our position we could be faced with this situation many times over the next several years. especially involving for instance, libya, syria

hopefully, sometimes, egypt is going to be a work in progress. i would really ask if that -- you looked into and i hope the decision is not being made with the intention of keeping congress excluded, which, again, on the face of it, appears to have happened. also in closing, in the letter i sent to the department of -- i understand elvin at the white house asked if the blind sheik could be released. he was told the answer is no. when i asked what is the position of the department of homeland security regarding any potential transfer or release of rahman, the blind sheik, the architect of the first world trade center attack, quite frankly the department isn't answer. he's in the custody of the justice department. if he is going to be released, homeland security has a real role to play in that. the justice department and department of homeland security, it again appears they are not answering the question if there is any intention at any time to lease the blind sheik. >> let me say this.

i know of no such intention. >> the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madam secretary, in a hearing in one of our subcommittees last week we were told that american citizens can be trained to fly planes and not be vetted against a no-fly list. we were told that foreigners are vetted through a robust process that would only start once they are cleared. the question was whether or not a process could be put before

anyone before they admitted to a flight school would be vetted. and testimony from the department at that time was -- it couldn't be done. have you looked at that since that testimony was presented to this committee? >> i have. >> what is your position on it? >> well, the answer is, yes, there is a distinction between u.s. citizens and foreign persons who are seeking to get flight training. with respect to u.s. citizens who may be on one of our watch lists, there are a variety of ways that we can and do keep abreast of their activities. i don't want to go into those in an open setting, but the law is somewhat unclear as to whether we can vet a u.s. citizen prior to their application for certification from the f.a.a. so the department historically has taken the position that we

cannot formally vet them, any u.s. citizen, before that application. >> well, then that -- i would say that we introduced a bill last week to close that gap. do you support such legislation? >> after an opportunity to see the exact language, i don't want to say support, but i would say the idea behind the bill is something we support, yes. >> but right now you also admit that's a problem? >> it can be a gap, but again let me just say it is a gap that would be easily filled a number of ways, and those particularly have watch list information, there is a variety of ways to receive information about possible flight school training. but it would be nice to tidy up the law a little bit. >> thank you.

taking along the chairman's questions about intent of congress, congress passed a law mandating 100% cargo screening for inbound containers. you indicated that it can be done but that some other things are being done to do that. i think the question for some of us is that this was an act of congress -- an act congress feared the department should do. i'd like to hear where we are on a percentage of screening of containers based on whatever system you are using at this point. are we 20%? 30%? where are we along the goal toward 100%?

>> well, we have looked at containers from different angles, as you know, and as we have discussed before, high risk versus low risk, and we have actually done quite a bit to form and strengthen the international partnerships and the industry partnerships necessary to know and to secure containers and freight as it leaves foreign ports to the extents we can. there are a lot of foreign ports, it's just physically not available to us to do that. with respect to inbound, we have an algorithm we use to evaluate i high-risk cargo and we do a random selection of a small percentage of other containers. i would say, representative thompson, this is an area that i know that the department and

some in the congress are at odds about. but there are a lot of ways to protect the ports of the united states and the interior of the united states from dangerous cargo. and as we keep in mind 100% law, which we understand is the law, sometimes those laws are very difficult standards to attain and we have had to move in other directions in the near term to make sure that we are doing everything we can with respect to cargo. . >> to -- so what percentage of screening do you have now? >> i have to get you the number. we have to differentiate between high risk and low risk cargo. we are low risk, as i say, is very small. >> so you can't give us a number? >> no, i can't. i can't give you at this precise hearing. that number is available. >> madam secretary, you know,

it was -- congress said you shall coit. it doesn't say, look at it and come back to us. what i'm saying to you is, you instituted the waiver, but i think you should come back to us and say, you asked for 100%. we are at 20%. but i think it's not a good omen that we can't get the numbers. can you provide us with any task orders that have been issued by the department looking for new technology to get us to 100%, anything like that? >> representative thompson, we are happy to brief you and your staff again on where exactly we are. all that's been done. the numbers are available, i just don't have them at my fingertips at this hearing.

let me also say, however, that as we move forward -- we have to recognize congress also gave the secretary the power to waive that requirement. and i think impolicity in that if it's not feasible, practicable, affordable, whether it would have undo interference with all of the cargo that needs to transit into american ports for real-time inventories by the american manufacturers of our country, those are all things taken into account and whether that interference with lawful and legal trade we get enough of a benefit that it makes it worth it. and we believe that there are other ways currently available to get there. >> well, i'm aware of information that you've shared from time to time. what i would ask that if we have the current rationale for not doing it and whatever data

supporting it, i think the committee would be -- some on the committee would be interested in seeing it. the last question, and i appreciate your indulgence -- also, can you tell us how much of this cargo that congress said should be screened before it comes to this country is actually screened when it gets here? >> yes, i can give you those numbers. i'll be happy to provide those numbers to you. >> so your testimony that some of this cargo is already here before we look at it? >> it may be. it depends on the source, but, again, there are multiple layers that go into examining and knowing what is in the containers on ships bound for the united states. some of those layers begin before it gets to the point of exit, and it has to do with trusted shippers. it has to do with other

initiatives we have, particularly at some of the large ports of the world. others have to do with what in particular the coast guard does before cargo is allowed to enter a port of the united states. and in between there is the exchange of a lot of the manifest and other information necessary to evaluate whether cargo is high or low risk. so there is a whole system set up. i don't want to leave the public or the committee with the idea that not only are not doing 100%, we're not doing anything. we're doing quite a bit, but the 100% as the standard is not yet attainable. >> i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from california, the chairman of the subcommittee on cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, mr. lungren. >> i thank the chairman. i thank both of our witnesses. i might say at the beginning, some discussion about

application of lone wolf, while it not have assisted in the terrible case in colorado, we did have a debate on the floor of the house about whether we should have the lone wolf provisions allowed for the patriot act. and we won that on the floor. and it was consistent with what the administration was supporting. so i appreciate the fact that it is now recognized as a current and continuing threat to us. that is the operation of a lone wolf. madam secretary, i want to thank your department for the excellent briefing, classified briefing we received in the subcommittee yesterday on the nuclear detection office and i think some of the questions asked with respect to the last issue were addressed there and i appreciate that and i appreciate work that is being

done there and we are going to have a subcommittee open hearing on that and other issues with dndo tomorrow. it's interesting in your prepared testimony with respect to d.h.s. implementing a curriculum for state, local, federal law enforcements with respect to community oriented policing. in california, for instance, we have the post officer standards in training commission that establishes the curriculum for all law enforcement officers who are allowed to carry weapons and community oriented policing is part of that. so i look forward to see exactly what your department has. i would be most interested in an elab ration on exactly what the indicators of violent extremist activity are that you reference in your prepared

testimony. the reason i ask for that is this, in the aftermath of the fort hood situation, it was very difficult to get some to admit that we had missed a whole lot of red flags with respect to major hassan. and when we had a joint hearing asking representative of the administration with d.o.d. about what those indicators or red flags would be and how they would have actually been implemented with respect to nadal hassan, it was difficult to get a response. what i'm trying to figure out, if you're preparing a curriculum that is to assist local and state law enforcement officials as to those signs that hopefully will help us identify before violent behavior takes place, what are those signs? >> well, a couple things. one is the curriculum is based

on the community policing idea with the idea that police officers, deputy sheriffs, whatever, are normally in the best position to witness something. tactics, techniques, other indicators. without spilling in an unclassified setting what those are, i have to say that we have involved local law enforcement, including california, in the development of this curriculum and part of it includes taking 62 cases of homegrown terrorism or purported terrorism from a variety of ideologies and mapping them out as to what happened so we can precisely look at what were some of the things, early warning signs, early trip wires, things that should have alerted law enforcement. and it can be as simple as communication with known terrorists that becomes available all the way to

unusual purchases of guns and unusual purchases of explosive. >> how do you distinguish between the area of protected constitutional speech versus that which is an indicator of potential violent acts? in major hassan's case, we have evidence of the fact that at a setting which he was supposed to lecture on medical -- medical issue instead he went into a rant about the justification for radical islamists attacking those in the west. and yet that was not reported. that was not acted upon. that was -- i would consider that an indicator. is that such an indicator in the curriculum that you're presenting to law enforcement, including my state of california? >> perhaps. and i don't want to get into

hassan, the f.b.i., d.o.d. issues their -- but all of these things taken together, so when you look at the department's effort on counterviolent extremism or a number of things, number one, we need to get a better understanding of the roots of violent extremism. what is it that is going on in society that leads to the creation of a violent extremist? can we get at some of those root causes? number two, how do we partner with nongovernmental agencies, n.g.o.'s other groups that may come into contact with someone who is moving from youress pousal beliefs to becoming operational and preoperational? and how do we better train local law enforcement to be aware of tactics and indicators? and i think the best way to do

that is to provide case studies and analysis, either from events that happened in the united states or what happened in other countries. >> the gentleman's time has expired. director olsen. >> if i could add a couple points. d.h.s., under secretary napolitano's leadership, is taking the lead on this along with f.b.i. and department of justice and those at nctc. one way we contribute to this effort is analytically. we have a group of analysts that look at the question of radicalization. we generated a number of an lytic products to help -- analytic products to help us. from radicalization to mobilization to violence, helping to explain what those -- what those identifiers are so we can then use that in training to sensitive local law enforcement and first responders to recognize those scenes and then to take action when somebody is on that path and we can stop that person

before they do take action. >> i appreciate that. i'm just very concerned about this. i mean, tony blair said two days ago that the west is asleep on this issue. that even he underestimated the power of the narrative of the violent islamists. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> that's a powerful statement, and i hope we have learned from our -- >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> -- the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> let me thank the witnesses for their presence this morning. good morning. first, let me acknowledge the passing and funeral of inspector philip prather who was assigned to the houston division of the federal protective service. his service indicated the

stellar record of service, and i'm grateful that director paterson was able to attend, madam secretary, and i hope we'll have a dialogue after -- over the next couple of days. let me thank you for your letter of sympathy to the family. and i would just like to put on the record, there is the need for a more responsive h.r., human he -- human resources, if you could look at it in terms of working with the family. let me ask a question that -- is the homeland security department was operable in 1993, i think it was, 1993, 1994, in the action of the oklahoma bombing -- >> 1995. >> 1995. thank you. would that have been considered domestic terrorism? and under the homeland security department? >> yes. i actually worked on that case. i would say, representative,

that, yes, that had all the hallmarks of domestic terrorism. >> and do we, as a department, your department, our opportunity to review, concern ourselves with domestic terrorism? meaning actions that may be driven by american citizens. >> yes, representative. as i testified, i think matt testified, we look at terrorism from abroad and from within. it can be islamists, it can be motivated by our ideologies but, yes. >> and so would a situation that would have wired and set booby traps and others in a residential dwelling that has now left dwellers outside of their home for a period of time , and if it had be triggered could have caused massive loss

of life, would that warrant homeland security involvement, does the local jurisdiction have to call you for that? >> well, the aurora tragedy, and a true tragedy, is under investigation. and i don't want to get too much into the comment on that because we -- there's a lot we still don't know. but i would say that with respect to the response and the local police, by the way, if i might make this point, one of the things we have been doing is doing a lot of training around the country on how to respond to different types of terrorist potential attacks. one of the scenarios we have been training across the country for is something along the lines of a mumbai style attack. we have multiple shooters organized, and we had actually -- incidentally done that. >> i have another question. if you could finish. >> and the aurora police were

there, and their response last week is to be commended. but with respect to, is there a federal presence and so forth in an investigation of an incident of that type, yes. >> and let me express my sympathy to those and applaud those law enforcement, first responders. of course this is a difficult time. i would encourage that homeland security be present because i do believe there are issues of domestic terrorism. let me move quickly to another issue. five members of congress attacked a staff person in the department of -- the state department on the grounds of being associated with the muslim brotherhood. the mother, father and brother. do not want to call that staff person's name. i know that staff person as an outstanding american. but they sent a letter to the state department inspector general. my question is broadly, their letter suggests there are muslim brotherhood operatives

in the government. to me that's a homeland security issue. my question to you, barring classified information, and we have to have a classified response at later time, are you engaged or have you been notified or are you investigating the idea of staff, present staff being associated with the muslim brotherhood in the united states of america? they cited the tariq ramadan decision where there was civilization jihad. they cited de facto -- this is our jurisdiction if that is a truthful accusation. >> we have looked into this. the f.b.i. has looked into this. we found no credible evidence that such activity is going on. >> to repeat that again, madam secretary, maybe we didn't hear you clearly. >> we have looked into this, the f.b.i. looked into it. we have found no credible evidence that such infiltration

is going on. >> and the f.b.i. being the component that would have an intelligent component, would it be necessary for the c.i.a., which we work internationally for their work, but they would use their intelligent resources in the investigation? >> i don't know who precisely they used but that would be my assumption. >> both the homeland security and f.b.i. found no evidence of this? >> that is correct. >> i thank the chairman. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses. first, madam secretary, let me compliment you on your recent attention to the caribbean. we chaired an oversight hearing on the caribbean being the third border, and i know that i got reports back from governor fortuno and representative pierluisi that you did a great job. i certainly appreciate that. i also chaired a hearing just recently on the use of drones. now, as you know, congressman

cuellar and i have been strong advocates for the use of d.h.s. drones down on the border. there is another issue with respect to drones being used throughout the united states and the interior. and i bring this up because the g.a.o. four years ago said that the t.s.a. under d.h.s. had a role to play with respect to security assessments and a national policy and then less than a year ago we had a man who used this -- tried to -- attempted to use this drone in attempt to blow up the pentagon and the united states capitol. i have to tell you, i was surprised of the response from your department was that you had no role with respect to these drones and that you were not going to send witnesses to testify at that hearing. so i just want to register my disappointment. i personally think that d.h.s. does have a role. in fact, every member sitting on the subcommittee, both republican and democrat, both

agree with that assessment. and in fact the witnesses. it's rare you have a privacy expert and a law enforcement expert agreeing on the same issue and that was of d.h.s. has a role through the office of privacy and also through science and technology and other departments within d.h.s. to deal with this issue. can you explain to me why this is not getting any attention? >> well, i can't speak to exactly how the role was expressed last week, but here's what's going on. yeah, you're right. yes, you're right. we use the drones on the border extensively. with respect to the regulation of drone use in the interior of the united states, which is relatively new phenomenon, and i think this was the focus of the committee, the regulatory authorities with the f.a.a. in part because it's an air traffic control issue. but we are working and will be working with the f.a.a. to make sure that homeland security

equities are protected. and with respect to science and technology, that directate, we have a funded project. i think it's in california, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety or disaster such as a forest foyer, and how they can -- fire, and how they can better give us information. >> i appreciate that comment. i hope the ranking member is prepared to offer legislation with me, i prefer to see this administratively by either executive order or within your department to coordinate with the justice department and the f.a.a. i do think f.a.a. controls the safety of the airwaves but doesn't really focus on security per se and i think that's a appropriate role for the department. director olsen, fort hood occurred not too far from my district. i went to the memorial service.

a report came out. for the past -- well, since the tragic incident, it's been downplayed. first as a workplace violence incident. senior intelligence officials, including your predecessor, downplayed the email exchanges between mr. hassan andal waki. they pleaded with the washington field office to respond to, as they say it, threat. the wfao said he was doing research. we can't investigate everybody looking at websites. in one documentation this was a politically sensitive issue. i think that resulted in the deaths of 13 soldiers and next to 9/11 the biggest terrorist attack on american soil. real briefly, one of these emails, particularly, literally

outlines exactly what major hassan did. it's in may of 2009. i would assume that suicide bombers whose aim is to kill enemy soldiers or their helpers would also kill innocents in the process is acceptable. as a former d.o.j. prosecutor, i can't imagine. i could see san diego's consider, and i can't imagine why wfao didn't give it greater attention. do you have any response? >> i can say, congressman, obviously the way to report extensive study, how the f.b.i. responded, and i know the director of the f.b.i. indicated that a number of recommendations from the roar are being implemented in terms of changes to information sharing, technology and policies. i can say as a personal level, also as a former prosecutor, at nctc, the fort hood shooting,

along with 2009 attempted attack are seminole events for us as far as learning what we can from those lessons. i mean, those are hard learned lessons, but we need to continue to be lidge lent to do better at spotting those types of indicators and sharing that information appropriately. >> i sure hope so when you have a major base in the united states talking to the number two terrorist in the world and that's not transmitted to the general and the commanding officer in charge of fort hood, i think that is absolutely unacceptable. and in particular, after reading these emails, i feel misled that senior intelligence officials misled the congress by downplaying the extent and the importance and significance of these emails. and i see my time has expired. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from california -- the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson, is recognized for five minutes.

[inaudible] >> ms. richardson, it's probably not being picked up. >> give me a little more time? >> you got it. >> all right. >> start the clock over. >> thank you, sir. >> madam secretary, as i was explaining, my role here on the committee and also having where i live, congressman rohrabacher actually represents the port of both los angeles and long beach. however, throughout my whole district is all the traffic and the impacts of the port in that part that we both benefit and we also have challenges. my question to you, and i want to build upon the questions of ranking member thompson. when you submit the information

that you promised for the record, would you also be willing to include in that -- and it may require a briefing or a classified briefing to this committee -- what do you view as the continuing vulnerabilities within our nation's ports? what resources might you need to be able to address these gaps in the security of our ports? because we'd like to assist you with that. and number three, what is being done to look at specifically the small vessel threats that are now becoming of great concern to us as well? i should let you know that for the record i did submit a letter to the g.a.o., and i believe it was provided to you as well at the time back on may 7 of 2012. so i just wanted to, one, give you an opportunity to respond to your willingness to provide us that information. >> we're always willing, representative, to work with you on issues of the ports. they are obviously critical infrastructure for the country, and we work with a variety of

partners on them. there are complicated entities, particularly large ports like los angeles, but, yes, we'd be happy to work with you. >> and supply the information? >> yes. some of it may undoubtedly be classified but, yes. >> yes, ma'am. thank you. also, being a part of the emergency communications and preparedness committee, we recently had an update regarding the reforms that have been done due to the grant program. and i want to commend you and your staff for establishing transparency with those who utilize those programs within state and local government and getting their thoughts. i would like to ask you, what do you expect to do in terms of continuing to address to make sure those funds are risk-based versus by traditional formula? specifically the minimum required amount which is in statute that allows, for example, well over $2 million i think to various cities that

certainly don't rise to the risk that we see in others. >> well, i think as the chairman said in his opening remarks, we have moved to a risk-based approach. how t.s.a. looks at the traveling public to how we deal with containers to how we award grant moneys. and there is a little bit of a policy issue, i think, for the congress to consider, which is to say at a certain amount, you know, risk evaluation is not perfect. it's somewhat of an art, not a science, and spreading some of the moneys around might make sense. but on the other hand where we have high-risk areas and no-risk areas, we need to be sure we address those. >> ok. would you be willing, though, to consider working with this committee to establish those policy changes that would give you the ability to ensure that more of the funds are in fact risk-based, especially given the tremendous reduction that

your department has unfortunately suffered? >> yeah. absolutely. and in our f.y. 2013 budget request, we proposed that the congress take up all of our grants and look at remerging them, reconfiguring them in such a way as to maximize our ability to use risk-based criteria. so we have that proposal before the congress and we'll be happy to provide you with a copy. >> and my other question is, in your response regarding the ports, one of the things you mentioned is the difficulties of implementing 100% cargo inspection is potentially the cost in the international relationship. could you describe to the committee what you're doing in conjunction with the trade ambassador to establish these agreements so we can go forward and have a more stringent system similar to what we have in internationally with passengers?

>> well, i have not personally dealt with the trade ambassador, the trade representative on this. i know our staff have had discussions. we also have had discussions simply port to port, not with respect to the trade representative but with respect to the actual shippers, consigners, forwarders and the like. so there's been a broad variety of approaches to this issue. >> would you consider meeting with the trade ambassador? because when we had the trade agreements, i asked the trade ambassadors specifically if he had worked with you to establish these agreements so at least for those going forward we can eliminate the problem and the answer was no. >> always happy to work with the trade rep. >> ok. thank you. mr. chairman, would you allow me to ask one question to mr. olson? >> yes. try to keep it -- director olsen has to leave at 12:30. go ahead and ask him. >> thank you, sir. mr. olson, i'm sure you are aware in this committee there are many discussions about

terrorism, intelligence. could you share with this committee what you would view would be the percentage of intelligence that you received at -- that implies that the terrorism that this country is facing is based upon those being directed by their islamic faith? >> percentage that is directed by -- you know -- >> motivated by -- >> in terms of our work, certainly a substantial majority of our work focuses on al qaeda and its affiliates. so certainly substantial majority nctc's focus which is international terrorism focuses on al qaeda and the al qaeda ideology. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. >> could i just ask a follow-up question. you are kind. >> i know. it's part of my personality. [laughter] also, you, too, bring out the best in me.

>> oh. you just might get a hug, sir. just to follow-up question. but would you view this as al qaeda direction is directed and motivated strictly by the islamic faith or is it based upon perspectives of the work that they do? and for the record i'll submit other questions specifically to this for the record. >> much broader than the faith. so it's a particular brand of ideology that is associated specifically with al qaeda and its ideology. >> ok. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, right after the fort hood massacre, members of your department came here and talked about an alleged attack after 13 soldiers were killed and many were injured. and i stated at that time that political correctness was going

to kill people, and i think it did in that case. the more we learned about that particular incident, the more there were gaps in communications between your department and the f.b.i. and other entities, as mr. mccaul has brought up, and my friend from california, mr. lungren, has brought up. it's certainly something that really concerns me. i think the blood of those dead soldiers falls on the head of members of this executive branch because they did not do their work and because political correctness prevented major hassan from carrying out the attack that was blatantly obvious to many people. and i hope we change all that. because i think political correctness is going to kill more people if we don't stop it. had it existed at the time of the fort hood incident, how would this new curriculum that you've proposed or describe in

your written testimony have prevented the tragedy from happening in -- at fort hood? >> representative, first, the wester report goes in the f.b.i.-d.o.d. issues. to my knowledge -- and i haven't read the full report -- but d.h.s. was not there. i must take exception to the way the question was worded because the men and women i work with, the men and women at the f.b.i., the men and women at nctc spend 100% of their time trying to protect the american people. >> i just have a short time. >> well, you have asked a long question with a lot of insinuations and i don't think it's fair that the men and women who work in this area every day. >> i asked about the new curriculum that you just described, would it have prevented -- if it had been in

place at the time prior to the fort hood massacre, would it have prevented major hassan of carrying out that terrorist attack? >> it's difficult to give you a firm yes or no but i can tell you the curriculum does go into the indicators of someone who is moving to -- from extreme ideology to operational. would be happy to provide you with a briefing on that. >> i'd like that. mr. lungren i think also asked for the same kind of briefing. i would be interested in hearing that. also, how would the curriculum that you described in your testimony prevent homegrown terrorist attacks without singling individuals or groups due to their religious or political beliefs? with that question, and i want to remind you, your department, some individuals in your department have described anybody who is military,

military veteran, gun owner, christian conservative, pro-life individual, that's me, is a terrorist. how would you single that and then find major hassan not being a terrorist? i don't think i am a terrorist. >> representative, the report to which you refer was prepared under the prior administration and issued under ours very early on. we have since taken corrective measures to make sure these things are precisely identified. it's -- it is something that requires all of us to continue to look at, what are the root causes of terrorism, what are -- what are groups that can help us that are outside the government, as i said, before the public at large can have a role under the see something, say something aspect of things. so it's very difficult.

we have to be very cognizant of civil liberties and rights and privacy interests. on the other hand we are trying to learn lessons after every incident as to what could be done better. we are not static. >> well, thank you, ma'am. my time has expired and i have a previous engagement. i want to say in closing that we got to get past this political correctness. we got to start focusing on those who want to harm us. i think it's going to take intelligence gathering, boots on the ground to do so within the department as well as within c.i.a., f.b.i., as well as the military to try to prevent these kinds of attacks. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary napolitano, thank you so much -- >> i don't think your microphone is working either. >> i could hear you but --

>> i don't think it's being picked up, though. >> i'm sorry. >> maybe try the other mike. [inaudible] >> the one that was used by ms. richardson, i guess that was yours. mr. clarke's microphone. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary napolitano, thank you, again, for recognizing

protecting our aviation system as being a key priority in your administration. as you're well aware, metro detroit is a known high-risk area. it's the underwear bomber had been successful, a huge commercial aircraft could have blown up right over metropolitan detroit. my concern is this. how to best warn the public about an imminent danger like this so they can take cover immediately. and i feel one of the most reliable ways to do so would be to alert the public through the free local broadcasting media such as local tv and radio. while many people in detroit rely on local television, such as seniors, just to mention some economic issues facing the region, a lot of people are struggling financially. i mean, just this week i've been working with fannie mae to

help stop evictions of homeowners who are currently in foreclosure. many households, they can't afford cable, but they have free local commercial tv broadcasting accessible to them. many folks do have cell phones. the unfortunate issue, when we had our power grid shut down, we had a blackout in metro detroit, the wireless networks got overloaded and we could not communicate with our cell phones. that's why i think it's important at least to have access to radio broadcasting through cell phones. i will be soon asking the subcommittee on emergency communications preparedness and response to hold a hearing to examine these issues on how we can best alert the public by continuing free local tv broadcasting and enhance the

public's access to radio broadcasting. if you have any thoughts on how we can best alert the public so they can take cover in the event of an attack or other emergency by continuing to offer free local tv broadcasting and enhance free radio broadcasting i welcome your comments. >> yes. and we've done quite a bit of work in this area. and the plain fact of the matter is you have to use multiple media to get your message out quickly. fema has actually done the most work here, but as you know, cell phones go out but texting may work. radio, tv, other ways that people receive information through -- so there's been quite a developed project and quite a lot of work done here. >> well, thank you. i look forward to working with fema to make sure our public has access to free local broadcasting through tv and radio. i will address this before the

fema subcommittee as well. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, if i could add one point in response to the congressman's question about media, and secretary napolitano referred to training that's respond to a shooter or mumbai-style attack. and part of that training does involve not only the law enforcement response to that training, to a shooter-type incident, but also public messaging that must go on in the event of an attack and how that would play out and the actual workshops run through an exercise so that exercise helps build capability in those community and that's something we're working together on. >> thank you, mr. olsen. i yield back. >> the the gentlelady from

michigan, mrs. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hopefully this microphone is working. the secretary was asked a number of questions about cargo screening. i would just mention the subcommittee i am chairing, i have had a number of hearings about this. and i think you will find at least the testimony that we had from your was that the percentage of screening right now is in about the five percentile. it's in the one digit numerals. it's been explained by our subcommittee that the estimated cost of compliance of 100% would be $15 billion to $20, rough estimate. actually, the house recently passed a piece of legislation i sponsored, the smart port act, which really talks about the risk-based assessment, etc. but that is not my question. my question is, i want to talk a little bit -- ask you a question about visa overstays. and we have, again, in the subcommittee, some of the things that have been rather startling is we think about the amount of illegal aliens that are in the country.

everybody always thinks somehow all of them came across the desert and that's not -- the truth is in the 40 percentile of the illegals that are in the country currently came literally through the front through, through visa overstays. we saw that with the recent capitol suicide bomber who had been here on a santa rosa overstay for over a decade. certainly in the case of 9/11 at least four of the terrorists, the murderers, were here on visa overstays. in regard to the secure communities now which i am a huge supporter of, i'm just wondering if you could talk about the criteria for your department when you apprehend or when you pull over, for instance, a visa overstay that may not be here, somebody that you think is a high-level risk and so we don't deport them because of some of the criteria that could have happened in the case of the 9/11 hijackers that may have been pulled over for a routine traffic stop, may have

nothing else and we decided they weren't a high-risk priority. i do have concerns about that and i wonder if you could address that. >> well, i think i have explained in many settings, we are in the immigration enforcement area setting priorities in part because we have resources. we don't have an endless pocketbook, and so we have focused on criminals, on recent border crossers, on repeat violators and others who may be a national security risk. and that process is going very well. with respect to visa overstays, beginning in may of 2011, i directed that we go back and see if we could reidentify that population and vet it against law enforcement and intelligence community holdings and d.o.d. battlefield holdings. in that we learned quite a few of them, almost 50% actually

had left the country. the documents were linked up. but we now completed that revetting and the priority cases have been referred to i.c.e. for removal. we are current on vetting for visas now. >> i appreciate that. there was a backlog of several hundred thousand which i think has been significantly -- >> i think the backlog has been eliminated. >> good to hear that. good to hear that. one other question i have, i mentioned about secure communities, and, you know, as it has rolled out and now almost -- almost everywhere around the country which has been a tremendous assist i think for the first responders, particularly when you look at them as force multiplier for your various agencies under your umbrella as well in eliminating or deporting, i should say, deporting many of the detainees through the secured communities by using your database, etc., but yet we

still see that there are several areas, couple of them in the state of california, couple cities in the state of california and i think alabama but that is going to be rectified by october now with the supreme court ruling with the immigration law and i think people of alabama look forward to that. but in particular, of course, it has gotten a lot of attention, cook county, which is essentially a sanctuary city, and they have declined to participate by our federal law with secured communities. and i was just wondering if you had conversation, for instance, with the department of justice about that. i don't think we should allow it to continue, and certainly a hammer we would have initial is the -- initially is the state criminal alien assistant program, scaap dollars, which is tremendous. it's several million a year. on the one hand, they say we are not going to ply with

secure communities, and say, can you give us the federal money to pay for whatever they want to pay for in their system currently. that would seem to me a place to start. if you do intend to give them the funding that you're asking for at the same time they're violating this, i guess i would look for respectfully how can we do that? why would you do that? >> well, as -- scaap is the department of justice program, and we are evaluating all options with cook county. their ordinance is they can't cooperate with secure communities. it precludes them from sharing information, any information with us so we could put a detainer on an individual and make sure they're not released back in the community before we look at them for possible removal. so it's a very, very broad ordinance, and as i said before, we're evaluating all options. >> i appreciate that. i hope that you do that. again, i think that's a very bad message to be sending out to everybody else in the

country to look at those kinds of things and i would hope you and attorney general holder would work together to bring that to a resolve to the satisfaction of everybody who has a mutual constituency which is every american to make sure if there are violators in the system they need to be deported. >> i deed. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. and now recognize the new ranking member for the moment, the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn. >> thank you, chairman king. i moved up quickly. just passed my one-year anniversary in congress last week and look at me now. [laughter] thank you, chairman. i think there is a theme going on here this morning. i know you're aware of that and that's port security and the issue of cargo scanning and

screening. and certainly it's an issue that i think concerns a lot of us. you know, los angeles and long beach are america's port. 44% of all the cargo that comes in this country comes through that port complex. congress did pass a law that required 100% scanning by this july 14. that indicate clearly has come and gone and you've indicated pretty strongly that that's not probably go to happen. even with the two-year waiver. i -- my first committee that i sat in here we had the 9/11 report card. and i remember specifically asking, were we doing enough in port security and the panel pretty much unanimously said that was an area where we were still lacking.

and on that, with the chairman's help, i was actually able to pass a bill a couple weeks ago. it's a -- it's awaiting passage in the senate. it would ask the department of homeland security to take a comprehensive look at our nation's ports. the gaps that makes in the port security system and come back and tell us in a classified setting, you know, where are our gaps, what can we do in the future to close those. i know you've spoken about this a lot but could you discuss, elaborate on, give us comfort on where you see us going with -- particularly the scanning of our containers. i know a big issue is commit,

commerce. one disaster, these ports could cripple our economy. where do you see us going, particularly if there's new technology that emerges that maybe makes this more possible without slowing down congress. we detection of nuclear-type material, there are technologies and things that are in play. i won't go into that in an unclassified setting. obviously we pay a lot of attention to ports. it is not the only roy to reach the goals. there are -- only way to reach the goals. we are willing to work with you and the committee on trying to give you greater comfort level about the safety of america's ports. but interestingly enough, representative, one of the

things you said, there's one thing that happens, armageddon is going to occur and we are going to see a total crash in the market. it is the ability to respond and get roit back to work. you will see a lot of our work has to do with precisely the resilience point. >> i agree with that and i hope that's part of what you bring back to congress is, you know, a better plan for all of our ports to recover in the event of a disaster. let me switch quick he to airports. and i know l.a. international airport we had a big issue with unacceptable high wait times for people entering into this country which i think presented a potential security threat at our airports. we were able to get 20 more c.b.p. officers at l.a.x. i think several of us specifically requested that. but could you speak to long

term the staffing shortage of our c.b.p. agents at our airports and how we can address that in the future. >> we spent some significant time as we look at the f.y. 2014 budget now within the condepines of other restrictions, what can we do to increase the number of hours for inspectors, the number of personnel, looking at our staffing models, see if we can adjust that. we had a problem at l.a.x. we had a problem at some of our big international airports. all i can tell you, representative, we can do everything we can think to rectify that situation. >> thank you very much. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. if i could add on to what the gentlelady say, a number of airlines made the same request to me. this seems to be a shortage of people. >> mr. chairman, one of the

things we requested in connection with the f.y. 2013 budget is the authority for us to receive participation and payments from port authorities, from airlines to help subsidize the cost of additional inspectors. so, say, for example, an airline in new york wants to bring in a 3:00 a.m. flight from china, they help subsidize the cost of having to have that shift of inspectors there. and there are other ways it can work but something i would hope the committee could help us with. >> the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to our panel today. >> don't let john boehner hear that. >> well, i was hoping your kind goodness would produce something for the future for me as well. but thank you, mr. chairman. let me go back to leaks. there have been leaks in this administration. we don't know who. we don't know why.

but there have been and just to rehearse a nonexhaustive list, these leaks have included about drone strikes against al qaeda in pakistan, somalia and yemen. we have leaks concerning reported cybercampaign against iran's nuclear arms program. leaks that included terrorist plans to destroy american airliners. leaks and details of c.i.a. and special operations forces efforts to kill osama bin laden. and others. i guess what i want to ask, madam secretary, and director olsen, were d.h.s. or ncts consulted in advance of these disclosures? >> well, we certainly were consulted. in other words, there was no -- as far as i know, nothing

within nctc were we involved in any of the leaks that you referred to. i mean, i think the main point for us, congressman, is -- without getting into the specifics of the allegations that this is something that we take very seriously within the national counterterrorism center. i know director clapper has made a number of comments publicly about the importance of this issue and the reality that leaks have a potential to interfere with ongoing operations and it's not an exaggeration to say to endanger lives of american intelligence officials and others. so it's something i know within the intelligence community we take extraordinarily seriously. >> and i assume you're same position, madam secretary? >> yes. i spoke with director clapper

and promised our full cooperation and whatever investigations occur and also with the f.b.i. in the same vain. >> what's your position on -- have these disclosures impacted our national security? >> they're certainly not helpful. i'll just leave that for now. >> that's what i would say as well. obviously leaks, as i said, could be very damaging. in this instant, these leaks are now the subject of investigation and i wouldn't want to comment any further. >> well, let me move on to that. you're both former senior federal prosecutors. attorney general holder has refused bipartisan requests -- and i'd note bipartisan requests -- to appoint special counsel to investigate these disclosures relying on prosecutors to do the job. in your professional opinion, is it realistic to expect a

u.s. attorney to question senior members of the administration regarding these disclosures? madam secretary? >> yeah, as a former united states prosecutor, they're not lying prosecutors in that seasons. they are presidential appointed and senate confirmed and they act independently in a number of matters so i think that's an appropriate way to proceed. >> the hearing continues later on c-span.org. we're breaking way. the house gaveling in. they'll vote on congressman ron paul's bill calling for an audit of the federal reserve. also, today, continued debate on replacing president obama's offshore leasing plan with one that would open additional areas for gas development. and a bill today that would change the way federal agencies issue regulations. it would limit federal issuance of regulations under a bill coming up this afternoon on the house floor. the senate, meanwhile, continues debate on democratic

and republican versions of expiring tax cuts. you can follow senate debate on c-span 2 with a procedural vote on the democratic tax cut proposal set for 2:15 eastern. now live to the house floor here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker: the house will be

in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. as we begin the 15th year since that terrible day, we ask your blessing once again upon the families of officer jacob chestnut and detective john gibson. we ask as well that your protection on the entire capitol police corps who mourn the loss of their brothers in uniform. thank you for calling them all to their lives of service. please hear our prayers for the members of this assembly, upon whom the authority of government is given. help them to understand the tremendous responsibility they have to represent both their constituencies and the people of this great nation of ours. this is a great but complex task , grant them as well the gift of

wisdom to sort through what competing interests might exist, to work a solution that can best serve all of the american people. finally give each member peace and give all americans generosity of heart to understand that governance is not simple but difficult work, at times requiring sacrifice and forbearance. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre. mr. mcintyre: 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? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, defense sequestration is a very real denger that will threaten our national security, put our brave men and women in uniformat risk and destroy up to one -- uniformat risk and destroy up to one million jobs. the president avoids action on this extremely important issue. house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon has said, quote, we are overdue from guidance on the administration on how they interpret the law and plan to interpret squeast ration mechanically, end of quote. last may house republicans voted to prevent sequestration by passing legislation which

replaces these drastic defense cuts while maintaining a strong national defense. additionally, one week ago today, the house passed sequestration transparency act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 414-2, which holds the administration accountable to these cuts. i urge the president and senate to act before it's too late and hundreds of thousands of hardworking americans lose their jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never fore get september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: on a day the congress will decide to audit the fed, "the washington post" said the new york fed did not communicate in key meetings that british bank barclays had admitted that it was rigging to libor, the index which sets interest rates worldwide. the fed wants to be spared a full audit.

they want monetary deliberations private. then they use that privacy shield to keep irregularities from regulators and from congressional review. of course the fed wants to continue a system where there's no transparency, no accountability, where they can cover up manipulations of markets and interest rates. should we endorse this system when things fall apart, who do the banks come to clean up the mess? congress. the fed creates trillions out of nothing and gives it to banks. congress is in the dark. the fed sets the stage for the subprime metdown. congress is in the dark. the fed doesn't tell regulators bheas going on. congress is in the dark. it's time to bring the fed into the sunshine of accountability. vote for the audit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to bring attention to recent attacks by the boca haram terrorist group in nigeria.

mr. pitts: the attack on july 7 and 8 left 198 families displaced, 88 people dead and 187 houses burned. on july 8 in the mass funeral for the victims, they were attacked. two servicing members of the national assembly were also killed. boca had a ram took credit for the -- haram took credit for the attacks stating that christians will not know peace again, end quote if they do not accept islam. madam speaker, these attacks are acts of terrorism performed by a terrorist group against innocent christians. it's time the state department label them for what it is, a foreign terrorist organization. we must not be afraid to identify and confront attacks of terrorism wherever they might be. our prayers are with the innocent victims as they mourn the loss of their loved ones. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. on february 12, 2009, flight 3407 crashed into a house in my district killing all the passengers and an individual in his home. ms. hochul: out of that devastation arose a spirit that actually ignited this congress to have pilot training rules that would have prevented the crash. sounds like a happy ending, doesn't it? and yet this week, because the house rules committee refused to allow my amendment to protect those specific rules, we are at risk of losing all those hard-fought bipartisan safety reforms. with the so-called regulatory freeze act, these reforms would simply die. for those who voted for them in the past how call them job killing. i call them people saving. listen, i know we need to end

overburdensome regulations but there is a commonsense way to do. but to freeze all government regulations, all of them, is over the top, even for this town. this only proves that washington is broken and we need to fix it. this country deserves a better cock. thank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: -- deserves a better congress. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman is recognized rise? >> i rise to recognize the 11-year-old baseball team for winning the global world series championship earlier this year. during the tournament the mountain home bomb squad suffered a first-round loss but went on to loss six straight games. they defeated the missouri wildcats 10 had been-1. this is a great source of pride for the entire arkansas community. mr. crawford: i want to thank the coaches for their leadership on the 11 and under global world series championship. additionally, i want to congratulate the players for

their leadership as well. now that the bomb squalled has brought a world series trophy home i have no doubt that the players will set new higher goals to achieve. congratulations to the mountain home bomb squad and the entire community for their world series. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. chu: few things are at stake when it comes to a right to vote. generations have fought, died and bled so we can have a voice in our democracy. that's why we must guard against measures that take this away. like the chinese exclusion act of 1882 which prohibited all chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens so that they would not be able to vote. it lasted 60 years until 19 3, preventing people who lived in this country for decades from

exercising their voices. laws like this, poll taxes or literacy tests should be a thing of the past for america. every u.s. citizen, no matter their background, should have access to the polls. but today state governments across the country are enacting laws making it much harder for as many as five million americans to vote, requiring, for instance, photo i.d.'s for grandmothers who voted for years but no longer drive. when barely half of americans vote, we should not be erecting more barriers to democracy. we should be removing obstacles. we must protect the right to vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? i mean illinois. pardon me. >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. hultgren: i co-hosted a jobs fair in the western suburb of chicago with several of my colleagues. over 1,500 job seekers showed

up. i visited with more than 100 northern illinois business owners and each factory tour and office visit, i asked, what would it take for you to create one more job, just to hire one more person? the answer is always the same. cut red tape. the reality is 60% to 80% of all new jobs come from small businesses. red tape throws an unfair burden on small businesses and paralyzes job creators. it has led to the least number of business startups in decades. there's a reason we focus so much on rolling back red tape here in the house. it's jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to raise awareness of group a staph infection, a series of tragic events in my district has brought this health situation to my

attention. mrs. mccarthy: one of my constituent, a dedicated fireman, contacted my office after the death of his mother and 2-year-old son. shawn died just days after presented by staph a symptoms last february. after flying to new york for shawn's wake, mr. sweetman's mother died of group a staph infection just 14 days after her grandson. both were originally misdiagnosed with a stomach bug. while medical diagnosis presents enormous challenges, especially for rare diseases, i'm deeply concerned for the medical misidentification which led to these terrible deaths. recently, several of my colleagues and i sent a letter to the appropriations committee asking that we focus on this issue. i hope that we can come together to raise awareness for group a staph infections. thank you very much, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, the congressional budget office came out with its report yesterday, their latest analysis, of the president's health bill. mr. stearns: and what confirms is there's flaws in the law. c.b.o. reports that $1.6 trillion program will cost individuals and businesses $5 billion more than was initially estimated. c.b.o. says that the health premiums that they already predicted would increase by $2,100 now will increase even more. c.b.o. estimates that 11 million people who currently have employer-based coverage will simply lose their health plan. the president said we could keep our coverage but under the law employers are dropping coverage and premiums are simply increasing which drives up the cost of health care for everyone. and remember, this historically, the c.b.o. greatly underestimates their analyses. we need to repeal this law and replace it with commonsense

solutions that simply increases competition in the marketplace and places the consumer, not the government, in charge of health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, a number of former employees in a company in western new york are now suffering from cancer and other diseases due to radiation exposure as a result of having unknowingly worked with and around uranium during the cold war. mr. higgins: after a multiyear fight and thanks to the determination of workers and their families, those who were employed at the site from 1949 to 1952 are eligible for $150,000 in compensation for their injuries. however, the cutoff at 1952 is arbitrary because no serious mitigation was undertaken until 1976. madam speaker, those workers

should also be eligible for just compensation. i am working with our senators to urge the centers for disease control and the national institute for occupational safety and health to meet with these workers, hear their stories and finally grant them eligibility for just compensation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, president obama's failed economic policies have brought us more than 41 months of consecutive record unemployment. my state of mississippi and the nation are starving for jobs. in mississippi we like jobs and we want more jobs, not less. however, this president has been awol, absent without leadership, when it comes to protecting and providing for our economic and national security. mr. palazzo: both of which are under assault by this president and the do-nothing democrats in the senate. what keeps me up at night is the fear of sequestration. sequestration, if allowed to go into effect, is irreversible,

irresponsible, and will cost america one to two million jobs. sequestration will affect every community in every state in the nation for the worse. our economic and national security is symbiotic of one another. we must have a strong economy to provide for our national defense and a strong military to protect our economy. the american people do not want this administration to harm our economic and national security any more than it already has. stop sequestration now. i say to the president, it is time to lead, follow or get out of the way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i rise today to honor a superb public servant, dr. donna, who has served as the superintend ebtet -- superintendent of schools since 1981.

families have benefited greatly from her experience, dedication and leadership. the entire school district, including faculty, staff, students and parents, are sad to see her leave. access to a quality public education is a cornerstone of ensuring that our country and my home state of rhode island will succeed in the years ahead. making sure our young people have access to the best education possible is critical. i know that the doctor's vast experience, extraordinary dedication and professionalism will serve her well in her new position with east bay educational collaborative and benefit rhode island's schools from newport to winsock et. i congratulate the doctor on her new appointment, wish her well and thank her for her dedicated service. 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 virginia rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i join my colleagues this morning to sound the alarm of a serious threat facing our country, one that has been addressed by this body and

now awaits action by the senate and the president. it is not an external threat but one that is totally within our control. known as sequestration, the sharp, severe cut to our defense budget can and must be stopped. the warnings from the secretary of defense and each of our service chiefs must be heeded. the chief of naval operations described it this way. he said, the cuts would do severe and irreversible damage to our navy. madam speaker, where is the president's outrage at this prospect? mr. rigell: where is his leadership and his role as commander in chief? the house-passed ledge -- the house passed legislation which would stop the cuts. my amendment to the national defense authorization act requires the senate to address this head-on. madam speaker, we've led, i truly believe that, we've taken action to stop the cuts. the irrefutable truth is that the same is not true of the senate and the administration.

now, we have time to do what is right, but that time is short. i call on the president and the senate to do what is right, to lead, to lead by example, to bring us together as a nation, to stop the cuts. we must look to the future and shape the future, not look behind us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: madam speaker, the american people need a tax plan that will help grow the middle class and create jobs right here in the united states. the american people want jobs to take care of their families. sadly the republicans are holding the tax breaks for 98% of the americans hostage so they can prevent billionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share of taxes. the bush tax for the ultrarich has failed, i state, has failed to create new new jobs. they must be -- any new jobs. they must be allowed to expire. but instead of working together, i state, instead of working

together on a bipartisan tax plan to straighten our economy, republicans are pushing for a plan to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, on the backs of seniors, and the middle class, and end medicare as we know it by tushing -- turning it into a private voucher system. congress must stop protecting billionaires at the expense of medicare and the middle class. let's work together, let's work together on a bipartisan plan that will cut taxes for 98% of americans, protect medicare and create jobs right here in the united states. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i request to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: madam speaker, asow chair of the career and technical education caucus, i rise to recognize the retirement from penn state university's learning factory. carson's background in motorsports started in racing, while proudly serving in the united states army.

following service he went on to hold the international motorsports championship, three manufacturer championships and driver championships. since 1994, carson has served as supervisor of the learning factory, supporting the mission to bring real -- the real world into the classroom. by providing engineering students with hands-on experience through industry-sponsored projects. carson helped to oversee an expansion of the learning factory that doubled its size and in 2006 it was part of a team honored with the national academy of engineering's gordon prize for innovations and engineering education. carson has applied his motorsports background to assist nearly 700 students on 150 projects, has passed 13 majors and engaged students in five colleges. i commend mr. carson on his innovation and wish him the best in his retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from north carolina rise? >> permission to speak and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. madam speaker, as founder of the congressional caucus on youth sports, i rise to commemorate the national youth sports week we celebrate and to recognize 50 million children who participate in youth sports. it's fitting this year that national youth sports week falls on the eve of the summer olympic games because many olympians like andy roddick all began their careers as young athletes. mr. mcintyre: sports can make a difference in a child's life. student athletes make better grades, get in less trouble, and are less likely to be obese. sports can build character and teach values like sportsmanship, teamwork, civility and respect and discipline. and we cannot recognize the players without thanking the coaches and volunteers who mentor these kids. folks like my chief of staff, dean mitchell, my pastor, who was here today, matt rich, with whom my son steven has coached, and all the men others who give their time and their efforts to help our young people.

not all youth athletes grow up to be olympians but youth sports can shape the lives of all of us and make us better citizens, whatever our calling in life. may god grant that none of us are ever too busy to help a child. and i leave with you a final thought, go, team u.s.a. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. west: thank you, madam speaker. one of the things that seriously concerns me is this dark speck that hangs over our country right now that is called sikhation. that means we would hollow out our military force, we would have the smallest ground force since 1980, the smallest fighter aircraft that we've ever had since the creation of the modern united states air force. this morning as the army aviation caucus breakfast, i sat between two distinguished fliers, one was the commander of

the 160 special operations aviation regiment, another chief warren officer four. between the two of them they had almost 40 deployments into combat zones but also at that breakfast this morning was a former cadet of mine, now lieutenant colonel dave, a distinguished master aviator in the united states military. our men and women are watching us. the men and women that are best and brightest that this country can produce. as well our enemies are watching us to see what we will do to our united states military. let us learn the lessons from post world war i, post-world war ii, and post-korean war. let's not gut our united states military. let's own up to our responsibilities in article 1, section 8. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to request the house of representatives be allowed to vote on the 2011 farm bill. with many of the provisions of the previous farm bill set to

expire on september 30, and only 13 legislative days scheduled between now and then, we cannot afford delay. our farmers face an incredible amount of uncertainty, whether it's from mother nature or market prices. we cannot allow this congress to be another cause for concern. farmers in indiana and throughout our country don't have time for political games. they have a nation and a world to feed and an economy that relies on them to be all-star performers and to increase productivity every single year. mr. speaker, bring the farm bill to the floor now. if not, let's stay here through all of august, all of september, all of october, all of november and all of december until we get this work done. mr. donnelly: there is no excuse for not having a vote on the farm bill. we need a farm bill now. madam speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair would remind members that they are to address remarks to the chair. now, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon rise? without objection. ms. bonamici: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, madam speaker. this is an important week for the united states. as we host the international aids conference for the first time in 22 years. decades ago our country made the shameful decision that no one who's h.i.v. positive could enter our borders. with the president's lifting of that ban and better attention to the aids crisis, along with the advent of drugs that help those with h.i.v. live longer, we are approaching what we should have always been, a global leader in the fight against aids. countless oregonians have been affected by aids. i personally lost friends to aids. and as of june 30, more than 5,600 people in oregon were living with h.i.v.

it's time to eliminate the stigma associated with hiv-aids, focus on prevention, treatment and care. the participants at the conference this week show immense dedication to the fight against h.i.v. and aids. both in the u.s. and abroad. congress should have the same dedication. funding for prevention and treatment programs is crucial, as is funding for medical research and drug development. we've come a long way but there's still a lot of work to do. i urge my colleagues to join me, speak out, help to end the stigma, let's work together to fight aids. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor southern minnesota's own foods. for 75 years of producing its world renowned iconic product spam. entrepreneur george hormel opened up his meat processing plant in 1891 in austin, minnesota, but it was his son, jay, who came up with the idea

of canned spiced ham. mr. walz: thus in 1937 spam was born. spam served an essential role during world war ii. over 100 million pounds of spam was sent to the european front to aid the war efforts. after the war, spam's popularity sored globally. over -- soared globaly. over seven billion cans have been sold. since the inception of spam, they've kept their company's roots in southern minnesota, providing thousands of good-paying jobs and economic stanlt for middle class folks in as you -- stability for middle class folks in austin. they also give back. they partner with organizations to provide food formal nourished children around the world -- for malnourished children around the world. they opened the world renowned hormel institute that gave us omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. spam has fed our troops, created jobs and has become an iconic american product. so today i honor who are mel -- horme -- hormel's past and hon

say good luck to its future. -- and say good luck to its future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle on the tax cuts that the democrats are now proposing. mrs. maloney: yes we want to cut taxes for the middle class. we think it is critical for our economic recovery. we also want to cut taxes for everyone else, including the most fortunate. but only on the first $250,000 of their earnings. on that portion of their earnings, they will receive the exact same tax cut as the middle class. but if we hope to seriously address the issue of long-term deficits and debt, we can't do it by spending cuts alone. according to the nonpartisan

fact-checking organization, factcheck.org, in 2009 federal tax rates were the lowest level in 30 years. so let's make one of those hard choices the other side of the aisle likes to talk about. let's extend the middle class tax breaks, but let the tax cuts for the most fortunate expire and use every bit of that revenue to help pay down the deficit and get our economy moving in the right direction. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. >> madam speaker, keeping our nation safe is our most important responsibility under the constitution as members of congress. when we talk about sequestration, we're really asking, are we really going to shirk that responsibility, are we really going to cut national defense and force our country to grow weaker and weaker over the next 10 years? we will be left with our

smallest ground forces since 1940, fewest ships since 1950 and our smallest air force in our history. mr. rooney: our secretary of defense says these cuts will be devastating and will seriously damage readiness. if anything else we do hear matter if we knowingly let our defenses down. if we aren't ready to be able to defend ourselves. if there's wasteful spending in the pentagon budget that we could cut without impacting national security, then we should do so. i led the fight to kill the engine for the f-35 joint fighter program, joint strike fighter program, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. the white house doesn't dispute the impact of these cuts but won't put forward an alternative. the majority leader of the senate won't schedule a vote on the house bill but won't introduce a plan either. we have to do something to avoid these massive cuts to keep our country safe. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ellison: madam speaker, state legislators all across the country are passing photo i.d. laws that could strip millions of americans of their right to vote. students, communities of color, low-income individuals and seniors are particularly at risk of being disenfranchised. just one example, in march this year a world war ii veteran in tennessee was denied the right to vote because he did not have an i.d. that matched his assisted living address. in minnesota which is considering a misguided constitutional amendment on photo i.d., 215,000 renlsterd voters don't have a driver's license or i.d. card with a current address on it. and if it passes, it will disenfranchise all of them. why put these voters at risk?

proponents claim fraud. but there's not any fraud. the voter fraud is already illegal, and the number of confirmed cases is insignificant statistically. there are only a tiny number of cases, and for this to disenfranchise literally millions of people? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. deutch: madam speaker, we all know that wearing sunscreen, quiting smoking or steering clear of asbestos can reduce our cancer risk. yet, carcinogens and exposure to these cancer causing agents can be found in the products we eat. for most part, consumers are left in the dark with no way to know for sure if the makeup they use or the food they eat

contains known carcinogens. it's time to help consumers choose safer products for themselves and their loved ones and that's why today i'm introducing the cancer-free label act. it will give companies to market to consumers the product they make are free of cans know jens. just as consumers who refuse to buy baby products made with b.p.a. wiped these from the shelves. this bill will drive change. by passing the canner-free label act we will give families across america the opportunity to avoid cancer-causing agents and by promoting healthier choices we will even be able to save lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: and to revise and extend my remarks. madam speaker, i appreciate the moment of silence that we extended to victims of the

aurora, colorado, massacre yesterday. but the more telling silence is this body's refusal to address the issue of gun control. and as a result, a comparable number of americans would be killed by firearms every day. today's the anniversary of the shooting deaths of two our of capitol policemen and even more heart felt condolences after our colleague gabby was shot, but 60 more multiple murders have committed since then. 32 innocent students at virginia tech were massacred. and virginia's legislative body actually weakened the state's gun control laws, suggesting the fault was with the students because they weren't carrying firearms themselves. a simir comment was made by a member of this body that there should have been a shootout in that darkened theater. this is domestic terrorism, mr. speaker, and we should stop

being soft on such crime if shooting was committed by foreign terrorists, we'd send the marines out after them. but then foreign terrorists don't buy their weapons from dealers who are members of the n.r.a. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6167. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6168, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to implement the proposed final outer continental shelf oil and gas

leasing program 2012-2017 in accordance with the outer continental shelf lands act and other applicable law. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would like to remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. so pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam speaker, the bill we are now considering, h.r. 6168, is a very simple bill. it would implement president

obama's proposed offshore drilling lease plan for the years 2012 to 2017. late yesterday the house debated h.r. 6082, the congressional replacement of president obama's energy restricting and job limiting offshore drilling plan. these bills contain two distinctly different offshore drilling plans. in the house we'll have an opportunity to choose as to which one allows for more american energy production and more american job creation and which one continues to lock up america's resources. this debate is occurring during the 60-day mandatory review period provided for under section 18 of the outer continental shelf lands act which requires that a president to submit his proposed budget plan -- proposed plan to congress for review, he must submit it to congress before it can take effect. this 60-day clock started

ticking on june 28 when president obama's plan was submitted to the house and to the senate. now, madam speaker, i am the official sponsor of this bill to implement president obama's plan. i introduced this bill with the specific purpose of allowing the people's house to officially go on record as either endorsing the president's plan or registering its opposition to it. now, while i am the bill's sponsor, i am going to vote against this bill. i oppose the president's plan. it's a giant step backwards for american energy production and for job creation. madam speaker, president obama likes to give speeches claiming support for offshore drilling. however, i have observed his actions while in office are 180 degrees different than his rhetoric. when president obama was sworn

into office in january, 2009, nearly all of our offshore areas were newly opened for american energy production. this is the result of the public outrage in the summer of 2008 over $4 gasoline prices and that resulted in the federal government lifting the two moratoriums that blocked production on both the atlantic and pacific coasts. the will of the american people was clear. for the sake of family budgets, for small businesses and for an economy, we must produce more american energy in america to lessen our dependence on hostile foreign sources. so when president obama took office, there was an offshore energy plan to conduct lease sales in the new areas that were lifted after the moratoria were lifted. now, there were no under

moratoria. instead of seizing this opportunity to vastly increase american energy production, the president tossed that plan aside and delayed and canceled lease sales. including a sale scheduled for 2011 that would open a section offshore of the commonwealth of virginia. the obama administration has spent the last 3 1/2 years slowly writing a plan that takes our country backwards, a plan that effectively reimposes the drilling moratoria that was lifted in 2008. the president's plan keeps 85% of our offshore areas off-limits to energy production. the atlantic coast, the pacific coast and parts of the arctic are all kept under lock and key under his plan. his plan absolutely opens no new areas for drilling. as an example, after delaying

the virginia lease sale in 2011, the president doesn't even include it in his proposed plan. under president obama then, the absolute earliest that the virginia lease sale could happen is 2017. that's six years after it was scheduled to take place. in total, the president's proposed plan only includes 15 lease sales. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, this means that this president has the distinction of offering the lowest number of lease sales over a five-year plan since this program began, since this legislation establishing the review. madam speaker, that's worse than even jimmy carter's record. during the several hours of debate yesterday, there was little defense of the president's limited and weak offshore plan. in fact, a great deal of time was extended by the other side

trying to change the subject. rather than endorse or defend the president's offshore plan. i think that shows just how out of touch and unacceptable this plan really is. today we will hear the deliberate -- deliberately misleaded claim that it opens 75% of the known offshore resources. that is simply not true, madam speaker. it was meant to provide political cover for a failed record of offshore drilling. the cold hard facts are the president is effectively reimposing a moratorium on 85% of our potential resources offshore of america's coast. an attempt might be made that the claim does not represent the president's plan. madam speaker, it couldn't be more plaque and white. the bill exact low replicates

the offshore lease sale scheduled in the president's proposed plan. both by location and by the sale year. h.r. 6168 is the president's plan. now, just last week, secretary of interior salazar wrote that president obama's offshore plan is what the, and i quote, american people have asked for, end quote. in reality the american people want increased american energy production and new -- and more american jobs. the president's proposed plan fails to deliver on both american energy production and american jobs. so by voting against this bill, which i will do even though i am the sponsor of it, members of congress can stand up for the american people and reject the president's no new drilling, no new job plan. we can and we must do better and that is precisely why we had the debate and will have a

vote later on today on h.r. 6 082. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: i want to thank mr. markey for his forceful -- on this issue. i rise in support of legislation that would support the president's proposed offshore drilling lease sale plan for 2012 to 2017. this plan, which has been developed over the past few years with extensive public input is a responsible way to increase domestic production of oil and gas while still protecting our delicate and vital ocean environment. contrary to republican claims that the plan would restrict domestic production and hurt jobs, the president's proposed plan would actually open 75% of

offshore oil and gas resources to development. where there are resources, the land is being opened. 75%. in fact, domestic production of oil is at an 18-year high and gas is at an all-time high under president obama. at the same time that the president's plan includes new leasing, it also protects many of our most important ocean environments from drilling such as georgia's bank and other vital fishing areas off the coast of my state, massachusetts. georgia's bank is a valuable accomplish resource that has been central to our region's rich cultural heritage, economy and identity. for years these watters have been at the heart of the new england fishing industry and have historically been one of the country's most productive fishing grounds. income from massachusetts' fisheries has been valued at approximately $350 million annually and it's a key part of

this marine ecosystem. allowing oil and gas drilling on georgia's bank would threaten to destroy these rich fishing grounds and could have a devastating effect on the massachusetts economy. but the benefits of the president's responsible plan go well beyond just protecting massachusetts. this plan would also protect bristol bay in alaska from drilling. bristol bay, as many know, is one of alaska's most pristine fishing grounds and the source of much of the salmon that we consume here in the united states. the decision to keep these areas off limits was based on local recommendations and a lack of infrastructure and oil spill preparedness. if we open this fishing ground to oil drilling, the impact could be felt across our country. the republican plan would also require just one environmental review for every new lease offered in the atlantic, pacific or bristol bay, without taking into account the uniqueness of each of these locations.

while i certainly understand the desire to streamline these reviews, requiring one blanket review for the entire country is not the answer. the harsh climate of alaska is infinitely different than that of the gulf of mexico or the gulf of maine. it is important to know the conditions of each site before drilling is started or we could face another disaster like the 2010 b.p. deepwater horizon spill from which the gulf coast states are still recovering. so i call upon my colleagues to support the president's responsible offshore leasing plan and vote in favor of h.r. 6168. our support of the president's plan is support for the fishermen in massachusetts and throughout the united states. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the natural resources

committee and a subcommittee chairman, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the chairman. madam speaker, this bill we are considering under suspension simply codifies president obama's offshore drilling plan for the next five years. mr. lamborn: it's a simple bill and a simple vote. what do you choose for america's future? the congressional replacement plan we debated yesterday will harness america's vast offshore resources in both existing and new areas in a responsible way. our plan is the right plan to keep the united states competitive and to develop the resources that american families and american businesses need. it will generate more revenue for the taxpayers, more energy and more jobs. what does the obama plan under this suspension vote have to offer? no new areas for energy development and the lowest number of lease sales in the history of the five-year program, according to congressional research service. is that really the plan you

think is best to move our nation forward and generate high-paying jobs? look at this bar graph. this shows what was going on under president jimmy carter 30 years ago. and this five-year plan program has been going for more than 30 years and the 15 lease sales you see at the end of the graph is the lowest in the history of the five-year program. and if you remember jimmy carter, we had gasoline shortages. you could go to the gas station and buy gas if your license plate ended in an odd number and even number depending on what day of the week it was. so, we should not have the lowest number of lease sales in the history of our country. the obama five-year plan is the you cannot build it plan. you cannot build new infrastructure for energy. it tells the people of california -- virginia, excuse me, that they cannot build new rigs and explore new areas of the outer continental shelf

regardless of the bipartisan support of the governor, senators and representatives of virginia. the president's plan says you cannot build anything new, essentially reinstating a moratorium on the pacific and atlantic outer continental shelf. the president's plan locks up 85% of our nation's nearly two billion acres of o.c.s. resources. production on federal lands according to the energy information administration is down under the obama administration. i heard something earlier about natural gas production is up. that's on private land primarily because of fracking. we need to get federal lands producing again, and the obama five-year plan is not the plan to do that. the congressional replacement plan is. we should vote for more american energy and vote for more american jobs. so vote against this suspension bill and vote in favor of the congressional replacement plan.

thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: madam speaker, oil companies should begin drilling -- oil companies already hold leases in the gulf of mexico that are sitting idle, that contain nearly 18 billion barrels of oil according to the interior department. oil companies should begin drilling on those leases before asking that threaten massachusetts and other coastal states with new drilling. and now i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. for as much time as he may consume. mr. moran: i thank the chairwoman and i thank my friend and colleague from massachusetts. mr. chairman, in support of

president obama's proposed offshore drilling lease plan, i will vote for this. but i suspect that this bill will garner little support. and that's the reason why it was scheduled for consideration today. but unlike the republican majority in the house who favor drilling above all else, interior secretary salazar and president obama, they are acting more responsibly, in a balanced fashion. their five-year leasing plan attempts to balance the full range of public and private interests. their five-year leasing plan attempts to ensure that our coastal waters will continue to be a shared public resource. they were never meant to be the exclusive domain of the oil and gas industry. introducing drilling in new areas will disrupt established

industries like commercial fishing and beach tourism. there's no question about that. and there is no need to rush forward and open our entire coast to drilling when 75% of our offshore oil and gas resources are already available for drilling. in fact, more oil is in production today under the obama administration than at any time during the last 14 years. and more of the public's lands and waters have been leased for drilling today than at any previous time in american riftry -- history. onshore oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of the public's land. though they choose to keep 45 million of those acres inactive. offshore more than 37 million acres of the outer continental shelf have been offered for lease since 2012, and though the oil industry has been on less

than 10% of these new available leases. as of june 1 of this year there were 1,980 rotary drilling rigs operating on u.s. lands and waters. more than all other countries combined. now, the president's plan does open up areas in the seas off alaska's northern coast to oil and gas development. i do have strong misgivings that adequate safeguards have been established to respond to a future oil spill disaster in these seas, because drilling will be done in a harsh environment, in a remote area, where disaster response capabilities are extremely limited and could be compromised by severe weather conditions which in fact are the norm up there. but i am in strong agreement that the 2012 to 2017 plan excludes lease sales that cover

waters in the midatlantic, especially off the coast of virginia. in addition to commercial fishing interests and tourism, lease sale 220 threatens military readiness. our national security interests. and it intersects shipping lanes for the atlantic's two busiest commercial ports. the u.s.-atlantic fleet is based at the norfolk naval base and operates in these very same waters that the president wants to protect. he wisely proposes simply postponing oil and gas development, primarily for that purpose. according to a report issued by the office of the deputy secretary of defense for readiness, there should be no lease sales in 72% of the proposed 220 lease area, since it's at conflict with live ordinance, air, surface, missile, bomb and gunnery exercises, carrier qualifications and follow-on testing and evaluation. an additional 5% would interfere with aerial operations and shouldn't host permanent surface

structures. in summary, 78% of proposed lease sale 220 that the president postpones wisely would be in areas that conflict with our national security interests. and a good deal of the remaining 22% would be within the shipping lanes to the ports of hampton and baltimore. so, mr. chairman, our coastal waters are a shared resource that host a number of competing and sometimes incompatible uses and the interest of the oil and gas industry, and to per pet wute -- perpetuate a myth that somehow we can drill our way to lower gasoline prices and energy independence, the republican majority is demonstrating a disregard for our other economic interests and the livelihood of millions of americans who are -- that livelihood is needlessly placed at risk in a drilling above all else policy. so i encourage my colleagues to support the president's balanced legislation and reject the other drilling bill that is on the

floor today. the president's trying to do the right thing and he should be supported. the other bill will have unintended, unforeseen but very adverse consequences to our economy. thank you, madam chairwoman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of a coastal -- or a representative of a coastal state and a very important member of the natural resources committee, mr. landry, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana will be recognized for three minutes. mr. landry: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, the rhetoric here just does not meet the facts. our energy policy in this country has continued to fail us because we have spent money in areas that are getting us no results. we know that to lower the cost for all americans we must lower

their energy bills. and we know that the cheapest form of energy out there is oil and gas. and yet the president puts out a bare-bones policy, but yet claims to want to create jobs. the lowest unemployment rate in this country exists in north dakota and the reason that unemployment is so low there is because they understand that drilling equals jobs. now, let's see what's going on up in the dakotas. because if we would believe what the gentlemen and ladies across the aisle would lead us to believe, is that the areas that we would like to open up do not contain any resources, then they would believe, as the usgs