harassed or intimidated and imposes criminal penalties for violation of that protective order. the child protection act ensures that paperwork does not stand in the way of the apprehension of dangerous criminals. this bill gives the u.s. marshals limited subpoena authority to locate and apprehend fugitive sex offenders. unlike the other 300 federal administrative subpoena powers, which are used at the beginning of a criminal investigation, the marshals -- marshals' use will occur only after and only after these actions occur. the fugitive is arrested pursuant to a judge-issued warrant, indicted for committing a sex offense, convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in a law of court. the fugitive is required to register as a sex offender. the fugitive flees or other violates those register requirements and a state or federal arrest warrant is issued.

this narrow subpoena authority is critical to take convicted sex offenders off the streets. the task forces were launched in 1998 and officially authorized by congress in the protect our children act of twit 2008. . it is a network of 61 coordinated task force that is represent over 3,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and pros cuetoryial agencies dedicated to child exploitation investigations. since 1998 the force has reviewed more than 280,000 complaints of alleged child sexual abuse and arrested more than 30,000 individuals. the child protection act increases the cap for the programs and makes several clarifications to provisions enacted as a part of the protect

our children act. finally, the bill requests a report from the justice department on implementation of the national internet crimes against children data system. yesterday senators blumenthal and cornyn introduced the companion bill in the senate. this bipartisan, bicameral bill is supported by a number of outside organizations which include the national center for missing and exploited children, and major cities chiefs of police. the fraternal order of police, the international association of chiefs of police, the national alliance to end sexual violence, the national district attorneys association, the national white collar crimes center, the national sheriffs association, the surviving parents coalition, the rape, abuse, incest national network, national alliance to end sexual violence, and the national association to protect children. and once again, mr. speaker, i want to thank congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz for her great work on this issue.

i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to protect america's children. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 6063, while i can appreciate the apparent attempt in the bill to better protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, not only fails to achieve that objective but also prevents -- presents serious constitutional concerns and other problematic provisions. first the bill creates a rebuttable resumption in 19 u.s.c. section 1514 if an individual photograph or personal identifying information about a person subject to a protective order, it, quote, serves no legitimate purpose which is an essential element of the offense of harassment and intimidation. this rebuttable presumption would shift the burden of proof in this case from the accuser to

the accused by requiring the accused to prove the person in the photograph or information about the person served a legitimate purpose. and therefore under current law and the fundamental principles of the constitution, the burden is on the accuser to prove yard -- beyond a reasonable doubt this offense, not the obligation 69 accused to prove his innocence. this provision violates the constitutional rights of defendants who may be innocent of the underlying charge and who are entitled to be presumed innocent. coincidental inclusion of protected person of a family photo posted over facebook or email may unintentionally and could he i.n.s. -- unintentional or coincidental should not be presumed to be a crime. what's wrong with the normal process by which the accuser has

to show the posting was for her harassment or intimidation. to make an innocent person prove his incense is not only unnecessary and unfair, but unconstitutional. in francis v. franklin a 1985 supreme court case the government argued that the constitutional issue regarding the rebuttable resumption there was overcome by the defendant's ability to rebut the presumption. the supreme court, however, found that argument unpersuasive . the court said a mandatory presumption instructs the jury it must infer the presumed fact if the state assumes certain facts. such a presumption can be conclusive or rebuttable. the key whether -- is whether it is mandatory. that is whether the jury must make a presumption, may be possible to rebut, if the state proves certain facts. in light of the fact that section 3-d-2 of h.r. 6063

explicitly mandates the court shall presume that there is no legitimate purpose, this provision is exactly the kind of mandatory rebuttable presumption that the court repudiated in the francis decision. in another problem with the bill is it adds a new criminal offense of violating a protective order. minor activities note intended to cause harm or distrust, such as a phone call or email can result in a federal criminal charge not as a violation of federal law protecting a witness. there are laws against that. but as a technical violation of a civil order. judges already have plenty of laws and authority to protect victims and witnesses. they already have comprehensive -- there is already a comprehensive statutory scheme in place to assist judges and law enforcement in protecting witnesses in federal criminal proceedings. in addition, the federal criminal provisions with heavy

penalties, the authority of judges to enter protective orders for the protection of all witnesses, including children, the judge should have immense contempt and other powers to accomplish this goal. thus the additional criminal offense is unnecessary and unproductive. we should stop adding unnecessary criminal laws to the criminal code. in previous congresses we have had hearings regarding the general problem of overcriminalization of conduct and the overfederalization of criminal law. members of both parties then expressed concern over this. we already have over 4,000 federal criminal offenses in the code, along with an estimated 300,000 federal regulations that have posed criminal penalties. often without clearly setting out what will be subject to criminal liability. this bill is yet another example of adding more unnecessary crimes and penalties to the federal code. moreover, such a provision moves the protection of responsibility from the judge in the case to a

prosecutor who decides when there is a violation and when to bring charges for the violation. given the fact that many proceedings involve child witnesses also involve family members of the child witness in emotionally charged situations, the addition of more criminal provisions to this mix is not helpful. this provision allows the imposition of a federal -- nell any up to five years in prison for a violation. it is unnecessary, overbroad, and harsh, especially given a restraining order can be violating by simply making an innocent phone call. the further problem with h.r. 6063 it would give u.s. marshal authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex offenders. i'm not convinced that extending this extraordinary exparty judicial authority is appropriate. research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be complying with the law are actually no more apt to commit a criminal offense than those who are client.

there is no compelling reason to convene a special authority for the u.s. marshal in the case of rergesterd or unregistered sex offenders. there is no urgent or i am nent threat context in rounding up alleged nonclient sex offenders, which as we just said, are no more likely to commit a crime than those who are complying with all the tents of the law. -- technicalities of the law. the existing scheme for administrative subpoenas for law enforcement focuses on extreme situations such as the presidential threat protective administrative subpoena. we approve that power a few years ago to assess and -- assist in the protection of the president when the director of the secret service has determined that an imminent threat is posed against the life of the president of the united states and he has to certify the same to the secretary of the treasury and the attorney general has the same kind of power in child exploitation cases. both of these are cabinet level

officials. i offered an amendment to remove the provisions extending this type of judicial authority to u.s. marshals. upon failure of that amendment i then offered an amendment to continue limiting the authority to the issuance of administrative offense subpoenas to cabinet officials to ensure that this extraordinary judicial power is used discreetly and only in circumstances where it is absolutely warranted. those amendments were defeated and therefore this bill gives more power to the marshal service in cases where there is no proven need for the power. more power than the secret service has when faced with an imminent threat to the president of the united states. despite fierce constitutional -- despite fierce constitutional issues and other problems, this bill was introduced on june 29, marked up in the committee 12 days later, on june 10, which was the very next day the congress was in session, clearly these provisions need more

considering. -- consideration. for these reasons i urge we defeat h.r. 6063. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. smith: i have no further speakers on this side. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. recognize the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from florida, a co-sponsor of the bill. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: recognize the gentlelady from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the child protection act of 2012, which i'm honored to co-sponsor with my good friend, chairman lamar smith. chairman smith and i are proof positive of what bipartisan working relationships can accomplish, especially because we both agree that protecting the safety and well-being of our nation's children is our highest priority. that's why i'm so pleased that this bill which was reported favorably out of committee on voice vote is before us today. this is an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of children nationwide.

thousands of whom are plagued by abuse, terror, and assault that we cannot even imagine. in 2008, i was honored to sponsor the protect our children act of 2008. which provides the safety net and resources to law enforcement agents who fight sexual predators. this commonsense bill builds on the progress that we started to ensure law enforcement can combat one of the fastest growing crimes in the united states, child pornography. we must ensure that investigators have every available resource to track down predators and protect our children. this bill ensures that paperwork does not stand in the way of protecting our kids. mr. speaker, i have learned far too much about the world of child pornography since i first took on this cause four years ago. there are many aspects of it that are disturbing beyond words to describe. like the fact that in a survey of convicted offenders more than 83% of them had images of children, younger than 12 years

old, and almost 20% of them had images of babies and toddlers who were less than 3 years old. and let's remember these aren't just images of naked children. these are crime scene photographs and videos of children being beaten, raped, and abused for the sexual pleasure of the person looking at the photo or the video that are beyond our worse nightmare. let's also remember these are children who are often being victimized by someone in their circle of trust. someone who was supposed to protect them and someone who instead chose to do them harm. these children only have the law to protect them because their protectors failed them. and caused them harm. while it's not often we have an opportunity to pass a bill here that quite literally means the difference between life or death, this is one of those times. that's why i as a member of congress i know i and chairman smith and the members of

congress here today citing to protect the children of this country will stand strong and continue to press forward on their behalf. i'm proud and honored to be the lead democratic sponsor of this bill and i'm thankful to my friend, chairman smith, for his continued leadership and support for this crucial cause. as he mentioned he list -- the chairman listed some of the organizations that are supporting this bill. i will add others. this bill is supported by the rape abuse and incest national network, national council of jewish women, men can stop rape, and the florida council against sexual violence, among the other worthy and proud organizations that chairman smith listed. we are grateful to all of these organizations for their endorsement of this bill and continued support for all victims of sexual assault and abuse. i urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting this crital legislation. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the gentleman from texas. mr. scott: i yield back.

mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 063. so many as are in favor say aye. -- 6063. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman from virginia. >> i object on the fwrounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this bill is postponed. mr. smith: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 4362. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. clip h r. 4 62, a bill to stop

identity theft and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 4362 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i'm pleased to be an original co-sponsor of h.r. 4362, the stop identity theft act of 201, which my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from florida, ms. debbie wasserman schultz. this is a borne bill that strengthens penalties for tax return itentity thieves. tax fraud is a real problem and congress should do all it can to protect citizens from this costly crime.

tax fraud through identity theft is a rapidly growing enterprise in the yeats. criminals use stolen identities to steal income tax refunds from unsuspecting victims. with nothing more than stolen information, social security numbers ander that or sponding names and birth dates, criminals have filed thousands of false tax returns and received hundreds of millions of dollars in wrongful refunds. the thieves deceive the internal revenue service and file the rush before the legitimate taxpayer files. the criminals then receive the refund, sometimes by check, but often through a convenient but hard to trace prepaid debit card. they wait for the mail to deliver these cards and checks at abandoned buildings. postal workers have been hurt

and even killed as they made their rounds with trucks full of refund checks. they will claim someone who is no longer living with the defendant on their own -- as a dependent who is no longer living with them. and sometimes someone else has already falsely claimed their return. the i.r.s. identified 9,000 false returns for 2010 alone, for which identity thieves would have received millions in refunds. those are just the ones they caught early. it's estimated by the i.r.s. that they missed an adegreesal 1.5 million returns with fraudulent refunds with more than 5.tissue worth more than $5.2 billion. the number of these cases has increased every year since 2008. h.r. 4 62 is a bipartisan bill that strengthens criminal penalties for tax returns --

tax return identity thieves. it adds tax return fraud to the list of predicate offenses for aggravated identity theft and expands the definition of an identity theft victim to include businesses and charitable organizations. h r. 4362 also improves coordination between the jus tess department and state and local law enforcement officials in order to better protect groups that are most vulnerable to tax fraud from becoming future victims. the changes to federal law proposed by h.r. 4362 are important to keep pace with this ever-increasing crime. tax identity theft costs american families and taxpayers millions each year. it also results in confusion and needless worry as taxpayers must work to correct the i.d. problem created by the false filers. it is critical that we take further steps to reduce the number of people who are victimized by this crime. again, i want to thank congresswoman debbie wasserman

schultz for her great work on this issue. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 4362 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4362. the penalty for itentity theft is a mandatory term of two years this bill would subject more people to mander to minimum sentences and therefore to all of the problems that have been repeat think shown to be associated with mander to minimum sentences. mr. scott: fraud and identity theft are serious and growing problems but what we do to address the problems of fraud and identity theft should be measured and effective. i appreciate the sentiments and

efforts behind h.r. 436 but i cannot support an effort that seeks to stop one injustice by applying another. buzz of the mandatory sentences in h.r. 4362, this bill is not an appropriate solution to the problem of identity theft. i'm not saying someone who commits these crimes should not be sentenced to two or five years or more but it is inappropriate and unjust for congress to sentence an offender based solely on the anymore of the crime, years before any facts or circumstances of the case and the character of the defendant are known and taken into account. mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and been found to distort rational sentencing, to waste taxpayer money, discriminate against minorities and violate common sense. even if everyone involved in the case from the arresting officer, the judge, even the

victim, after all the facts and circumstances of the case are presented at trial by the prosecution and defense, even if they all conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case, it must still be imposed. mandatory minimum sentences based merely on the name of the crime remove the sentencing discretionary -- discration from the judge and this is why girlfriends end up serving more time than their crack dealing boyfriends. teenagers having consensual sex with their girlfriends getting 1 years. a recent case of marisa alexander in florida, a mother of three and graduate student, sentenced to a mandatory minimum 20 years for discharging a gun to warn off an abusive husband in a

dispute. warning shot. airlinecally, if she'd shot and killed him under those circumstance the maximum penalty for voluntary manslaughter in that state is 15 years. you want to know how those mandatory minimum bills pass? watch this bill. i offered an amendment to the committee markup of the bill which would have povided a maximum sentence of four years and 0 years instead of the two or five, respectively. that way offenders whose conduct warranted it could be snned to higher amounts of time if it was appropriate but for those whose conduct did not, such as bit players who play a minor role in a minor offense, the judge could arrive at a proper sentence. it is the height of legislative arrogance, in my view, for congress to conclude it is in better perspective to arrive at an appropriate sentence in advance knowing nothing about the facts and circumstances of the case than the judge charged with that responsibility who has heard all the facts and circumstances of the case.

in addition, mr. speaker, the department of justice has recently expressed concerns with the bill which indicate we should have had a ledge sleative hearing on the bill to hear from stake holders and those who have concerns about the legislation. even though i support the intent of the sponsors to do more to address identity theft, for the reasons stated, the two and five-year mandatory sentences make this bill indefensible and i cannot support it. i reserve the bhns of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from florida, the sponsor of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise today to urge my leagues to support h.r. 4362, the stop identity theft act of 2012. many of you have seen the recent headlines calling

attention to the escalating nationwide epidemic of tax return identity theft. an unsuspecting taxpayer gos to file their tax return only to be toldly bithe internal revenue service that someone else has already filed and claimed their hard-earned tax refund. this happened to one of my constituents, a 64-year-old teacher. when her accountant filed her tax return in april of last year, she was told by the i. -- he was told by the i.r.s. she had already filed. she did what the i.r.s. said and filed a report with the police but after 10 months had heard nothing. for her 2011 tax return she was informed that she was ok to proceed with filing her return this year. jones' accountant filed only to learn she was once again a victim of tax lurn identity

theft for a second year in the -- in a row. no one should have to go through the trauma of having their tax return stolen, certainly not two years in a row. and this case unfortunately is not an anomaly. my office has been inundated with constituents who have had their tax return stolen. i know this is a problem in chairman smith's district and his home state of texas as well. the amount of theft that goes on with this type of case is really astronomical. it's stories like joan's that prompted me to file this legislation that's before us on the floor today. the crime of tax return identity theft has quickly emerged other the last few years and congress must act to address this epidemic. tax return itentity theft wreaks emotional havoc on taxpayers like joan and costs the federal government billions. in 2011, the i.r.s. reported

51,602 tax returns and $5.8 billion were associated with fraudulent tax returns involving identity theft. that's a 280% increase since just 2010. these tax return identity thees hide behind a veil of technology. by stealing social security numbers and filing false electronic returns where the payoffs are almost instantaneous. right now, more chiefs and criminal organizations are turning to this lucrative, low-risk, high reward crime because law enforcement lacks the stiff penalties aed fored in other areas. buzz of the small lick leeklihood of getting caught on the minimal penalty, it makes sense for the thieves to roll the dice because the chances of getting caught and doing time at all is very low. in this instance, technology has simply outstripped the enforcement tools currently on the books. basically this crime is worth it for the criminals that are

committing it and we need to make sure that it's not worth it anymore so they don't have incentive to continue and they move on to the next thing and then we can go after them for that. we must protect the thousands of taxpayers like joan who fall victim to this crime, many of whom belong to vulnerable groups like seniors, veterans and even mymor nors. this act brings together stronger penalties to stop tax return identity thieves. this will add tax return fraud for aggravated identity theft. this statute was created in 2004 to fight identity theft crimes to facilitate other types of felonies. at the time, the problem of tax return identity thefts was very new and it wasn't included as part of the predicate offenses under aggravated identity theft. today it's become an urgent nationwide problem and we must

give law enforcement the tool need -- tools needed to combat this crime. with this change, it will help deter this kind of crime. importantly, the legislation also expands the definition of an identity theft victim to include businesses and charitable organizations. often these organizations, mr. speaker, have their identities stolen and used in phishing scheme to ex-trabblingt information from unsuspecting taxpayers. essentially what happens, you get an email from what you think is your bank or an organization you're used to giving donations to but it's not because these thieves have stolen that organization's identity and they're asking for your personal information and unsuspecting victims give them that information. by the way, you should never do that because your bank and a

charitable organization won't ask you for personal information. but the thees use harvested information to file fraudulent tax returns. on the i.r.s. website it's noted that this type of phishing scheme is the most common one seen by the i.r.s. this will ensure that thees who appropriate the identities of any business can be prosecuted. it calls for better coordination between the department of justice and state and local law enforcement to make the most efficient use of the law and resources. my own local law enforce. agencies in south florida have been flooded with crime reports of tax return identity theft and they need all the help they can get. it also callers in department of justice to report back on trends, progress on prosecuting tax return identity thefts and recommendations for additional legal tools to combat it. information and tai da -- data can be valuable tools to protect future victims.

this is the beginning of a congressional effort to combat tax return identity theft. i know this issue is deeply concerning to many of my colleagues and i look forward to working with them in their efforts. this is intended to provide targeted tools for law enforcement right away so it's better prepared before tax season rolls around and we have more victims who are going to have months and months of problems and billions of dollars lost. . it is a pleasure to work with you. and the various organizations that have supported and helped craft this legislation. in particular i'd like to recognize the national conference of c.p.a. coalition. we must ensure federal laws are keeping pace with emerging crimes such as tax return identity theft. it is time to make the prosecution of tax return identity theft a greater priority. the stop identity theft act is

an important step towards this goal and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. once again thank chairman smith for his leadership in working with me on this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. mr. smith: i yield back as well. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4362. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. smith: i object on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from texas makes a point of a quorum. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i object on the ground a quorum is not present and make a point of

order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6062, the edward byrne justice assistance grant program re-authorization act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 457, h.r. 6062, a bill to re-authorize the edward byrne memorial justice assistance grant program through fiscal year 2017. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6062

currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. and i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, who is a member of the judiciary committee and sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: mr. speaker, chairman smith, i rise today in strong support of legislation i introduced, h.r. 6062, the edward byrne memorial justice assistance grant program re-authorization act of 2012. the program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. it has been reported to as the cornerstone federal crime fighting program. the program provides state and local government with critically

needed resources to support a wide range of law enforcement activities, including prosecution, prevention, education, planning, correction, treatment, evaluation, and technology. as a former district attorney and as a united states attorney, i understand the tremendous value of funded projects in funding crime by improving the processes, procedures, and operations of criminal justice systems. my legislation being considered today re-authorizes the program for five years. i repeat, for five years through fiscal year 2017. this legislation is supported by the national criminal justice association, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs association, the national sheriffs association, the national district attorneys

association, and many more law enforcement organizations. h.r. 6062 enjoys bipartisan support including chairman smith and ranking member conyers of the house judiciary committee who are co-sponsors. the legislation was considered by the house judiciary committee and approved by a voice vote on july 18. i would like to thank the chairman of the committee for their help in ensuring that the authorization for this crital program cost not lapse. i urge -- crital program does not lapse. i urge all my colleagues to join me in our state and local law enforcement agencies by voting in favor of h.r. 6062. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speakepro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 6062, the

edward byrne memorial justice assistance grant program re-authorization act of 2012. the federal justice grant re-authorized under this legislation provide crital funding to state and local jurisdictions in their efforts to combat crime. especially during periods of national budgetary constraints, affecting the bottom lines of state and local governments, the j.a.g. grants are particularly important. across our nation many jurisdictions to shore up their budget are laying off police officers. when many of our citizens are experiencing economic hardship, we must not add to their burden by allowing public safety to suffer. h.r. 6062 reaffirms the federal government's commitment to assisting state and local governments in their effort to prevent and fight crime. but re-thorings of the byrne j.a.g. grant program is obviously just a first step. we must also follow through and actually appropriating

sufficient funds for the program. in addition, we should encourage allocation of grant funds to the full range of programs that state and local governments are allowed to fund. under current law state and local governments use the funding for programs or projects that improve law enforcement efforts, prosecution in court programs, prevention and education programs, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment programs, planning evaluation and technology projects, and crime victim and witness programs. each of these are essential to a comprehensive effort to protect us from crime and therefore all of them should receive significant funding under the byrne j.a.g. grant program. an imbalance and injustice -- justice assistance creates and impossible in anti-crime efforts. specifically an appropriate amount of funding should be allocated to prevent crime which would help reduce the amount of

money needed to fund the after crime cost of investigation, prosecution, and conservation, and victim assistance. we must also assist state and local governments to fund public defender programs in recognition of the fact that the public is also protected from injustice when we safeguard the sixth amendment rights of our citizens. finally it is essential the full range of other programs that assist state and local public safety initiatives, including the cops program, are adequately funded. the cops program has funded the hiring of more than 123,000 state and local police officers and sheriff deputies in communities across our nation and it has proven to be extremely effective in reducing crime. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of h.r. 6062. i commend the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, for his work on the bill. mr. speaker, i urge adoption of h.r. 6062 so we can reaffirm our commitment to funding public safety programs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i he yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nng new jersey -- from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from virginia for yielding me the time. i just want to reiterate what mr. scott just said. i have to say i have never had more requests and concern about programs from mayors and elected officials in my municipalities than i get for programs like this byrne j.a.g. program, like the cops program, like the safer program that deals with fire prevention. i think a lot has to do with the fact that many of my towns, i'm sure this is true across the country, because of the recession, because of budgetary constraints, are laying off

police, laying off firemen. don't have the resources, if you will, to deal with a lot of the crime prevention problems. so these programs are crucial to them. i wrant to -- i want to reiterate what mr. scott said about the fact that right now it's not only a question of re-authorizing but also making sure that there's adequate funding for it. if i could just use an example in my own district and that is last week i was able to announce that several towns in my district, the sixth district, have been awarded grants under the byrne j.a.g. program to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. one grant is administered by neptune in women fitting long branch, being my hometown, and another grant is administered by new brunswick and is helping perth amboy, and woodbridge. the funding is used to purchase law enforcement equipment and

supplies in new brunswick it's being used for a police week which will have mobile video and data equipment. this is really all about community safety which is of utmost importance. at a time when our local law enforcement has to cope with difficult funding levels, these federal grants make it possible for towns to support crit -- critical crime prevention activities that protect new jersey families and their residents. i can't stress enough how important this is. i'm very pleased today that on a bipartisan basis we are re-authorizing this, i think, for five years, and as mr. scott said, the next step is to make sure that there's adequate funding because this is a crucial program. that's why i came down here tonight to speak about it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6062. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. smith: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 747, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6169, to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for a comprehensive tax reform, providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 8, to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes. providing for proceedings during the period from august 3, 2012, through september 7, 2012, providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules and waving a requirement of clause -a of rule 13 -- 6-a of rule 13 of rule 8 -- rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1550, the federal law enforcement recruitment and retention act of 2011 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1550, a bill to establish programs in the department of justice and the department of homeland security to help states that have high rates of homicide and other violent crime and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scot, each will control 0 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative tais to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1550 as amended currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: h.r. 1550, the federal law enforcement recruitment and retention act of 2012 has been introduced by my friend and colleague on the committee, mr. peer louie cease of puerto rico. it helps focus the justice department's law enforcement areas on the -- efforts on the areas that need them most. crime rose starting in the 1960's up until the 1990's. states reformed their criminal laws to include tougher penalties and truth in sentencing laws and dedicated additional resources to target the rising crime rate. to a great extent, our national focus on crime has been successful. the violent crime rate in 2010 was half of what it was in 1991. crime in the united states has continued to fall in spite of difficult economic time sms the violent crime rate fell 5% from 2008 to 2009 and another 5% from 2009 to 2010.

despite this good news, we are far from a solution to the problem of violent crime in all areas of the country. there are still eyreas where violent crime remains a serious issue and is on the rise. for example, in my district, the number of voters in the city of austin nearly doubled in one year going from 22 homicides in 2009 to 38 homicides in 2010. puerto rico, home to the sponsor of this bill has experienced an increase in drug-related violent crime with more than 1,100 deaths in 201124erk homicide rate in puerto rico last year was more than five times the national average. the majority of this violence is attributed to the area's growing drug trafficking trade which has implications for mainland u.s. the problem of high crime areas may increase if they are not -- if there are not sufficient federal law enforcement -- not

sufficient law enforcement officers in these communities. the justice department started to dispatch surges of federal law enforcement officers to prevent and investigate crime in high-crime cities like philadelphia, pennsylvania, and oakland, california. h.r. 1550 continue this is. it directs the department of justice to consider in coordination with state and local governments the need to recruit, assign and retain federal law enforcement personnel in areas of the country with high rates of homicides and other violent crimes which of course should include puerto rico. h.r. 1550 has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the law enforcement community. the bill was are ported out of the jew dish year committee on a voice vote and i want to thank mr. peer louie cease for sponsoring this legislation. h r. 1550 improves the safety of those who live in fear in their neighborhoods. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. pll scot: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i rise in support of he h.r. 1550 federal law enforcement recruit kt act. it would require the department of justice and homeland security to place federal law enforcement officers in places with high rates of crime. recruitment and retaining law enforcement officers has been increasingly difficult in these areas in recent years. the difficulty in recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers is particularly acute in jurisdictions with high rates of violent crime. in fact the high ince tense of crimes in a jurisdiction can deter a federal law enforcement officer from seeking assignment in that jurisdiction and can frequently lead to high

turnover. the failure to retain a law enforcement officer has been estimated to result in approximately $100,000 in additional costs for the department of justice. h.r. 1550's amendment aims to amend this problem by directing the attorney general to give priority in placing and retaining agents in areas with high crime rates. it requires the department of justice to annually provide justice with a detailed report on how it's implementing this directive. h.r. 1550 is a modest but necessary measure to focus crime fighting efforts on the areas most in need. i, too, want to commend our league, the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi for his work on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1550 and reserve the balance of my tile. the chair: the gentleman reserves. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my -- mr. smith: i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from puerto rico, the sponsor of the legislation, mr. pierluisi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pierluisi: thank you, ranking member scot. mr. speaker, i want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the cherm of the judiciary committee, lamar smith, for supporting h.r. 1550 and for working with house leadership to schedule the bill for floor consideration. i also want to thank the ranking member of the judiciary committee, congressman conyers, the chairman of the subcommittee, congressman sensenbrenner, and the rnking member, congressman scot for their support. h.r. 1550 was unanimously approved by the judiciary committee and has been endorsed by the federal law enforcement officers association which represents over 25,000 federal law enforcement officers employed by 65 agency, the short title of this bill, as

modified, this the -- is the federal law enforcement resource allocation improve act -- improvement act of 2012. it would direct the department of justice when allocating resources to give priority to those areas of the country with high rates of homicide and other crime, including forcible rape, homicide and other crimes. it would require an existing official in the department of justice who will be responsible for developing practices and procedures for implementing this directive and monitoring compliance with the directive by the component agencies, including the federal bureau of investigation, the drug enforcement administration, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives and the united states marshal service. finally the bill would require the attorney general to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees.

it would specify which jurisdictions have a high incidence of homicide or other violent crime and would identify the steps the department of justice is taking to prioritize the law enforcement personnel to those high crime areas. in addition the report we described, the methodology the department is using to determine the total number of law enforcement decisions nationwideo alcoigs -- to authorize those decisions and to assign personnel to fill those authorized positions. the basis for h.r. 5050 is as follows. in recent years the number of murders and other violent crimes nationwide has decreased substantially. between 2007 and 2011, for example, the total number of murders in the united states decreased by 0% and the total number of violent crimes decreased by 18%. most jurisdictions, urban,

suburban or rural, have experienced a reduction in murders and other violent crimes. from the macroperspective the progress has been real and in many cases remarkable. much of the credit is due to law enforcement officers on the federal and local levels and has done -- and effective policing has made a tremendous different in our communities. some jurisdictions, sometimes referred to as hot spots, have been exceptions to this downward trend in violent crime. my own district, pleek is a case in point. today the number of annual murders in puerto rico is 90% higher than it was in 1990. between 2007 and 2011 alone, homicides rose by 55% with most of the violence linked to the drug trade. yet, the federal law enforcement footprint in the u.s. territory has not evolved in light of these changed serks. instead, it has remained stagnant. puerto rico may be the most

dramatic example of a u.s. jurisdiction where violent crime has increased rather than decreased but it's by no means alone. for example, flint, michigan, experienced a 73% increase in homicides between 2007 and 2011 while a major metropolitan area in the central valley of california witnessed a 100% increase in murders. moreover, there were numerous other areas where there has been some progress in reducing crime but where violence remains far too high. examples of such areas include detroit, memphis, oakland, little rock, birmingham, atlanta, baltimore, philadelphia, chicago, miami, and new orleans. h.r. 1550 would promote and institutionalize steps in the department of justice to -- steps that the department of justice has to its credit begun to take. they developed an initiative, the violent crime reduction

partnership, to help target resources to areas in need of additional law enforcement support. pursuant to this, more than 50 officials from the f.b.i., d.e.a., a.t.f. and d.o.j. criminal division have begun a four-month surge of federal law enforcement resources to prevent and combat in the philadelphia metropolitan area. this is a positive step that should be encouraged and replicated in other high-crime jurisdictions, which is what h.r. 1550 seeks to bring about. it is well understood that the methods d.o.j. may successfully employ to reduce violent crime in philadelphia or baltimore may need to be adjusted for use in san juan or st. louis, with the specific approach dependent on the nature of the crime problem that each jurisdiction confronts and other relevant factors. for that reason, my bill does not in any way try to micro

manage the department or try to promote a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting crime. h.r. 1550 seeks to ensure in this time of fiscal constraint on the federal and local levels that d.o.j. has in place a carefully crafted and consistently applied policy of limited law enforcement personnel to those areas where they were needed the most. again, i thank chairman smith, ranking member scot and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico yields back. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the virgin islands, dr. christensen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the ranking member for yielding. i rise in vor strongport of 46r789 r. 1550, the federal law

enforcement personnel and resources allocation improvement act of 2012. which would require the attorney general in the allocation of federal law enforcement personnel and resources to give priority to placing and retaining such personnel and resources ases states and local jurisdictions have had high incident of homicide and other violent crime. i commend my friend the congressman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi for his introduction, his hard work in getting it to the floor today. if this bill were to become law, my district, along with congressman peer louie cease will be one of the local jurisdictions qualified for having that high incident of vimet crime. this is not something we're proud of but it's due to it being a drug shipment point from central and south america to mainland united states. there are many other communities in our country that are facing the same or similar

incidents of violence and the blame in most cases can be traced to drug trafficking. in the case of the -- in the case of the virgin islandsed on puerto rico, it stems from the fact that we have become the route of choice for drug shipment to the east coast of the united states. according to the department of justice statistics in 2011, 165,000 metric tons were seized in the bahamas and gulf of mexico, up 36% over four years. up to 80 pk of cocaine traffic through the virgin islands and puerto rico is directed to u.s. east coast cities. congressman pierluisi and i were recently at a coast guard station in puerto rico and met with a commander of a ship that recently captured 1. kilos of cocaine off st. croix in the virgin islands, the fourth largest capture in history. these are also a threat to america's national security. in addition to guns, assault

weapons and drugs, the caribbean is susceptible to smuggling nuclear and all kinds of materials that could easily be used as staging areas for violence against our country. most tragic of all are the young people. many of whom i knew and took care of as a family physician who have been killed or who are now in jail. . unfortunately we too have one of the highest murder rates. our community was shocked when two of our young policemen in a high-crime area, but on what seemed to be a routine patrol, was shot earlier this year. both sustained injuries which go beyond the physical. one is paralyzed and will require life-long care and support. our community though is fighting back. our law enforcement has been meeting with those across the caribbean region who are working with the federal law enforce thament does exist in the territory. both of us, puerto rico, and the u.s. virgin islands, jointly have a high intensity drug trafficking, are a high

intensity drug trafficking area. we have a well intent rated by stull -- well integrated but still incomplete time -- team. but we do need more federal help, to help restore the safety of our communities, and protect the lives of our children. this is not only important to my constituents and me, it's critical to the well-being of the constituents of all of our colleagues, but especially those with high homicide and violent crime rates. and so in this legislation, which i'm pleased to co-sponsor, we are pleading for this critically important help to bring the vital federal resources to serve our community and to save all of our communities and to protect our nation. i urge our colleagues to support h.r. 1550 and i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from the virgin islands and the gentleman from puerto rico. i urge passage of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1550. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. smith: mr. speaker. i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of georgia for today, mr. heinrich of new mexico for today, ms. jackson lee of texas for today and ms. sutton of ohio for

today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. carter: i thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, we have got a lot of hard work to do in the next about three months around this place. but i want to talk tonight about a process that we are -- we have brought upon ourselves, and now we are faced with what i think could be one of the greatest catastrophes in the modern history of the united states. that is, almost the complete destruction of our military. through a process called sequester. we use a lot of big words around this house. that's one that half the people that sit in this room on a daily basis don't even know what it means, to be honest with us -- with you. but they know what the process does. and it's across the board d cuts across every level of government. but the reality of these cuts is that, at least in the

current makeup of our government, with so many -- so much of our expenses in this government being mandatory spending, and what we call entitlements, the lines share automatically falls upon the military -- the lion's share automatically falls upon the military, the defense department. but even more critical to this particular agreement which was made last -- at the earlier part of this year when we had one of our many shut down-the-government risks that has come upon this body in the last couple of years, the white house with the president, the majority leader of the senate and the speaker of the house met to discuss how to keep from having a shutdown of the government and how to raise the debt ceiling so we could continue to operate this

government. and with everyone recognizing that there was a looming crisis , spender monday -- spending more than we make for as long as i can remember, quite honestly, and therefore we are now in a problem of debt which is drowneding this nation. and the members of this body wanting to address that. the discussion was about how we would do it. and they came up with a concept of a supercommittee. most of that you keep up with current events know that we had -- that we formed a supercommittee whose purpose was to go and to come up with the cuts from the appropriate parts of this government so that we would reduce the spending, over $1 trillion, and thus we would start ourselves down the road to fiscal responsibility. this is what we set out to do. it was an honest effort.

let's be frank. it was an honest effort. everybody, whether they were reluctant to do is or not, they recognized that this was the issue that was before us. the question was, how to do this. and they came up with this supercommittee and with an agreement, they agreed that if the supercommittee failed, then the process of sequester would be -- would replace the actions of the supercommittee. there will be a political debate that would be back and forth as to who killed the effort of the supercommittee, but whatever fault may lie, wherever it may lie, the supercommittee failed. those of us who are in this house and ask about sequestering, looked at it and worried about it as the vote came up and whether or not this was the right thing to do. we asked the question of the leaders here, and i'm sure both

sides of the aisle this question was asked, so what happens if the supercommittee doesn't perform? and we were told, sequester. which is the worst possible thing to happen to this house. i think both sides of the aisle agree to that. but don't worry. it's never happened, it never will happen, we will do the right thing. well, the committee failed, it is almost august and quite honestly the number of legislative days left before the election can almost be counted on these two hands. and we haven't addressed how we're going to do this. but the folks who may most be affected have no choice but to address it. and the agreement is, that came

out of the meeting between the president and the congress, was that, well, if we had the $1.1 trillion, i believe it is, number, we come out of the defense department, and the other half would come out of domestic spending. well, the defense department, being the defense department, and having to have -- they cannot function without planning, are already planning what they would have to do in case this occurs. and so i want you to realize what -- we talk big ideas and issues around here but the reality is this. this is about a bunch of people who chose the profession for their life of defending our nation. and we shouldn't ever forget that. that the ordinary soldier,

sailor, airman marks are inand coastguardsman, that volunteered to join their branch of the service, chose the service, most of them, as their profession. this is not the old draft military of the second world war or the veet -- the korean war or the cold war. thanks volunteer military. this is a young man or woman saying, i choose the job of fighting for my country. this is what i choose to do with my life. i will earn my way, i will earn my promotions by being a good warrior. my wife and i, when we first learned that we were going to have the honor of representing what we call the great place, fort hood, in texas, we wanted to meet with soldiers and a place we could find them, to meet with us around the

thanksgiving time was in korea. and we went and met with fort hood soldiers in korea. most of them were from texas and they were talking to us and i asked a question, i was new to getting to talk to the ordinary soldier. these were just ordinary soldiers, there may have been a couple of sergeants there but most of them were not highly ranked. and i said, ok, how long are you going to be -- are you guys going to be in korea? guys and gals. and they said, oh, three months, six months, whatever time period was. i said, ok, what do you want to do next in the army? oh, we want to go to afghanistan or iraq. this is back in 2004. from someone who calms -- comes , of my age, who comes from the memory of the draft army, that was a shocking answer.

we want to go from this place in korea to the place where the war is. and we'd like to go directly there. 19-year-old kids, kids like my son coaches in football and baseball back home, kids that could have been the same kids that played on the team the year before were sitting there at the table telling us, we want to go to war. and i said, i'm kind of taken back by that answer. it was unanimous, by wait. eight people around the table, all unanimous. we want to go to war. and then this young 19-year-old soldier said, sir, that's what we are. we're trained warriors. that's what we do for a living. we fight wars. and we want to go where our country, where our country needs us. we want to go to war. not because we like war,

because we are professional soldiers. we do this for a living. this is a mindset that goes back in history a long ways. some of the greatest armies in the world have that mindset. that this is the job we chose for our life. now because we have been -- not willing to live within a budget in the united states, and we're all at fault, every one of us, every one of us, but the people in this house, both sides of the aisle, we're all at fault. we spend more than we make and we wonder why the world doesn't work. how many people sit at home, looking at their household budget and said, my god, we spend more than we make, no wonder it doesn't work? well, it's just that -- that's like the law of graphicity. it's a natural thing. you can't spend more than you make and not ultimately be in trouble. even when you take it out of other people's pocket like the

government. so, now we are faced with a crisis and we are talking about a solution on that crisis that's going to fall on the back of that 19-year-old kid who talked to me in korea. because his goal in life was to rise in the ranks by being a good soldier. as a good soldier, his job, if he did a good job, he would be promoted. and he would rise in the ranks. and maybe in his heart his goal was to be -- someday be a command sergeant major of one of the commands in the army. the pinnacle of a career of the ordinary soldier. and because we spend too much and can't agree on how to cut it, so we're going to have to go to automatic cuts, that young man's job is at risk. now the president says he is going to protect the jobs of the soldiers.

and i hope what he means is he's not going to fire anybody. although one of the papers that i was reading an article in said, he's not going to put the -- cut the pay of the soldiers. i happen to be blessed with one of the things that i'm very proud of in this body, is i am a co-chair of the army caucus here in the congress and i've heard the generals talk about what sequester means to the army. . it means cuts of $is00,000 tsh-100,000 to 190,000 soldiers. that means that kid i talked to in korea who has been on three tours in afghanistan and iraq, he's now done a good job, fought for his country, performed in an excellent manner, has been promoted, he's in the beginning

of the middle of his career, and because we can't agree on how to reduce our run away spending, that kid's going to lose his job. not only lose his job but career. he chose the united states army, but in a great many cases out of patriotism for this country. he didn't sign on to be in somebody else's army, he signed on to be in our army. he's done everything right and yet because we can't control our spending, that young man and those young men and women at that table could lose their careers if they -- that they chose for their lives. careers that are things to be proud of as americans. that there are young people willing to do this for our country. when we talk to these big members and throw around big

words, you got to remember it affects human beings. we've got some shots here i want to show you a little bit. get some idea of what we are talking about. where is the spending? ok. this is entitlements, and spending is at $26.1 trillion. nondefense spending is at $11.3 trillion. defense spending is $3.6 trillion. that's where the spending is in our country today. let's look at what we propose to do as a solution undercy questionser -- under see quester, upped entitlements $171

billion out of $26.1 trillion. nondefense spending, $32 billion, out of $11.3 trillion. over here in defense, we are taking $422 billion, the highest of any of these numbers, out of $3.6 trillion. this is about a 42% cut. this is out of whack. what's this out of whack going to do to our military? let's start off with what are we talking right now in the country? we are talking about our economy. we are talking about getting ourselves out of this slump we are in and putting americans back to work.

if anybody thinks it's a good idea to create a program that loses american jobs, to me i just can't fathom it. according to cnn, one million jobs will be lost undercy quester. that's not --undercy quester -- under see quester, that's not military jobs. here's something else that's pretty frightening. as we look down the road at this cy questionser program -- see quester program, we have the law under the congress, we anticipate the loss in an industry of jobs based upon the actions of this body, they have to pass out pink slips 60 days before that might happen. in some cases 90 days.

the sequester is the second of january of next year. if we do nothing, by the second of january we are going to have these across-the-board cuts. we are going to have one million people get pink slips in either october or november. is that going to rise the enthusiasm for growing our economy in america? it's absolutely as destructive as can be. we have a responsibility to try to do something about this and we can't keep kicking cans down the road in this body. if we do, one of these days we'll get a broken foot. and already there seems to be a break in the can. this is serious stuff. we've got real people in the

military. we have real peoples' jobs being affected in the defense industry. these are people who go to work like everybody else in this country. somehow we hear the word defense industry and we assume some kind of fat cats. go over to one of the defense industries and see the machinists and the guys that do all kinds of jobs, they create these great instruments that are instruments of war we use for our military. and also instruments of peace. all these things are at risk and the people who give those jobs are at risk right now as directs the sequester. i'm joined by my friend, mr. bishop, from utah. would you like to jump in here and let's talk a little bit about this? you are on the armed services committee, i believe. i yield you -- we got 20-something minutes to start. other we are down to what? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman has 10 minutes remaining. mr. carter: we have 10 minutes left. tell us -- your view from the committee. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from texas taking up this particular issue. promising you'll get a few minutes to finish this up here as well. can i start by moving off where we are for just one second and going back to my real love which is still baseball. if you recall back in 1962 they created the amazing new york mets. a team that set the standard for ineptitude in professional sports. anyone who wants to seek that, follow that now has a perfect standard by which to judge your effectiveness in becoming bad. the new york mets in 1962 lost 120 out of 162 games. that's the standard by which people now adjust themselves and it's amazing to think of how the leadership of the new york mets

could cobble together a team of athletes so inept in trying to work together as a particular team. leaving such names as jay hook and chew chew coleman there together. probably best of all those names, was marvelous marv thornberry, big first baseman who hit a triple which is amazing considering he's not one of those fast runners. as he was rounding the bases going to third, he missed second base which was spotted by the opposing team, so they waited until play was back in, called for the ball, stepped on second base, and he was out. obviously casey stengel went running out there to complain about this and argued the case up and down and lost and thornberry was out. he went back to the dugout he passed the first base coach and said, why weren't you out there at least arguing with me? and cookie looked at him and said because he missed first

base, too. that was the end of the discussion. eventually the management was able to take the amazing 1962 mets and turn them into the miracle 1969 mets that were the world champion. but the administration of the mets had to do some fancy work to do that. we are in a situation we have right now where we have an administration in this country that is doing that same kind of work that the mets leadership did except in reverse. we are going from 1969 mets back to the 1962 mets. administration that took over the best defense, the best military in the world and bit by bit pulling it down to the form of mediocrity even to the level of the 1962 amazing new york mets. we have faced three potential cuts to the military. first then secretary of defense gates said, if you go beyond this first $600 billion cut, it could have devastating effects. this administration took a second cut beyond it and now the

gentleman from texas is talking about is the potential of a third cut to the military. what has been the net musketeer of this administration's -- net effect of this administration's efforts? for the first time there are 50 major defense programs that have been canceled. this is the first time there are not -- is not a single aircraft modernization going on in this country. if you consider the fact that modernization takes between 10 and 20 years to effect that, that means regardless of what happens in november, this country is without a new modernization program for an aircraft or for at least two decades after president obama leaves the white house. we were spending 4% of our g.d.p. on military before this came in. we are now down to 2.5%. that's the percent we have had been complaining about our allies in europe spending. that compares to 6% under reagan, 10% under kennedy, 35% during world war ii. we have platforms in our military that are over 25 years of age and not getting any

younger. we have the smallest army since world war ii. we have the smallest navy since world war i. world war ii we had over 6,000 ships, today, 280. we will have the smallest air force ever. several years ago two of our f-15-c's literally broke in flight and two f-18's caught fire while on the aircraft carrier. our a-108 war hogs have cracks in the fuselage. we only have one sixth generation fighter in production while the chinese and russians have a combined 12 fighter and bomber lines opened for business. we are moving the defense of this country backwards into an area that is frighteningly fearful. we are going from 1969 to the 1962 mets when we should be trying to go in the opposite direction. that's what happens before sequestration goes into effect. if we add the sequestration n, a

third cut on top of the other two, we'll do what the secretary of defense said, we'll hollow out our military, put our defense at danger, not just the defense of this country but as was previously mentioned the jobs that are in the private sector that are the military base, industrial base to help us defend ourselves and we will take away from the table potential of foreign affairs options that we have. our ability two decades from today to conduct foreign policy is depended on the decisions we make now to define and have an adequate military backup for what we need to do. these are decisions we need to be making and it is essential that we recognize what we are doing now is wrong. to change and reverse our defense cuts even for one year would take $109 billion. but oddly enough that is one month of borrowing that is being done by this administration. we can't afford this sequestration as a country.

find it sad that the president of the united states will actually say that i will veto any effort to get rid of these automatic spending cuts using the defense of this country as a hostage at a high stakes battle with congress over what our future tax policy will be. that is not what a good administration should be doing. that is not what this country needs. we need to do something different. i appreciate the gentleman from texas allowing me to rant a little on this particular issue. this is important to every american and this affects not just what we are doing today, but what happens two decades from this day when we are probably long gone from this body. mr. carter, i yield back. mr. carter: we may get a little more time. don't run off. this is really important what you just had to say. that's the kind of shock that the american people need to hear. we are going to take the most

powerful and strongest military force and hollow it out. when you ask a commander to explain a hollow force, he will say, on paper it will look like a combat brigade. but when you go down into the various jobs that must be done to have an effective fighting combat brigade, you will find there is no one in those jobs. therefore it is not an effective combat brigade. this is simple stuff using just people as an example. when you are using carrier forces, you are saying we are going to take outs the carrier and all their supporting ships, so we are going to give up a carrier and its ships, or maybe two, to make the sequester, you have the navy. you got the way they deliver

force to a fight. they are world, major deliverers of a force to a fight. we take their slaws away from them. -- claws away from them. and our new ships coming online, that's as i understand it, that is gone. and tell you about the air force. my gosh, we have known for a long time, since i first came to this congress, that we were behind the eight ball on developing the next generation of combat fighting aircraft. . we were behind the eight ball. i came here in 2002 and discussions i had with folks in those days, we are working on it, we've got them on the line. we're trying to finish them up. but we're behind the eight ball. the russians and the chinese already have the next generation of fighting aircraft and they're developing more. just as you said. and yet now we're talking about

ours is going to go away. and you have much more experience with this than i do, but i think everybody's thinking, if you shut it down, bringing it back is going to take a long time. it's just that simple. it's just complicated. not even. then of course if we're not going -- if we're not going to reduce the numbers in our fighting force, we're going to reduce the way they go to battle. because you got to cut something in the army. if you're not cutting people, which i don't know whether that's what the president means when he says he's not going to go after personnel, whether he means he's not going to go after -- lower their pay, or if it means he's not going to lower their numbers, i don't know that answer. but if they lower the numbers, this is the vehicle that the next generation's supposed to go to war in, we're not going to have that vehicle to go to war in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair is prepared to

recognize a member from the minority party. there being none, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for the remaining time until 10:00 p.m. mr. carter: thank you, we'll try not to use it all. somebody needs to get rest around here for all the good work people do here. but i am grateful for the extra time so i can visit with my good friend, mr. bishop. that's what you've been saying to us here. and i don't think -- one of the things you hear around this house is, well, there's soft power. i've had debates of my colleagues of, we don't use soft power effectively. we need to -- we try to always use hard power. i would argue, you can't have soft power unless you got hard power. all the sweet talk in the world , if you don't have somebody to

back you up on -- that you are, can ultimately punch them in the nose, it i can't getting you anywhere. and if we're taking the punch out of our military, what are we left with? by the way, i think even those young kids that are not getting the kind of history lessons they should get these days probably know from somebody telling them that the last time we took our military down to this level, we had an event called pearl harbor. and that shows what happens when your readiness is not ready. and this is a world full of very, very dangerous things right now. we're looking -- we've been looking at terrorism for the last 10 years and terrorism remains a big, big problem for this country. but there are others who would do us harm out there, that if we don't have the ability to defend ourselves, we could fall into serious harm's way.

i yield to my friend. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman again and i'd just like to reiterate a couple of things that he has said and build on those points that are there. it is extremely important to realize that we are about the people's business and we are doing the constitutional requirey things that a congress ought to do. -- constitutionally required things that the congress ought to do. we all says that significant that we do have a problem with our budget. which is true. we all recognize that. but there are certain core constitutional responsibilities that we're given by the founding fathers to congress to make sure that we maintained those responsibilities and those areas. the constitution tells us that we have responsibility to promote general welfare which is nice. we probably don't understand what they meant by general welfare anymore but we are to promote it. but we have the obligation to provide for the common defense. and that verb differentiation

was not done by accident. it is the mandate that this congress has to provide for the common defense. not simply because it's a fun thing to do, but because it defends this country and it provides our ability to do foreign policy in the future as well as providing some jobs for people who are necessary to make sure this happens. i reiterate what we said earlier. this sequestration is not a simple decrease or cut to the military. it would be the third major cut to the military. remember, we still did cut number one of $600 billion and which then secretary of defense said, you can't go much more than that. then had this administration put another cut number two of $400 billion and now sequestration were to go through, where the president actually follow through on his threat to veto any legislation that would stop the sequestration would be cut number three of an additional $600 billion.

and that is what everybody who works with the system says would destroy and hollow out our military and we would be in violation of our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense. now, i am actually fairly proud of the house. we have on several occasions sent legislation over to the senate that would stop this process and make sure that this core constitutional responsibility we have does not actually go into effect -- i mean, i'm sorry, that this core constitutional responsibility we have is actually fulfilled by congress. and we do not let this cut number three, sequestration, go into effect. right now they are sitting on senator reid's desk. he needs to take up the responsibility of putting those to a vote and passing that legislation and putting this on the desk of a president who needs to take up his responsibility as commander in chief and pass those bills and make sure that these devastating cuts, which as the gentleman from texas quite correctly said, would hollow out our military, would be

devastating to our military possible postture. not just for today -- posture. not just for today but for the decades to come. make sure that's do not go into effect and those are properly signed by the president and passed by this house, by congress. the house has done our share. the house has done our responsibility. i call upon the senate now to pick up the mantle and do their part of this effort, to make sure that we defend this country as we ought to. i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for pointing that out, recapping -- reclaiming my time. that is exactly -- we've already done work to show the direction we can go, to head off this absolute disaster for our national defense. it is in the hands of the democrat-controlled senate, it is in the hands of majority leader in the senate, and it's time for him to quit -- put the partisan politics aside and fund our military and make the cuts across other areas.

let's keep to our word to make cuts, let's don't break that word, but let's don't destroy the military and violate the constitution which we are supposed to provide for the common defense of this country. and, you know, sometimes we get kind of provincial in this country, so just for the fun of it, let's talk a little bit about all those jobs, who's going to lose those jobs? potential job losses across the board. california, 125,000, virginia, 122,800. texas, 91,600. florida, 39,200. let me put it up here. thank you. thank you, i forgot we had that chart. massachusetts, 38,200. maryland, 36,200. pennsylvania, 36,200. connecticut, 34,200. arizona, 33,200.

missouri, 31,200. that's the top, that's the top 10 i think it is. but the truth is the defense industry and those who provide the defense industry are a major part of our economy. we're all going to feel this. but if you're one of those states and you're worried about already where are your kids when they get out of school going to get a job, with jobs being lost, look at that list and see that we're all in this together. as we make this crazy move of weakening our national defense to the point of disaster, we're also weakening the very economy we're struggling to strengthen. how can this possibly be good sense to anybody in this country? to me -- it doesn't register. we are looking to create jobs,

not destroy jobs. this is going to be a major impact on our country, i think we have the real potential to go back into a deep double dip recession and hopefully just being able to hit it off the bat. meanwhile, as these cuts and our military gets weaker and weaker and weaker, what do we do about the enemies of the united states? is that where we want to be? have we become that kind of country? i don't think so. i think we all need to gut up and put the politics aside, let's don't use -- hold hostage these jobs, hold hostage our military, so somebody can get their tax policy differentiate from somebody else's tax policy. let's debate that without holding anybody hostage, let's debate it, let's vote on it, let's get it done, let's go to conference, let's work on taxes

the way we're supposed to, but let's don't hold anybody hostage with threatening to destroy our military and get half the country laid off because we want it our way. and i would argue that that's exactly what harry reid is doing right now in the senate. and i think that is something we need to stand up and shout on behalf of those warriors who go to war for us. and by the way, have gone to war for us multiple times in the last decade. put this up. this is exactly what congressman bishop was talking about. we have a solution that has been sent over there. h.r. 5652. replaces $78 billion in defense cuts with $316 billion in cuts over 10 years and the cuts from across the board. agriculture, energy and commerce, financial services, judiciary, oversight and government reform, ways and

means, instead of all out of the defense department. and the committee chairman of the committees in the house did the work, held the hearings and came up with these solutions. this is how this place is supposed to work. now, why can't we let it work? why don't we -- why do we have to play political games and hold the greatest defense in the world hostage? it's a crime. it's absolutely a crime. not only to our institutions of the military but to our individuals in the military who gave us 10 years of war and did it voluntarily, not one of them was drafted in, they all marched to war voluntarily. and some of them suffered horrendously on behalf of this country. and they got promoted and they were rising in the military and with one fell swoop, because we refuse to do it the right way

and the senate wants to hold tax policy before the goodness of the defense department, these guys are going to lose their jobs. and those people aren't in those unemployment numbers. these are industry figures we're talking about. but what about the guy that fought for you for 10 years and you throw him out of a job, well, he's been promoted, he may be a staff sergeant for all i know. a kid that i met in korea almost 10 years ago. and yet, you know what? we're going to fire the kid. even though he has been good soldier. what are you going to do with him? he's got to find a new job, a new career, and he chose defending his country as his career. and through no fault of his own but through the political will of the senate, or at least the

majority in the senate, he gets his job taken away interest him and he's out on the unemployment line. something's bad wrong with this whole picture. i'm not going to take the rest of the time, mr. bishop, if you have -- i'll yield back to you if you have anything you'd like to say in conclusion and then i'll wrap it up. but i am really grateful for you coming down here because your insight coming from the committee and hearing this day and and day out, i know y'all have held numerous hearings on every issue and i really appreciate you coming and sharing that with us. mr. bishop: i'm just grateful to the gentleman from texas for actually approaching this issue. jobs are important. but it's not just jobs for the sake of creating a job. this is a job that is essential for the defense of this country. this is our constitutional responsibility. and we need to take that seriously. sequestration is basically, as you said i think at the very beginning, it's not what was

planned here, it just kind of happened, it was a failed policy that happened. now is the time to actually become adults about this and recognize that sequestration will not only destroy jobs, but it will destroy the defense of this country and our responsibility is to make sure we defend this country and get every capability, that when we send somebody into harm's way they have the equipment that is necessary to make sure they come back successfully. we don't want a fair fight, we want america to have the best of equipment and that flat-out won't happen if we go through this big cut number three that we call sequestration. i thank the gentleman for allowing me to say something about this important issue and i thank you for bringing it to the attention of the american people. mr. carter: i think a good point that you've clearly made, sequestration should be a definition of the failure of us to meet our constitutional responsibility. .

i want to end by encouraging both sides of the aisle and all my colleagues in this house let's get this deal done. let's -- don't gut our military. let's come up with other solutions. for goodness sakes let's don't sell off the people who go to war for us for the last 10 years. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from utah have a motion. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move

the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house st

a group of african-american pastors talk about their opposition to same-sex marriage, and later ambassador nominees testify on capitol hill. >> on the foot of that bridge, and i was beaten. i thought i was going to dive. i thought i saw death. >> john lewis took part in a voting rights march from selma to montgomery, alabama. >> we became near the state troopers, and a man identified himself and said he was a state

trooper. this was done on lawful march and would not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said, give us a moment to kneel and pray, and he said, the troopers and a very spirited >> sunday at 8:00, -- the trooper said vance -- advanced. >> mr. romney's trip began in london. he traveled to israel before arriving in london triggered this is 15 minutes. -- now before arriving in london. this is 15 minutes. >> thank you for having me. it has been of privilege meeting with the former minister and the former president reagan is an

honor to be in this plays out also. this is a nation with an extraordinary heritage that is crafting a remarkable future of the time of widespread economic slowdown and stagnation. uri economy outperformed all the other nations of europe. i began this trip in great britain and ended in poland. as the greatest military alliance has kept the feast for half a century. at 10 downing street i thought of winston churchill, the man who first spoke of the iron curtain that had descended across europe. what an honor to stand in poland among the men and women who helped with that curtain. after that stay in england, i visited israel, a friend to your

country and mine. it has been a visit to three places far apart on the map, but for an american, you cannot get much closer to the ideals of my own country than you can in these places. our nations belong to the great fellowships' of democracies. we speak the same language of freedom and justice. we hold reason we uphold the right to live in peace. i believe it is critical to stand by those who stand by america. solidarity was a great movement that freed a nation, and it is with solidarity that america and: face the future. yesterday i saw a memorial. in both places, policy distance stood with courage and determination against daunting odds, and today, on the eve of

the 68th anniversary of this city's uprising against the nazis, i will pay tribute. over 200,000 poles were killed during those weeks, and your city was nearly destroyed, but your enduring -- your enduring spirit survived. free men and women already know this about poland. your people were the witnesses to hope, led onward by strength of hard -- of hearts. not only by force of arms you shamed the oppressor and the flight to the darkness. history has recorded the descent

of liberty. condoleezza rice has noted it is often one braves man or woman who says no to oppression and sparks a revolution of thousands or millions of others. in 1965, rosa parks said no to a bus driver who told her to give up her seat to a white person, and she started a revolution of the quality that continues to this day. a street vendor in tunisia was denied his business wares by a government functionary and in protest committed suicide by self immolation. with that act of defiance, the arab spring wasn't born.

nikolai it sat there for 200,000, talking about the work's zero good -- works. one woman said, liar. other people echoed her, and with the fall two days later, the entire nation had awaited, and people were freed. here in poland in 1979, pope john paul ii spoke words that would bring down an empire and bring freedom to millions who lived in bondage. be not afraid. those words to change the world. i and my fellow americans are inspired by the path of freedom

tried by the people of poland. the polish and american people were hardly strangers. the name kowalski is remembered and so it is the name of others. it after the first freely written constitution,: did the same -- poland did the same. through every change on the geopolitical map, we have met as friends and allies. that was true during the revolutionary war. it was true during the dark days of the second world war common and it has been true in iraq and afghanistan. there has never been a moment when our people felt anything but mutual respect and good will. americans watched with astonishment and admiration as

an electrician lead a peaceful protest against a brutal and oppressive regime. it has to be understood as the solidarity movement philosophy was very simple. when you cannot lift a weight you ask for someone else to live it with you. among the millions of poles who said yes, there is one who has a unique and special place in our hearts -- pope john paul ii. when he first stood in the square, he wrote to his editor with a first impression. this is not just of a pope from poland, this is a pope from galilee. he reminded the world there would be no justice in europe without an independent poland,

and he reminded the polish people from where they drew their source of strength. while he was reading a crowd along a fence, he met a little girl pregnant -- while he was reading a crowd along a fence, he met a little girl. he paused and asked, where is:. she said she did not know. he put his hand over his heart and said, poland is here. he understood a nation is not a plot of land. it is a people, a community of values, and the highest valued poland offers is man's desire to be free. unfortunately there are parts of the world were desire to be free is met with a brutal oppression. does to the east of here, the

people of belarus suffer under the oppressive and weight of dictatorship. the arab world is undergoing historic upheaval. syria has killed thousands, it's brutal dictator responsible for the lives of thousands of his own people. in latin america and hugo chavez lead to a regime characterized by oppression. nations in africa are are fighting to resist radical jihadists them, and russians have faltered. in a turbulent world, poland stands as an example of a defender of freedom. last month a sculptor was unveiled of ronald reagan and if john paul ii.

as the president said, reagan should have a statue in every city. when others were imprisoned by the communist regime, just when it felt they have been forgotten by the world, the captives learned in the white house the president of the united states was lighting candles. it was a demonstration of unity, a sign of solidarity. when regolith the candles, he recalled, we knew we had of an -- when reagan lit the candles, he recalled, we knew we had a friend in the united states. this is a country that when from foreign domination to the proud and independent nation you are today, and now the challenge is to be worthy of this legacy as we find our way for work. a false gods of the all-powerful

state claims the allegiance of the lonely field. it is for us in this generation and beyond to show what free economies can achieve for the good of all. good perhaps because poland centralized control is no distant memory, you brought a special determination to bring a prosperous economy. paul and's economy was in a state of crisis but economists analyzed it from abroad. one heard talk of starvation but from the depths of those dark times, this nation's rise is an example of theconomic opportuni. you have moved from a state monopoly over the economy to a culture of on to pioneer --

enreprenueship. as a result, you have experienced positive growth in each of the last 20 years. in that time you have doubled the size of your economy. the private sector has gone from 15% of the economy to 65% today. while other nations fell into recession, you have weathered the storm and continued to grow and flourish. when economists speak of poland today, it is not to lament chronic problems but to describe how this nation and power to the individual, lifted the heavy hand of government, and became the fastest-growing economy in all of europe. yesterday one of your leader shared with me in economic truce that has been lost. he said this. it is a simple, you do not bar

which you cannot pay back. orrow what you cannot pay back. a march toward economic limit -- liberty has meant a march toward higher living standards, the strong military the defense home and abroad and an important and growing role on the international stage. rather than heeding the false promise of a government- dominated economy, poland decided to expand trade, and live within its means. your success is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society. it is such a time of difficulty and doubt throughout europe. :'s economic transformation is a fitting turn in the story of

your country. in the 1980's when other nations doubt it political tierney could be overcome, the answer was look to poland. and today, the answer once again is, look to poland. it is not surprising that a people that we did so long for the sake of liberty -- waited so long for the sake of liberty are enjoying it to the fullest. they have no greater friend and ally than the people of america. your bravery inspired the allies in the second world war. you helped bring down the iron curtain. your soldiers fought side-by- side with ours in iraq and afghanistan. we have fought together, we have died did get there. we share a common cause.

tested by time. inseparable by foe. in times of trouble, and in times of peace we march together. god bless you, god bless america, and god bless the great nation of poland. thank you so much. [applause] >> the commission on presidential debates has scheduled three this fall. the first will take place at october 3 at the university of denver and focus on domestic policy. president obama and mitt romney meet again in new york on october 16. the third and final debate on foreign policy will take place on october 22 at lynn university in florida. for more information, go to c-

span.org. >> a group of african-american pastors talked about their opposition to president obama's position on same-sex marriage. the coalition of african- american pastors have launched a petition campaign. this briefing is about 35 minutes. i am standing with my wife and our baby, doctor deborah owens, my son, reverend william owens,

and all of the pastures that are with us today. they came in support of our effort to save the family. that marriage between a man and a woman. the time has come by broad based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one man daring man and women marion women. we wrote the president -- man marrying man and women marrying women. we wrote the president and he has not given us the courtesy of your reply. we consist of 3742 african- american pastors. and he has totally ignored us.

he has not given us the pleasure of even answering our request, which is discourteous and profound professional -- and unprofessional. we are not in his pockets. we refuse to give him a pass because he is black. we will announce a program very soon called the mandate for marriage. i have asked my son out of los angeles, california to head that group. we are going across the country asking people to support us to save the family. with all of the challenges and the problems facing the african- american community, we are lowest in the scores of

education of any group in america. we have fewer jobs. the prisons are full of african- american men. there are more men in prison than in college. go to any courtroom usa, each day, and you will see that mouthful of a black man on their way to prison. -- them full of black men on their way to prison. they have decided to cater to hollywood, the big money people, they have chosen a course and ignored the people who put the president where he is. he is in the white house because of the civil rights movement. i was a leader in that movement and i did not march 1 inch, 1 foot, for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. the president has forgotten the price that was paid where people

died, where they suffered, where they gave their blood to have equal rights in the united states. for the homosexual community and for the president to back to the money, as viewed as did to jesus christ, is a disgrace 00 as jesusjudas did to christ, it is a disgrace. as an example, some people are saying because of the position chik-fil-a has taken, they do not want them in their cities. it is a disgrace. it is the same thing when they did not want a black person going into the restaurant, in their hotels. now they are say because we take a christian position, they do not want us in their cities. we will not take it. we will stand up and they will

learn, they will learn that they cannot do that too many people by destroying religion, by destroying the family, it will not happen on our watch. we will stand up. we must employ new methods. i started this mandate to protect the family. families of all colors. mothers, how would you feel one year, 10 years, 20 years from now and that beautiful girl you reared comes and tells you, i want a wedding. father, i want a wedding. i want you to give me a wedding and she is going to marry a woman. your heart will be broken. think about what you are doing by giving the president a pass in this arena, in this fight by saying it is ok because we are black and you are black.

mr. president, i am not going to stand with you. there are thousands of others that are not going to stand with you with this foolishness. so we would like to conclude by saying, bringing some more speakers up. we want people to go to our website, 100,000 signatures. when hundreds thousand signatures -- 1000000signatures4marriage.com. he did it because of money and he thinks that there are more black people, there are more people that want marriage to be right, then there are homosexuals. i assure you, in this country.

i think he is going to learn that lesson. i would hope that the president would become wise, come to his senses and to know he has made a mistake and we can come back together. the people who put him in office, come back together and admit he made a mistake. all people make mistakes. he has made a bad mistake that will affect the history of this country. i am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful role. it is a disgraceful role to endorse same-sex, it is unnatural. it is unscriptural. it is not natural for a man to have a man. if god had intended that, he would have created a third sex. he did not do that.

we want the president to know we will oppose his position until the last stand. we will oppose his position. i would like to present with you my son who is going to head up our mandate campaign that we will start this week to get across the country and give people involved. >> i want to thank my dad for taking such a bold and historic position. i am proud to call him my father. i celebrate 27 years and that is 211 man at one time. n. have four children' i am excited about heading up the marriage for mandate. this mandate is designed to give people a chance to learn and express their values and why marriages important to them. we will be taking this to the

road and we will be teaching people the value of marriage and give people a chance to express why they believe. there will be more information coming. you can learn more at the marriage mandate.com. >> thank you. now we have the bishop janice hollis of philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> i am really privilege to be here this morning with the coalition of african-american pastors. of course, and the presiding covenant fellowship in pennsylvania. i think this is a travesty in terms of the position our commander in chief has taken. i am really proud that doctor owens has started this mandate to call order to where we had this order in the highest office in the land. i am privileged to stand here with you to support you in

whatever way that i can in pennsylvania, since pennsylvania is a swing state. the president needs to know he has demonstrated such a dereliction of duty. simply because he counted himself as a broad thinker, a person who could have a conversation with anyone, but yet he has chosen to overlook this intellectual body of black leaders. we take great offense to that. he needs to know that he does not have a pass. we will hold him to the fire. at some point, you have to make it known what she stands for. he has been all over the charts on many things. we know that this position is a political one and we are offended. thank you. >> now we call bishop -- to the stand. representing bishop george on

our board. >> thank you, doctor owens. it is a privilege to be here. in order for us to understand what is taking place, we must define what marriage is. from a biblical point of view, the union of male and female constitutes a marriage. between a husband and wife. the bible said that marriage is honorable with god. in genesis, god made in his creation order. he made things which were good. he made the light and said it was good. he made the water and said the water was good. he made the trees and the plant life and he said it was good. everything god made he said was good. when he got to man he looked at

man and said, it is not good for man to be alone. i will make him a help meet. in genesis, he put man to sleep in a woman. he did not make another man. he made a woman. man and woman can only, i repeat this, a man and woman can only supply and fulfill the need that is lacking in each other. so same-sex marriage, it is impossible to fulfil the needs in each other. it might last for a while but to really fulfill that need that has planted in man, it has to be a man and a woman. jesus reiterated that the nazi when he said a man should cleave to his wife. -- that in matthew when he said a man should cleave to his wife. a man should leave his mother

-- mother and father and cleave to his wife, not his partner. and they shall be one. i am here to support this movement. thank you very much. if we do things the way that the bible guidelines, it will strengthen our family and not weaken our family. i believe same-sex marriage will weaken our family. thank you very much. god bless. >> we also acknowledge bishop neil of germany. dean nelson has come in. another important point that needs to be made is, if you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say i was molested as

a child. a man molested me in my home. wherever they were molested. for the president to condone this thing knowing the full facts is irresponsible. reverend dean nelson. >> good morning. my name is reverend dean nelson. i serve as the chairman for the frederick douglass foundation. it is a christian organization that advocates righteousness and justice, liberty and virtue. doctor martin luther king jr. said that if the church does not recapture is prophetic z zeroeal, -- prophetic zeal, it becomes irrelevant.

the challenge is whether or not we want to become that prevalent social club or if we want to capture the voice we once had. i stand today to reaffirm our position on traditional marriage. it is our belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. and the right of the marriage should only be afforded to those for whom it was originally intended. he frederick douglass foundation was a participant in north carolina that helped to see large numbers of african- americans come to the polls and to affirm traditional marriage there in the great state of north carolina. we also have plans to route our 19 states that we have chapters to push and to challenge to the african-american clergy to stand for righteousness and justice and to affirm traditional marriage. just as in 1980, when the

southern baptists had to relinquish their support for one of their own, jimmy carter, when he ran against, when he was serving as president, we are challenging the african-american community to reevaluate its support for president obama. this issue is more than politics. this is a moral issue that the church must stand for and be clear about, not just for this generation but for generations to come. we believe that this election is a pivotal election. those who hold the bible as sacred and those black americans who are a part of the democrat party must reevaluate today whether or not they will

stand for biblical principles over political policy. it is our hope that many within the black community will stand with the word of god, will stand with trees, and will become a strong, independent voice for the soul of america. >> we want to make it clear we are not democrats and we are not republic. this is not a political party. this is not a platform. it is our conscience. one difference in the civil rights movement and the movement to endorse same-sex marriage is when we were in the civil-rights movement, most of us were very poor. but black people voted with their feet. they let their voice be heard in turned this country around. we are asking black america once

again to step up to the back and do what you need to do. we do not endorse a candidate. we do not say to vote for a certain person. we say vote for what is right. what is honorable and we do not want america to go down the drain starting on a slippery slope with the black president. it might look good today, he might be famous today, he might be popular today but when your children come and tell you they are going to marry a person of the same sex, you are going to be very happy and you are going to be angry that she bit into the big lie. -- that you bit into the big lie. >> is the coalition of pastor is willing to support mitt romney? >> we are not going to support any candidate. that is not our role. we are not political. we are going to let our mission

to be known. keeping marriage between a man and woman. we are not going to get into the politics of it. we have a social issue. >> what about your critics? people who are against the marriage and the administration says it is a matter of homophobia and bigotry if you do not support people being able to love to they want to love. >> i am going to answer it honestly. what if i called them sissies and all of the other names i could call them? we do not do that. we are not that. we stand for what we stand for. do not put names on me if you do not want them on you. >> what is your position on polygamy? >> this is not about polygamy. >> i need for you to define the biblical definition of marriage.

>> a marriage between a man and woman. i am not going to get on another track. >> talk to me about abraham's marriage. >> madame, next question. >> what is god's position on polygamy? >> are you going to demand that i answer your question? this is not about polygamy. this is about same-sex marriage. >> reverend, you said you wou answer questions about marriage. >> in your remarks, you said hat president obama ok's molestation of children. >> i did not say that. >> i can quote you right now. >> let me clear that up. for him to condone same-sex marriage is the road to

homosexuals being more able to do it. i have never said that president obama condones sex with a man bothering a boy. a correlation, absolutely. he is trying to make legal what is wrong. there is a correlation. there is absolute correlation. if you really know where this is going, they are just opening the gate. there will be many more challenges facing our families if this stands. in every state this has been on the ballot, in every state where it has been on the ballot, we have one. people like the president and others have chosen to cave -- to take over and not done with the

people wanted. they have not won in one state. >> can you explain how there is a difference between homosexuality and civil-rights? >> there is no comparison. you could not go to white restaurants. you could not go to a white hotel. they have never been denied those rights. never. they do everything. we feel they shouldn't have the best jobs, the best of everything, -- should have the best jobs, the best of everything, but not marriage. >> i am wondering how you respond to think there is more than one issue to consider. they say they agree with obama on other issues. >> i might agree with him on other issues also but there is not one issue more important than holding the family

together. it does not matter if you have a lot of money, and if your family is destroyed, what does it mean? >> in a recent survey, 18% said same-sex marriage is a critical issue. do you think this issue is something that african-americans can get behind even the numbers say it is not in the top five? >> i think so. that is why we are going across the country. the same question was asked of the civil rights movement. i was a junior pastor and we went to a restaurant. we had to go to the back door. the pastor stood in that back room where we were waiting for our food and said your grandchildren will never be able to go into the front door of the restaurant. seven years later we were going into the front door.

we can make a difference if we join together. >> you would like to see that 18% of african-americans become higher. >> absolutely. i know it is possible. we are going to work very hard. >> why is it not the case now? >> we have not been out there doing what we are doing. >> is the community not aware of this? this is against their values and you need to go explain that? >> every time it has been voted on, the african-american community has voted against it. in every state. no exception. but i think that african- american community must be aware of the damage. i think they are looking at the fact that he is black, really have a black, half white, they are looking at that instead of

what he is doing. he has ignored us. he has ignored the black preachers. he has ignored the black press. when the civil rights movement was going on, most white presidents were against us. he has ignored them. he does not come to our conventions. he did not go to the naacp convention. he did not go to the ame convention but he goes to anything they want. because he has those locked up. he does not have us locked up. >> african american children are born out-of-wedlock, depending on which studies. do you feel that the reason for such high out of wedlock births is because the family has fallen apart because of a marriage? >> not because of a marriage. one reason is we tolerate it.

we do not teach against it. i have a baby and a mother could have had an abortion. she did not have an abortion. she wanted us to be the parents instead of our gross having abortions and children being born out of wedlock, we have addressed this that black menaces must get up and say if you do not want the baby, there is somebody else who will love the baby. our baby has been the joy of our life. >> can you talk about what you're coalition is doing to encourage black men to maintain the heads of their household and not leave their children? >> absolutely. i am glad you asked that question. i know what can be done to the black community. i started this ministry, the way i built my nation was

getting black and manning college. in four years, we put four hundred black students in a predominantly white university. they had 5%. when we left, they had 22%. these boys were on the fringes. some had been to prison. we walked to one young man at of prison who had served and was in court on another case. we convinced the judge to release him and the judge to sentence to that young man to a degree from the university. yes, it can be done and we plan to do it and the black preacher has to do more than just talk about this. he has to talk about the home, he has to get into the community and love those girls, love those families. >> what about civil unions? there are people who say it is

not marriage. >> it is not different. >> how we intend to take the marriage mandate is to do just that. part of the purpose of the mandate is not just to expose the wrong but to celebrate the right. part of the purpose is to equip those marriages and bring out the beauty of marriage. that is one reason for the mandate. >> can you talk about, how many signatures have you gotten? when did you start? how far along are you on that? >> i do not have that number. we give out our website, so there are several thousands.

my wife keeps a count of that. i do what i do. >> can you give us details about the mandate project? what are you guys going to do? how big of a budget? >> we just started. we have our first fund-raiser august 16. we just started. but we are going to go nationwide with that agenda, just like the president has gone to hollywood. we are going to people who support us, whether they be $1, $1,000, we are going to ask for support because we need money to take this agenda nationwide. i will take one more question. >> can you tell us your affiliation? the mention being a part of a larger church body. >> i am a member of the church of god in christ.

>> in your remarks, he said this is not a political of bent but in the press releases as you are looking to -- 98 days until the election, i clearly this is not a political backing. can you tell us, who supported the president in 2008? >> i think most of us did. >> to do specifically? >> i did. yes. >> can the others respond? >> would you like to respond? >> i did not support the president but we have a grass roots efforts in north carolina where we have large numbers of people who supported the president but have withdrawn their support. >> are you talking about people who are not going to vote because of this issue for the president? >> for us, our challenge really

is to ask black americans to withhold their support, particularly those who are christians. however, as he may have noted, in north carolina there was a poll this show that 20% of black americans said they were going to support governor brawny. that was not an initiative we were pushing but there was a poll this show that 20% of black americans were going to vote for governor romney. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we just have individuals. all the nominations. catholics, baptists, you name it. all denominations and groups. when you start going to the heads of the denominations, you get into the political. >> when is your first events? you say you're going across the nation.

>> i asked you before, maybe you could answer it. the point i was making is if you talk to people in the administration, they say people who are against this, they do not talk about it -- they are homophobes'. there are bigots. -- they are bigots. [inaudible]

>> president obama's nominees to the ambassadors in pakistan and afghanistan testified on capitol hill today. that is next. after that, a portion of today's

meetings in the house rules committee. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague native american region and later a county in another state, kentucky. but we began in 1778 as virginia. >> this weekend, a joint book tv and c-span's local content vehicles from louisville, ky. the array live on c-span2. john david dyke on the chicano and jason on the freebooting american politics, the internet revolution. sunday at 5:00 p.m., three weeks at farmington plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. tour that plantation today. and the heyday of the steamboat

on the ohio river. once a month, c-span and explores the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend, from louisville, on c-span2 and 3. >> the senate foreign relations committee hears from president obama's choices to be diplomats do pakistan and afghanistan. james cunningham would serve as ambassador to afghanistan and richard olsen as ambassador to pakistan. terry chairs this 90 minute hearing. -- john kerry chairs this 90 minute hearing. >> the hearing will come to order. good morning. we apologize for beginning a few minutes late.

there are more meetings going on then there are hours and available moments to get to them. we are delighted to welcome everybody here to consider the nominations of those who are selected to serve in the very important post of afghanistan and pakistan. ambassador james cunningham and richard olson are experienced and talented diplomats. i am convinced that they bring the combination of intelligence and experience, diligence necessary for both of these critical assignments. today's hearing comes -- pick the newspapers and afghanistan and pakistan are swirling around. the assigning of the strategic

partnership agreement marked the beginning of the end a new face of u.s. engagements in afghanistan. the world is not going to simply walk away or abandon its investment in a stable afghanistan. our task is to leverage our commitments into a transition that prevents afghanistan from backsliding into widespread ethnic or sectarian violence. coordinated and economic transition will be challenging. there are several key steps that we need to focus on. we must prepare now for the afghan elections in 2014. it is the political transition that will determine whether our military gains are sustainable.

our role should not interfere in domestic politics. it is critical that afghans must pick their leaders fairly and freely. transparency in new election laws is a critical step for afghans in order that they have a choice and a voice in the election. our strategy has to go beyond reconciliation in order to support a consensus among key afghan stakeholders. too many afghans are preparing to fight to secure their interests. i think we need to send the

message that the united states supports a comprehensive process that is transparent and respectful of all groups, including women. to leave behind a force that can support key terrain. there are questions about the viability of that. we have two years to lay that foundation. as i talk to leaders in pakistan, there are a difference in stated interest about the size and scope of that force. there is a connection to those interests with respect to each country's forces that it is

making right now. we need to continue to focus on combating corruption, on emphasizing support for human rights and on human law. as we begin to build -- or as the afghans gained confidence about their future, we need to move in the areas of economic development and stability. despite the progress that was made in tokyo to pledge $16 billion in donor aid, afghanistan could face a major economic crisis. we have made significant achievements over the past decade. the gains are fragile. sustain them it will require continued investments. our approach must take into

account afghanistan's worsening humanitarian crisis. there is no shortage of challenge here. our strategy to have to continue to reflect the interconnectedness of the region cost challenges, and central asia to iran. what happens in the region as a whole will do more to determine the outcome in afghanistan than any shift in strategy. pakistan remains central to that effort. it is this secret that last year it was challenging in our

relationship. many pakistanis believe americans will simply abandon the region. pakistan continues to hedge its bets and rely on certain strategic groups. there should be a more cooperative relationship and we see accusations regarding afghanistan-based insurgent initiatives in pakistan. the recent developments with pakistan have fled to the reopening of the critical nato supply lines. serious policy makers on both sides understand that we have more to gain by finding common ground and working together in areas of mutual concern.

i think we need to point out that pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of al qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups. then 6000 security forces have died from terrorist incidents since 2001. pakistan is facing an energy crisis and political infighting complicate efforts to address deteriorating situations, and none of us are unfamiliar with those kinds of dynamics here at home. we have been trying to work with pakistan to create a stable economy. often the reward for diplomats to succeed in difficult postings is tougher assignments

with longer odds and our nominees today are no exceptions to that rule. james cunningham has served a tour in afghanistan. i want to note that his wife and his daughters are here today and we welcome them. all of you, all three of you. it is good to see him here today. i was them in kabul and i'm delighted to welcome him back. richard olson was the coordinating direct your in kabul. i am confident his previous

leadership will serve him well as he works to strengthen our relationship with pakistan. we are pleased to welcome them. ambassador olson, i believe your daughter is here, isabella. she is interning in senator udall's office. got an inside track. we thank you for your service and we thank your families for their service. senator lugar. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming our distinguished nominees and their families this morning. the foreign relations committee is taking up these nominations at a critical time. we look forward to hearing the

administration's assessment of the situation and the plans for moving forward. american policy in afghanistan has been evolving on the margins. troop levels are anticipated to be reduced in the coming months. we have seen some narrowing of the mission. however, the united states continues to spend enormous sums that country that may contribute little to the united states vital interest. we need a clear measure of what metrics must be satisfied to achieve the original intent of the mission. it is in central afghanistan is viewed the broader context.

if we reapportioned our worldwide military assets without reference to where they are now, it is doubtful that a rational review it would commit so many resources to afghanistan. the country is important but does not hold that level of strategic value for us, especially when our nation is confronting a debt crisis, our armed forces have been strained, and we're attempting to place more emphasis on east asia. al qaeda has a more significant presence in afghanistan. to the extent that our purpose is to confront the global terrorist threat, we should be refocusing resources on pakistan, yemen, somalia, and other locations. the question becomes how to

transition to an efficient strategy for protecting our vital interest in afghanistan over the long term that does not involve open ended expenditures and large military deployments. the pakistan side of the border has a different dynamic. al qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence in the country. there is no question the threat of these groups, the safety of pakistan eight nuclear arsenal and pakistan's intercession with other states make it 8 vital country worth the cost of engagement. the contradictions inherent in the government necessitate that

we comply intents oversight to make sure our diplomacy advance our objectives. our ambassador will be the critical player in evaluating whether our programs are working and contributing to a partnership between our countries. in 2011, almost 3,200 pakistanis died in terrorist- related incidents. our countries have strong incentive to cooperate. i appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees have already made on behalf of the united states national security. i applaud the commitment they are accept another afford to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. >> ambassador cunningham, if you would lead off. full statement will be placed in the record.

we look forward to your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i am truly honored that president obama and secretary clinton have placed their trust in me and i look forward to working closely with you. i welcome frequent opportunities to consult with you. i've been serving as deputy ambassador in leading a mission of some 1100 dedicated staff from 18 u.s. government agencies. i intend to follow and pursuing the approach for the important challenges before us.

we have achieved a great deal over the past year including completion of our strategic partnership agreement which will guide our partnership now and beyond the transition in 2014. the strategic partnership sends a clear message to the region that afghanistan will have the support of the international community. if confirmed, i will build on this successful diplomatic campaign, underscoring our commitment that will contribute to stability in the region and it never again be a source of a terrorist threat to the united states. on september 11, 2001, i was in new york.

i said the 9/11 terror attack was not just an attack on the united states but an attack on all. that struggle between terror and those values continues today and will continue for some time to come. we're turning a page in afghanistan. we have created an unprecedented for a mark of support for -- frameowrk of support for afghanistan consisting of a web of commitments. our strategy for a stable afghanistan has five elements. training afghan national security forces. building an enduring partnership with afghanistan.

promoting regional stability and economic integration. at the lisbon summit in 2010, we established a timeline for transition. the afghans are taking on responsibility for security and taking the lead now for some 75% of the population. security forces will reach their full strength soon. at the conference in december last year, afghan leaders presented the outlines of a strategy to ensure afghanistan stability beyond the troop drawdown. the international committee committed to supporting afghanistan from 2015 to 2024. in may of this year, the

strategic partnership agreement was signed. secretary clinton's announcement that the president and designated afghanistan a major non-nato ally -- the international committee committed to providing the afghan security forces, the support and funds they need for systemic. the government recognize that nato and its partners have a crucial role to play and invited nato to continue their support after the mission

concludes at the end of 2014. the international community gathered in tokyo to further define the concept of mutual accountability and a share economic assistance. the japanese announced the international committee had pledged $16 billion in aid. the adoption of a framework which a firm that international assistance to afghanistan is not unconditional. the government must act decisively to ensure the returns are sustained and irreversible. that must include fighting corruption, strengthening the rule of law.

so today, the pieces of the structure for -- the security transition it does not mean we are abandoning afghanistan. the taliban appeared to be taking notice. they are signaling an openness to negotiations. to create the convictions for inclusive national dialogue among all afghans about the future of their country. we have been consistent about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must break ties with al qaeda and abide by the afghan constitution including the rights afforded to women and minorities. the taliban face a clear choice

-- they can enter an afghan peace process or face increased national security forces supported by the united states and our allies. a constitutional transfer of power. president karzai has confirmed -- all afghans have much to gain from a successful political transition and should support it. the united states is committed to working with international partners as they choose their next leader. i will not play down the difficulties. we will continue to support the afghan people with a new

president and the hard work needed to bring the security and stability which the afghan people desire and deserved after decades of violence. i would be honored to leave the u.s. mission in afghanistan in the import work of enhancing the security of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman and i look forward to your questions. >> ambassador olson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank you for the chance to be here today. i appreciate this demonstration of confidence by president obama and secretary clinton. i look forward to working

closely with you to events america's interest in pakistan. have served in the foreign service and have worked many of these years in the islamic world, as recently as the ambassador to the united arab emirates. through my career i've been thankful for the support of my family, especially my wonderful daughters. i do not need to tell you how important pakistan is to the united states. the united states has a clear interest in supporting a democratic pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. continued engagement is important to pursue the continued defeat of al qaeda. to encourage regional stability and to support economic

stability within pakistan. instability in pakistan would undermine what we are trying to achieve in the region. pakistan is located in a tough region and continues to face economic stagnation and is home to 200 million people. extremists have killed over 30,000 soldiers and citizens. pakistan is a country with great potential and a talented people. the last seven years have been difficult for u.s.-pakistan relations. despite many jaundice, we have continued to engage the pakistanis at the highest levels.

the reopening of the nato supply lines -- today in islamabad, there is an understanding with the pakistanis ministry of defense in the opening of the grand alliance and communication. i hope to build on the opportunity to define our shared interest with pakistan in practical ways to work together to achieve them. we share an interest in combating the extremists that threaten our countries. they have lost more troops and civilians to act of terror than any nation. we have captured or removed from the battlefield more terrorists on pakistan the soil

than from anywhere else. we share an interest in supporting political stability in afghanistan. we want pakistan to be a full part in supporting afghan peace and stability. pakistan officials have told us that more than any of the nation they have a vested interest in seeking a secure afghanistan. promoting democratic and economic stability is also in our shared interest. a transition of power from one civilian power to another. we share an interest in combating the use of improvised explosive devices. ways to increase border controls to restrict the flows of ied precursors.

supporting private sector growth across borders is essential to creating jobs for pakistan's people. a tremendous impact on increasing cooperation in line with secretary clinton's vision. our continued assistance which is focused on five priority sectors also helps promote a secure pakistan and stimulate economic growth over time. i would consult with the congress and with this committee which has played a vital role in supporting our goals in pakistan.

to help the pakistan it leadership and your counterparts understand how the american people view pakistan. please allow me to rewrite how honored i am to have been nominated as u.s. ambassador to pakistan. i thank you for considering my nomination. >> thank you very much. we have a competing meeting in the finance committee on the tax extenders which i need to attend shortly and i think senator casey will chair. i apologize to our witnesses. let me ask you -- you are well aware of the cross currents on

the hill with respect to the relationship with pakistan. i have met with the ambassador to talk this through and they are well aware and the most recent step to reopen it is an effort to try to settle things down. some people in congress are advocating a more precipitous kind of reaction to the current state of affairs. some want to suspend aid. could you state the congress as you go over there how you see that? why that would be ill-advised, in your judgment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. our relationship with pakistan is critical to our national security interest, primary in the area of counter terrorism cooperation. over the past decade, we are in the position of virtually eliminating al qaeda as a threat to us. i think that we want to continue to formulate a relationship that allows us to strengthen counterterrorism cooperation. i was pleased that in your

opening remarks do mentioned the perception of many pakistanis that the united states had disengages in the 1990's. i think pakistanis in the government and outside are concerned about what will happen in afghanistan post 2014. we have put in place some very strong measures for assuring afghans and the region that we will be engaged after 2014. this is the great significance of the assistance on a predictable basis and provide a stable basis for an ongoing relationship.

if we can continue to emphasize our engagement over time, it will be possible to build the kind of productive relationship based on mutual interests that will serve us over the long term. >> what do think the pakistan the attitude is about the network? >> with regard to the network, i think this is one of the toughest challenges that we face and i would say at a personal level as well as professional level, i have been in kabul and i was at the haqqani network and have seen the attacks that took place. i have a certain amount of skin in the game for this issue. we do know that they are based --

we have taken some actions against the haqqani network. keep leaders have been designated sensing their travel and their finances. the question of the designation of the haqqani network is with secretary clinton right now. we will continue and this will be a primary focus of my activities and my diplomatic

engagement to encourage further measures against the haqqani network and further squeezing of the haqqani. >> i look forward to connecting with you when you get out there. thank you for that. ambassador cunningham, i assume you had the opportunity to read the piece i "the new yorker." could you comment on the number of articles that seem to be appearing, talking about how afghans are planning for the fight and laying the groundwork for a longer confrontation as we draw down rather than engaging in the fight for the democratic process and other things. give us your sense of that state of play. >> sure. thank you.

i think what we're seeing and has seen for awhile -- there are a lot of people in this region and hedging their bets against the future. i think the talk of rearming and reforming of militias is overstated. the temptation is there and the uncertainty about how various groups will advance their interest in the future is very much on the table. myt's why i said in statement the upcoming political transition is vitally important. this is not an issue of one party or another. it is an issue for all afghans and all afghans political actors to take a hard look at

the significance of the upcoming elections and what that means for afghanistan's future and the unity of the country. we are working on that in consultations with members of the international community and with afghans across the political and civil society spectrums. it is something i regard as a key element and a key task for all of us who are interested in afghanistan's future. the way for it has to be one of a political process including the taliban or elements there of. it cannot be future the resorts to internal conflict or based on conflict between various arm conflict.

>> do we have sufficient leverage that we could increase our initiatives in that regard? or are we locked in because of the drawdown? >> our leverage is quite potential. i think the logic is there. afghans see that there is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming years. we will have a crucial role in all the elements of our strategy, and not just we, international committee more broadly. afghans international partners

are united behind the proposition that the political process needs to be credible and knees to produce a peaceful transition. >> thank you. thank you both of you and i look forward to seeing you out there. senator lugar? >> i am pleased that you are willing to undertake these responsibilities. i have confidence in both of you and the confirmation process should be an opportunity for us to discuss pakistan and afghanistan to obtain more information for our committee and the republic. i want to raise this question broadly.

deadly brutal attacks within pakistan amounted to well over 3000 pakistanis killed. the threat of violent military groups is pervasive. no part of pakistan is spare. there were suicide and armed attacks in karachi as well as in the tribal areas. how does the government and the people classify this threat? how was the government worked on the internal threat these terror groups represent? can you distinguish between our efforts to support these efforts to combat terrorist threats and the regional threats from the safe havens that is our

primary concern? >> i agree entirely with your assessment about the nature of the challenge that pakistan faces internally. we have seen a great shift in the government of pakistan's approach over the past few years in dealing with the internal threat. there was a time when the pakistan army was primarily deployed along the frontier with india. it is deployed internally and especially in the area near the province to deal with the insurgent threat. we're familiar with the counter insurgency operation a few

years ago. i think that we have recognized and supported this change and thanks to the generosity of the congress, we have a variety of funding mechanisms funding security assistance to build the capability of the pakistanis forces, moving them away from a focus on heavy armor toward lighter counter insurgency operations. there have been challenges with the program but i will look forward to working with you and members of other committees to see what we can do to remove

some of the obstacles on the important programs. >> to what extent is this violence undermined any potential for civil government in pakistan? what are the ramifications to the government itself? >> i think the pakistan government does face many challenges. in the last year regard to the floods, i would say there are some strengths in pakistan it society. there is an active civil society which picks up a considerable amount of the flak. the pakistan military is a strong institution and has been involved in building capacity. our assistance program is focused on building up some of

the capacity of the civilian government, particularly in energy and economic growth and in stabilization, road building in the areas closest to the afghan border. i think all of these programs have been effective. i take on board the point that has been made that we need to exercise diligence oversight and report back to you on the effectiveness of those programs. >> let me ask while teetering on the brink of insolvency on some occasions, pakistan appears to forgo considerable revenue including those associated with transit trade. pakistan signed an agreement with afghanistan. has been little progress in actual trade across pakistan and jobs continue to be lost.

what is the prospect of trade finding alternative routes through iran? what is the total estimate of revenue lost to pakistan during the closure of the resupply routes? we are talking about our assistance to pakistan and the problems they have in terms of internal governance. what is the focus when it comes to trade and other building of income in the country? >> thank you, senator. i agree that the afghan- afghanistan transit and trade

agreement has not fully lived up to its potential. it is an important step potentially. it is one that i was somewhat involved in supporting in my previous position. i will certainly -- i have traveled to islamabad last fall to meet with pakistan officials to urge further implementation. there have been a variety of technical factors that have yet been worked out. i would pursue that if confirmed with great vigor. with regard to the regional trade, one of the promising things that we have seen is the liberalization of trade with india. the indian economy is a period

of rapid expansion. pakistan has granted most favored nation status to india and has move to liberalize its trade from a so-called positive list to a negative list that limits only strategic goods. we want to encourage further progress in the economic dialogue and commercial relationship between india and pakistan. >> thank you very much. >> i want to commend ambassador cunningham and ambassador olson. these are tough posts. also to your family. i am resisting the temptation to say how great it is that you

were born in allentown, pennsylvania. new jersey is pretty good, too. i wanted to start with pakistan. provide a little bit of a backdrop for a predicate to my question. it is the question about ied's precursor elements. you say on the second to last page of your testimony, "share a list of combating the use of ied's and looking for ways to increase border controls to restrict the ied's. i am happy to see that in your statement. most americans know what ied's

are and the horrific impact they have on our troops. they now be as familiar with the precursor in greed, the ammonium nitrate or callous and ammonium nitrate flowing from pakistan into afghanistan and become the central element in that explosive capacity. i have spent a lot of time on this issue as have many members of congress. the administration has worked very hard on this. i spoke to secretary clinton about this yesterday. i wanted to get your sense of it because when i was in pakistan last august, in every meeting that we had, whether it was the prime minister then or the

president's with the general, the army chief, we brought this up and they knew we were coming, in a sense. they were prepared for the question and would address the question, express their solidarity with us on the issue. they have lost a lot of civilians in this horrific nightmare. then they went another step to say and providing us a briefing by the interior ministry, outlining their written plan and then the expressed determination to implement what they had written down on paper. we said when is this and they said it is within months. i was expecting some time in the fall we would see some measure of progress. maybe it would take a little longer. to date, there's been no

substantial progress made. you see it in every state. pennsylvania has lost about 79000 troops in afghanistan, more than half from ied's. what can you do in your new posting and what will you do in the weeks, the first couple of weeks that you get there to press the pakistan government on at least one fundamental point. this is in their interest as much as it is in our interest to stop this flow of ammonium nitrate to reduce the chance that more civilians or troops will be blown up by these perfect explosions. >> thank you very much, senator casey, both for the question

and i do want to acknowledge the central importance of ied's and countering their precursors. i appreciate the enormous cost that these devices have brought about. i want to thank you for spending three days in pakistan and making the effort to spend a significant amount of time. it is appreciated when senators do that. i do think we share a common interest with the pakistanis on ied's. they have suffered heavy losses from ied's. there is a slight distinction because most of the ied's are generated from military -grade explosive devices, which they

have found, chapin leak out into the marketplace. there are ways that we can pursue it. i will work closely with my team, if confirmed, with the department of defense elements and civilian aspect of the mission to develop a approach for approaching the government. in the early days of my tenure, i will follow up on this and report back to you. >> what is your sense as to the region white -- reason why there has not been progress?

i realize that the relationship does not help. i cannot tell you how many times the promise was made to us as representatives of our government, promising the over and over again that they would make progress. i want to get your sense of the recent why they have not made progress. >> senator, i think this is probably an issue where it would be best for me to go out and get the truth on this and come back to you. my very preliminary sense on this is that, as you know, there have been a relationship issues that have perhaps added friction overall and prevented some movement forward on this. there is also the question of

calcium ammonium nitrate production. in pakistan, it is not even able to produce because it has agricultural use. that may be a domestic issue. that is a preliminary sense. if confirmed, i would like to get on the ground and report back to you. >> i will talk to more later. one general has spent a lot of time on this. we can go from his experiences. senator corker. >> thank you both for your public service. mr. cunningham and i spent a lot of time yesterday in his office. i appreciate that. ambassador olson, we will do the same in an hour. thank you both for your service. many of us wanted to be hard on you. it is hard to do.

thank you all for being here. you all are currently working together, is that correct -- or have? as we travel through afghanistan, multiple trips, our military operators are most concerned about fighting a war in afghanistan that has been controlled out of pakistan. there is frustration in our military leaders. y'all have certainly experience those concerns. which of the two jobs do you consider most difficult? paragraph,ant a long but seriously work -- which do you consider most difficult? >> jim cunningham is my boss. i will let him answer. [laughter] >> it is impossible to say.

they are both challenging positions in the challenging times. being ambassador to pakistan, a country that is so large and has so many problems, has got to be a really significant challenge, but my task, in a country that is at war and where we are fighting along with our afghan and international partners -- that is a challenge -- i do not think you can rank them, but it is a challenge of a different order. >> several years ago, we embarked on something -- the holbrook doctrine. pakistan he is that whole approach to be very offensive. looking debt pakistan through

the eyes of the afghanistan -- it is pretty offensive to the people in pakistan. we really do not have the relationship -- a long-term relationship. it is more of a transactional relationship. it has been that way for a long time. mr. olsen -- as we deal with a country that basically the military controls and elected leaders are not particularly effective -- how do we, as members of congress, it is really the american taxpayer foot in this bill -- footing this bill -- how do we leverage this transactional relationship, not one that is built on good will? how do we leverage the resources we have to call pakistan to act in ways we would like to see

them act? >> thank you, senator. that is an excellent question. i think that we have to remember that our relationship with pakistan goes back quite a ways. the it goes back to the beginning of the pakistani state. for 65 years, we have had a relationship. it has had ups and downs, but there have been period crack of close and intense partnership, probably most notably in the 1980's and, of course, that was a relationship that centered around afghanistan. i think that i would agree with you that pakistanis have some concern about being labeled, but at the same time the long-term

status of afghanistan is enormously important to pakistanis. it is one of the critical questions. our interest with pakistan over time is building a more stable relationship, one that is focused on our mutual interest but takes account of the fact that the united states is not going to disengage from afghanistan. the great fear amongst many in the region, i certainly heard this from my afghan friends while i was serving their -- i think it is true and pakistan as well -- is that the international community will repeat the experience of 1989- 1992 when, having accomplished the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan, the international community turned away and disengage.

the cost in pakistan, where a generation of military officers who had previously served with the united states and trade in u.s. institutions no longer have that opportunity -- we are frankly paying a cost now. many of those officers are now general officers and the government, exposed to us in the way their predecessors were. i think that all of the work that ambassador cunningham described that he and ambassador crocker had been doing on the strategic partnership agreement, solidifying the future of the afghanistan will have a reassuring effect on the pakistani sensibility. that will be my priority, to have that strategic-level discussion about the united states not disengaging from the region. >> it seems to me that, and again i realized that the "

elective leadership" of pakistan is more than weak. if they continue to do things that are only in their self- interest -- the issue that senator casey is mentioning, but also multiple other issues -- it seems that they are concerned about afghanistan, about india not having influence their. they would rather be destabilized that have india have any influence? >> senator, on the question of the doctrine that pakistanis have talked about -- strategic depth. it represents a strategic depth against potential conflict with india.

my sense is that the pakistani military and government have moved away from that. the foreign minister has made public comments about moving away from the doctrine of strategic depth. the chief of the army staff has redeployed his forces internally to deal with the internal threat and heavily towards the border with afghanistan to deal with the threats emanating from that region. there is a basis at a strategic level for further discussion with the pakistanis. these are positive developments that we would want to encourage. as pakistan looks to its strategic position. >> i realize that we as a country need to continue to be involved with pakistan, and i

know that the notion of "cutting off all aid" is not a particularly good way of staying engaged. on the other hand, just to continue as we have been going is also not a good route. sometimes congress can be helpful to people like you by doing certain things that make certain things that cause you to talk with them about that, if things do not change, congress will continue doing something. what are things we might do prior to you being there that might help us leverage pakistan. --? i understand all those things, but at present our relationship is very transactional. how do -- and do we have the

physician who aided us with osama bin laden in prison? how do we get them to act in a way different than they are now acting on things important to us. >> i think we need to focus on the core areas of mutual interest. this is primarily in the counter-terrorism area. as i noted, we have made enormous progress against al qaeda over the last decade. we are within grasp of shutting them down. that has got to be our primary strategic objective. i think that we need to have some very candid and direct discussions with the pakistani government about the question of safe havens and the haqqani

network. it is important that that discussion take place against a context of kirk -- predictability in the overall relationship. that is what i would be hoping to, if confirmed, and to the relationship, some sense that we want to move away from a more transactional relationship into one that is based on a longer- term policy of engagement. the assistance that has been so generously provided by the american people has had a significant role in potentially -- and potentially has a significant role in the future on stabilizing that relationship and showing that our interests are long-term. >> our interests are in our interests. i would say -- i have taken too much time. i thank both of you for your service.

we have an election that is going to be over here soon. regardless of what the outcome is, in many ways there is a clean slate, if you will. there will not be the issue of dealing with who did what -- we will have a clean slate, no matter what the outcome is. i would just ask that both of you continue to be totally transparent with us. the fact is that we candidly have leaders in both countries that are extremely deal -- extremely difficult to deal with. in many cases, they are not working in ways beneficial to us. i hope that you will continue to be as transparent as you were in our office, mr. cunningham, and as you will be in the next hour. we look forward to your service. >> i wanted to turn to some

questions for ambassador cunningham. two broad areas -- we do not have enough time, but we can further amplify them in questions for the record. first, about women and girls in afghanistan. by one level, we could assert that over the last decade significant progress has been made when you look at one metric, which has a lot of meaning and value, the number of girls in school. it was almost zero or in the area of almost no girls in school one decade ago. now it is maybe as high as 1/3 or more of the millions in school. that is a great measure of progress. also, the participation of women

in the government of afghanistan is also a significant measure of progress. the concern is that, even as that progress is marching forward and president karzai speaks to this issue, those gains will be diminished or maybe even wiped out as a result of our reconciliation process that results in a conclusion after negotiations where women are set back to where they were or at least a place where the gains would be substantially eroded. embassador cunningham, you might remember -- we had a meeting with women parliamentarians. they were inspirational on a lot

of levels. we think politics here is tough -- over there, it is a lot tougher when your life is at stake very often. one of them, i remember, asking my foreign-policy expert to give me the name -- kofi -- she talked about her father and husband participating in politics, both killed in the process, yet here she was talking about her own involvement and her own focus on the future of being involved in politics in afghanistan. i wanted to get your sense of not just where we are, but how our strategy can prevent the dramatic erosion of those gains. >> that is an important issue. before i comment on that, i wanted to thank you for your

focus on ied's. we discussed this when you are in afghanistan in august. they are now the killer of choice for both military and, horrific lee, four civilians. they then are a real challenge. i appreciate your focus. women -- we have something called the woman of courage -- women of courage award in the department that the secretary gives every year. for the past six years, an afghan woman has been the recipient. there are 10 every year from around the world. we had a reception hosted by ambassador crocker to welcome this year's recipient, a politician and media person in kandahar, and absolutely and --

incredible man. previous recipients, a number of women from the region, were at this event. in the event, ambassador crocker said quite perceptively that to be a woman in public like in afghanistan, and the woman is a woman of courage. -- any woman is a woman of courage. it is a marvel to hear these stories and their determination and commitment as you did. they have literally invested their lives and their personal safety and that of their families in taking up a public role, whether in business or even teaching or working in a health clinic or being a politician. there are a lot of female politicians now in afghanistan, including at the provincial and district level as well as the national level.

several female ministers, deputy ministers -- the president's deputy chief of staff is a woman. they have worked hard to create this space and to create the space for those who are coming after them. britain's particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities -- it is particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities and a coming out educated, looking for opportunities, sometimes with the support of their families, but many times not. this is a long way of saying that many at -- a lot has been invested in bringing afghanistan's women in -- those who can and want to -- bring them into society in a constructive way. we have, i am proud to say, played a significant role in this. we have programs across the board, from education to midwife

teaching entrepreneurial skills, language, information technology -- educating women about the law. there is a law that prohibits violence against women in afghanistan. we contribute to a network of shelters that, unfortunately, are necessary in afghan society, but they are extremely valuable and providing refuge for women who cannot stay for whatever reason with their families or husbands. a tremendous amount has been accomplished over the last years. it is one of the significant success stories and a real tribute to the american people that we have supported that. we have made the united states and our international partners to a series of declarations made

very clear that these gains are not to be rolled back. they are protected under afghan law in the constitution. it is the cardinal principle for us in discussions about reconciliation and the future of afghanistan, and i expect that will continue -- i am sure that will continue to be the case. it will certainly be my point of view if i'm confirmed as ambassador. >> thanks for a much. i know that secretary clinton has made that a central focus of her work. we are grateful for that. i'm out of time. i wanted to turn to senator mendez. >> thank you. thank you both for your lawn service to our country. ambassador cunningham, i look at -- might understanding of the president's goal is the shifting

of the military mission to lend assistance mission in afghanistan. this is in hopes of creating a functioning government that house rebuilt lives in institutions -- helps rebuild lives and institutions. we have done that elsewhere within much more committed partner. look at the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction's new report that speaks to a significant portion of $400 million of investments in infrastructure projects designed to win support from local governments, which may be wasted because of delays and weaknesses and planning such that the programs may not be completed until american troops leave or have already left. i look at the commitment by the united states of more than $90 billion to development in afghanistan, with the administration requesting $9

billion in 2013 -- a look at all of this and say, given continued -- given continued problems with instability and corruption, how do we justify and expect that we will effectively, if we were to commit to those funds, effectively use those funds towards the development of a sustainable economy in afghanistan, something that i could go to taxpayers in new jersey and say, this is worthy of our support and will be well- spent based upon the experience we have had so far? >> that is an important issue. thank you for raising it. we have a very broad and have had a very broad assistance and development program in afghanistan. the specific issues of the afghan infrastructure fund that

you referenced -- we have some differences of view with the inspector, as we often do, but we also agree with many recommendations they have made. it was an innovative program that tried to do something new, which was to bring several different u.s. entities that had not been cooperating particular the well, with each other, -- particularly well with each other, and to try to bridge the difference between what had normally been short-term infrastructure projects designed to influence the counterinsurgency campaign and the structure that is really necessary for stability and longer-term growth, particularly with the roads and the electric power, this has taken longer to get under way

than we would have hoped, but it has brought together a whole of government approach to doing this, and the program is constantly being reviewed, and each iteration has gotten better in terms of the coordination, oversight, and evaluation of sustainability going forward, so while it will stretch out longer than what was originally intended, we are making -- doing what we can to make the best use of funds that was given to us, and one of those was to link together the power networks in the north and south of afghanistan, so afghans and their economy have the electrical power that they need. to the question of the work of the assistance that we have provided and will be providing

in a lesser amount going forward, i understand very well that this entails sacrifice on the part of all of our taxpayers. but it has produced results and will continue to produce results. these of the efforts of security and the efforts they are increasingly taking on insecurity. afghanistan is a very poor country. under the best of circumstances, it would still be in very poor country with tremendous problems. our work in development assistance is part of our campaign to prepare and afghanistan which can stand on its own feet in a way that it

has stability that is sustainable over time, and this goes to the point that the senator raised about what our enduring vital interest is in afghanistan. >> i do not mean to interrupt. i wanted to hear you go on at length, but here is my problem. i understand the goals, but we have an administration and and afghanistan that is significantly corrupt. we have an administration in afghanistan that we see has wasted amounts of money. so if afghanistan is going to be a ward of the united states for over a decade, and we are going to spend $90 billion and maybe more, at least, at least there should be a expectation that there should be greater transparency, greater efficiency, less corruption, and unless there are benchmarks to

do that, i do not see how in fact we can continue to make this long term, open-ended commitment without a concurring response, and i know, you know, that there are some responsibilities because we went in there, but by the same token, there are responsibilities by the afghan government to be responsive, transparent, honest, and more efficient, and i just do not get the sense that we accomplish those goals and as much as giving money. if there is a strong commitment here, not here for us to give, but for us to get, at the end of the day. would it be my understanding that that is going to be part of your drive year? >> absolutely. i have been in afghanistan for the past year, and it is, as he

knows, it is a daily part of not just our business with the afghan government but everybody's business with the afghan government, and one of the key outcomes of the series of international meetings that i discussed earlier, especially the tokyo conference, is putting clearly on the record that there is precisely this expectation on the part of the people who are supporting afghanistan who want to support afghanistan, but we need to see that real progress is being made, particularly when dealing with corruption and governance issues, and what is called the mutual accountability framework, there are specific things laid out better expectations that the government will address, and as we speak, my eight colleagues still in a cool -- still in

kabul on looking at these going forward, and it is very much the things you say, greater transparency, greater accountability. we are doing that internally in our own processes to make sure we know where american assistance is going and what it is being used for, and we will absolutely be insisting that the afghan government produce greater transparency and accountability. >> mr. chairman, i see the time, but i have one more question, if i may? for myself, i have been supportive, but it is not open ended support, speaking as one member. i have to see the movement towards those elements, and, you know, i cannot continue at a time when we face such enormous challenges here at home to vote for billions of dollars that at the end of the day do not lead towards a more open, transparent, on this process, at

a minimum, at a minimum. >> i understand. >> in a similar light, senator corker and i have a while back looked for some benchmarks as it relates to our assistance with the support funds to pakistan. you know, in my view, it is incongruent to provide enormous sums for the pakistan military for the coalition's support funds unless we are certain that the pakistan these are willing to locate and dismantle terrorist threat within its border. my understanding is that this new deal that we have cut with pakistan to cut the transport of the military supply convoys also promises to deliver more than $1 billion in delayed military aid -- what process are we getting in return beyond the convoy to a

commitment that the pakistan military is committed to ceasing to support terrorist and extremist groups and promoting the taliban and al qaeda and other terror groups working in the opera -- in the area of pakistan perform all i hear is them seeking an end to the drone the tax, the ones successful effort in turning it over to them. again, if we're going to be providing billions of dollars, then what is the commitment, the concurrent commitment here? >> thank you, senator. excellent question. with regard to the coalition's support funds, as you know, this is a reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of coalition activities, and my understanding of the process is that the

pakistan is submit certain expenditures for our review, and we review them very carefully and do not in any way accept all of those expenditures. in other words, we are very careful to make sure of our own standards and our own criteria. the support for counter- terrorism, the record of the last decade shows that we have had substantial cooperation from the pakistan is on the question of al qaeda in particular. we are in the grasp of defeating al qaeda as an organization. a lot of that, as president

obama indicated, is due to support from the pakistan government. in addition, the pakistan government is concerned about the internal threat from insurgents and extremist organizations. the pakistan army has been effectively redeployed. many of the units that have been on the border have been redeployed internally. they are dealing with the threat coming from extremists. on the question of drones, senator, as you well know, the president has said that we will go after extremists. there is a threat wherever we find them. it is beyond a level of

classification for this hearing to discuss those in any great detail, but if it is confirmed, to continue to follow the president's direction on the question of defending our national interests. >> i take it what you are telling me is you are satisfied? >> senator, i think that there is more that can be done, absolutely. i think that particularly with regard to the county network, and this is a very difficult issue. i am coming at this as having served. for the last year, i was on the embassy on the days that been attacks took place, from the

county network out of waziristan. we are looking at all of the ways that we can as a whole of the u.s. government attack the question of the network and the support we of already designated a number of individuals. i will, if confirmed, take it as an urgent responsibility and the most urgent of my responsibilities to press the pakistan as for more information on the network in every way possible. >> thank you, senator menendez. we are at the end of the hearing. we want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony and for your continuing commitment to public service, particularly with these difficult postings, and we again think your families. it will be open until noon time tomorrow for the senators to submit their questions, and unless there is anything further, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," we will talk about the elections, and there is the president of the health and reproductive care services talking about things going into law. japan has outlawed the possession of firearms. we talk about the recent article "a land without guns." emails, telephone calls, and tweets. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> at the foot of the bridge, i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. >> in 1965, a 25-year-old john western part in the voting rights march from selma to montgomery, alabama, that would

take them across the bridge. >> we can within distance of the state troopers, and a man identified himself and said he was a major with the alabama state troopers. "this is an unlawful march, and it will not be allowed to continue." and one person said, "major, give us a moment to pray." represented john lewis. "q&a." >> net, mitt romney delivers remarks in warsaw, poland, and talks about his relationship -- their relationship with the u.s..

>> this meeting will come to order. we are waiting on a member. someone was supposed to be here, and that was eight minutes ago, so we are anxiously awaiting his arrival, and we are considering two measures, hr 8 and hr 6189. before we began, i would like to note that celeste west has for a quarter of a century served on the rules committee staff and will be heading into a well reserved -- well-deserved retirement. everybody here knows your knows that she has tried to ensure that everything runs smoothly up here. it is thanks to her. in fact, she makes sure the cell phones never go off, among other

things. that is one of her responsibilities, but i want to wish celeste well and say congratulations and thanks for your many, many years of service to the rules committee. [applause] >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? if i may? i would like to take a moment to add to your best wishes for celeste. i would like to do that, as well. we are going to miss her terribly. i always feel bad when that much institutional memory leads the rules committee. >> thank you, celeste, very much. why do we not proceed? again, we're waiting for the arrival of the chairman of the ways and means committee. we have the ranking member, my good friend, mr. levin, here,

and we will go to the chairman when he arrives. >> hello, everybody. let me make a couple of points. first of all, i would ask for this committee to provide a world that would have my amendment which substitutes hr 8 and provides the necessary waivers. i think you know the republican leadership -- i hope the committee will make good on that promise. last week, the speaker said, and i quote, "if i democratic colleagues want to offer the president's plan or the senate democrats' plan, we are more than happy to give them the votes," and then last week, between our minority whip and mr. kantor, mr. kantor said

this. "mr. speaker, i will send it back to the gentleman. we do expect, our -- and our intention is for your tax to be made into world. i do not know how many more times we have to say that the speaker has always represented that we are going to work towards an open process." update. i will be closer to the mike. it is not very loud. >> please, please, please. >> let me welcome the chairman of the ways and means committee year and first say that we are thrilled to have you before the rules committee, and we know you are going through some health challenges now, as you and i spoke about over the weekend, and i know that i speak on behalf of the democrats and republicans and the full house that our thoughts and prayers are with you.

mr. levin just began with a request that we would be able to make an order in this committee, and that is a desire for the first time since 1999 when our party was last in the majority to provide waivers, so it has been a longtime cents a substitute on a bill like this has been made, an order providing the necessary waivers for this, and it is true i am going to ask the committee to do this. >> thank you for your comment. earlier today. >> well, thank you. >> is your microphone on there? >> i think it is. it may be déjà of new, but we do not have to do the same thing all over again. this year is the third time in five years that the court tax rates on individuals or investment incomes are set to expire. that is no way to run a country, and it is certainly no way to

run an economy, and while congress -- we should take the opportunity to finally get serious about tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer. it leads to the creation of 1 million jobs in the first year alone. h.r. 8 provides an extension of what was enacted in 2001 and 2003 and extended again in 2010, in support with many democrats and president obama. the reason we acted then to extend those policies, and the reason we should extend these rates again now is simple. jobs. just like two years ago, the economy remains weak, with the economy at or above 8% for 41 consecutive months. as the president said, you do

not raise taxes in a recession, and that is a quote. the budget office indicates that these budget issues along with what constitutes the fiscal cliff that we face this year could cost america between 2 million to 3 million jobs, and if we only do some, as some of our colleagues and said, we will still lose a lot of jobs, according to ernst and young. middle-class families cannot afford any more job losses. this is not just my perspective. it is the perspective of many small-business owners, like one in ohio. in recent testimony between -- before the house ways and means committee, he talked about the raising taxes, saying that this leads to a loss in investment and jobs. the last thing congress should do right now is raise taxes on

small manufacturers just as we are rebounding from a devastating recession. president obama and some propose to do exactly that by calling for the expiration of the bush tax cuts on household incomes over $250,000 per year. those in the top brackets, it is a direct tax increase on manufacturers like me. we should also look at what is needed to help the economy. republicans want to adopt a fast-track process. the pathway to job creation, with a simpler and fairer act, h.r. 6169, this forces congress to do a commitment that provides

the certainty that taxpayers need to make a plan and the job creators need to make investment and hiring decisions. independent economists have predicted that common sense tax reform policy, included in the last two house-past budgets will lead to a creation of 1 million jobs in the first year. mr. chairman, this boils down to two different visions. do we want to raise taxes and destroyed over 710,000 u.s. jobs, or do we want to make the tax code simpler and fairer and create more than 1 million jobs for american workers? i welcome the opportunity to discuss this. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. levin has discussed his request to make a substitute order, as i just said. i am hoping very much this

committee will do that. as i said, it will be the first time since 1999 that waivers have been provided, which is a long time. we have provided the request, and i hope we can ensure that the proposal that you put forth to bring to us will be made an order. >> thank you very much. i trust all of you will proceed along that line. so let me just -- not >> it depends on how compelling your arguments are right now. >> you have already committed yourselves. >> i am just one member of the committee. i have no idea what the committee will do. >> i will make it very short. i will go on to another point. i wonder if anybody has any question about the substitute.

i will then now go on. >> and now you are going to go on. you are going to buy it back. from detroit, i have always heard the term not to buy it back after you have sold it. >> so let me just add, there is considerable uncertainty in our economy. i think the agreement today, i think it was today, in terms of leadership in terms of the resolution, essentially extending the appropriations, it is a step in the right direction in terms of producing uncertainty. another way to do that it is to pass my substitute. everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cuts. i think there is very broad

agreement. there is disagreement beyond that. we should take the areas of agreement this week. every taxpayer would receive a tax break if we extend the middle income tax break, including those above the level. in fact, they would receive a larger continue tax cut than those who earn under $250,000. the question is whether the middle class tax cut is going to be held hostage to what was presented, which will result in a tax cut for people earning over $1 million. that is basically the issue, and so i urge very much that there

be an end to the uncertainty as to middle-class tax cut this week before we go home. i could add other comments. i very much disagree with his wife claim about 700,000 jobs or whatever it is. i also want to mention that the two bills combined essentially would add a tax cut to millionaires. 39 gord $30,000. and it would increase taxes on millions of american families. three provisions would either be eliminated or eliminated

altogether. so i have a different take on that. an important step towards doing that is to allow the substitute that i introduced which the leadership. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. it is great to have you both here. i think it is a very clear and apparent decision that we as members will make. we want to have a free-flowing debate on the floor. we have the alternatives. so i have no questions for you other than to congratulate you. mr. sessions? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to both of you to the rules committee, the most opportunity -- most important opportunity for both sides to tout their ideas.

i know there might be some questions, at least as pertains to the ranking member about the numbers. the long run economic impact for 2013, which is essentially the democratic bill combined with what the democrats in the house what to do, and there is a conclusion that is drawn literally on the first page. it says, among others things, that this will harm the economy. can you provide me your ideas about what you think of, including using this report, and any other data that you may have put >> we actually have had hearings on this in committee as

well, and the reason is that pass through entities, , which is what most are now in america, and they are not c corporations, they are passed through corporations, and you can say that they are rich because as couples, they have incomes above $250,000. they are not all getting salaries. we know that half of the business income will be impacted at that level, and that is why there will be an impact on the economy, and that is why ernst and young said it would be that many jobs. there was someone you testified about that in front of the committee. there is a lot of, you know, about millionaires and billionaires, and i would just ask all of my colleagues to talk about what is fair.

the top percentage are already pay more than 50% of all of the income taxes. should that being a 75%? when is enough enough, and what will washington do with the money? are they planning to pay down the debt with it, or will the money be wasted on more government spending? i think we all know what will happen. the truth is that the bottom line, the tax increases will the story about 700,000 american jobs. what we want to do with this bill is to extend current law and not give a tax cut to anybody, as my friend from michigan says. we are not cutting anybody's taxes. we are extending this or one- year to get the tax reform we know this country needs so we can begin to build an economic recovery and get people back to work.

we are complaining that unemployment is too high. the right tax plan can do that. we will then bring it to the form with a series of deadlines. this is one year to get certainty. i know many of us have been visited by employers, wondering what is going to happen, and this will provide now, before we get into october, certainty that we actually have a plan to address the difficult economic problems facing our country. i want america to be the number one economy in the world again. i want us to be the economy leading the world, and one when we can do that is what proper tax reform. >> i would allow him to make any comments that he chooses. yes, sir? >> let me just mention the tax.

97%. that is one of the flaws in this argument about the necessity of extending the high-income tax cut. jobs. the ernst and young study is otherwise flawed. it does not assume that any of the money that would be received by not extending the high-income tax would be used. that is a $49 billion difference between the two bills in terms of deficit increase. that is the difference between extending the high-income tax cuts and doing that for middle- income families. i want to mention one other fact. in 2011, 93% of the income

growth in this country went to the top 1%. so in terms of economic growth as well as equity, in terms of certainty, i want to emphasize this, there is so much talk about certainty. why leave here without extending it? widely here and talk about tax reform? most of the tax-reform proposals are only generalities, including the bill that has been introduced here, and essentially doing what was suggested there, having a reduction of two tax brackets, 25% and 10%, for upper-income families, millionaires, an additional $300,000 in a tax cut. the middle-income families want us to do that. >> i will answer that question

since you asked the question. we know that since president obama has taken office that the income from americans has fallen $2,400 per family. >> how much did it fall under his predecessor? >> you know what, i will tell you he had 60 straight months of economic growth, but what i would say to you is that we were asked about this model -- it sounds like you are trying to tell us to just do this without the job benefit. this is where republicans and democrats do differ, because we are after job growth. i note that following the enactment of tax relief in 2003, the amount of revenue, at the -- collected by the american government went up by $700 billion over five years, and the deficit went down.

is that because what republicans did was, quote, a jobs growth package? is that what you are trying to do here? >> that is the pro-growth model. what we would like to do -- [inaudible] it would be much less than

somebody who does not have the tax cut. the complicated tax code. working their way into the rationale. the american people what to do that. it has been far too long a discussion. we are looking at really strong head winds. projected earnings. many companies around the world.

we need really to put this country back in a leadership position. >> it seems like, of what you're talking about, the momentum, is jobs. job creation and the opportunity for people to have jobs. mr. chairman, to put in the record, the ernst and young reports. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me echo what the chairman said. but i am going to argue with you just a bit. >> ok. >> not trying to do anything about the deficit, it was vice president cheney under george w. bush.

i would doubt any democrat that i have ever heard about that said the deficit did matter. we really have to clean that up. the problem with the bush tax cuts is that they do not work. one decade ago, we promised that all of these jobs were going to be created and everything was rosy. 23 million jobs. cutting the deficit to almost nothing. it was really quite remarkable. where are those jobs? that we were supposed to have created under the bush tax cuts? we're in worse shape and have been in since the great depression. i hope everybody does it really agree that we need this amendment, because i really would like to see.

i am not getting any great outcry at home even from millionaires. the corporations, let me see if i have these statistics. corporations not paying their fair share. here we are. 1500 americans that earn more than $1 million in federal income. going offshore, hiding money away to save on taxes, but 30 profitable fortune 500 companies pay no taxes, not a dime between 2008 and 2010. i think it is time they did. what sums this up is it has created a serious revenue shortage in the country. i do not have any questions of

either of you, but i would like to put that statement in. just to comment on one paragraph here. the present is strongly in favor of tax reform. bipartisan individual reform that would lower the tax rate. cutting the deficit. the democrats care about that a lot. making the tax code more fair. those are democrat principles that we talked about last week. they believe what this would do to the average american family would be very -- would be pretty devastating. it would be an increase for most of them. i agree with you. i want this economy back. but even in our heyday when we were the best manufacturer in

the world, we never did destroy the middle class, and that is happening now under these tax cuts. more than anything in the world, i want us to be fair again and give everybody an opportunity. that is what this does not do. we are putting more and more people in precarious situations where we wonder if they will be able to survive. it would seem that the advisers would recommend that you veto it. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have been listening very closely to our two presenters here tonight. i wanted to ask if he might expand a little bit on some comments he has made and then

take a slightly different tack. you quoted the president as saying two years ago, "you do not raise taxes in an economy." do you have any insight at all as to why the economy, in worse shape than it was two years ago, why in the world the president would want to increase taxes now and how in the world could that possibly help the economy now if it would not help the economy two years ago? >> well, the last three deficits have been unprecedented degree of the debt as a percentage of our economy is no more than all of our economy, and it has been a problem, but it has become a much worse problem, and then with the difficult economic problems in europe, as well, i think that this is a search for more revenue.

now, the problem is we really need to get the economy moving again and really gain the trust of the american people back. for middle-class americans, they need a job. the reason the american middle class has taken such a hit, that is where much of the job loss has been, and while the published rate is around 8% nationally, we all know the effective rate is higher, because so many people have left the work force. we are going to get another jobs report. we have seen suggest -- successive quarters downgraded. if we can get to a pro-growth tax policy in a revenue neutral way so we can really get the kind of job creation that we had estimated, 1 million jobs in the first year versus $700,000 -- 700,000 lost if we take the approach democrats are suggesting, and if we can get people back to work, that is one thing we can do to begin to

solve our fiscal problem. >> excuse me, mr. levin. if i can follow up with mr. camp a little bit. if you could, i do not know how many people are observing this, but i suspect most americans have not had a course in economics. most americans do not understand a lot of basic economics, although they do understand they are hurting right now, and they are frustrated. they want their government to do something. hard working americans have played by the rules, and all they want is jobs. say again what you said a minute ago, because i think it is worth repeating, what our deficit and debt are compared to our gdp. i just think, and particularly if you want to refer to what is happening in europe, i mean,

again, what i know about this, i read in the materials we are given, but i know we are not in very good shape. if you could repeat those things and say a little more. >> part of what you said, the economics, it is not only where you are but the trajectory, where you are going to be, and with excessive deficits of over $1 trillion three years in a row and the debt to dramatically increase in, the number of $15 trillion, $16 trillion, it is now more than all of our economy, and when you look at the nations that are in trouble, and, of course, we had testimony, and experts came before the committee and said when your debt gets to that level, you are taking about one percentage point off of your country's economic growth, and that in america is about 1 million jobs, so part of getting our economy moving again is not

only creating the jobs that would come from tax reform but also from lessening the amount of debt in relation to our economy. >> excuse me again, mr. levin. when people ask me or say to me, they say all of the time, "you republicans are one-note people. you just do not want to raise taxes." that is what we hear from republicans. why do you not come up with something new? people say that in a critical way. we have not had any new ideas. but one of my responses to them is we know that the proposal to raise taxes on only the wealthiest people in this country will not stop, and it does not answer the problem.

when you say something or a little bit about, again, the trajectory that we are facing right now in terms of where we are going? it is my understanding, and, again, i am not as factual with the numbers as you are, not being on the committee, but it is my understanding that even if we did what the president is asking us to do and what the colleagues on the other side of the aisle are asking us to do, this only reduces the deficit by about 10% sun to 12% over the next 10 years, and it is only 2% of the new spending or the spending that the president wants, and he wants to add, if i understand it right, $10 trillion to the national debt. again, i know people watching this or listening to this, we do not want to throw out so many

numbers that people cannot follow it, but i think it is important that we explain to the american people that raising taxes is not the answer to our situation, that cutting spending at the federal government level, or at least that is what i have always understood. can you explain that in layman's terms? >> the impact is it is not as significant as one might think, but the potential injury to job creation is at least 700,000 jobs. if we do not stop the tax hike, it could be 2 million, 3 million. so we really do need to address this. i also think it is just a critical to think of the countries in europe. we know the preview. they let their debt become out of control in relationship to their economy, and we have done

the same thing, andy sims and bowls -- simpson-bowles them the same thing. how much your economy is growing. if we could add 1% to that, it would be jobs. also, we would see 1 million jobs created. this is something that has been in our budget for two years. we have had many meetings. many corporations and businesses have commented that they are willing to give up certain tax preferences like research and development in order to get the lower rate. the low rate does not come with no changes. and, of course, exactly what those are our for congress to determine, and this will ultimately come if we are

successful in getting the one- year extension, moving into a debate about tax reform. this is something that there will be a senate and a house bill, and we will need to move forward in a bipartisan way in order to accomplish this. >> thank you very much, mr. camp. mr. levin, i want to ask you one question, and i know you want to say something else, but i would appreciate it before you say something else that to answer my question. -- that you answer my question. where do we get evidence that raising taxes helped the economy grow? do you have any evidence of that in the history of this country, we're raising taxes helped the economy? >> the answer is i voted for a bill when president clinton was

president that raised taxes and the economy grew. so you do not have to go back very many decades. secondly -- >> how long did it take for that to happen, and what was happening with spending at that time? >> the president proposed and i voted for was a balanced package of tax cuts and cuts in programs. and that is the basic issue before this country and the united states of america. and that is you want more revenues, as was true previously, or cutting spending, or do you simply want to say no revenue, but the position of the republican party is no more revenues, and -- >> excuse me just a moment.

if i just understood you, that is not the position of the republican party, ok? >> there will be more revenue. >> there will be revenue. >> but not more taxes. claiming that growth creates revenues, and that was the mythology of the bush years. and, by the way, it is not correct to say that the economy is worse today than it was two years ago. that is not correct. you said that. the economy is not worse. the unemployment rate is going down. not as much as it should. in the last three years, several million jobs have been created. the first month of the obama presidency succeeding the bush administration, we lost 700,000 jobs in one month, one month. >> mr. levin, who was in charge

of congress at that time? who was in charge of the congress? who was in charge of the congress? >> that first month? we were. >> meaning? >> democrats. that was the first month after years of the bush administration. it is also not correct to simply throw out europe. this administration did not follow the policies of europe, and that was austerity without growth. it combined austerity and growth, and therefore, we are in better shape than europe. not as good, but better shape, and let me say one last thing. there is a difference of $50 billion between the republican bill tax cuts and the substitute. $50 billion in one year.

i find it ironical that they would say that. we could go on, and i welcome this opportunity. i just want to reiterate. you asked about evidence for raising taxes. yes. i voted for it. there is no evidence whatsoever that extending the high-income tax cut will promote growth. >> mr. camp, i think he wanted to respond >> well, i think it is important to say that you do not want to leave less for investment, and raising taxes leaves less for investment and job creation and growth that follows that. the only way to say that we get revenue is in a zero-sum game is i think the wrong approach. there has been a lot of work

done on moving towards a system that will create more than 1 million jobs in the first year alone rather than costing 700,000 jobs by raising taxes. that is the choice. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i do not have any questions. the minority whip -- are here. i want to say something to the gentle lady. she stated that most americans have not taken a course in economics as if most americans to understand. the reality is most americans get it. i the most americans believe you do not have to agree on everything to agree on something, and we also agree that we should extend the tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or less. whether you are donald trump or whatever. i think the american people who are watching will say why can you not enact that?

why can you not just get that done right now? provide certainty there? and then let's fight over the other stuff. i think what most americans agree on is fairness. the i understand we are in a difficult economy. what they do not understand is why people in the middle, people struggling in the middle are being asked to sacrifice, and people who are well off and in some cases extremely well-off are being told you do nothing. you do nothing. i do not care if you're a democrat or a republican or an independent. that is what people watching think, that it does not seem right. we all have to sacrifice, then we all have to sacrifice. the donald trumps of the world should not be exempt. i sat on the agriculture committee when the cut $16.50 billion from the food and nutrition programs, and we are told that we have this deficit.

we have to make these tough choices. these are difficult times. it does not take a lot of courage to tell a millionaire or a billionaire who gives lots of money to political campaigns, the pace tens of thousands of dollars to go to country club fund-raisers and goes to super we are going to ask you to do nothing. i think what people are looking for is fairness. i think the democratic alternative represents this. we agree on this. on the other stuff, we can have it out at a later time. >> could i just stayed, i want to comment. what you are commenting about is raising a rate at a certain level, and what we're talking about is comprehensive reform of our entire code. i think you're talking at a rate of $250,000, but millionaires would not be impacted. >> i would like to have

comprehensive reform. that is not what you are doing. >> yes, i am. >> and extending the bush tax cuts. >> for one-year. and a companion bill not only with principles for where we would go but also a companion bill that would have expedited -- >> your extending the tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. >> it is both. >> with all due respect, we have tried in this committee 16 maybe 20 times to try to go after oil subsidies and other special interest tax breaks. we cannot get them. >> we want to look at all of that. >> i do not have a lot of confidence. you are asking for a one-year extension for the bush tax cuts. i've been most americans think that is not fair. >> will the gentleman yield? i think my friend for yielding. i want to remind you that just last week,