implications for libyans if not for egyptians. i think it is my hope that people will be thinking hard about this incident and trying to understand each other. we should be trying to understand why muslims think this is disrespectful and unacceptable, and muslims should be trying to understand why we think, even if it is disrespectful, it is protected. host: what are you currently teaching? guest: post-war reconstruction. we talked about only post-war construction from 1989-on. we do a lot of thinking about the current situation and we think a lot about the future. so by the time as a teaching again in january, i expect syria to be very high on people's list of priorities and we will be

thinking a great deal about syria and trying to come up with a good understanding of how the syrian situation can be influenced to go in a democratic election. host: do you think mr. assad will still be in syria in january? guest: it is possible, but i do not think he will be in full control of the entire country, the entire territory. he will have lost control of part of its, and we will be working on transitioning the party has lost. host: daniel serwer thank you for being on the open -- "washington journal." house of representatives is now in session. thank you for being with us. a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. first, i join the american people and members of congress in extending my deepest

sympathy to the families of the four americans killed yesterday in libya. it was such a tragedy. mr. speaker, there's another tragedy. it's called afghanistan. like most of my closing last month, i was home, been here in washington three days and back home as well as the last three days here, more and more people coming in concerned about budget cuts, worried about sequestration and we are all hearing it. and yet there's no debate about afghanistan. it just keeps going on and on and on. i'm pleased to say next thursday, a group of democrats and republicans have joined me for a press conference. the author of this book called "funding the enemy." subtitle, "how u.s. taxpayers bank roll the taliban." the author of this book is coming to washington next wednesday and we will hold a

news conference at 10:00. the reason for this is to continue to remind congress the american people are for -- excuse me -- has been speaking out about pulling our troops out of afghanistan. sooner rather than later. and i hope that this news conference with mr. wissing will continue to beat the drum of bringing our troops home in 2013, not 2014. that's the president's plan. that's the plan that most in leadership agree to, but not the end of 2014. how many more men and women have to give their life, their limbs, their arms for a failed policy. in this book "funding the enemy" and also at the news conference we will have the former inspector general of afghanistan, who is a marine general, general fields, will join douglas wissing and a group of republicans and

democrats to talk about the failed policy of how many times we send millions and millions and millions of dollars to afghanistan and it never gets to the villages it's supposed to help, how many times we spend millions and millions of dollars to afghanistan and it's not accounted for. somebody's taking the money. it's america's money. it's the money that we could be using here to save programs and to save jobs. but, again, congress is not talking about afghanistan. i will continue to come to the floor, mr. speaker, and talk about the waste of life, the waste of money, how it's unfair to the american taxpayer. and more importantly, it's unfair to the military families. many of the marines in my district -- and i'm sure the united states army -- have been to afghanistan three and four times and truthfully, nothing has changed. if i could have been advisor to

the president i would have said, you got -- mr. obama, you got bin laden, you have dispersed al qaeda. let's bring our troops home. that has not happened, and it will not happen until 2014. i think 2014 will slip into 2015. so it's my hope that after this election those of us who i hope win come back here, let's take a new approach and look at afghanistan and whether it's mr. obama or mr. romney, let's prevail upon them as a congress to start bringing the troops out in the spring of 2015. it's not fair to the broken families, to the broken bodies who have returned with lost legs. mr. speaker, as i close as i do many, many times, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, to please hold in his arms the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to bless my

colleagues in the house and colleagues in the senate and, god, i'll ask -- i'll ask god three times, mr. speaker. please, god, please, god, please, god, continue to bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to join my colleague in asking for the blessings on this nation and to remind america that we gathered on tuesday together in commemoration, in recognition of 9/11. but america also needs us to do better. and i speak in the backdrop of a horrific tragedy that we are all reminded of in the loss of americans and what continues to be an attack on our values.

that's why it's important for us to shed all that partisanship leads to. the lack of bringing forth bills that would help all of america. so i am here this morning to remind us of work undone. that we had just 61 bills that have been signed into law this year, the fewest in more than 60 years, and all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed into law. and so we know in the last session, the 111th congress, 258 bills were signed into law. we have got to do better. , and -- we have got to do better, and the most difficult thing i speak about is the lack

of presenting the president's jobs bill that would invest in small business, that would create an opportunity for those who have lost their unemployment to be extended, to create summer jobs and part-time jobs, to be able to ensure that there was job training and to make sure that we say to america, we are your partner in job creation. why haven't we been able to overcome those who would stand in the way on the other side of the aisle for putting forth the american jobs act? it is to help the american people. we have not been able to tackle, if you will, postal reform. those are jobs. those are people who work to make america's commerce, travel from place to place. i've spoken to small businesses and they say the u.s. postal service is their lifeline for

their small business. they can actually make a profit by using the u.s. postal service. senior citizens who receive their social security checks sometimes in the mail, many times we know online, but are connected to the post office. they are connected to the letter carrier. they are connected to the local post office in their neighborhood. how do i know? because of the outpouring of concern for the closing of a post office on mesa road in the 18th congressional district, my congressional district. and so i'm interested in this congress not being known by the do-nothing congress, do-nothing republican congress. i want us to work together and be able to say that these items need to be put forward for the american people. what do we have to say now looking toward sequestration?

we realize that you cannot cut discretionary funding. we realize that 50 million americans are suffering from food insecurity, and we have a $13 billion to $16 billion in the supplemental nutrition program. that simply cannot be. that cannot be the record of this congress. no jobs, no postal reform, cutting food that people need and, of course, staring down at our men and women in the united states military where resources that they need may be cut. so i am asking that we be reminded that there are those who have written, norm and thomas, that in studying washington politics and congress for more than 40 years, this is their quote. they have never seen such a dysfunctional place. we can do better, we must do better. democrats are ready to work to pass the american jobs bill, to pass postal reform, to pass

bills dealing with helping to improve the lives of americans, to ensuring that no americans goes to bed hungry and that we welcome our troops home and provide for their families. that's the congress that we should be known for. that's what america's all about. i ask that god bless this nation but this congress recognize that we have to be busy until he comes. let's get busy for the american people. democrats are busy and want to work to succeed, to do what is right for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. texans have been sharing with me their stories and lives about their businesses that they have built without the help of an out-of-control government. the responses were a testament to the tenacity of the american

people. jeffrey from league city, texas, wrote me this. i am the son of a single mother. i grew up watching my mom work two and sometimes three jobs to support us. she never took one penny of government assistance. when i was 8 years old i lied about my age and took three paper routes that had morning and evening and sunday delivery. at the age of 11 i took a job as a short order cook at a 24-hour diner working from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., went to school, played sports, went home, grabbed a quick dinner, slept for a few hours and went back to work again. i did my home work while standing over a grill in the kitchen. in the summer months i would squeeze in a second job working at a service station in texas. then i went into the united states marine corps upon high school graduation at the age of 17 and i spent 6 1/2 years in the marine corps.

upon being honorably discharged i entered the houston police academy. i've been an officer in houston, texas, for the past 27 1/2 years. i worked 17 years undercover in the narcotics division and the rest of it has been on street patrol. my wife is an educator and we have two sons, a 19-year-old lance corporal with the united states marine corps who is now on his way to afghanistan. and we have a 7-year-old. we live day-to-day, paycheck to paycheck and are on the verge of losing everything if our taxes go up along with the cost of living. meanwhile, i see folks on the government giveaway programs with smartphones, flat-screen tv's and newer cars than i can afford. cable tv, internet service and living in nicer apartments than i could afford while i was trying to save for 17 years for my first house. sir, my family and i built the

life we have and don't tell me that government built this life for me. that is a lie. mr. speaker, jeffrey is not alone. contrary to the misinformed views of some, the american people are the backbone of this nation, not government. government is not the solution. it's the problem. government encourages some americans to live off the hard work of others. government promotes a social philosophy that it will give away more free stuff to some while it takes and punishes people who work. people, not government, take business risk. people work and make sacrifices in an effort to pursue the american dream, and people, not government, suffer the loss if the business is not a success. but big government wants to take credit for what american workers have done. government doesn't make america, mr. speaker. people make america, and that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes, then. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. about 27 miles away from here secret negotiations are ongoing and no members of congress, a number of us have asked to be allowed to observe the negotiations, because it will have a dramatic impact on the future of the united states of america and our economy, but no member of congress has been allowed into these negotiations. this is over something called the transpacific partnership.

it's essentially nafta for the whole pacific rim. now, imagine how well that's going to work. nafta, of course, has cost the u.s. hundreds of thousands of jobs. in many industries. this is a new agreement, a new form the president has put his stamp on it, it's called the living agreement. meaning it's being negotiated among a small number of relatively small countries, but the u.s. is running the show, but later on other countries like japan and china can plug in. we know very little about what's being negotiated because the documents are being kept secret from congress, they have been shared, however, with 600 corporations who with a click of a mouse can access them through a secure site online. yet no member of congress is allowed to see thee documents. no one representing the american people. now, the problem is that we have

had some leaks and the analysis is, if japan is allowed to join, and the u.s. is trying to get japan to joip, we'll lose 90,000 automotive jobs immediate -- to join, we'll lose 90,000 automotive jobs immediately. it is also rumored, no elected representative member of the epeople is allowed to view these documents which 600 corporations are allowed to review and make suggestions on, that it would have intellectual property restrictions that would far exceed those that were already rejected by the elected representatives of the american people, the house and the senate. so-called soapa and pipa -- sopa and pipa, these intellectual property restrictions in this agreement, it is rumored, will far exceed those already rejected. yet they would be binding on the

urns of america -- united states of america. again going around elected representatives. it's also rumored that the u.s. pharmaceutical industry is seeking to roll back previous reforms that even george bush negotiated in the u.s.-peru f.t.a. that enhanced access to affordable medicines. the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like inexpensive affordable lifesaving medicines. that would be rolled back. further, it would allow drug companies to challenge the price formulary in canada. remember? u.s. sit steps can buy drugs made by u.s. companies in the u.s. much more cheaply in canada than here because the canadian government negotiated on their behalf. it's rumored that this agreement would force canada to raise their drug prices. it's also rumored that it might actually prohibit the united states government from negotiating or allowing under part d medicare pharmaceutical

companies and insurance companies are involved, but the insurance companies can negotiate under authority of law, lower drug prices, it may also prohibit the drug formulary for medicaid, which saves hundreds of millions, billions of dollars a year, and the v.a. which provides our veterans with low-cost pharmaceuticals. all those things may be preempted by this transpacific partnership. now, this is really an extraordinary thing that this is being done in secret, no member of congress is allowed to review it. the -- it has one chapter we know about, which is so egregious that australia has said they have to have a total exemption. and the u.s. has said, sure, ok, we understand. you want to protect your people. we'll let you do that but we don't want to protect ours. this is a little provision similar to nafta which gives corporations the power to

challenge in foreign tribunals, not u.s. courts, our domestic laws that protect consumers and the environment. we would now give this authority to corporations if china accesses this, they are run by the communist government of china because they own many of the corporations in their country, the people's liberation army owns those corporations. this is extraordinary. 600 corporations have access to this document, but no member of congress has access to this document. and yet this is the trade future, this is the 21st century trade agreement, we are told by this administration, and further the chief negotiator of the united states said it's his greatest desire that china become part of this, because then china would be bound by these rules. oh, yeah, i heard that before. we used to vote aually on china's trade performance and we had a schitck called most

favored nation status. when we gave up that i voted against it. we gave them permanent, but they said, don't worry, now they have to follow the rules. guess what? they don't. if they get into this agreement they won't follow the rules, either. kiss our economy goodbye if the secret agreement goes through. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from south dakota, mrs. noem for five minutes. mrs. noem: thank you, mr. speaker. as we approach the end of this week we come even closer to the date on which our farm bill will expire, which is on september 30. in just a short period of time. yesterday we had a rally here on capitol grounds, hundreds of farmers across the nation came together and talked about the importance of doing a farm bill now. that was the driving theme because we recognized responsibility that farmers across this nation have to feed our families and to make sure that they have food, that they

can put on the tables. across this world. recently i received a letter from some producers in south dakota, they are real people and live near wall, south dakota. i want to read this letter. they have a farming and ranching operation they have had since 1969 near the badlands of south dakota. they farm around 750 acres of corn and wheat in south dakota and like many producers they are struggling through this drought that has afflicted our country. i want to read a portion of that letter to you. our area was designated extreme drought in early july. the corn usually yields around 60 bushels per acre in our area. after flower, 1,200 pounds per acre. this year the corn was cut for hey, not good enough for harvest. the after flower yielded half. and the alfalfa was next to nothing. we usually raise enough hey to meet our needs, but -- hay to meet our needs, but to date we

spent $120,000 to buy hay and we need more. the farm bill is important to our operations in two areas in particular. number one, crop insurance that is all inclusive, hail, fire, drought. number two, disaster assistance as provided in the last farm bill, but that expired last year, disaster assistance is desperately needed needed now. it is the time of year to plant wheat and wean calves which we will do. we know if a farm bill was in place we would make decisions on whether we could maintain our cow herd numbers or if we should plant a crop. please pass the farm bill before the end of the year. i want you to take a look at this picture next to me that is a corn field in south dakota. it was taken a while ago. if you look at this field, traditionally when this picture was taken that corn should be lush and green. it would be ready for harvest. instead these stalks are falling

over due to the drought. they weren't able to provide much in growth and are struggling, and this corn more than likely will be cut for side of the aisleage, for feed for cattle, instead of returning on the investment for the producers that planted it hoping to get a crop. we need to give myron and mary and producers such as those that own this cornfield and their families that depend on this grown in this country the certainty of a farm bill. we cannot wait for the next disaster. we need to do our job. we need to continue to provide for our families across this country that need affordable food policies and depend upon this country and security that a strong food program can bring them through doing a farm bill now. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, for five minutes.

ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. as co-founder of the congressional out-of-poverty caucus, i rise today to call for an immediate response to the ongoing crisis of poverty in our nation. the census numbers released yesterday underscore the urgent need to act boldly and to create jobs in this country. to protect our safety net, and to target resources where they are needed. basically to communities of color, low-income communities, those communities, rural areas hit hardest by the economic downturn. it's really beyond shameful that over 45 million americans, including over 16 million children, are living in poverty and the wealthiest nation in the world. the data also shows a wide racial disparate with the poverty rate for whites standing at 9.8%, while the rates for

african-americans and hispanics remain unacceptably high at 27.6% and 25.3% respectively. until 2005 i founded the congressional out-of-poverty caucus because of the rising tide of poverty. some of us saw this unfortunate day coming. that was beginning under the failed policies of the previous administration. of course we all -- also know the terrible economic impact of the massive financial crisis that they left us on their way out of office. with the swift efforts of president obama and congressional democrats, we are finally beginning to dig ourselves out of the hole that was left by the bush administration and slowly, slowly moving the poverty rate in the right direction. mr. speaker, we must do more and we can do more. one of the most critical responsibilities we have as a government is to promote and

enact policies that keep our middle class strong and provide opportunities and a safety net for those striving and fighting to become middle class and get into the ranks of the middle class. to enhance their quality of life. there's far too many americans continue continuing to suffer joblessness and dropped out of the middle class and into poverty because of this republican do-nothing congress. republicans in congress have continually blocked efforts to extend and expand vital safety net programs with safeguard millions of american families and children who face stark realities of unemployment, hunger, and homelessness. further, their continued blocking of critical federal support to our states and localities, that's caused widespread layoffs of dedicated public servants like teachers, police officers, and firefighters in communities all across the country. this attack on our country's

public service has had a particularly hard impact on communities of color and on women across the country. i just have to tell you african-americans and women have long found job opportunities in the public sector, in public employment. african-americans in particular often found work with the city or the state because of racial bias and barriers and obstacles in the private sector. mr. speaker, the american people know that you can't have it both ways. government spending cannot kill jobs on one hand when spent on hiring teachers and police officers, create jobs on the other hand, and those services are desperately needed throughout our country. we need more police officers on the street. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle must begin to accept the reality of history. federal investments in our nation's infrastructure, in our schools, and in programs that help struggling families are critical to boosting our economy

and spurring our economic recovery. tax cuts for millionaires don't pay for themselves, they create massive deficits and weaken our country. markets don't regulate themselves, deregulation allows rampant fraud and creates massive bubbles that inevitably burst and threaten our entire economy. we need a balanced approach that ensures that every american pays their fair share and is vested in a united and prosperous future for all americans of every background, we need a balanced approach that ensures that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share so we can reignite the american dream for all. how this nation treats the least of these is not just a measure of our nation's moral priorities, but it will directly impact whether the american dream survives and thrives for all. let us not forget that our greatest strength is the freedom and opportunity that our democracy created to allow us to

work together to build the largest and most prosperous middle class the world has ever known. but this means that we must reduce and remust eliminate poverty. and i hope the few that we can pass the president's american jobs act because in that legislation we have critical investments to rehire our police officers, teachers and firefighters who desperately need their jobs but also the services are desperately needed in our communities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. i represent alabama's fifth congressional district, home to nasa's marshall space flight center, home to the saturn five rocket which carried the men to the moon. they worked tirelessly to

develop the space launch system . in the early 1960's, president john f. kennedy challenged america to do the impossible, send an astronaut to the moon and safely return him. as a young boy in the 1960's, i vividly remember the earth tremble, dishes rattle and windows pus all the as america tested our saturn five rocket on nearby redstone arsenal. in 1969 america's hard work paid off. i'll never forget watching the grainy black and white footage on tv as american astronaut neil armstrong stepped onto the lunar dust. our pride in america, our awe of what americans can do have belonged to all americans ever since. armstrong's walk on the moon helped define america and changed world history. as we left earth behind and ventured into the mysteries of space. neil armstrong was an

accomplished aerospace engineer, navy pilot, astronaut and first man to walk on the moon. neil armstrong will forever be immortalized as a great explorer. toward the end of his life neil armstrong spoke passionately about man's space flight. neil armstrong understood that american exceptionalism is in jeopardy and may be lost to future generations. as a member of the house science, space and technology committee, i recently had the privilege to meet neil armstrong during a public hearing on nasa's space launch mission. during that hearing, neil armstrong expressed concerns about the direction of america's space program. neil armstrong testified, and i quote, the past year's been frustrating to nasa observers as they try to understand nasa's plans and progress. nasa leadership enthuse

assically ensured the american people that the agency was embarking on an exciting new age of discovery in the cosmos. but the realities of the termination of the shuttle program, the cancellation of existing rocket launcher and spacecraft programs, the layoffs of thousands of aerospace workers and the outlook for american space activity throughout the next decade were difficult to reconcile with the agency assertions. neil armstrong continued, and, again, i quote, so much has been accomplished but nasa, hobbled by limitations, has been unable to articulate a master program that provides a semblance of predictability to the aerospace industry. neil armstrong said, predicting the future is inherently risky, but the proposed space launch system includes many proven and reliable components which suggests that if development could be relatively trouble-free. if that proves to be so, it

would bode well for exploration. in the midst of america's current economic malaise and deficit ridden spending on programs that do little to advance technology or humidity's condition, i share neil armstrong's concern for the future of nasa and whether washington has the inspirational leadership exhibited by president kennedy in the 1960's or the right stuff that is essential for space exploration. today, american astronauts hitch a ride from russia. oh, how far we have fallen. quite frankly, americans beg the -- mr. speaker, there's a whole universe out there waiting for us to explore. just as america did in the 1960's, today's americans can accomplish what is seemingly impossible. all america lacks is the vision needed to help us understand where we should go and the

leadership needed to get us there. mr. speaker, america will best honor the memory of neil armstrong and his achievements by striving for the american exceptionalism exemplified by neil armstrong and continuing his dream of man space flight and exploration. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues in this do-nothing congress to take politics out of the post office. the post office was explicitly authorized in article 1, section 8, clause 7 of the united states constitution. it began its operations on july 26, 1775, when bill franklin was named the first postmaster general. that was a long time ago. it has a legal obligation to serve everyone, regardless of

geography and at a uniformed cost with uniformed services. and it has exclusive access to post office -- to boxes that is marked u.s. postal or u.s. post office. and it also competes with private package delivery services. in 2006, congress forced the united states postal service to prefund 100% of retiree insurance premiums. no other company, public or private, is forced to comply with such an unnecessary and destructive policy. mr. speaker, house republicans cited declining mail volumes and a growing labor force as the primary reasons why the 2006 legislation was necessary. yet, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were the highest volume years in

u.s. postal service history. in fact, 2006 was the highest volume year ever. mr. speaker, the real motivation behind the 2006 legislation was to break the back of the public sector union and privatize the mailing industry. why else would congress alter an entity that hasn't taken a dime of united states taxpayers' money in 30 years? according to the congressional research service, the u.s. postal service was self-supporting since 1971, using postal sales to fund operations. the postal service was so profitable that it returned money to the treasury every single year while providing free services to the visually impaired and persons overseas. if the postal service was a private corporation or if it had been a private corporation

at that time, my colleagues across the aisle would have hailed it as the model of economic success and give praises from sea to shining sea. since the prefunding mandate of 2006, however, the postal service has nearly crumbled under the weight of its pension cost. how does an organization that had robust profits for 30 years lead up to the 2006 legislation , suddenly start running deficits and lose $25 billion between 2007 and 2012? how did the -- 2007 and 2011? many of my colleagues on the other side have friends who advocated for privatization.

i'm here to connect the dots for the american people. instead of wasting time today, this do-nothing congress should vote to stop the damage inflicted upon the united states postal service by passing h.r. 1351. this bipartisan postal reform bill protects the hardworking employees of the postal service. the u.s. postal service was not in danger of becoming insolvent until congress decided to meddle in its affairs. it has been inconsistent for my friend on the other side of the aisle to talk about government being the problem while they don't acknowledge that they created a big problem for the post office. it is hypocritical. mr. speaker, the postal service already missed a $5.5 billion payment in august. congress must act before the post office defaults on another payment later this month. instead of scheduling political votes that highlight our

differences, let's stop the madness and do what is in the best interest of the american people, the economy and communities across the nation. the postal service employs 700,000 of our citizens which 17,000 of whom are from my home state of georgia. 1/3 are veterans who deliver two billion pieces of mail to over 244 locations. this is the middle class that's doing this. if privatization advocates like the koch brothers get their dream, it will allow companies to raise prices of delivery. taking action to strengthen the postal service's finances is not just good for the post masters, it's also good for business. there's $1.3 trillion in mailing industry proceeds out there that support seven

million private sector jobs. the time to act, ladies and gentlemen, is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. just 90 miles away from the coast of the united states, there exists a murderous, terrorist regime -- excuse me -- in the island of cuba. it's a regime that harbors terrorists, that funds terrorism, that even holds an american hostage since december of 2009 and that denies all human rights, basic human rights to its people. currently, mr. chairman, there has now been a reported 26 pro-democracy activists who have initiated a hunger strike. it started with jorge perez on september 7, 2012, to protest a

brutal oppression by the castro regime against the political prisoners and it now has been joined by another 25. you're not going to see, mr. chairman, you're not going to see that in the front pages of the newspapers. these are individuals that for some reason the press will not cover. the only thing you see about the castro regime is frankly the beauty of the beaches on that island and the fact they have old cars that's such a quaint thing. it's not quaint when your human rights are violated and you're forced to drive 50-year-old automobiles if you're lucky to even get one of those. and since these individuals, these heroes are for some reason being denied the coverage that they deserve, i come to the floor to mention who they are. these heroes that we have to support. that we have to defend and that we can never forget. so i'm going to read their names. i mention jorge louis perez,

jorge vasquez, arturo samorra, juan martin rodriguez, orlando vagueas, enrique sanchez, israel robert isaac. alvarez garcia, louis santos, alberto reyes morales, by the way, one who is a very well-known pro-democracy leader in cuba and his health is in poor shape. omar suarez. rodriguez bonbino. fernan velasquez. santana, pedro fernandez

cortez, lopez rojas, michelle dias. and jose louis arias. these heroes, these pro-democracy heroes has stood up and is standing up to the castro dictatorship with frankly whatever they have including their health and their bodies. they need our prayers. they need our support. they need our solidarity at this pillar of time in the struggles for cuba's freedom. mr. speaker, may god protect these brave heroes. may the international community demonstrate the solidarity that theyeserve. and, yes, we here in the united states, in this country, must continue to work and do what we can to help them and others achieve their final day of freedom. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you. mr. speaker, the american people are going to make a decision on november 6 about future leadership of this congress and this country. and they do every four years. two fundamental questions, one, who can be in charge of the cash register? who will best manage the economy? the second question is, who will be a firm hand in protecting america's foreign policy interests? if we look at the past two years with this republican-led congress that has accomplished nothing, and in fact done damage, the question on who is best in charge of the cash register is quite clear. the ryan budget that was passed by this house, stalled in the senate would actually increase the debt. the whole point supposedly of

the republican agenda coming into congress was to lower the debt. the budget they passed would uncrease it by $6 trillion. why is that? first of all many of the proponents of this budget are folks that voted for policies that exploded the debt, a war on iraq in the credit card, nation building in afghanistan on the credit card, prescription drug program unpaid for on the credit card. that -- those policies played a very big role in getting us to the debt that we have. then the ryan budget, which is supposedly the blueprint to reduce the debt, increases it by $6 trillion in 10 years. why? because it increases those bush tax cuts that were never paid for. and would lower their republican presidential candidate's effective tax rate to 1%. secondly it vastly increases pentagon spending beyond what even the pentagon is asking for. and even though it then imposes

savage cuts on necessaryic discretionary spending, making it really difficult to do scientific research torques help our kids go to college, the net result is a $6 trillion increase in the debt. on foreign policy. no responsibility is so vested in one person, the president of the united states, as guiding american foreign policy. it needs a firm hand, a calm voice, a person who thinks before he speaks, who aims before he fires. the recent tragedy of losing our ambassador and three our brave civil servants from the state department is an indication that the republican presidential candidate lacks the temperament to do that job. why is it that in the first statement that he made after the loss of four american lives he

deskeppeded into what essentially was tactical politics arguing about the wording of a communique from the egyptian -- from the american embassy in egypt. is it really the case that we in america cannot defend the right of free speech and promote religious tolerance? we need a president and have a president who is thoughtful, who is firm, who can actual -- act with conviction and clarity and does it in a sober way that is going to defend and promote american polital and foreign policy interest. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 6336, to direct the

library to accept a statue detricting fed rick douglas from the district of columbia and provide for the permanent display of this statue in emancipation hall of the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: good morning, mr. speaker. my colleagues, later today we will begin debate on the rule for h.r. 6213. the no more solyndras act which along with my chairman, fred upton of michigan, i'm proud to sponsor. now, this legislation is a culmination of an intensive, thorough, 18-month investigation by the subcommittee on oversight investigation, which i chair, and will fix the problems we uncovered. specifically the no more solyndras act will phase out the department of energy's grossly

mismanaged loan guarantee program by prohibiting d.o.e. from issuing any loan guarantees for applications submitted after december 31, 2011. and provides taxpayers strong new protections for any pending participants in this program. the bill provides greater loan guarantee transparency by requiring d.o.e. to report to congress on the decisionmaking process and of course the details of the loan. the bill also prohibits d.o.e. from restructuring the terms of any guarantee and for kids -- forbids the subordination of united states taxpayers' dollars at any time to private investors. and holds that the department of official informations accountable for their actions by imposing bent penalties for failing to -- penalties for failing to follow this law. solyndra was the first recipient of a d.o.e. loan guarantee of

the united states policy act of 2005 and was a poster child for president obama's stimulus driven green economy. it was also the first backed recipient of a d.o.e. guarantee to file for bankruptcy. just two years after the loan closed and six months after d.o.e. restructured the loan and subordinated taxpayers' interest to two wealthy and well connected investors. all but ensuring taxpayers won't see a dime. other d.o.e. loan recipients have also struggled. three of the first five companies which received loan guaranteed issued by the d.o.e. loan guarantee program, solyndra, beacon, and abound solar have all filed for bankruptcy. losing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that will never, ever be recorded -- recovered. the other two companies are struggling also, nevada geothermal has substantial debts and no positive cash flow, and

first wind had to withdraw their planned i.p.o. and also has substantial debt to boot. on behalf of the american taxpayers, we had a duty to figure out what went wrong with solyndra, the loan guarantee, and whether the loan guarantee program was properly managed. the solyndra investigation has been thorough and methodical. the committee received and reviewed documents from every executive branch agency connected to solyndra and interviewed more than a dozen administration officials who played key roles in the loan guarantee program. the committee has also reviewed documents produced by the solyndra investors as well as d.o.e.'s independent consultant and their legal advisors. as the committee investigation reveals, the obama administration put solyndra's loan on the fast track for political reasons. despite repeated red flags and warnings in 2009 from the office of management and budget, and

d.o.e. officials about the company's financial condition and the market for solyndra's product, were they viable? it is clear that d.o.e. failed to adequately mop tore the loan guarantee -- monitor the loan guarantee. the company hemorrhaged cash throughout the year 2010. when the warnings came to fruition and solyndra was out of cash in the ought tomorrow of 2010, the obama administration doubled down on its bad debt, bad bet restructuring solyndra's loan in early 2011 and putting wealthy investors at the front of the line ahead of taxpayer, which was a clear violation of the energy policy act of 2005. right up to the bankruptcy filing, the administration was willing to take extraordinary pressures to keep solyndra afloat for political reasons and ensure the first loan guarantee was not going to be a failure. the investigation also showed that the d.o.e. failed to consult with the treasury department as simply required by the energy policy act prior to

issuing a conditional commitment to solyndra and that treasury didn't even play a role in simply reviewing the restructuring. the no more solyndra act will correct this by ensuring treasury is actively involved in the loan process to protect our taxpayers. mr. speaker, the solyndra investigation and the no more solyndra act is a great example of how congressional oversight should work. we ask the tough questions, collected all the facts, identified the problem, and now we are offering good legislation. so i encourage all my colleagues to support h.r. 6213, the no more solyndra act to ensure the mistakes and misguided decision that is occurred never, ever happen again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to celebrate the life of a beloved member of our south

florida veterans community, william bill cling who passed away on august at the age of 84. bill was a devoted husband and father and he is survived by his two children, marcia and steven. my thoughts and prayers go out to them to bill's extended family and friends and colleagues who share in mourning this loss. bill was a member of our greatest generation. our greatest generation of americans who served our nation as a radar technician for the navy during world war ii, but bill's service to our nation was far from over when he returned from war. in fact, it was just beginning. bill became a national leader in one of the strong less advocates for our nation's veterans. he was dedicated to helping generations of veterans as they return to civilian life. he worked tirelessly to make sure our veterans were getting the benefits they deserved from education under the g.i. bill to quality health care through our v.a. system. i'm sure my florida colleagues

will agree that bill was a force to be reckoned with, ever brightening our congressional doorways, pushing the urgency of the issue at hand. i know we are grateful for the remarkable legacy he leaves behind and he will be sorely missed. i had the distippingt pleasure of working with bill for the last 23 years and witnessed firsthand the many ways he helped thousands of veterans in florida i'm also proud to have called bill my friend. for the past seven years bill served as the chairman of my military academy nominations board, where he helped the next generation of military leaders realize the dream of serving the country they love. for eight years he served on the florida commission on veterans affairs and for the past 27 years, he was the president of the broward county veterans council. he also led the jewish war veterans and was a member of the american legion, veterans of foreign wars, and the disabled american veterans. the list of superlatives for bill shows him the great american he was. he was inducted into the broward

senior hall of fame, received the humanitarian of the year award, and changed the shape of veterans services in south florida. in particular, he helped bring the alexander veterans nursing home in 2001 and worked with other veterans to create the south florida national cemetery in palm beach in 2007. one of bill's greatest accomplishments and lasting legacies with a ensuring that veterans would have easy access to quality medical care. bill noticed too often veterans in broward county had to travel too far to get the care they needed. with that in mind, he helped open the oakland park v.a. outpatient clinic more than two decades ago. when the bill -- clinic began to deteriorating, bill worked to open a brand new facility, even though this effort took years, bill kept a smile on his face and kept working to overcome every obstacle because that's how bill operated. so in 2008 a new 98,000 square

foot clipic opened in sun rise and fittingly on bill's birthday. i think it's fair to say without bill, this wonderful center that serves thousands of our veterans each year might not ever exist. with that in mind i am honored to announce that next week my good friend, congressman ted deutsch, also of florida, and i will file legislation along with many other members of the florida delegation that will rename the clinic as the william "bill" cling v.a. clinic. this is such a fitting way to memorialize him. with passage of this bill every veteran who walks through the door of the clinic will know the name of the man who did so much for so many. mr. speaker, i look forward to the passing of this legislation so we may pay fitting tribute to a great american, william "bill" cling. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

in recess unti >> live coverage of the house here on c-span. we'll take you live now to the rayburn house office building on capitol hill. for armed services subcommittee of the house is looking into problems with the f-22 fighter jets. pilots have reported getting dizzy from oxygen depravation. current and former air force officials are testifying along with a nasa engineer. >> to properly inspiration or breathe is very, very

challenging without supplemental pressure to keep your lungs from exploding and to ensure that you're able to process the oxygen that is delivered. the f-22 does not have a full pressure suit and it was designed to operate with a partial pressure suit. the upper pressure garment, and anti-g suit and those sorts ever things. that airplane operates in an environment different from what we had operated, all the other airplanes fly in a full pressure suit. the f-22 pilots do not and therefore it's important they not only understand where they are vulnerable and the limitations of the equipment, but also the performance of the equipment as they operate in those areas. so our concern was making sure that not on did we have the equipment and it would perform well and provide the protection it was intended to but the aircrews would also know what the differences were and how to

operate in that environment. . so from a design perspective, that's the area of focus for the air force scientific advisory board. with respect to the combat capabilities and advantages, general can address that for that environment. >> congressman runyan, i have over 3,000 hours flying the f-18. when i look at the operating envelope that our f-22 pilots go into -- every day they go above 40,000 feet. they go at higher altitudes than we did in the past. they also operate in a very different environment. we've learned a lot about the impacts of operating at a high g environment with their fourth

generation legacy aircraft and we integrated those efforts in the f-22. we learn -- we're still learning how to care for those pilots in a continuously enhance their safety because their exposure at very high altitudes. as general martin mentioned we have a partial pressure suit in the f-22. it's truly a hybrid aircraft that combines high altitude and high g. and some of the equipment that we found that we have is optimized for one of those environments but not integrated to help with the other environment. that's one of the key points that came out over our analysis over the last year is we need to continue to do research on the science, the physiology of both high altitude and high g flying and the end-to-end testing of all of the components that have really one thing in mind -- that is to ensure that the proper volume of oxygen with the proper

concentration of oxygen gets to the pilot so he has full cognitive skills and they can have in an environment we have not flown routinely before. >> and i ask that question just to say we understand that we can change t physiology of a machine but we can't change the physiology of a human being. we can push the threshold of technology all day long. i think this is a prime example of we've spent a lot of money on developing weapons and tactics that are outside the envelope. we're not going to be able to change the person that flies it. the list you speak to i don't want to have to visit that, you

know what i mean, especially with the raptor. technology is great but at the end it's about the people, it's the men and women that do this that we have to look out for. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. ms. speier. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, i really appreciate you holding this hearing. i'm deeply concerned about this issue and i must say i don't have the confidence that we have come up with the answer yet. let me start by asking general lyon. there was an article that appeared today in "the dallas star-telegram," and i don't know if you've seen it, but it suggests that the air force knew about this back in 2000, that it declined a fix in 2005

that would have cost about $500,000 per aircraft. and that that alone i think deserves your response. so if you would, please explain to the committee if you knew this back in 2000, if there was a fix back in 2005 that you declined to incorporate because of cost which was at that time about $500,000. >> thank you, congresswoman speier. be happy to answer that question. during the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the f-22, we learned a lot. we had a lot of reports written about the status of different aircraft systems, subsystems and how they interacted. and one of those reports was written in 2000 about the condition. changes have been made since then. changes were made based on that report. in 2005, when the report came out and suggesting yet a small

incremental change that you described to this system, the knowledge that we had at the time was that this -- the term raptor cough didn't even exist at that time. we didn't even know it. and we had some discussions about ear blocks, but we have discussions about ear blocks in other aircraft that we fly as well. so the determination in 2005 is what we knew about some of these interactions is that they were -- they were at a small level, not widely spread and we're still a very small fleet size at that time. it's when we grew to the delivery of the aircraft and really expanded the people who fly and the number of hours they fly, we gained a bigger understanding of what's going on. and we continue to make changes to this oxygen delivery schedule based on what we learn along the way. >> so the suggestion in 2005 has now been incorporated or has not? >> that suggestion has not been incorporated specifically. it was a minor modification to

the e.c.s. system and the scheduling performance. we are looking at broader changes in that and making broader changes that envelope which was suggested then. >> wasn't that suggested given the pilot the opportunity to control the oxygen flow? >> the pilot does. the pilot has a switch setting in the aircraft, automatic setting which is a lower oxygen concentration and a maximum setting which is a higher oxygen concentration. we learned a lot about oxygen concentration. there was a period of time we thought we may not have been delivering enough oxygen concentration. but what we learned over the last few years, there are these cases where the increased oxygen concentration does give some dryness. it does give some ear block and it does create this raptor cough which is a temporary situation. >> thank you. there has been some discussion about the fact that it's not just the suit, that those on the ground are also experiencing this condition, this high poxy-like symptom.

are you -- apoxy-like symptom. do you think the apoxy in adhering the skin to the plane is not a contributing factor to this? >> congresswoman, i am confident. we have done over 2,400 tests on the aircraft. if i may have the picture the testing locations -- >> excuse me, i'm running out of time. you answered the question. let me move on and ask you whether or not the reports that you mentioned, one dating back to september, i guess of last year, if those are going to be made public so that the findings and recommendations would be made available to the public? >> the scientific advisory board has been completed. it's gone through its reviews, several tiers of reviews and will be released today and the findings and recommendations will be made.

ma'am, if i could make a comment of what you'll see in the report with respect to a better understanding of the interaction of this aircraft with the human operating the airplane. whether it be a maintenance technician or whether it be a pilot. in the 1990's, the united states air force, through its manpower reductions and through its prioritization of effort, brought about by the downsizing of the military after desert storm, did not continue with the robust effort it had for decades before its human systems integration -- >> and you relied on contractors, correct? >> excuse me? >> you relied on contractors? >> in many cases. flight medicine and aviation physiology, research and development atrophies significantly during those years. at a time when the airplane was

going into a different environment that we talked about earlier, the people that would have normally done the testing and the evaluation and all of the things we do to learn about those new environments were no longer in the military, no longer in our civilian work force. one of the recommendations is that the air force re-energize its efforts with respect to human systems integration so that we will better understand some of the interactions that we are now learning about and actually with the help of the navy and with nasa know more about today than we did a year ago. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you very much. i will ask a few questions and then we'll return for those who are interested for a second round of questions. i'd just like to return for a moment to my opening statement to make sure that a couple of statements there weren't misunderstood. i read that the -- and concluded that either the supply of the quality of the oxygen is contributing to f-22

pilots symptoms. i was simply reported what had been concluded. i don't want this to be interpreted as a statement of fact. next was the statement i made that the air combat command had determined that the root cause the f-22 pilot is oxygen supplied to the pilots. this is what they concluded. i am not sure that that is the correct resolution of the problem. i just wanted to make sure that people understood it because they read those statements, that i didn't read them as statement of facts, i read them as an account of what had been reported by the people who were investigating it. >> i hardly know where to begin. when i first came to work for

the navy a school physiologist at pensacola, florida, a great many years ago, just had an accident where the instructor and student had penetrated a 10,000-foot floor and for several minutes were seen spiraling into the pensacola sand. and the commanding officer felt that there was a problem with the oxygen system and since i was the physiologist i was put on the accident investigation board and we spent a very long time as we appropriately do looking at every aspect of this. let me ask a few questions. the symptoms of hypocapnia, how early in your investigation were you cognizant of the fact that it was difficult to differentiate between

hypocapnia which is low carbon dioxide, if you sit and breathe deeply a number of breaths, if i sneeze three times i have hypocapnia. i can feel the difference. i'm dizzy. how far along were you in your investigation were you cognizant of the fact that we ought to be looking at the symptoms of hypocapnia as well as the symptoms of hypoxia? >> thank you for the question, chairman bartlett. we started to learn over the winter that there were a variety of symptoms that were emerging and it was in april of this year where we had our restricting breathing working group that had a combination of f-22 pilots and the professionals across the medical field where we really got into substantial discussions about symptoms.

as well as research done at duke university and with the united states navy where we broadened our area and symptoms like light-headedness, dizziness, fatigue are actually ambiguous across things like toxic exposure, hypoxia, hypocapnia, hyper glycemia, dehydration. but i say for me as a task force lead the a-ha moment came when we had different services from nasa and from industry together. that's where it really started to emerge in our mind. >> how difficult is it to differentiate between the symptoms of hypoxia and hypocapnia? >> chairman bartlett, i tread on dangerous ground now engaging in a discussion with you about your level of knowledge about this. what i learned is the task force lead as i talked to the

professionals about this that many of these symptoms are temporary. they emerge and then they disappear and it's hard to find any d.n.a. trace that goes along with this. in fact, our protocols that we had put in place did not show. they come and go. that's been one of the challenges. there is an individual variability factor here. that every human is a dependent variable if we think of this in terms of the test. and not only that, but from day-to-day a human being is going to interact differently, depending on how much sleep they had. are they well rested, are they hydrated, what are their blood sugar levels? so this understanding, the physiology and the science not only for as congressman runyan was alluding to about the high altitude and pushing the envelope but just the basic physiology, where we let some of the skillset atrophy over

the years as we downsized our air force in the post-cold war period, that we were relearning lessons. in april that's when it came back to me, mr. chairman. >> is it not true that in large measures, the symptoms of hypoxia and the symptoms of hypocapnia are indistinguishable? >> mr. chairman, that's what i found out. i have to put things in fairly simple terms and i asked them to give me a chart listing all of these different things and listing what are the symptoms and it looks almost like a complete letter of x's from left to right all filled in. they're almost a 1-1 match, the various symptoms that we talked about and the causes. >> we have a very interesting dynamic here. if you think that you hypoxic, the normal response to that is to try and get more oxygen.

that's what you need so you breathe deeper. and you do that and you are not aware of the fact that you are breathing deeper and faster and when you do that you now drive down co-0 and you create the symptoms of the thing that you are trying to avoid, that is hypo combmbings ia because as you drive down the carbon dioxide concentration in your body you have exactly the same symptoms if you had a low concentration in your body. so now you begin a vicious cycle. i feel worse. i need to breathe deeper. you don't say that to yourself but that's the physiological response to that. the deeper you breathe the worse you feel. so you are kind of on a vicious cycle here.

what partial level do you try to maintain in the breathing mixture? i'm going to ask a question about raptor cough and people understand where this comes from, it's not something evil and it's a natural consequence of doing what you do in flying these aircraft, this is what happens. >> mr. chairman, we mean well above the useful consciousness requirement for -- >> i think it's 100 -- roughly at sea level, i think it's 158 to partial pressure and in our lungs it's diluted by co-2 and so forth and it's down to about 100 millimeters of mercury. >> yes, sir. >> do we try to maintain the concentration of oxygen significantly above 158 millimeters of mercury? >> significantly above, as a matter of fact. we are approaching 90%, 80% to 90% of pure oxygen at high altitudes.

>> what happens when you have very high percentage of oxygen in your lungs is that if that oxygen is picked up by the capillaries in the lungs, there's nothing then -- the nitrogen is gone. you've eliminated that by increasing the oxygen percentage. here we have about 80% nitrogen. it stays there. what you end up with is a situation like if you take two pieces of wet paper and put them together, you have to tug at them to get them apart. that's the surface tension of water. that's what happens when you have a very high oxygen concentration. you increase the -- and i noted you were recommending they go to max ox, oxygen. you now increase the probability of atalexis because you are driving down oxygen so you are going to increase the probability of atalexis.

you cough. it could take white a quile for you to open up which may persist for a while. y'all have done an admirable job of pursuing this. all of these instances occurred at two of your eight bases, is that true? >> mr. chairman, we have six permanent operating bases. >> six. and how many of those did this occur? >> but your eight is correct. we have two present bases. >> and this occurred at only two? >> only two. >> which is another indication of what's happening here is not a problem with the -- and this is a very complex relationship between the pilot and his system. pilots are learned early on they can't really trust their senses. you have cockpit signals that tell you what's up and what's down and you've learned to trust those rather than the seat of your pants because you

really can't trust that. and all of you have been, i gather, how many times do you go in that altitude chamber and they ask you to take off your mask and you take off your mask and you're doing something like writing something and you think you're doing just fine and then you put your mask back on and you look at what you've done and, wow, how could i have done that? there's little perception that you're becoming hypoxic. and you think that you're doing just great and the better you feel you're doing the worse you're doing. so the pilots learned they can't really trust their senses. they got to trust other things. i'm really pleased that you put two things in the system that now pilots can look to. one is on the oxemetor which tells you what your oxygen is in your blood. if that's up you got enough oxygen if that's up. i think you also put a sensor in there that tells them what the percent oxygen is in their

delivery system? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> there needs to be a protocol that keeps that as near 158 as you can. if you run it much above that you're going to increase the incidents of adalexticis and this kind of breeds some perception there is a problem with the airplane or a problem with the oxygen system or something. not a problem with either it's just the fact. that if you're breathing high percentage of oxygen and pulling g's which is going to exacerbate the -- i asked enough questions for the moment. let me turn to mr. reyes for his questions and we'll come back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i was listening to the chairman, i was wondering, you know, we first deployed the f-22 in 2005 and it wasn't up until 2008 or so that these problems started to surface. so i'm wondering what

explanation is there for this timeline? were the problems there all along and not being reported or did you change the operational, you know -- operational capability -- not capabilities but the operational environment of the f-22 that brought upon the pilots this problem? >> congressman, thank you for that question, congressman reyes. a few years of operational flying, we started to get a large number of aircraft, larger population, we get into the individual variability where the pilots are flying in 2008. we had several incidents. one of the things that was informative to me for mr. caigg's independent analysis was this thing known as the normalization of deviance which was learned from their studies that they've done on some of their safety and engineering studies for things which occurred with nasa in the past.

there was an acceptance early on by the raptor pilots who flew this aircraft that it's a little harder to breathe than it is in other aircraft. and then they were taught that it's a little harder to breathe and they became to accept it. but over time as the pull of -- pool of pilots got larger we started to see some of this individual variability come into play and then we had some incidents and we really started focusing on it. what was also helpful for me, as i worked through this analysis, was looking at the air force's history in another aircraft, the f-16. the f-16 flew operationally for four years before it had the first g loss of consciousness. same capabilities in the aircraft. same g available. same qualification and criteria to get in the aircraft, but we flew for four years and i asked myself, why. i still don't have an answer as to why it took four years for a g loss of consciousness. but it's not uncommon from what

i've seen to fly an aircraft for a number of years, very selective pilots and aviators at the very beginning, very controlled environments, but we started to broaden the appture and started to see more variability over time. >> the other question that comes to my mind is, you know, we're dealing with the f-22 in this hearing, but are there lessons to be learned as we transition to the capability -- the f-35? does the f-35, do we anticipate that it's going to have similar issues or the fact that we're workinour way through finding solutions for the f-22, will that be beneficial for the f-35? >> congressman reyes, i would say this that the f-35 oxygen

system is more robust than the f-22 in terms of its design and redundancy. the formula that it uses for computing oxygen is different. from the lessons we learned with respect to connections, potential for leakage and, of course, the emergency oxygen system, they have applied those lessons in the f-35. as general lyon has indicated, that will not stop all potential hypoxia-like incidents due to hyperventilation or things that could occur but in terms of the design it seems as if the f-35 has gone to school on the f-22 and of course both with what general lions' team has done, we have shared all of that information. in fact, during the early part of our study, nav air systems, people were fully integrated

into our effort and shared with us the lessons they had learned in general and where they were with the f-35. so we're doing our best to make sure that what we have learned here will apply to the training and to the design and operation of the f-35. >> thank you. and i have some other questions but i'll submit them for the record, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. ms. speier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. craigg, i was particularly struck by the statement in your report that reads, "the acceptance of these phenomena as, quote, normal, could be seen as, quote, normalization of deviance." . that the f-22 has no effect of filtration, or breathing air or cabin air and though no conclusive evidence has been found indicating the affect of irritant compounds, they could enter the cockpit and the pilot's breathing supply.

could you comment a little more on those statements, please? >> sure. thanks for the question. the -- nasa is very familiar with the term, normalization of deviance. it's -- when we get to a position where we accept the app ration of some component that is not working properly as we start treating it as that's the way it normally is. and the best example from nasa's perspective was the foam coming off the external tank for the shuttle. it happened since the beginning and we came to accept it as that's the normal part of doing business but it wasn't and we should have fixed it long before. so when we began examining the f-22, things like the raptor cough, the -- things like the pilots going home at night being physically exhausted it said to something there's mg that may fit in this category of normalization of deviance. so we wanted to point that out.

it's a way that you can almost fall into that type of a mindset if everybody says it's normal and, you know -- and especially with the f-22 being the top of the line air force fighter when people say, do you want to fly this fighter? yes, yes, of course i do. there's some things that are different about this, it's harder to breathe but the pilots didn't care. they wanted to jump in and begin flying it. so the normalization deviance is a cultural thing that i think the air force needs to take a look at and to help prevent from occurring in the future. >> and your reference to this filtration system and -- >> yes, ma'am. >> the fact that these toxic compounds can get into the oxygen system, can you comment on this? >> yes, we began our review by trying to double check some of the things that we understood

that the air force had already done. one of the things they looked at quite extensively was the contamination issue. so i had my people examine all the evidence, the data and we came up with the conclusion that we found no contaminants that were getting into either the breathing supply or the cockpit that would cause a toxic condition for the pilot. having said that, during that examination we found that the air coming into the cockpit and the breathing supply is not filtered. and so it's not filtered which would put the pilot in position where he's breathing air like in any jet fighter environment. there are irritant compounds, there's potentially some exhaust gases that the individual may be breathing and we wanted to highlight the fact that the onboard oxygen generator is not a great

filter. it is filtering a lot. some of the cabin air that's coming into the cabin is being filtered by what's coal less -- coalescor socks. >> so are you suggesting that it needs to be completely filtered? >> ultimately what we're suggesting is that some of these irritant compounds could potentially cause a pulmonary problem or a restriction in breathing. one of the members of my team was from the e.p.a. who's done testing with irritant compounds and has found that to be the case in some individuals. it's highly an individual response to that. >> i have two more questions i want to try and get in 42 seconds here. the air force has said that none of the hypoxia incidents have resulted in long-term or lingering physiological affects but a medical expert wrote in

flying safety magazine that a pilot who experienced these symptoms was restricted from flying for several days. wives of pilots have also described what they believe to be long-term or lingering effects and many of these pilots describe blackouts and memory loss when they experienced symptoms. some pilots also describe experiences of vertigo weeks later. to what degree do you think we need to look at biomarkers as part of this evaluation? >> i think that's a very good question. i had two nasa flight surgeons on my team and they did some extensive review of what the air force has done. i would not like to speak for them. i wanted to make sure what we put in our report as far as the medical portion was exactly correct so i encouraged that that portion of our report was thoroughly peer reviewed by our

flight surgeons. so if you don't mind, ma'am, i'll take that one for the record and provide you an answer. >> all right. i appreciate that. one last question. have any of the pilots declined to fly the f-22 because of what has transpired? >> we have one pilot across the entire f-22 enterprise who is currently not on flying status. based on his request. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. reyes mentioned the unconsciousness you get when you're pulling g's, and this is due to an apparent design defect in us. essentially every other part of our body has the ability to accumulate an oxygen depth which is why you keep

breathing, huffing, puffing after you run hard. our brain has zero ability to accumulate oxygen debt, so the moment it doesn't have enough oxygen to operate it just quits operating. and we try to avoid this, of course. when you're pulling g's, the force is taken down to your legs and abdomen and we try to avoid this by anti-g suits, something as soon you start pulling g's it starts squeezing on your abdomen and legs to make sure the blood doesn't pull there. you can't do enough of that and sometimes the blood may pool there that you get some transient. i have no why that design defect -- you think it needs to be built in. what needs to work is the brain, doesn't it, and if doesn't have enough oxygen it just quits. and ms. speier mentioned vertigo weeks later. i was just thinking, you know, unless there is some pollutant

in the oxygen -- and i think you pretty much ruled that out with all of your testing, there's just nothing that can happen during flight, hypoxia or hyperventilation -- you might better look to what you did last night than look at the hypoxia or hypocapnia that he experienced six weeks earlier. i have a series of questions that would like to get answers to. let me ask you first of all, is there any evidence other than sir come standings that there -- circunstantial that there -- >> if i may lead and if the general would like to add.

one of the discussions centered on hypoxia and then the discussion became hypoxia-like. but in the end where analysis said these are physiological events which get back to the things we described a little earlier today that get into if physiology and physiological events is the umbrella of which hypoxia is one of the parts of that, but most of these events are so ambiguous and these multiple factors that we didn't have the science early on when we had these incidents to really plumb to the depth required to determine hypoxia from exposure to compounds to hypoglycemia, etc., it's only through the protocalls in the learning that came out of general martin's efforts that we've been able to understand these incidents in more depth over the last year that have allowed us to rule out things like contamination as a root cause for what was happening to our pilots. and we start to see that -- are these breathing restrictions

and breathing impedianses which you referred to which is lead to hypocapnia or hypercapnia. that's where i end my analysis after taking all the findings that have come in from the other bodies and looked at this in total is they're not pie poxia per se -- hypoxia per se. we've had pilots that had interruptions in their pilot supplies and we tracked that and we noted that so we do know if there was an interruppings, a malfunction, that they will get less air and they will indeed become hypoxic. what we've been studying, what we've been concerned about is there was incidents with no explanation at the time and they do not lead you to hypoxia. >> during our review of the cases and after we initiated the return to flight phase where we had the finger pulse oxemetor, there were -- we had

data that seemed to correlate with the symptoms and the physiological presentation of what you would call hypoxia. for instance, a pilot cruising out through 15,000 feet began to sense his hypoxia symptoms, became to feel somewhat light-headed, looked at his pulse oxemetor and saw it was 85% or 83%. when we looked over a period of months and gathered more data and became much more conversent with the strength and weaknesses of the tools such as that we found that oftentimes what seemed to be a correlation turned out to be what the medical world refers to as artifact data or data that was not accurate. be and we did not know at the time that perhaps the best indicator of whether the oxi meter was -- the oxygenization

number may not be accurate. so we thought we had some fairly representative samples of someone not getting the oxygen that they needed to perform without impairment and their symptoms. and it turned out that in almost every case that data was inaccurate. hence the pulse oximeter will go in the head because the extremity is the last place where the body will push the blood when necessary to preserve the function of the brain and the core of the body. so we should get better data with this but still there will be some artifact data just based on the technology used i have no doubt that some of the cases we reviewed that the pilot believed that he was suffering from hypoxia but it may not have been hypoxia. it may have been the symptoms

that were similar and those are the symptoms that he or she felt in the physiological training unit and when they went to high altitude and one of the cases that you mentioned not only do we do some exercises but we're supposed to mark, if you will, perhaps a narrowing of the vision, perhaps a loss of color, perhaps a dizziness, perhaps a light-headedness, perhaps other symptoms, we're supposed to note that so if we felt that in the aircraft then we'd go to 100% oxygen and recover the aircraft. i have no doubt that there were aircrew members or pilots that experienced those same symptoms but we can't prove that it was due to a lack of oxygen from the obox system itself. >> are we acquainting our pilots with the similarities and symptoms of hypocapnia and hypoxia?

>> mr. chairman, we are. in fact, we visited five of the six permanent location sites, the one location there deployed currently, we haven't been out to see them but we pushed them the information where we've shown them the results of the centrifuge and altitude training. that was my next a-ha moment when for the first time with you put f-22 wearing their flying ensemble into chambers and centrifuges and saw that the system was not performing the way we thought it was performing. we had the ability to understand what the oxygen delivery system is. we've shown the results of that to the pilots. two of the first 12 pilots who did centrifuge testing replicated their hypoxia symptoms on the ground in the centrifuge inside a closed building. that was an a-ha moment for me that started to point to one of the factors as you rightly

pointed out, mr. chairman. the other factor is this restriction in breathing or impede yens in breathing which came from a restriction from the upper pressure garment and the filter which we've been flying with to protect against the possibility of contaminants. and also the pressure drops that the navy helped us in understanding it and nasa confirmed it. the pressure inside the cockpit as the air flows through the oxygen hoses and the quick connects. we had measurable objective data and we showed it to our pilots and they're aware of that. we've not had an incident since the eighth of march of this year, over six months ago. this is the longest period without a physiological, unexplained incident in years. >> did you have an increased incidence of these events when you had the filter in? >> mr. chairman, we did.

when we returned to flight september of last year we put a number of measures in place to ensure their safety, to enhance their safety and some of these things we put in place actually increased the incidents. one of the measures that we put in place was guidance from me to the entire f-22 fleet that said at the first sign, the first symptom of anything, you are directed to terminate your mission and come home. we injected a sensitivity because safety was paramount in our mind. and they responded to that. and they did safely recover every aircraft each time that we had an incident. but i mark my guidance as the air combat command director of preagses with their safety as pair -- operations with their safety as paramount that we have injected an increase in the incident rate during that time frame. >> yeah. i would have predicted an increase in the reported incidents, if you put a notice or resistance in the line because the response to that is, gee, it's hard to breathe,

i'm not getting enough oxygen, i need to breathe deeper. so when you do that you create hypocapnia and you create the symptoms as the thing you were trying to avoid, don't you >> mr. chairman, you're exactly right. to also dovetail off to what mr. cragg had said, when we put this canister on the pilots and told them to protect them in the event of contamination, what we failed to tell them was this known breathing impede yens. we knew about the breathing impedians. what we didn't know was the restriction with the upper pressure garment. and the restriction from the upper pressure garment and this impede yent is it sent a number of our pilots beyond their normal physiological limits to where they saw these first symptoms. >> if the staff wants to make sure we have on the record so there's no misunderstanding from the general public about

our effort to solve this problem. you don't need to give a full answer here. in your finding you cite a number of failures in f-22 modeling and simulation of the life support system. do you believe engine to mask -- dynamic response testing across the full range of simulated environments, statistical analyses for analyzing and predicting risk in ovogs performance when presented with a full range of ecs air contaminant shall be accomplished for the h-22 program? i guess a simple yes or no is ok. >> yes. >> good. ok. what causes -- what has become known as the raptor cough? how briefly is it experienced by the average f-22 pilot and does the raptor cough have any long-term effect on the pilots? do you think the record needs to show more than we discussed?

>> there is no standard number of events. some individuals don't have it at all. some more than others. we have no indication of long-term effect. >> your reduce of incidents if you keep oxygen as low as feasible, the blood is oxygenated not because you push a lot of oxygen pressure into it, because it has heemo -- heemo globein because it has blood, the solution, the blood is very small. so anytime you get over 158 millimeters of mercury partial pressure you're increasing the amount of oxygen available to the tissues. but you're considerably increasing the probability of adalecticis. is there any linkage between hyperventilation and the raptor cough, i was trying to think of that? can you increase the raptor cough adalecticis by

hyperventilation? >> we have not made that linkage yet, although what we mentioned is we're going to -- one of the institutional things that we'll continue to work on is further study of this man machine interface, not only for the f-22 but for other aircraft. there is a relationship between the two. >> of course. >> that's why you have the cough, i believe. how did your group study this issue and does your report draw any conclusions or make any recommendations to address the raptor cough issue? is there any indication that would minimize or eliminate the raptor cough? i'll answer my own question. if you keep the c.o. of the oxygen level as close as you can to 158 millimeters of mercury where your blood will be adequately oxygenated you reduce the incidents, i think. as you fill the lungs with more and more oxygen and less and less nitrogen, you are going to increase the amount of incidents, correct? >> yes, mr. chairman. may i add one more thing for

the report? one of the reasons why we're significantly above 158 is for protection against the possibility, however slight, but the possibility of rapid decompression at high altitudes. as you know superoxygenating the bloodstream will maximize your time of useful consciousness shall we have that take place. >> there's a press report this morning indicating that the air force medical experts lick the raptor cough to the f-22's air supply system. i would hope so. the article indicates that the air force decided in 2005 not to make affix to the f-22 oxygen system. do you know the modification of the f-22 air supply system was considered in 2005 to address the raptor cough system and why the modification was not made? >> sir, let me give you a partial answer here. first of all, the bleed air satisfies many customers. it satisfies the cooling requirements for the flight control computer. it satisfies the communication

navigation cooling system. it satisfies the fire control system. it provides pressurization to the cabin and it also provides the pressurized air, added specific pressure and temperature to obogs which then delivers breathing air to the pilot. it is controlled by an air cycle machine which meters the amount of air necessary to the customers based on the pressurized air coming in as well as the temperature. if the temperature begins to creep up, which at high altitude, low power settings it does, it then begins to shut down the delivery of the air to some of those customers downrange and the obogs is one of them. there is a restriction to the amount of air that the pilot will have, including zero, when they have no pressure at the front. we knew that in the early testing and there were modifications to the air cycle

machines algorithms that controlled the metering of the air and that again was brought forward in the 2005 time frame as a part of the discussion there. as a result of the sabb study, the program office has gone back in that algorithm and adjusted that again because the number of e.c.s. rollbacks or shutdowns were greater than, predicted or expect and they have tried to address that air cycle machine mechanism to reduce the number of shutdowns that would occur. therefore, shutting off the oxygen to the pilot. further, as you know from what general lyons said, there will be a backup oxygen system placed on the aircraft so if that happens you'll still get breathable air from the backup system that will be much larger than the basic emergency activation system that we have today. >> in early designs of the f-22, didn't we have a backup system or wasn't it taken out to reduce cost? >> it was not a cost issue, sir. it was -- it is true that it was taken out.

it did have an initial design of a backup oxygen in addition to the emergency oxygen system. a series of events occurred, but the catalyst for this particular decision was the term that every aircraft goes through, the war on weight. after the prototypes had flown they then began to go in their engineering development phase, you saw the strength and weakness. if it gains weight it may not be able to pass its key performance parameters of sustained g or altitude or whatever. so at that point they had to get the weight down. the difficulty here was that as we went into acquisition reform, we created the i.p.t. structure and at that point very tough decisions were made in terms of who had the authority to make certain decisions. that usually was generated as a result of a very conscientious review to determine where your safety of flight critical items were. as the program evolved, the

backup oxygen system, the obogs and the emergency oxygen system were not considered safety of flight critical. they were safety significant which meant that the decision to take the backup oxygen system off could be made at a lower level than the chief engineer of the f-22 and it was. and it was not known at that time by the senior leadership -- excuse me -- that that -- the analysis that went into that trade study that allowed the backup oxygen system to come off. in retrospect that was not an appropriate system but at that time that's what the decision was. now that decision was made also with the information that it -- that the environmental control system, e.c.s., i.p.t. was going to put a shut valve in that would always assure there would be positive pressure to the obogs and therefore taking the backup system off would not be a problem. given that you had an emergency backup system, should the obogs fail entirely. so what looks like.

it was steeped into data and very well thought out but it was perhaps not viewed by the more experienced and senior engineer responsible to the f-22. >> if weight was that critical, what do we prune now so we put it back in? >> sir, first of all, it was 15.4 pounds, as if i recall, and they were looking for every pound they could find. and the performance of the aircraft so significant that 15 pounds won't hurt it. >> is there any explanation why the report of hypoxia incidents was concentrated at two of the six operating bases? >> we asked the air force safety center, mr. chairman, to go to all the f-22 bases and talk to the crews, the aircrew and the ground crew to help us understand some of the factors beyond what i would call hard science, beyond engineering science and get in the human

factors. one of the locations is joint base elmendorf-richardson where tragically in november of 2010, captain jeff haney lost his life and there was a cluster of incidents that took place in may of 2011 just before the standdown occurred. there is a resitual effect within the community that occurs when you suffer through a tragedy. and as general martin mentioned earlier today, there was a period of quite sometime, nearly a year uncertainty about what caused captain haney's crash and the loss of his life. so this built up and manifested inside the community and there's residual effect that has come from that. we also at the other base, joint base langley-eustis, we found that there was a set of factors there where the cta 1 canster, and i can tell you from all my discussions with the wings, the c-2-a-1 had a

different meaning and we saw different clusters take place. and the human factors engineers and scientists tell us this is to be expected if there is a perception of a problem and then somebody credible within the organization has a problem, others will begin to experience the same thing. and that's what we had. credible aviators who had a perception that we had helped them believe there's a problem with your life support system which could have been contamination and at the first time saying i have a problem terminating the mission, their credibility extended to other people at the installation. that's how we explain it. at the other installations it never got to that point. there were factors that had professionals make well-measured good decisions to terminate missions because they had the perception that there was a problem. >> one other comment, mr. chairman. when the scientific advisory board recommended the return to

fly protocols and the steps to be taken, it knew or it believed that it would be important for us to continue the return to fly process until at least march of 2012 because that would give us a fairly representative sample across the fleet of the different seasons. it also turns out that at elmendorf and at langley, those two bases fly with the protective gear for winter operations which means if you haven't readjusted your upper pressure garment and you now fly with more stuff, the restriction to the breathing could be greater. and the incidents may very well have also been related to the fact we didn't have a proper standard for the upper pressure garment fitting and then we didn't change the upper pressure garment fitting when we put on the rubberized and cold weather gear.

>> thank you. general, i think you probably articulated the major reason for this. a little ant he can dote may put -- antidote may put that in perspective. if you're provided a breathing mask and you sat behind a screen and you're getting your air supply through a tube and you're told that by and by you will smell violets and you're supposed to indicate to the investigator when you smell violets. essentially everybody will smell violets. an investigator has not done one thing to the air supply. these are very subjective things and uts tough for us to recognize we are not in full control of these things. but these are very subjective things. and if you think that there's going to be a problem with your oxygen supply system and you may become hypoxic, the least little thing will trigger this

hyperventilation unperceptible to the pilot and he will have exactly the symptoms of the thing that he dreaded and that is hypoxia. so it's a very interesting thing that has happened here. and i'm sure that this was a learning experience for everybody who was involved in the investigation. is there an explanation -- i've done that. why do you believe that the pilots have not previously complained until recently about the chest constriction caused by the upper pressure garment now determined to be a cause of the two physiological problems? i'm not sure -- my statement seems to say that it was a causial factor. do you think there was any causial factor other than the fact that the perception was, gee, my breathing was impeded, i guess i need to breathe a little more to get oxygen and so then they breathe more and get hype owe cap nia which is another -- hypocapnia which is another example of hypoxia?

>> if i have the question right. how did they go for so long with this upper pressure garment filling prema turrill, restricting their breathing and not knowing it? what helped inform us is the normal deviance that mr. cragg said. when we put these pilots into centrifuges with their gear on and they were accelerated to high g we measured the fact they were prematurely filling and restricting their breathing and as you can see on the chart in front of you, mr. chairman, that without the upper pressure garment on, the tall blue spike shows how quickly they can inspire and get the required volume. and that the red line shows that with the upper pressure garment on they cannot get the depth that they need and it takes longer to breathe and as you already mentioned, mr.

chairman, the brain just does this without the pilot knowing that he's changing his breathing. this is what we've come to known which the navy helped us with this understand work of breathing. breathing restrictions integrated into the flight's ensemble forced them to work hardtory get the required volumes of air which could lead to fatigue symptoms overtime. >> we are streaming this hearing live at c-span.org. here on c-span, the u.s. house coming in next so we'll take you there momentarily. they're gaveling in to debate a six-month extension of existing spending levels and a bill requiring president obama to report to congress on alternatives to the defense sequester cuts. also, a -- the rule for a bill that would phase out the energy loan guarantees like the ones given to sew lindh are a, the bankrupt solar equipment maker. over in the senate today, they are spending the day on a veterans jobs bill that creates work training and gives vets preferences for certain types

of federal jobs. the senate is on c-span2. and now to the house floor here on c-span. holtzmeyer. the chaplain: let us pray. heavenly father, we come to you this day with praise upon our lips. you are worthy of all glory and honor. you are faithful and you hear us when we call. we come to you this day to say thank you. you have given to us a free and prosperous nation in which to live. we know that you and you alone are the provider of that freedom and prosperity. we also come before you acknowledging our great sins as a nation, we ask your forgiveness as we seek your will for the future of our country. as our leaders gather in this room to discuss the business of this day, bless them with wisdom and knowledge to make the best possible decisions for our citizens and may their actions,

their words and their motives bring you honor and glory. we ask these things in the name of jesus christ, our lord, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling. mr. schilling: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleesh-, will be recognized for one -- fleischmann, will be recognized for one minute. mr. fleischmann: it is my pleasure to welcome chris

holtzmeyer to join me here to give the opening prayer. the pastor recently served as an society pastor at second baptist church in clinton, tennessee, a town in my district. with the desire to serve the lord in both word and deed, chris has authored two devotionals, the first responder field manual, and lessons from the locker room. a passionate advocate for international adoption, chris advocated for the adoption awareness and established the kyle reagan foundation that raises money to help adopt children from abroad. in tennessee chris has been active as well coordinating the 2012 anderson county national day of prayer, running the summer skills basketball camp at second baptist church and ministering to local officials. in addition to his strong ties to tennessee, chris also has a washington connection. he served as assistant communications director for the d. james kennedy center, for christians statesmanship on

capitol hill from 2004 to 2006. while on capitol hill he performed outreach to members and staff. a native of indiana, chris received his b.a. from the university of southern indiana and his masters degree from liberty baptist theological seminary. along with his wife, missie, and his children, kyle and sammy, i would like to thank chris and i am pleased that he could join us in prayer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain 15 requests for further one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the month of august i traveled throughout my arkansas district listening to the challenges family farmers are facing. even though the congress did pass a drought relief package, we must pass a farm bill. the success story of arkansas and american agriculture can

continue if congress acts to pass sound policy. mr. crawford: the message from my constituents and rural america is clear, we need a farm bill now. the farm bill needs to be a priority of the house as it's important to all of rural america. at a time when american americans have lost faith in the ability of congress to accomplish great things, a comprehensive farm bill has the potential to being an example of what can be done when we put aside partisan politics and pass sound policy. we need a farm bill now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. imagine if our farmers did our job the way congress has been doing its job. i know what you're thinking. we'd all starve. ms. hochul: you heard my colleague from the other side of the aisle, we've been asking

since earlier this summer, give the farmers the certainty they need to do their job, to protect our food security which is linked to our national security. it expires in a couple weeks. i don't want to go home and my colleagues don't want to go home, we don't want to leave this body until we do our job on behalf of the farmers. and if anyone thinks a six-month extension, kicking the can down the road is sufficient, well, i encourage you to go look at my farmers, the dairy farmers, the mccormicks, people i met over our five-week break who thought we'd be able to pull together in a bipartisan way and do it. there's still time, mr. speaker, i don't want to go home, let's not go home until we take care of our farmers and get the job done right. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. furred the gentleman from illinois rise? -- for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on september 1 of 2012, a tragedy occurred at the quad city air show when a

30-year-old l-31 fighter jet fell from the sky, claiming the life of a veteran pilot. glen smith, or skid, of frisco, texas, never shied away from an adventure. mr. schilling: he lived life to the fullest as a certified scuba diver, a licensed sailor and a self-proclaimed struggling golfer. he took one of the greatest risks and started what would eventually become a successful business. in 2006, skid's retired to pursue his true passion, flying. restoring and flying fighter jets wasn't just a hobby to him. it was a way to share a piece of our nation's history with people across the country. skid will always be remembered by those he motivated through his mission to educate the general public, inspire kids to work hard in school, aim high in life and have fun. skid's enthusiasm for life will truly be missed. my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends and teammates he leaves behind. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i join in asking for calm, along with secretary clinton in this violent and tumultuous world and particularly the actions that are going on in yemen, cairo and certainly libya. i offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives, but i stand again to say as the secretary indicated this morning that the american people and the american government has absolutely nothing to do with this heinous film, but we reject the horrible and horrific violence. i'm also saddened to hear resources probably prevented some of the reinforcing of some of our embassies. we cannot shortchange security, the securing of the homeland, and as we go forward in dealing with sequestration, i beg that we understand that we must protect those who serve us

overseas, including the united states military. but i call for peace, and i know the american people realize that no religion should be denigrated but we cannot accept and will not accept and will stand against any violence against the american people or those who serve us in a civilian manner with honor and dignity. to their families i offer my deepest sympathy and the commitment that we will stand against terrorism. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: moody's threatened to downgrade our credit rating if we fail to deal with the long-term debt problem. this is not news. we were downgraded last year, but instead of acting to fix the problem, this administration racked up $ trillion deficit for the fourth year in a row. and now we face a fiscal collapse that could cause another recession. enough with the short-term

fixes, patches, gimmicks and tricks. they only make the problem worse. this country needs comprehensive budget and tax reform. this means a simpler tax code that is nor fair and efficient and fundamental spending reform that will save medicare. we have a rare opportunity to put this country back on the right track, to ensure a more prosperous future for our children. let's take it. it's time to put the american people first. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from northern mariana islands rise. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i ask you to join me in celebrating the 60th anniversary of mount karma school and the proud record serving students in the northern mariana islands from their elementary through high school years.

since opening the doors the school has constantly expanded, added new facilities, state-of-the-art information technology and a standards base curriculum with accreditation from the western association of schools and colleges. the school has cultivated some of our island's most notable business, government leaders. as doctors, car mechanics, cooks, carpenters, teachers and business executives, the school's alumni are outstanding pillars in our community. the school has evolved into an institution whose name is synonymous with excellence in our community. i offer my congratulations to all those who have been affiliated with the school over the past 60 years. teachers, staff, students, alumni and parents. i have every confidence that the next 60 years will be marked with the same accomplishments. go knights. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the no more solyndras act. it is so they are not left on the hook for any future president's risky bets. ms. hanabusa: this phase -- mr. boustany: it seeks to stop future debacles like the recent $535 million loan guarantee for the california solar panel manufacture called solyndra. this administration refuses to promote legit mate safe domestic energy resources by issuing moratoriums in the gulf of mexico and needlessly delaying very important projects like the keystone pipeline. instead it chooses to roll the dice on unproven technologies that result in bankruptcies with hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars. that's not a way to move forward. in south louisiana, we know when it comes to energy production, domestic resources are waiting to be tapped

safely, environmentally sound and whether it's oil or natural gas or any other source, we must harness the resources of our land to create jobs here at home and to make sure that hardworking families aren't forced to feel the pain at the pump. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about the that this institution has to the american people to finish the work they sent us here to do. partisan gridlock make 2012 one of the congress' least productive years in decades. that's why this institution has seems some of the lowest public approval ratings in history. the american people expect better from their elected officials. they know that members of congress should be acting like adults, working with members on the other side of the aisle to get things done. each of us should remember the people we serve, the seniors who worked for years to secure a successful retirement, the students who took out loans to help pay for college, the

middle-class families who are concerned about their long-term economic security. rather than meeting for only eight days this month, as republicans proposed, let's remain here. pass the american jobs act that the president proposed over a year ago, put aside partisanship, roll up our sleeves and get back to work for the people we serve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, it is with a heavy heart that all americans reflect upon the tragic loss of life of the american consulate in benghazi. when one of our own pays the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation, we're all touched by the loss. all four of these brave americans will forever be remembered in american history as heroes. in particular i'd like to take the time to pay tribute to ambassador chris stevens, a native of northern california. although i did not know the ambassador personally, his father, senior assistant attorney general, jan stevens, ablely served our state in the

california department of justice while i served as attorney general of my home state. this tragedy hits close to home with all of the employees at the california department of justice who worked with jan stevens. i wish to join them -- with them, with friends and family members of the stevens and with all americans in offering our thoughts and players as we mourn the loss of ambassador chris stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in a few short hours a giant in the state of connecticut, coach jim calhoun, is going to announce his retirement after leading the basketball program. when he arrived 26 years ago it was a great program. he secured three national championships, he was inducted to the hall of fame, the nba is populated with graduates like ray allen, emeka okafor and

walker. he's performed hundreds of acts of personal kindness, small and large, coaches against cancer, the uconn cardiology health center program and his latest passion which is to help families with the scourge of autism. he's a really good person and to him and his wife pat, on behalf of the people of the second congressional district, i want to extend my congratulations for his great leadership and career and wish them all the success in the world as they begin a new chapter in their wonderful lives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. fudge: mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of americans, 12 1/2 million obese youth. i stand on behalf of america's 3.7 million low income children between the ages of 2 and 4 who are either overweight or obese. millions of our children depend on school meals and the

generosity of food pantries for most of their newt recents. these are the children -- nutrients. these are the children i've come to speak to you about today. september is national childhood obesity awareness month. the month when americans are reminded of the plight facing our children if we don't ensure they receive better meals and build an environment that promotes physical activity. it is time to get involved in the well-being of every child in america. so join me, make a difference in a child's life during national childhood obesity awareness month and all year long. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker, to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you. mr. speaker, i refuse to participate in what i call medicare class warfare.

i refuse to pit those who are 55 and above against those who are under 55. mr. speaker, i believe that those of us who are above 55 ought to want the same health care for those who are under 55 that we are going to receive. i refuse to participate in medicare class warfare. i believe that those who are at the dawn of life should know that they will have the same health care benefits that we will have at the twilight of life. again, i refuse to participate in medicare class warfare. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: thank you, mr.

speaker. today i rise to bring attention to the town of waterberry, vermont. an article in the boston globe identifying that as the best beer town in new england. in this small town, beer pilgrims from across the country flock to appreciate and enjoy the finest beer in america. it's the quality of the beer that's brewed that's really revered and let me just tell you about a few. it's the home to the alchemist camry which makes a heady topper. it's really, really good. the beer advocates it -- the beer advocate, the bible of the beer community, rates it as the third best in the world. the beer is sold in cans but it sells out early so get there early. it's not hard to see why it's so popular. when it's the third best in the world. but there's others there, waterbury's home to a number of restaurants, the prohibition

pig, the black-backed pub to name a few with great beer lists. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. welch: vermont is coming back from hurricane irene and waterbury is one beer at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. many of my democrat colleagues today have criticized republicans in congress as do-nothings but my view is a little different. it is certainly true that the nation has real needs. economists tell us that legislation held hostage here would create millions of jobs, put many americans back to work. instead of addressing those needs, congress is just dysfunctional. but considering what republicans in congress want to do, it is a great blessing that congress has done next to nothing. they have repeatedly voted to repeal health care reform, 33 times according to one count, as if denying health insurance for pre-existing conditions would put america back to work.

they have voted to gut or eliminate the funding for wall street reform, putting us right back where we were five years ago in the bush administration, the policies that created the painful downturn that we are now in. they voted 55 times, at least 55 times, to restrict women's reproductive rights and access to affordable health care, including repeated attempts to eliminate funding for planned parenthood. it is hard to see that as a job creation agenda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. speaker, better to do nothing than what they want to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm ready to cut taxes for americans, average americans, the middle class. and rebuild our infrastructure. unfortunately after wasting the last two years and after spending the entire month of

august at home without making even the slightest effort to fix the nation's economy, the tea party republicans plan to adjourn next week for another six weeks after being here for eight days. instead of going on vacation why don't we fix the nation's business? why don't we handle the business that we have to take care of? we act like pet lent children around here, these tea party republicans obstinate in their demands to cut taxes for millionaires and turn medicare into a voucher program. we can't afford to continue to handle our business like this. ladies and gentlemen, it's time for congress to get the -- to get to work. i think we should stay here and not leave for another six weeks, leaving the nation's business hanging. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: colorado house calendar number 161, house resolution 779, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the how it's resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 6213, to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title 17 of the energy policy act of 2005. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed

90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce . after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-31. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, it shall be in order at any time on the legislative

day of september 20, 2012, or september 21, 2012, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, house resolution 779 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 61 -- 6213. this rule provides for the discussion and opportunities for members of the minority and the

majority to participate in this debate. i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. the underlying legislation assures that all american taxpayers will never again be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this administration's politically motivated risky bets. h.r. 6213 draws on the lessons learned from the failed department of energy loan guarantee program which invested $535 million into a solar energy company named solyndra. unfortunately solyndra went bankrupt leaving hardworking americans with a check for over half a billion dollars. solyndra has become synonymous with the obama administration's reckless spending programs that have not -- that have done nothing to create the jobs our country so desperately needs,

nor those that had been promised by the president of the united states and the democratic party. despite warnings that the company was unsustainable and would surely fail, the administration was blinded by their political agenda and committed over half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to a privately held company. in fact, during a 2011 restructuring of the loan, the administration placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when it came to reimbursement in the event of bankruptcy. given these practices, it's no wonder that our current president has created budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion each year he has served as president. in addition to ensuring that the federal government does not throw taxpayer dollars after the investments, h.r. 6213 also

highlights the need of the federal government to stop propping up failed companies which cannot support themselves in the open market. the federal government should not guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to companies who do not have a business model that supports sufficient private investment. the administration should not be -- pretend to be a venture capitalist with taxpayer money. in testimony before the rules committee yesterday, congressman ed which the field, chairman of the energy and -- witfield, chairman of the energy and congress subcommittee, testified that the d.o.e. loan guarantee programs spent $15 billion but only created 1,175 jobs. that means that each job created cost taxpayers $12.8 million.

these statistics demonstrate what house republicans have been saying for years. and that is this country cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. instead we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing overregulation and promoting pro-growth policies, including tax policies that do not push jobs overseas, that create a better free enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also careers for americans. and they should be designed to incentivize private investment, what is known, mr. speaker, as the free enterprise system. ultimately, the no more solyndras act puts an end to an ineffective government program. it protects taxpayers from financing the administration's

wish list of projects and establishes necessary oversight to hold executive branch officials accountable for their actions. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from texas, my friend, mr. sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this structured rule. yes, mr. speaker, the republicans have brought up yet another closed process in what was supposed to be a moropen and democratic house. after two years of broken promises, we should nt be surprised by this -- shouldn't be surprised by this action. h.r. 6213, the no more

solyndras act, is just political theater. it's a bill that's going nowhere. we know the senate won't consider it. the only thing it really does is give republicans another talking point to use on the campaign trail. my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to make it seem like there was a big conspiracy to inappropriately give money to solyndra, a company that was trying to manufacture solar panels here in the united states. they claim that there was a political effort to award solyndra funds and an improper and -- in an improper and possibly illegal way. in that they're attacking a department of energy loan guarantee program that allows private investors to invest billions of dollars to create thousands of jobs here in america. the republican response to a company that went bankrupt after receiving federal loans, a company that was manufacturing alternative energy product here in the united states, was to begin investigations that turned into political witch-hunts.

and those investigations appear to have led us to this point by consideration of this bill that purports to end the loan guarantee program altogether. of course, the reality is that those investigations have really been used azzam anything on the campaign trail -- used as ammunition on the campaign trail. they say they are eliminating the loan guarantee program, getting rid of it completely. but what this bill really does is bar the department of energy from considering new applications submitted after december 31, 2011. that leaves $34 million in theline for applications for the -- in the pipeline for applications that were submitted before december 31, 2011. and there's no deadline on when these applications must be approved. not only that, but most of the available loan guarantee funding is for fossil fuel and nuclear projects. that's right. republicans are claiming to end this loan guarantee program but is still allowing it to spend

tens of billions of dollars, and they are still picking and choosing the winners and losing by putting an artificial end date on the application submissions. the result will be billions more in projects dealing with nuclear and fossil fuels like coal and oil and much less for wind, solar and hydro projects. america should be about innovation, about creating new things. we're the country who put a man on the moon. we're the country who created the car, airplane and ipad and we should be fostering, not stifling, innovation. especially in the area of alternative energy sources like wind, solar and hydro. yet, the republican leadership is showing once again that political victory is more important than american success, that winning this election is more important than fostering american manufacturing and leadership in areas like alternative energy. mr. speaker, this is just another example of how this republican leadership likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

in this case, they say they don't like loan guarantee -- the loan guarantee program but they want their own industries to be able to use it. it's another example of how their rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions. but we've seen this hypocrisy for years now. this is the tame republican party that opposed the stimulus plan but requested and touted funding from that same stimulus plan. in fact, republican members in this house have requested loan guarantees for businesses they support, including those in the nuclear energy -- industry. but they oppose this program for alternative energy businesses that want to manufacture in america. and this is the flip-flopping that kind of makes my head spin. it's clear my republican friends don't like -- don't let the facts get in the way of their political argument. it's a fact that this loan guarantee program is a success. for example, this loan program has ultimately supported 40 projects that helped keep 60,000 people employed during this economic downturn alone.

it's also a fact that the solyndra bankruptcy represented a fraction of the entire loan guarantee program. in fact, loan and loan guarantee programs only cost taxpayers 94 cents on every $1 invested. congress needs to examine the executive branch and make sure they are not overstepping their bounds. it is ironic that they are conducting an oversight plan of president obama but not with the bush administration. there is oversight and there's overreach. republicans looked into this issue. they held hearings and conducted an investigation. despite their claims of political manipulation, there is simply no evidence of such manipulation. don't take my word for it. bloomberg businessweek reported there was, and i quote, no evidence of wrongdoing, end quote. and "the washington post" reported, and i quote, the

records do not establish that anyone pressured the energy department to approve the solyndra loan to benefit political contributors, end quote. mr. speaker, we all know what this is. this is an election year stunt, political theater that is more appropriate for the campaign trail rather than the house of representatives. it's a bill that support it claims to do something it will not do. breaking speaker boehner's proves of a more open house. this is a bad bill, it's a bad rule and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and the underlying bill. mr. speaker, i'd just like to close with one observation. we have just returned from a recess, and if the rumor knows true we will only be in session for eight days before the election. hearing we are probably going to give away the first week in october. and given the fact that we're here such a short time, one

would think that this would be an opportunity to come together and to pass legislation that both sides could agree on, legislation that might in fact help stimulate economic growth, might in fact help put people back to work, might address some of the real challenges that the american people are facing. you know, we don't have to agree on everything to agree on something and that something we agree on we ought to be able to come together and pass it. and yet what we're doing during these eight days are debating hot button issues and bills that are going nowhere. you know, this is a hot button issuing. we'll be debating another hot button. hot button, hot button. no legislation that has meaning in the lives of the american people. bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. let us have that debate. let us be able to have a vote on whether or not we ought to invest in our economy and

invest in our people. my republican friends are squandering this opportunity. i think one thing is clear, and i think it's evident by the low esteem that congress has now held in by the american people. the american people want us to work on their behalf. and i understand, you know, the lust in this place for political power and winning elections and winning elections. i used to think that good government was good politics, but what we are doing here for these eight days with the exception of passing a resolution which is kicking the can down the road on a whole bunch of other budgetary issues, what we're doing during these eight days is nothing. nothing. nothing meaningful. nothing that matters to anybody. and i just think that's a sad commentary on the leadership of this house. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. you know i know that our

democrat friends think it's absolutely nothing to lose half a billion dollars of what -- that a government made a decision on. but what they really don't like is when we bring that up. when we say part of the job of being a member of congress as a policy body is to look at the mistakes that were made. we certainly have looked at mistakes that republicans and democrats, administrations and others have made. but to ignore an issue would be a mistake. and this is not just solyndra. it was the process of a political agenda that did not -- could not pass the smell test and even make it out in the real world. it was a political agenda that was so wanted by an administration that they gave lots of money out, not just half a billion here, but to other companies. you know, today's legislation

certainly highlights solyndra as a failure in the d.o.e., department of energy's loan program, but it should be mentioned there were other companies, not just solyndra. it's really a political process. let's go do this thing whether it makes sense or not, whether it makes money. and the companies went bankrupt. and part of this comes from, you got a lot of people in the administration that wouldn't even recognize a business plan if they saw one. they do recognize taxpayer dollars. plenty of those that were made available by this excessive spending, but accountability is now what democrats don't like. when we're saying, let's look at the results. solyndra is not just a one-time or one company failure in what would otherwise be a successful program. it's not. and this simplely became the poster child of -- and we believe we shouldn't repeat this failure.

we believe we should effectively talk about it on the floor of the house of representatives. we should take some bit of time. we're not here beating anybody up. you never heard me mention names behind the administration or who made these decisions or who pushed it. we're not trying to do that. we're simply trying to say that half a billion dollars is -- and a review of that should become available in the light of day to not just members of congress but we should vote on it and we say we think it's a mismisuse. so we think valuation that reveals a misuse of federal dollars of a plan that should be stopped, has stopped but that we should at least tell what the results were. that's what we're doing today. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, you know one of the things that speaker boehner promised was a more open house and this would be a place where we could deliberate and various points of view could be heard. i yield now to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the energy and commerce subcommittee on environment and the economy whose amendment was not made in order so he will not have an opportunity to debate it here on the floor, i yield three minutes to mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you for the time. mr. speaker, members, the original law this bill amends which was the energy and policy act of 2005 passed by a republican congress and signed by a republican president. the law does need to have minor reforms, but this bill goes way too far. the majority had the opportunity in our committee of energy and commerce to work in a bipartisan fashion, actually fix the problems with a loan guarantee program. i offered an amendment to the rules committee that had been

supported by republicans and our committee but not a majority of the republicans. to fix the problems with the program and find middle ground that would be suitable for republicans and democrats alike. but the majority has chosen a different path. they moved forward with a partisan bill. so despite the name, this bill will not provent another solyndra. it's the worst of election year politics. we had a chance to work together, something the american people want us to do and one of the things we were sent here to do, fix a broken program. instead we're playing more politics one more time. the bill is bad policy. it doesn't do what conservatives want to do so the heritage foundation opposes it. it doesn't do what the liberals want to do. it isn't what moderates want to do. it's legislating accountability. the majority doesn't care that it's bad policy because it will

never become law. instead, i urge my colleagues to find the bipartisanship. let's take the opportunity to fix the problem that we will see and craft a bipartisan bill. this is a chance to show our country that congress can do things. one of the reason congress has a 10% approval rating is we're not legislating. we're messaging. we're -- this is probably the worst example of it. we're talking past each other. this is a chance to show our country that congress can do things. instead of the belief that congress is broken and it's working against the interest of the american people. i urge a no vote on the rule and support a bipartisan effort to really make sure there are no more solyndras and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i would like to go to the report and let's see what the report out of the energy and commerce committee said. it said, and i'm quoting what would be off page 5, however,

the bush administration did not approve any loan guarantees under the program. this was due partially to the fact that the d.o.e. office implementing the program was slow in being set up and that program funding only became available in 2007. but even after the bush d.o.e. had the program up and running in 2007, it ran into difficulties finding applicants whose energy projects are meritorious. in other words, they could not find somebody who was asking for the loan who could present a good business plan of not just profit and loss but where it would fit in the marketplace to even be considered successful. and this is the reason why the bush administration and republicans did not do that, because they could see failure

in the marketplace written all over it. even as early as 2007. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me again repeat for my colleagues what bloomberg business week reported and i quote, again, there was no evidence of any wrong doing. "the washington post" reported and i quote, the records do not establish that anyone pressured the energy department to approve the solyndra loan to benefit the contributors. i mean, you know, it's clear what's going on here. and again, again, bringing this bill, a bill that's going nowhere. we heard about the bridges to nowhere. this is the legislation to nowhere. i think it's bad enough. but then bringing it up under a closed process, i'm going to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member on the committee of the natural resources, had three amendments, all three of them were denied by the rules committee. including a buy america provision.

what a radical idea. that we should make it in america and we should buy it in america. and that radical amendment was denied by the rules committee. it's hard to believe. so with that i yield four minutes to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized foyer -- for four minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. in the history of this whole program, it was started for the nuclear industry. 2005. why? because there hadn't been a new nuclear power plant built in 30 years out in the free market so they needed the federal government to come in and prop it up on crutches. that's the only way it would work. and so when president obama took over, you know, he said, well maybe we should do something for solar as well. and of course the coal industry, the oil industry, the nuclear industry, they recoiled in fear that there would actually be competition in the marketplace. and when one solar company got in trouble, the republicans pounced on solar. they pounced on wind. they pounced, you know, that's

why by the way the republicans are going to allow the wind tax breaks to expire this year. but they're going to keep all the oil tax breaks on the books. and so here we are today and they have something called the no more solyndras act. ah. except for the $88 billion that they're going to grandfather in terms of the application date that they've selected. so who qualifies for that? $76.5 billion would be the nuclear industry. $11.9 billion would be the coal industry. ah. i get it now. it's not the no more solyndras act, it's the only $88.4 billion more for nuclear and coal no more solyndras act of 2012. it's just the same kind of playing field that the republicans have always had. nuclear, oil, coal, great. wind and solar, finally getting

going, 12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the united states this year, 3,200 new megawatts of solar installed in the united states this year. that puts the fear of the marketplace in the coal and the nuclear, the oil industries. so that's why we're all here, with this kill solar and save nuclear and coal with this incredible amount of money. now, as the gentleman from massachusetts said, i had an amendment that i requested in the rules committee to put in place. and that was that if your company last year lost $540 million or more, you could not qualify for a loan. guarantee -- a loan guarantee. remember, solyndra lost $538 million. so i picked $540 million. and if your company is on the verge of being delisted by the new york stock exchange and has already reached jump-on status, you cannot qualify.

i mean, come on, we're not having federal taxpayer money go to companies on the verge of being delisted. and they all voted no in the committee when i had my amendment put up before the rules committee, they rejected it. now why did they reject it? because the united states enrichment corporation lost $540 million last year. it's on the verge of being delisted on the stock exchange. it's reached jump-on status. yet nuclear will qualify. so i said, well, we can't invest in that kind of a company. and as the gentleman from massachusetts said, the same thing is true for buying american. if we're going to have these loan guarantees, let's at least make sure they are american jobs. and they wouldn't put that amendment in order as well. and this whole issue here is basically one of this favored oil above all agenda, not all of the above, not when you say tax

breaks for oil companies continue and wind companies die. not when you have loan guarantees that continue on for nuclear and coal but not for wind. not for solar. it's just -- it's so transparent. it's just arithmetic, ladies and gentlemen. solyndra loses $538 million, the enrichment corporation, nuclear, loses $540 million. they both should not qualify, huh? but not these guys. no. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. markey: not these guys. oh, no, no, no. because it's not marketplace. there's no rhyme or reason to it until you start to think about what has always been their agenda. what has always been the fossil fuel industry agenda. i would abolish the entire program. you want to abolish this program? abolish it. put the vote out here. i'll vote for it. get rid of the loan guarantee program. then let solar and wind and nuclear and coal and oil all compete in the free marketplace

for private capital investment. you want to know what that would do? it would put the fear of adam smith in the heart of the nuclear industry. because they would receive no private sector investment. none. it takes the federal government providing a crutch. and so it then requires the republican party to take away the loan guarantees for the competition while they're giving the loan guarantees to industries that otherwise could not get any money in the private sector. the united states enrichment corporation can't get any private sector investment. nuclear power industry, this loan guarantee program -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: the whole thing is bad arithmetic for the american taxpayers. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, we're now into -- well into the political

extremism that we see many times as -- that exhibits itself. not just here on the floor of the house of the house of representatives but really all across this country. those people that want gasoline to rise substantially because they really don't like gasoline. they really don't like really the underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. whether it's natural gas, they attack natural gas, if it's nuclear, which is a nonemitting source of pollution, they attack that. this crowd that really doesn't like free enterprise and what i believe is the heartland of this country, manufacturing, which has really taken off as a result of effective use of resources, natural resources, in this country through natural gas and

the availability of nuclear power and the availability of oil which fuels our cars, to where we can use the resources that were given us effectively. what they want to do is they want to tax these industries higher so that prices go up so, that consumers have to pay a lot more money. what they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the electricity that we need is the cleanest and the best here in america. the way these are produced are american jobs. the way they're consumed is about american jobs. the way that consumers pay for them and pay for these advantages is american jobs. and here we're looking at how half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money was put into an effort that not only not ever

got off the ground, it quickly went into bankruptcy because it did not meet the marketplace challenges. i'm not opposed to competition. i think we stand for competition. but don't push a narrow environmentalist policy, go to the white house, go to the department of education and try and fund these on taxpayer dollars only to see that, whoops we made a mistake. and then act like, whoops we don't want anybody to know. all we're trying to suggest today is that republicans do believe in american jobs. we do believe in american industry. we do believe in the energy industry. we believe in effective use of resources because we're trying to keep jobs here. and their narrow political environmentalist policy is what will diminish american jobs, it

will diminish our ability to effectively use the resources that we have in this country and it will put us in a circumstance , for instance, with the keystone pipeline, where we could use energy from a friendly neighbor to fuel american needs at a good price and avoid what may happen if we get into a circumstance overseas in the middle east where we would be held hostage, held hostage by those that have the energy that we need when we could be having it not only close to home but in our own home, energy made in america. so republicans, look, all we're trying to say is a half a billion dollars that was wasted, somebody ought to recognize that we shouldn't be doing that. and that's what republicans are doing here today. we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr.

speaker. let me just respond by saying, when the republicans talk about jobs, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. let me give you -- i go back to what we were talking about earlier with mr. markey. mr. markey had an amendment. let me read it. it would prevent guarantees from being granted unless the applicant certifies that at least 75% of materials and components required for construction, manufacturing or operations are produced in the united states of america. any facility at which construction, manufacturing or operations are to be carried out must also be located in the united states of america. this amendment is not even allowed to be debated on this house floor. the republicans in the rules committee said, absolutely not. absolutely not. so, if we're going to be talking about jobs, i mean, maybe we have different jobs, but i'm talking about jobs in america, maybe my friends are talking about creating more jobs overseas, we need more jobs here. if we're serious about that, why wouldn't you allow that amendment to be brought up and debated on this house floor?

with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: this bill ought to be renamed. the no more solyndras but more money for nuclear elephants loan program. white elephants loan program. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about the free enterprise system. but i'm sure that you're aware that wall street won't invest in nuclear power. the nukes can't get money from the free enterprise system. so they want government to bail them out. this bill claims to reduce