working with america's physicians, it establishes a more patient centered approach to provide stability to our doctors, rewards them for high quality care, begins to streamline the red tape our physicians face, and encourages better coordination and prevention. over time, it transitions to a model that rewards value over volume, using the real life approaches that doctors use not what washington wants. h.r. 4015 is a solid foundation on which to build a better medicare system and it has overwhelming support from physicians. this is a major step forward but we need to finish the job. we need to work together, republicans and democrats, house and senate, to figure out how to make this policy a reality in a way that doesn't increase the deficit. there may be disagreements over how to pay for this reform. that's understandable.

it's difficult and today's bill is not the last word. let's continue to advance this long overdue solution and commit to finding a bipartisan solution between the house and the senate. the clock is ticking, so let's act together today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you, chairman levin. this bill has nothing to do with paying the doctors that work every day giving medical care to medical care patients. is destroirg do the affordable care act for the 51st time. i'm certain that those

listening to the debate and know what's going on believe it's ridiculous to try to defeat a bill that's been signed into law, because they know that the senate's not going to pass it and they know that is, know that the president will veto it. why do they do it? well, they do it because there's a small group of people in the republican party that don't mind politically dying. i don't mind them taking down the party if that's their intent, but they're taking down the democrats and the reputation of the house of representatives as well. somewhere along the line the speaker has to do again what he has done before and that is saying enough of this. we're not going to allow the wings of the congress to be broken on one side just because some people just want their way. and so i assume that nobody in

these districts have insurance problems. i assume that everyone is insured and working in these districts that try to destroy the affordable care act. they don't have any conditions, preconditions that restrict them from getting health care. they all are working. they all are happy, and i just hope that one day before this year ends that the republicans will come to their senses and try to gain the respectability, the credibility that they once enjoyed. i'm a die-hard democrat, but i don't want this country just to have one party. we do need two responsible parties in order to guide this nation through its democratic process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a gentleman from louisiana, a physician, a key member of the ways and means committee, i

cannot describe the important role he's played in finding a new solution in how we reimburse doctors under medicare, the doctor from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. boustany: i applaud chairman brady for getting us to this point. i salute this bill. after three long years to get to a bipartisan, bicameral policy in divided government, it's not been easy, but we managed to get agreement on a policy, to repeal automatic annual cuts to physicians. 24% cut in just a matter of weeks facing doctors under this flawed formula. now, congress first promised to repeal this formula more than a decade ago. democrats repeated the promise. when we were debating obamacare. and they failed to put it in there. they failed to address it in obamacare.

passage of this important bipartisan legislation would finally honor that promise, protecting seniors' access to doctors. a doctor-patient relationship built on trust and high quality. and it ensures quality measures going forward. and it creates certainty for physicians and seniors. now, i want to point out something, because our friends have not given the full story here. we've agreed on the policy, but we have a problem in coming up with the pay-fors. it's a tough conversation, but the talks broke down in a divided government. senate leadership has refused to negotiate in good faith and discuss responsible ways to pay for the bill's $138 billion price tag. we're going to pass this bill to get those discussions started. republicans proposed savings from the delay of obamacare's very unpopular individual mandate. now, i don't think it's acceptable to do nothing. i don't think it's acceptable for the senate majority leader

and others in the senate to just put their heads in the sand on this. i hope that the senate will pass a version of h.r. 4015, giving us time to get together to hash out the differences. we're so close. we're on the goal line to finish this work that's been undone for years. it's time to get it done. the president's own budget lists bipartisan medicare reforms that the president put on the table that could easily raise the bulk needed -- of savings to repeal s.g.r. and we can do this without shifting more costs to our nation's credit cards, without resorting to budget gimmicks or imposing massive new cuts on hospitals and other providers. we have a clear path. we can get this done in a bipartisan way. mr. speaker, as a heart surgeon who's cared for thousands of seniors under the medicare program, i urge house and senate colleagues to pass this bill and let's get down to the negotiations on how we're going

to pay for it in good faith and let's finalize an agreement on how to fix this long-standing problem, which has been a thorn, not only in the side of doctors, but it's been a real problem for medicare access, real problem for seniors seeking access to a high-quality doctor-patient relationship. mr. speaker, i've had enough. it's time to get this done. pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to my colleague, what you're doing essentially is undercutting bipartisanship with pure partisan politics, pointing to the senate is pure methodology. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member on the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. without objection.

mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, his 51st attempt to repeal the a.c.a. by stopping the individual mandate is part of the long-term propaganda campaign done by the publicans to destroy the health care plan that the president put together. now, they know that we agree on the policy. everybody here agrees on the policy, but they put a poison pill in it. they knew that this amendment of how to pay for it, that is by delaying the mandate, would kill any democratic support in the house. so they have no intention of passing this bill. this bill is directed at the propaganda campaign to the people at -- that's koch brothers and at fox news and anybody who's watching this should -- will get the idea

that somehow it's a bad bill. now, the fact is that people are benefiting every single day. the aarp, the american medical association have denounced this bill because they want the s.g.r., the doctors payment reform, to go through and they know that the republicans have designed this to fail. now, a mandate that has been supported, even by the tea party before the tea party said we got to be against it, is what is at issue here. doctors and health insurance companies will not be able to -- will not be able to operate if you don't have an individual mandate. the republicans said this, the heritage institute said it, everybody said it but they want to kill it. now, this alternative universe that we're creating with this propaganda campaign, we see wild claims about people who

live in inner cities are somehow worthless and they don't want to take care of their families and feed them and we hear things coming out of the speaker's office that clearly aren't true about the a.c.a. let's suppose that actually happened. what would happen if we actually repealed and destroyed the a.c.a. today? we would get rid of 13 million people on the rolls by 2018. we would take away health insurance. health insurance premiums would rise 10% to 20% by 2018. millions of americans would not be able to afford the health care they need. now, this is a failure of leadership. they would rather run a propaganda campaign to hold on to the house. we watched in florida just the last week how much money, $13 million i guess was spent in that campaign to tar the

affordable care act. that's what this is all about. no one should be the least bit confused. that's not what america wants. america wants health security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'm really pleased to yield three minutes to the next gentleman, he's one of the newest members of the ways and means committee, he's a businessman but he's a real fighter for the people of pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. very few times in my life that i really had the privilege of representing people who are so dear to me. i would think, if you look at our generation, we grew up in the greatest towns at the greatest times with the greatest parents, preachers, coaches, grandmas, grandpas, aunts and uncles. this is the people's house. the people's house. this is not a republican house or democratic house. this is the people's house. what are we talking about

today? my goodness, this is so disappointing that we're so worried about the next election that we can't see the direction that we're going in. to be able to offer peace of mind to those folks who've made the greatest sacrifices, made the greatest contributions and have done the best they could to make sure that the next generation had the same opportunities they had, this is not a doc fix. this is a senior fix. as my mother lay dying and my sister and my father, they were surrounded by a loving family and they were also surrounded by caring doctors. why? why would we make this about an election? why would we not look inward to who it is we are trying to protect? if we can't protect the most vulnerable in our society right now, especially in their end days and their end times and

say you can lay your head on a pillow tonight knowing that your doctor's going to be there r you, that i'll be beside you, i'll be by you saying the rosary, if you go, i can't wait until the next time we meet in heaven, but why why would we make their last day's so difficult? why would we make it so uncertain? we talk about an s.g.r., but where i come from, it's not that and it's not a doc fix. it's a senior fix. when can we possibly put politics behind us and start to look at what's best for the people that we represent? i am a representative of pennsylvania's third district. so privileged and so proud to be able to do it. not boastful proud but thankful pride that i can actually do something for people that raised me, coached me, walked me through the most difficult parts of my life and looking back at their life and saying, but you sacrificed so much that i could be here. can we not just come together

and do something? it really is a big thank you and a kiss on the forehead as they lay there wondering, where are those folks that we did so much for? my goodness, my friends from the other side, this is not about politics. this is about people. we are in the people's house. and these are things that we must do. mr. chairman, i thank you so much for doing this and bringing peace of mind to the people that we represent. i can't tell you how disappointing it is today to hear this turn into some kind of political debate that has nothing to do with the fate of those seniors and those people who we love so much and have done so much for us. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the problem is your bill is nothing but a political bill. it's nothing except about a november election. nothing but.

i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, an active distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i was somewhat embarrassed by the remarks of my friend who's from the hometown of my wife, butler, pennsylvania, because the republicans have decided to make this bill about the next election. there is no reason the house republicans put the medical community through this charade again and again year after year except to use the s.g.r. as a tool for power, partisan advantage and fundraising. . this political tool disrupts the lives of millions of medical providers and tens of millions of their patients who rely upon them. we had, in fact, been making

remarkable progress in both the commerce committee and the ways and means committee on a bipartisan solution. instead, the republicans have hydrogen -- hijacked this bipartisan solution and made it so bad that the american medical association rejects it. what then should we do? well, we should reject this bill overwhelmingly. it certainly will never be enacted into law. what then should we do? well, i would argue that we ought to just reset the baseline . remember the alternative minimum tax? we finally diseased it would never be imposed. adjust the budget to reflect the fact that it will never happen. and if you won't do that, at least give the medical community procedural fairness. kevin brady said, let's work in a bipartisan approach.

and admits this isn't going to be the last word. well, let's try procedural fairness. allow the bipartisan proposal on the floor for a full debate and amendment. now, there's a novel thought. let the legislative process work , and let the house work its will. this shameful charade will then end. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i'd like to yield three minutes to, again, one of our key members of the ways and means committee, who's brought the concerns of new york doctors and seniors to our attention, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: how much time is the gentleman yielding? mr. brady: three minutes. may i inquire -- mr. speaker, may i first inquire how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: each side has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to chairman brady for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the very important

issue that this bill is here to address. we have at the end of the month a cliff where our providers under medicare are going -- we are looking at a 24% cut in their reimbursement for caring for our seniors. and what are we doing today? the other side is engaging in political theater rather than deal with the issue at hand. we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, an opportunity to fix a problem out of washington, d.c., that's been repeatingly -- repeatedly coming up since 2003, and do it on a long-term permanent basis. we have spent minor patches in the doc fix over that period of time, $150 billion. today we have an opportunity through the bipartisan work on the policy that will resolve this issue once and for all to do it at a cost of $138 billion. that would take care of this

threat to our seniors and to the doctors that are providing for them on a permanent basis. it's the right thing to do. so what is the argument over? how are we going to pay for it? now, my friends in the other chamber, on the other side of this esteemed building here, feel we should continue the status quo of washington, d.c., and not pay for our policy decisions that we decide here in washington. we have put forth a proposed solution on this side of the aisle to say, look, let's take what you're doing to the employer mandate under the affordable care act by extending a delay for the employer mandate that they have already done for the white house to the individuals who are subject to the affordable care act. doesn't that make sense? isn't that the fair thing to do? isn't that the right thing to do? if you're going to delay it for big business, why don't you delay it for moms and pops and sons and daughters across america? and use that money in savings to

pay for a permanent solution here in washington, d.c., when it comes to paying for our doctors as they care for our elderly and seniors. that's a commonsense proposal. yet we play political theater on this important issue. we can't do that. our hardworking taxpayers back home, spreebling, -- mr. speaker, deserve better. i came here to washington, d.c., to do something. to change the status quo. we have an opportunity to take an issue that has been pending add nausea since 2003 and get it taken care of permanently and give that certainty, that ability for our providers, to our seniors, to know what they are going to get paid. to make sure that our seniors have the comfort of knowing that their doctors are going to have their doors opened to take care of them when they need them the most. that's what we should be focusing on, mr. speaker.

and i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and get this permanent solution in place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of our committee, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, to quote a very famous president, there they go again. this is an alternative universe through the chair that you're trying to create. for years we have been talking about how to reform s.g.r. ow to pay for it, our medicare providers. and i, along with my democratic colleagues, and some republicans, supported past efforts to repeal and replace s.g.r. once and for all. we have never been able to get

it done. that changed late last year. the energy and commerce committee passed unanimously a bill to repeal and replace s.g.r. building on that proposal, republicans and democrats on the senate finance committee, and in the ways and means committee here, which i sit on, came together and passed the bill that repeals s.g.r. and replaces it with a payment system that rewards providers for delivering quality care to our seniors. what you have done through the speaker, is taken months of thoughtful bipartisan policymaking and thrown it away in order to score some really poor and cheap political points. all you're trying to do is undermine affordable care. what are you going to do with the 13 million people who can't get affordable care if we delay the personal mandate? you have never come up with an answer. never had an answer to what

you're going to do about health care. all you could do is criticize -- mr. levin: an additional 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: delaying the individual mandate will result in 13 million fewer americans getting health insurance through the a.c.a. and higher premiums for those -- you want it to fail. you don't want it to succeed. you forgot what you did back nine years ago when we passed the premium d, we went back to our districts and made it work. even though we voted against it. that's the american way. it works. don't go on recess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair would ask members to address your remarks to the chair and not other members. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute

to the gentleman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of my colleague, man kildee's efforts to reinstate the health care tax credit. unfortunately, rejected by the house republicans under yet another closed rule. mr. nolan: having served in this congress at an earlier time in my life, i am astonished how undemocratic this institution has become. back in the day if you had an amendment, you got an opportunity to offer it. and you had an opportunity to debate it until all the debate was exhausted and you had an opportunity to vote on it. what a tragedy that the people's house seems to hardly be a

democratic institution any longer. when this program that i'm talking about here, the health care tax credit, expired in january, thousands of retired workers on the iron range in my district of minnesota saw their pensions cut in half. these are former employees of companies like l.t.v., national steel, giants in american manufacturing. some of these hardworking men and women are responsible for pulling america out of the great depression -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nolan: supplying the world with superior products made in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nolan: let us have a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield one minute to our very distinguished leader, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute.

ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i thank him for his relentless, relentless and persistent leadership in helping america's seenors today manifest it in his support for s.g.r. and his opposition to this ill designed approach by the republicans. mr. speaker, today house republicans are proving that their obsession with tearing down the affordable care act is blurring their vision. that it has no boundaries. for the 51st vote to repeal or undermine the affordable care act, republicans are turning their partisanship against the health and security of our nation's seniors. the house republican leadership political games are threatening to derail months of bipartisan, bicameral house and senate progress on a permanent medicare

doc fix. threat yepping our seniors' ability to see their doctors and get the health care they need. earlier this week the aarp, the national committee to preserve social security, and medicare, the national council on aging, and other key senior advocacy groups wrote to congressional leaderships -- leadership to make it clear that the republicans' actions would, quote, inject partisan politics into bipartisan legislation, and they wrote, undermines the months of hard work done by committees, their staffs, and concerned stakeholders. the republicans' approach has been rejected not only by the senior advocacy groups, but provide providers, doctors, insurers, and seniors. yet they persist with their reckless partisan fix even as time quickly runs down to address the sustainable growth

rate, the s.g.r., formula before the end of the month. twice this week republicans blocked the house from considering a fully paid for measure that includes the reforms of s.g.r. supported by both democrats and republicans in the house and in the senate and on the committee. why have republicans chosen to proceed in this manner after months of bipartisan progress? why didn't republican leadership work with democrats to find acceptable offsets? we need to get this done and republicans know that all the partisan effort is a nonstarter. if it passed, it would spike health insurance premiums by 10% to 20% according to the congressional budget office. 13 fewer americans to be insured says the congressional budget office. what does this mean to families? if you have a child in your family between the ages of 18 and 26, they would no longer be

able to be on their parents' policy. being a woman, under the affordable care act, being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition. but the republican actions here today would reverse that, take us back to a time where women paid more for policies simply because they were women. it would again reject, eliminate the very important provision of the affordable care act about saying you cannot be denied coverage because you have a pre-existing medical condition. tens of millions of families, probably 100 million people, are affected by not being denied coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. that's how many people it would affect. and it would eliminate the requirement of the affordable

care act that there are being no cap, either annual or lifetime limit on the health insurance you would receive. for these and other reasons, this is a really bad idea. we may only hope that after this 51st vote, republican fever will break and they will return to work with democrats to pass bipartisan, bicameral legislation as a permanent doc fix that seniors need before the end of the month. we are going out today again with work undone, 10 days before we come back, 24th of march, the s.g.r. expires at the end of march. . we shouldn't be wasting time on this foolishness and recklessness. we should be finding a solution. that's what the american people sent us here to do. the republicans' fixation of destroying the health security of millions of americans through their efforts to

destroy the affordable care act imperil the permanent doc fix and that must stop. congress is wasting time again, as i said, on these endless wasteful votes. time should be spent renewing emergency insurance, rebuilding america by investing in education and building our infrastructure, creating jobs. the american people deserve better than that. they deserve a congress that works to strengthen the middle class, tackle the opportunity gap, create jobs and build an economy that works for everyone. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and i hope that when we return after the recess week, yet again another recess week, republicans will be ready to get serious and be ready to get back to work for a permanent doc fix so that our seniors will be served. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. 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 s. 1466, the to award the congressional gold medal in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, has two minutes, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has one minute remaining. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. levin, i'm prepared to close if you are. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that it be placed in the record the following letters from american health insurance plans blue cross blue shields, the california medical association and also from the alliance for retired americans. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. len levin these are just a few -- mr. levin: these are just a few examples of the letters from opponents.

you know, you can boil this down to just a few words. the republicans are so intent on manipulating everything so that they think they can strengthen themselves for ovember that they put a poison pill into a bipartisan product. a product that we worked months shame, ct so there's no so march is irrelevant, november seems to be everything. this bill cannot become law. this is an effort simply of a political nature. i very much urge you at this last minute, rethink what you're doing. it is so transparent. . is so transparent the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: first of all, i want to commend and thank our democrat colleagues on ways and means committee and staff for working so hard along with energy and commerce and finance committee in the senate to find a good solid solution. i think we made a big step forward. we got some work to do. i know we can do it. i went to see my doctor the other week. he's 66 years old. looks like he's 46. kind of makes me mad. he's got a successful practice. he said he'd like to practice another five, six years. kevin, i probably won't to. medicare has made it too hard for him to stay in practice. as i left the examining room, i looked at his assistants who's been with him 30-some years, all his professional staff, a full waiting room. i thought, what are we doing chasing a doctor like this out of practice early? and who's going to replace him? who's going to take care of

these people? but he's not alone. in texas, less than half of texas family physicians take new medicare patients. many of them are rethinking their relationship with medicare. others are closing their private practice. so more and more seniors with chasing fewer and fewer doctors, and that's the dilemma we face today. maybe i'm an optimist, but i think we're 90% of the way towards solving this solution. we have broad support for this policy and this bill. we have a duty to make sure our seniors have access to their doctors, and democrats and republicans have been putting a lot of work to solve this problem. yeah, we have some work to do. now's the time to permanently fix the way we reimburse our doctors as we move forward. let's work in a bipartisan way across the chambers, across the party to get it done. i am absolutely confident we can do that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 515, the previous question is

ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 18 of the social security act to repeal the medicare sustainable growth rate and improve medicare payments for physicians and other professionals and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the lerk will report the motion. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the. the clerk: mr. loebsack of iowa moves to recommit the bill to the committee on ways and means with ininstructions the -- to

report the same back to the house forthwith, at the end of the bill add the following, section, prohibition on medicare payments or vouchers. nothing should reduce benefits under title 18 of the social security act. eliminate guaranteed health insurance benefits available to seniors or individuals with disabilities under such program or establish a medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to medicare beneficiaries in order to purchase health care in private sector. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. i regularly meet with seniors across iowa, and far too often i hear that many of them are struggling to make ends meet

just as i'm sure that many of my colleagues hear from their seniors as well. they tell me how much they rely on medicare in order to stay healthy and just to afford their daily necessary its. mr. speaker, our seniors did -- necessities. mr. speaker, our seniors did not get us into this fiscal mess that we are in today and i think we need to keep that in mind and it's unfair to punish them for washington's irresponsible behavior. that is why we've got to protect medicare for seniors who've worked a lifetime to pay into it. this also is an issue, i will say, that's personal to me. i grew up in a family that struggled to make ends meet. i often talk about how i grew up in poverty. my mom was a single parent who struggled with mental illness. and literally in the fourth grade we landed at the doorstep of my maternal grandmother. my grandmother often relied on social security survivor benefits to care for me and my siblings. and without the promise of health care through medicare, she would not have been able to

afford to put food on the table. no senior -- and i think all of us in this body can agree -- no senior should have to choose between paying their bills or paying for their medication. mr. speaker, replacing medicare with a voucher system would end the guarantee of health care and financial security for our seniors as well. vouchers would force seniors to pay more and more of their health care costs out of pocket. in these tough economic times, we need to find ways to be more efficient while maintaining quality care. i know that seniors don't want a voucher that forces them to buy insurance that may not meet their needs, because they tell me na every single time i meet with them -- me that every time i meet with them. they don't want to be subject to the whims of insurance companies looking to make a profit when those seniors get sick. they don't want higher costs, and they certainly don't want reduced benefits. they want to keep medicare the

way it is, a guaranteed benefit they can count on when they need it and they paid into it and they deserve it. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this final amendment to the bill, and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. to begin with, i just like to acknowledge all the good work on both sides of the aisle in reaching the bipartisan policy agreement in the s.g.r. and especially want to thank our staff, clay and robert and chris and everyone on both sides of the aisle and their staff for all their good work. mr. speaker, this bill before us presents each and every

member of this body a simple choice. do we patch medicare or do we fix it? do we choose to fight for the medicare promise that this country has made to every american or do we vote against it? my friends, i'm voting today to keep the medicare promise to americans. we must not let another opportunity to save medicare for our seniors fall by the wayside. if washington is broken, today is an opportunity to fix it. the bill before us is pay-for's and the one president obama has used in the past. did you scream hypocrisy when president obama delayed the mandate for special interests here in d.c.? then why would you scream hypocrisy now? the time for political games is over. it's time for members of this body to choose. are you on the side of seniors

in combrur district that depend on -- in your district that depend on medicare or are you against them? are you on the side of younger americans who keep telling us they're struggling under and obamacare plan that forces them to choose between groceries and health care? are you for saving medicare or will you vote to let it go bankrupt? what kind of country are we living in when our own government has reduced the american dream to a choice between health care and groceries? this motion to recommit embraces the tired gimmicks of yesterday that the public has grown to disgust. you have a clear choice. you either vote no and stand up for what's right, to give our seniors the peace of mind they deserve, or you can vote yes on this motion to recommit and demonstrate to the american public that political games are

more important to you than their health and welfare. i for one will be voting with seniors this morning and i would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. vote no on the motion to recommit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the motion is -- mr. loebsack: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 190 -- 191, the nays are 226. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no the ayes have it. the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 182. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, march 18, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill.

the clerk: senate joint resolution, 32, joint resolution providing for the reappointment of john w. mccarter as a citizen regent of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. he the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. danny davis of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. due to national women's history month, every march we celebrate the tremendous contributions of women who have helped make this nation the greatest on earth. but when thinking about our amazing female forebearers, what becomes clear is that thire primary mission was one of education. education is the key of getting girls and boys, women and men to believe in themselves. to have the confidence and know how to use their individual god-given abilities to better their own lives and improve the conditions of our commutes.

as we celebrate the wonderful legacy that our american heroins have left across the united states, let's not forget that their mission of education is not finished. as a former florida certified teacher, mr. speaker, i have witnessed the transformational impact that education can have. let's follow the lead of great women that we are honoring in this month and let's continue working together to make a quality education a reality for all both here in our great nation and around the world. hank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will please clear the aisle, take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: the bipartisan senate legislation on unemployment insured is -- insurance is major step forward for millions of job seeking americans. it's been 76 days since federal unemployment insurance expired for 1.3 million job seeking americans. during that time an additional 700,000 people have seen their life line cut off. hindering their efforts to get work and hurting our economy. when you add it up, as a result of failure to act three billion has been taken out of the economy in january and february alone. upon passage in the senate i urge republicans in the house to follow this bipartisan path to assist the long-term unemployed who have been without federal assistance since december 28. there and their families' need is urgent.

it's the responsibility of this, the people's house, to act on behalf of the people, the millions of long-term unemployed looking for work. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations out of the aisles and off the floor. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the life of colonel wayne t. friday of manchester, ohio. he was beloved in his opportunity community as remembered not only for his extraordinary achievements but also for his humble character. in 1948 wayne joined the united states marines and went on to attend the naval academy in indianapolis. while a student, he competed

with the 1952 olympic rogue team known as the great eight. winning a gold medal for team u.s.a. mr. wenstrup: after graduating from indianapolis, he joined the newly established air force and later served in vietnam, where he was a commander with the 555th triple nickel fighter squadron, flying 266 combat missions. for his service he received two silver stars for vailor, five distinguished flying crosses, 15 air medals, and a purple heart. wayne frye's legacy also lies in his deep rooted commitment to his community and inspiration to future generations through his character, faith, and humility. colonel wayne t. frye, thank you for your service. a grateful nation salutes you. rest in peace, rest in peace. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition?

>> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute the -- minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, rise today to call attention to the third anniversary of the crisis in syria, which will be commemorated on march 15. the united nations estimates that over 100,000 people have been killed since the violence began in 2011. 9.3 million people, half of the syrian population, need humanitarian assistance. 240,000 of them are liffling under siege, sur -- living under siege, surviving under the constant threat of shelling and bombardment. moreover, they have faced life threatening shortages of food, watter, and medical supplies for more than a year. children are literally starving to death while military forces show no respect for humanitarian workers. a diplomatic end to the crisis must be pursued. at the same time, the humanitarian crisis must be ameliorated. humanitarian relief must be allowed to reach the two civilians and the wounded and sick must receive the medical

attention that they need. indiscriminate aerial bombardments must cease and civilians must be granted safe passage of the the syrian people need unrestricted humanitarian aid now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the constitution's very clear. the elected representatives in congress passed the laws and the president enforces those laws. this system of checks and balances has served to limit abuses of power and hold government accountable to the people. from our immigration laws to the 2010 health care overhaul, the current white house has selectively enforced our laws and many cases acted unilaterally to change our alter them. in fact, the majority leader's office recently released a report outlining 40 separate instances where the obama administration broke this fundamental responsibility.

yesterday the house acted on two measures to hold the executive branch accountable and restore balance to the separation of powers. h.r. 4138, the enforce act, which deals with lawsuits against the executive branch, for failure to execute the laws, and h.r. 3973, the faithful execution of the law act which requires the attorney general to report to congress any time a federal official implements a policy to refrain from enforcing federal law. mr. speaker, no matter which party is in the white house, our laws must be faithfully executed. americans deserve as much. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one min. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, just a couple weeks ago the eyes of the world were looking at the people of russia and all of the world gathered together at the international olympics.

athletes of varying backgrounds harmoniously competing in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration, certainly those of us in the united states with great pride watching our athletes represent their nation and their own special talent. it is unfortunate today that president putin has undermined and destroyed all of that good will. and i believe it is important that the united states continues to engage with ukraine, a sovereign nation, and continues to encourage secretary kerry as the president is doing for diplomatic resolution. a couple days from now there will be a vote to cede away from ukraine, a sovereign nation. president putin has boots on the ground on soil that is not his. and the world must stand up in a manner that clabbrates and embraces. no -- collaborates and embraces. i'm not calling for military action by the united states. collaboration with nato. but there are people who desire

democracy and we are a democracy and we should be there and stand alongside of them. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek wreck -- the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consents to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. this saturday will mark the one-year anniversary of house passage of h.r. 803, the skills act. this bill, which i sponsored, would bring much needed reform and reorganization to our broken federal work force development system. there's bipartisan agreement that the current mishmash of federal work force programs is not meeting the needs of america's job seekers. the president called for reforms in his 2012 state of the union address. republicans in the house responded to that call with the skills act. this bill would streamline 35 ineffective and duplicative programs, including 26 identified as being ineffective in a 2011 g.a.o. report.

the skills act empowers job creators, promotes accountability, and gives workers access to the resources they need to fill jobs that are available now. i call on our colleagues in the senate to act on this vital piece of legislation. america needs a work force development system that works for job seekers not bureaucrats. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the correction to another vote tally. on roll call vote number 135, the ayes were 238 and the noes were 181. the chair will entertain further one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the body for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. million horsford: i come to the floor to congrat late the two senators from my home state, senator harry reid and dean heller shall for putting together a bipartisan unemployment insurance benefit

extension, and i'm thankful on behalf of the two million americans who are depending on u.i. benefits that the senate is expected to act soon. but here we go again, mr. speaker. the pressure is now on the house. and i think it is wrong that one person in the house out of 435 can hold hostage a financial lifeline for two million americans, including 26,000 nevadans. every member of congress now has a choice to make, sign the discharge petition to bring up unemployment insurance and a vote, or don't. and abandon the americans who desperately need our help. i signed and i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do the same. moderate house republicans can do something before they leave today, sign the discharge petition, show your constituents you stand with them and bring up a vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits.

i extend -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous cop sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. more than 14 million speakers medicare he depend on advantage for their health care needs. the program is an absolute necessity for them because it limits their out of pocket expense, protecting them from the threat of bankruptcy due to complicated and ongoing medical conditions. the president's massive overhaul of our health care system has raided $300 million from medicare advantage plans and created a health care tax that's just started this year. the payment cuts and new health insurance tax are already being felt with canceled plans, redeuced benefits and increased

co-payments. 33,000 seniors in my county of stanislaus county making under $20,000 a year will be hit with almost $100 per month. they have a right to know when this tax is going to hit them, what the expense is going to be. seniors on limited income should have the right to know, which is why i've entered the seniors right to know act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute & revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. everyone in texas knows about the permian basin's reputation for oil and gas and every u.t. longhorn or texas a&m aggie knows about the permanent university fund.

mr. gallego: but not everyone knows the critical role-played in each of these. sol today my 23 in one is about big lake. the first well to hit on university lands was the santa rita well, now enshrined on the u.t. campus in austin. named for the -- named for the patron saint of the impossible because no one expected the well to hit. the population went from 100 people to over 2,000. today those wells have produced great, great resources for the university of texas and a&m over a long period of time. there was once a lake in big lake, it's dry now. it was fed by springs, but they're no longer there. they're there only when it's had significant rain. big lake is a wonderful place to visit, if you have the opportunity please go. thank you so much and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. women have played a seg cant role in our nation's history and my home state of west virginia and i'd like to recognize a few who have had wonderful achievements in sports and volunteerism. anna johnson gates was the rst woman elected to the state legislature. elizabeth key, the first woman elected to congress from bluefield, west virginia. and one west virginiaian has given us a national holiday. mrs. capito: anna jarvis gave us mother's day. we have two women that reached the very pinnacle of their fields, nautilus pearl buck from hillsbre -- novelist pearl buck from hills bro west

virginia won a noble price in literature and no one can forget mary lou rhettton who won gold in the olimp exs. that's why i support the national women's history commission act. it is my privilege to talk about so many wonderful west virginia women. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to the tragic events that took place in austin, texas, on thursday at the annual south by southwest festival. a suspected drunk driver being chased by the austin police slammed his car into the festival crowd. two of those injured were in high school, patricia davis and deand ray tatum, students at trimble tech high school in my

hometown of fort worth, texas. ms. visa: she is a senior and has broken bones and deand ray is in intensive care in a medically induced coma at the university medical center at breckenridge. please continue to pray for the trimble tech family, a very trimble family at tech high school. there was a death involved in this particular tragedy, i ask for prayer for all the families affected, including these two young people from my hometown. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from haye seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognize for ne minute. >> i was deeply saddened to hear of the pass moifing friend, les votello.

i share my heart felt condolences with his family and friends. les was a committed family man and also dedicated to serving his community. he lived simply and led by example. ms. gabard: always understanding the importance of servant leadership and giving back. la pahoihoi ive of and graduated from that high school and technical school. he worked for the county, working his way up to administration before he retired. those of us who had the privilege of knowing les knew we could always count on him. he was very often the first call that people made when they needed help with anything. he was a mentor to so many and a great example for all to follow as he always taught the next generation to become involved, to be part of making a positive impact in your community, and to undertake the great responsibility of being

leaders in our future. aloha, les, we miss you very much. mahalo for your lifelong commitment to serving hawaii. aloha. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time, i would like to yield to my dear friend from texas, mr. bill flores, for such time as he may consume. mr. flores: i thank my friend mr. gohmert for sharing his time with me this morning. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor retired united states air force colonel robert darden peterson who passed away on march 2. colonel peterson was a member of america's greatest generation he not only served our country selflessly in world

war ii but also during the korean war and the vietnam war. he was born in jonesboro, arkansas new york 1923. he garage -- after graduating high school, he would go on to attend the university of mississippi with a football scholarship. after his first football season at ole miss, he enlisted in the united states army air corps to aid the war effort in europe. he was trained as a b-17 pilot and became an aircraft commander at age 20. during world war ii, he was a member of the eighth air force and completed 28 combat missions. after world war ii, pete briefly returned to civilian life, only to be recalled to active duty in 1947. he would serve as assistant chief of the direct rat of combat operations during the korean war and the vietnam war. he was responsible for all surveillance and control of the strategic air command resources

within southeast asia. during 1967 and 1968, colonel peterson served as air operations planner for all tactical and support air activities in the southern portion of north vietnam and the southeast asia interdiction area. he remained a combat pilot flying 19 combat missions in forth sorpgses -- operations in vietnam. in 1968, he was assigned to the pentagon as air force actions officer for programs pertaining to the strategic air command. in 1970, he was assigned to the joint chiefs of staff operational direct rat following his assignments in washington, he accepted the post of deputy base commander at diest air force base, a -- at dyess air force base in texas. he retired from military service and lived most of his retirement years in texas. during his 33 years of service to our country, he flew b-17's,

b-36's, and b-52's, and logged over 7,000 flying hours. he was so trusted and experienced that he was assigned to america's nuclear force in the strategic air command. as a pilot, he was one of the first in our country to fly with atomic weapons and hydrogen weapons. he was a highly decorated officer. his military honors include the distinguished flying cross, the meritorious service medal, the air medal, the bronze star, and numerous other medals and awards that reflected his dedication to serving our country in the united states air force. a review written by a commanding officer during colonel peterson's military career best sums up the way he lived his life at home and when on duty he wrote, peterson requires a lot of his crew. however, he gives more than he demands of others. colonel peterson passed away earlier this month and was laid

to rest on march 7. our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of colonel peterson. his survivors include seven children, 15 grandchildren, 17 great grandchildren, and numerous nieces and nephews. he will be forever remembered as a patriot, a pilot, a soldier, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and as an american hero. we thank him and his family for their outstanding service and sacrifice to our country. as i close, i ask everyone continue praying for our country in these difficult times and for our military men and women who protect us from external threats and our first responders who protect us from internal threats right here at home. god bless our military men and women and god bless the united states of america. i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield to my friend from new york, mr. reed, such ime as he may consume.

mr. reed: mr. speaker, i rise today and i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding the time to me to address the chamber today. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the no more campaign. no more is the first unifying symbol meant to express support for ending sexual assault and domestic violence, similar to the pink ribbon campaign for breast cancer. mr. speaker, next week, march 17 through 21 is no more week. this symbol will be active throughout social media, ad campaigns and throughout our country to highlight for men and women across the country to come together to stand up to end sexual violence by saying no more. this proliferation is supported by organizations such as avon

foundation for women, mary kay, national alliance to end sexual violence, national network to end domestic violence, the ywca and department of justice office on violence against women. mr. speaker, i come here today to say no more because of something very personal to me. ithin the last year, my family experienced firsthand the issues of sexual assault. my beautiful niece, 18 years ld, was raped. a we saw that event impact in a ife, our family, way that i cannot express, mr.

speaker. i come here today to say, no more. last night, i had an opportunity to speak with my niece and i said, if you had an opportunity to address the country and the chamber in the u.s. house of representatives, what would you say? how would you answer the question, no more because? essentially what she said was, no more because there are no excuses. no one can make an excuse as to why sexual assault is acceptable. no one should offer an excuse that a woman wanted it. . that a woman asked for it. mr. speaker, we need to change wherelture in our country we are afraid to talk about this issue. so many women have been impacted

. men across our country have not been taught how to deal with this issue in an open and honest fashion. march 17 through the 21st is abopportunity -- an opportunity for us as nation to say no more. we are going to come together on a national effort and say, sexual violence is not acceptable. domestic violence is not acceptable. we are going to discuss it our country, ngst fellow countrymen in a way that ultimately will lead to there being no more. now, i have had experienced this first hand for the last 12 months, i can tell you it's time. my niece and my family, mr. speaker, i ask all members, all people across the country to

look at the no more campaign. look at this symbol. discuss it with your sons, your daughters, your sisters, your brothers, your mothers, and your fathers and say we can't accept this any longer. and we end sexual violence once and for all because now is the time to say no more. god bless my niece, got bless my family, god bless this great country. ith that i yield back. >> mr. gohmert: thank you for those stirring and important words. at this time i would like to yield to my friend from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: mr. speaker, a small but vibrant community called nahunna, which is hidden

off the beaten track in eastern north carolina, sadly said goodbye to one of its most beloved residents last year. mack pierce who lived and breathed there for 81 years passed away on november 3. up here in washington, d.c., the dal cork king might not be a compliment. but down there mr. pearce's company worn the crown proudly. he founded the company in 1975 and grew it into one of the largest cork retail displayers in the nation. in the eastern portion of my congressional district it is impossible to miss the enormous yellow signs up and down the interstate declaring the hunna cork center as the cork king. a treasured title in one of the country's largest producing states. mack had a keen insight for business and an unwavering commitment to his family, his faith, and his community.

and rather than taking his business to a larger city as it grew, mack chose to build a successful stable business that will bring employees and customers alike to his hometown. hunna. as a result, he is a household name and recognizable to customers up and down the east coast. the cork certainty has remained in the same location since it opened and grown substantially s its customer base increases. throughout his life he focused on providing the best product and outstanding service and hard work helped put it on the map. business was second to family and community. if there was an opportunity to volunteer, mack was first in line. for over 70 years he was a member of the nahunna friends meeting where he served in many capacities. and at his search he served as an elder and finance committee

member and sang in the choir, taught sunday school, and mentored young folks at the church. in the community, mack was a founding member of the fire department, served as a trustee at the nearby mount olive college, and he sat on the board of directors of the bb and t bank. at home he and his wife, spent 61 wonderful years together, had two sons, and four grandchildren. mack cherished his role as a husband, as a father, and as a grandfather. in his lifetime he enriched the community in too many ways to recount and he's greatly missed. i yield back to my gentleman friend from texas. mr. gohmert: thank you. mr. many great americans.

there are some who are exceptional and it's always a pleasure to hear about a life well lived. someone who will meet their maker and hear the words, well-done good and faithful servant. we have some that do a rather sloppy job with the duties they are given. specifically bring to mind, mr. speaker, national journal daily, got a picture of my friend, justin amash on the front, with the words, big letters, drunken karaoke with justin amash, and yet when you read the story, it's very clear justin amash didn't have anything to drink. it was not a drunken karaoke my t, it was an event

friend, mr. amash puts in a letter that many of us have signed, the story concerned a fundraiser for representative thomas massie which was held earlier this week. the fundraiser was hosted by a number of virginia young republicans at an irish pub in clarendon, one of your reporters who regularly covers house republicans attended the event. as you reported, representative amash spoke as a guest at the event. he introduced representative massey and talked briefly to the crowd of young people about public policy and principles that many republicans share. after the event, it officially ended. part of the event representative amash stuck around to take pictures with fans in the crowd as a courtesy to the young republican hosts. and there were some that stayed for the usual tuesday night karaoke. representative amash did not participate in any karaoke singing or drinking.

and that's even noted in the article. that's why it was such a surprise that the national journal would have as the headline, front page, top story, drunken karaoke with justin amash. that's libelous, that is outrageous. and particularly did some checking, it turns out the national journal has a contract with the house of representatives to provide everybody a copy of the print version for $617,000 per year. -- i nd of sleazy title think it's time to relook at that contract. this is the kind of garbage that national journal'sing did-- we all know that the national journal ratings of

conservatives. justin amash usually gets rated by national journal as one of the more liberal, if he's not the most conservative, one of the most conservative. we have known national journal reporting in some areas have been very suspect, but that is just as sleazy as it gets. and a front page top story an apology to justin amash is owed by the national journal. that's the least they can do. and since we are part of the government here in congress, it's important to note when things go well and it's important to note when things don't go well. and when there are problems. so a major story yesterday afternoon, the daily caller reports health and human services official resigns, pens a must-read review of federal

bureaucracy. article posted by carolyn may. nd original publication in news.sciencemag.org by jocelyn keyser. this story from daily caller reports the health and human services official resigned after being -- dealing with the frustration of the quote profoundly dysfunctional, unquote, federal bureaucracy which left him, quote, offended as an american taxpayer, unquote. in a resignation letter obtained by science insider, david wright, director of the office o.r.i., integrity, which oversees and monitors possible research misconduct offers a scathing rebuke of the unwieldy and inefishen

bureaucracy that he dealt with for the -- inefficiency bureaucracy that he dealt with for the two years in his position. in his letter wright explains that the 35% of his job that was spent working with science investigators in his department, quote, it's been one of the greatest pleasures of my long career, unquote. the majority of his duties, however, represented his worst job ever. quote, the rest of my role as o.r.i. director has been the very worst job i ever had and it occupies up to 65% of my time. that part of the job is spent navigating the remarkably dysfunctional h.h.s. bureaucracy to secure resources and, yes, get permission for o.r.i. to serve the research community. i knew coming into this job about the bureaucratic limitations of federal government, but i had no idea

how stifling it would be, unquote. parenthetically here, he's talking about the remarkably dysfunctional health and human services department that wants to make your decisions for you about your health care. they want to tell you and have told millions and millions of americans your health insurance is no good. even though most americans like their insurance they had and wanted to keep it and were promised by the president and so many friends across the aisle, if they liked t. they could keep it. turns out that was absolutely not true. and this is the h.h.s., the health and human services department, as bureaucratic, as

neglect, as dysfunctional as they are, that's who every democrat in this body and in this the senate without a single epublican vote wanted to shove into control of every american's health care. now we are finding out just how disastrous that was. this article about director wright goes on to say, according to wright activities in his capacity as an academic administrator that took a day or two, took weeks and months in the federal government. he recalled an instance in which he could not get approval for a $35 cost to have cassette tapes converted to c.d.'s. he eventually was able to get them converted in 20 minutes for free by a university. and another instance in which

he, quote, urgently needed to fill a vacancy, unquote, but was told there was a secret priority list. 16 months later, he wrote, the position was still unfilled. parenthetically here in this article about h.h.s. dysfunctionality, it's important to note that these people that took 16 months and still didn't fill a position because they had a secret priority list, are the same one that is are going to have a list as to who can get what surgery at what age. some people bristle when sara palin called it a death panel, but they are going to decide who can get a pacemaker at what age and who cannot. so they are not going to do as i had to do a couple times actually sign an order

sentencing somebody to death, but it's basically not that different. when you say someone who must have a pace maker in order to live can't have it, you might as well be signing a death penalty order. and this is an organization that cannot get their act together, not to build a website, not to protect people's most personal formation, not to even get a $35 authorization to convert cassettes to c.d.'s. if they can't do that, do you really want them deciding whether you get a pacemaker or not? whether you get a bypass surgery you need or not? it keeps coming back to me conversations of somebody in my district who came from canada where he told me about his

father in the canadian glorious health care system that everybody got shoved under where the government controlled who got pacemakers, who got surgery, who got what, that he was on a list needing bypass surgery and two years later he didn't get it and he died because he hadn't had bypass surgery. i said, that's amazing, i didn't know it took years, what was the problem? he said they kept moving people on the list in front of him. i said, it's a crime in canada to give anything of value to get someone to move you up the list. he said, that's right, but, there is a panel that moves people up the list as they feel appropriate. they didn't move my father -- they didn't move my father up the list, he didn't get bypass

surgery for two years and so he died. if someone, unknown of whether he has insurance or not, were to go into the hospital here in washington or in my hometown in tyler, texas, or long view, anywhere, basically anywhere, and he is immediately found to need a bypass, they're going in and doing the bypass. but not in canada. not in england. and not here in the united states once the group that shove odd ba ma cair down the throats of the american people have their way and this bureaucracy would -- with secret priority lists gets to tell you what you get or don't get in the way of health care. americans ot imagine thinking -- americans, thinking americans, wanting the government, and particularly health and human services,

making those kind of decisions. we found out this week, my friend tom price asked, how many people have paid for their health insurance, they couldn't tell us. secretary sebelius doesn't know. can't know. do you think they're going to know when you, mr. speaker, need bypass surgery? they won't. some will say, well new york congress, probably get special treatment. you have no idea. won't get special treatment. we'll end up like the people in anada, goingen a list. and i read an article sometime back about england wanting to -- they've got a new target, it said. they were trying to adjust down the amount of time it took to get surgery or treatment or whatever a doctor prescribed after it was prescribed and

they knew it wouldn't be done overnight but if everybody pitched in, everybody worked hard, they thought they might could get the delay in getting the surgery or treatment you needed down to their 10-month wait. if everybody worked hard, eventually they could get it down to 10 months. and i thought, good grief. and you want to do that to america? you don't have to wait 10 months for a mammogram or surgery or a biopsy. if it's needed. and these people that keep saying, well you guy, you republicans, have no alternatives, good grief, we have all kinds of alternatives and what i keep encouraging our conference and r.s.c. to do and i'm hoping somebody, one of our groups here is going to do it is start having informal hearings and bring in witnesses

so that we do what president obama promised when he was a senator, if i'm president, he promised us, we're going to have debate over health care, we're going to do it on c-span, we want the whole country to see who is standing up for whom. that's what i want. that's what we need. let america see who stands for them and who stands for the big, bloated, secret priority listed bureaucracies like health and human services. this article goes on about h.h.s., david wright that's now resigned, said on another occasion i asked your deputy why didn't conduct an evaluation by the op division of the immediate office administrative services to try to improve them? she responded that that had been tried a few years ago and the results were so negative

that no further evaluations have been conducted. unquote. david wright disclosed, or closed by saying he plans to publish his daily log to further shet -- to further shed light on his work. this is what david wright said, quote, as for the rest, i'm offended as an person taxpayer that the federal bureaucracy, at least the part i've labored in, is so profoundly dysfunctional. i'm hardly the first foreign have made that discovery but i'm saddened by the fact that there is so little discussion, much less outrage, regarding the problem. to promote healthy and productive discussion, i intend to publish a version of the daily log i've kept as o.r.i. director in order to share my experience and observations with my colleagues in

government and with members of the regulated research community. and these people at h.h.s. couldn't find their rear end with both hands, they're going to tell you what you can have done to your body? i've heard friends across the aisle for so many years now talk about, we want the government out of my -- our bedroom, are you kidding me with obamacare, they're in your bedroom, they're in your night stand, they're in your bathroom, your kitchen cabinet, they're everywhere in your house and outside your house you try to go this puts them in charge of your most personal, private matters. it's time to repeal obamacare. it's time to have an alternative that some of us have brought to the front. one of the things we need to do is not make sure everybody has

high cost insurance. it's to make sure everybody has accessible, affordable health care. and when you combine all the money the federal government, ll of the u.s. and state governments spend, providing medicare, medicaid, and you divide it by the number of households in america that have someone on medicare and medicaid, which my office tried do back in 2010, 2009 and 2010, and it was tough getting the information. how much are we spending on all of this? people could only give you an estimate. the same people that want to run your life and tell you what you can have in health care, can't even tell you what they're doing. but the best estimates we could

get from these government sources and the best estimates from the assistance bureau, because they couldn't give us an exact number, indicates that back four years ago, we were spending about $20,000 to $30,000 per household for people on medicare -- that had somebody on medicare or medicaid and it was most likely closest toths $30,000 number. -- closest to the $30,000 number. that's what inspired me. i told newt gingrich -- gingrich about it, he said, you've got to get that and get it scored, it may change the debate on health care. this was nearly a year before obamacare was passed. we got it in bill form. and it included giving seniors the option for the first time since the 1960's to really control their own health care. because we would buy them, not

bronze, some other kind of health insurance. we'd buy them the best cadillac insurance you could get, wouldn't require that they had to have maternity care because there's not that many 80 and 90-year-old people that need maternity care. that this administration is forcing. but it would give them cadillac insurance for what they did need and give them high deductible. at this point, we might say that the deductible would be $5,000 or $7,000 or something like that. but whatever the amount of the high deductible was mitigating circumstance bill, my proposal was, we're better off giving every senior on medicare, or giving people on medicaid, giving them cash in a health savings account with a debit card that is coded so it will only pay for purely health care items, and you empower a senior

to get what they need. to go to the doctor, the health care provider they want to go to. and not need some bureaucratic fool in h.h.s. to tell you whether or not you can go see this person. we've got to get power back into the hands of our seniors and into the hands of the poor. they're entitled to be table choose who they want to go to, i would think. let's empower people. and quit punishing people simply because they're middle class and they've got a job and they're paying taxes. let them have the same opportunities as those they're paying for. it's outrageous what is going on and just when we think it couldn't get much worse, then we have this article in inside , bill hink,

the i.r.s. by scott johnson, he notes as noted at the top, william hink has worked inside the i.r.s. office -- and that's the i.r.s. office. how is the i.r.s. linked to the discussion about health care? they're going to enforce obamacare. we've got the i.r.s., as if they don't have enough pow , now is going to be in charge of enforcing health care. most of the republicans i know, we want to eliminate the i.r.s. some want to go to a fair tax. i'd like to have a flat tax. but i think it's time to have that debate and go to whichever wins the debate and get rid of the i.r.s. my brilliant friend and i'm surprised he lets me call him my friend but he is a brilliant

man, arthur laffer, the genius behind turning the devastated economy around under president carter, i talked to arthur about this and i said, i'd like to go to a flat tax, i know a lot of people want a fair tax, so we can get rid of the i.r.s. but somebody is going to have to enforce, how would we do that if there were no i.r.s.? arthur says, i've got it all spelled out, i've got it written out. and i'm hoping some of my colleagues here will meet with arthur and let him give them the 1-2-3's, but he said you don't need the i.r.s. the big mistake with the i.r.s. is that the federal government set up an entity that not only gets to pick and choose whom they audit, they get to enforce what they find and what they do. so they can pick either at

andom or intentionally and maliciously, even though that violates the law, we've seen it happen already, they can pick who they want to audit, whose life they want to make miserable, and then if they don't comply with what they find and what they order, even though it may be very wrong, then they take, are capable, have the authority to take everything they have. that's why my brilliant friend arthur laffer says you set up a very small auditing entity but you cannot give them the power to enforce their audits. that's too much power for one government agency. so you have a very small auditing agency and as arthur said, you don't allow them to

ever pick who they want to audit. every audit is selected at random. so they don't get to pick on people they dislike. hey only audit whatever person or entity randomly is selected by the system. . and if they did otherwise they would be subject to the law and punishment themselves. now if somebody calls the i.r.s. out, then they're normally going to get hit up with an audit and be treated maliciously by the i.r.s. so this article goes on. says, i've been an attorney in the i.r.s. office of chief counsel for over 26 years. over a number of years, i have attempted largely unsuccessfully to alert the

public to abuse within the i.r.s. one of my kids suggested i contact a blog and powerline has graciously agreed to publish this account. i do not personally know whether the i.r.s. has targeted conservative groups or individuals, but i do know that the environment within the agency, the i.r.s., is ripe for such activity and there is nothing to prevent it from occurring. as stated in more detail below, i have personally witnessed improper giveaways of billions of dollars of -- to taxpayers with inside access at the agency, bullying of elderly taxpayers, the cover-up of managial embezzlement and misappropriation of thousands of dollars in government funds retaliatory ori --

audit. i have also heard accounts, ong other things, improper giveaways, blatant sexual harassment and anti-semitism. all of these have been swept under the rug. and a person theycally in this and parenthetically in this article, the officer in the office of chief counsel for over 26 years points out anti-semitism in the i.r.s. we're seeing it grow. i mean, when i heard as a child in history class about the that st, and i read eisenhower required that people in the community be required to come help clean up these horrid concentration camps where gas ovens and other ways were used

to torture and kill jews, i thought for eisenhower to order that, that's a little rough. you know, for these people have to come out and clean that up, i mean, nobody will ever deny there's a holocaust. there's too much information about it. and now we have people denying there's a holocaust and as i understand it, there are five that support oups israel and all of them are being mistreated by the i.r.s. and they don't want anybody to talk about it because they don't want to get targeted any ore than they already have and then we see from an attorney in the office of the chief counsel or general counsel for 26 years , he says, i have seen the anti-semitism within the i.r.s. so i hope my jewish friends on

the other side of the aisle, my jewish friends across the country that have not been involved no politics will wake p and help us clean up the mess in the federal government by speaking up about the prejudice and the bias that they have had to live with. this article goes on, a number of years ago a manager in my office, there in chief counsel's office of the i.r.s., was embezzling thousands of dollars in travel funds. his actions were common knowledge, but other managers, including a currently high-ranking executive in the office of chief counsel, did not report him. i did report his conduct to the treasury inspector general for tax administration, but they did not investigate the matter for considerable length of time -- they did not investigate the matter.

for considerable length of time, they finally forwarded the matter to the office of chief counsel to be handled internally. the office of chief counsel made the manager pay the money back but didn't take disciplinary action even though others who did that type of scheme were punished severely. they have led a charmed life. several years after that episode, he decided to retire but was starting a new job at a different city two months before he was eligible to retire. he could have retired early and take an annual leave for two months before retiring. however, he did not want to take annual leave because federal employees can cash out annual leave when they retire. rather than have him burn at least $20,000 in annual leave, the i.r.s. transferred him back to the new city but did not

give him any work, allowing him to work at his new job while still receiving a government paycheck. i obtained an email from this manager in which he admitted that he had no work, that the i.r.s. was not planning to give him any work in the new city and that he was working on matters related to his new job while at the i.r.s. i forwarded this email to the treasury inspector general for tax administration, tigta, but of course it was ignored by tigta and the off of chief counsel -- office of chief counsel. tigta has a well-deserved reputation for protecting i.r.s. managers. in fact, a tigta agent once stated that, quote, we don't investigate i.r.s. managers, unquote. at the same time the manager was embezzling travel funds. i was working on a case involving what i call the

ellmers glue scam. tax shelter operators misused synthetic fuel credit -- and for those who don't know what that means, that's part of the green economy that this administration wants us all to participate in. the bottom line is, it gives them more control over our personal lives. that's what the movement's about, but nonetheless, there's some that are dedicate the to it, that really believe in it, but the people at the top, they really know. it's all about more government controlling people's lives. anyway, he says tax shelter operators misused a synthetic fuel credit by spraying watered-down household glue on marketable coal, degrading the coal but producing huge tax credits for investors. this was costing the treasury . least $3 billion a year

the i.r.s. turned a blind eye toward this activity and harassed those of us in the agency who were trying to stop it. since i had witnessed tigta help cover up embezzlement, i decided to go to the press about the elmer's glue scan. "the wall street journal" pun lished a story about it but the scam continued. as a result of complaining about tigta's inaction regarding embezzlement -- that's within the i.r.s. -- and speaking out about the elmer's glue scam, my wife and i were subjected to a retaliatory i.r.s. audit. after an experienced revenue agent from fairfax spent an entire day auditing our tax returns, he stated that they were clean. soon thereafter he called me and apologetically stated that

his special project's manager had ordered him to return to richmond and keep digging into our returns. he stated that his regular manager would not have ordered parenthesis -- in 26 years at the i.r.s. i have never heard of an agent sent back and continue to look into a return. david wright said, i contacted the "washington post," when the post presented that waiver fought service, they quickly dropped our audit. many happen to know .r.s. agents who are decent, good, hardworking honorable people. they are the kind of people i want working in an auditing

agency like arthur laffer talked about because they are fair and honest. these are people that complain to me when the secretary of treasury was given to tim geithner even though he had signed four years in a row under oath, under penalty of perjury that he would pay the tax that -- on the funds, the international monetary fund was paying him if they would not deduct the money that he was supposed to peso he swore he would pay it personally. and then he blamed it on turbo tax and he paid it backs after he was appointed secretary of treasury, but those were i.r.s. agents, honest, honorable i.r.s. agents all over the country who were outraged that timothy geithner was appointed to secretary of treasury to be he boss of people, these

people, these front line workers in the i.r.s. who made t very clear if they ever even underpaid so they had to pay additional taxes at the end of the year they would be fired. here's a guy who didn't pay his taxes for four years, not until he got appointed to be secretary of treasury, that was put in charge of all of these very honest, upright, decent people who happened to work at an agency that includes some who are incredibly corrupt and who protect the corruption, as david wright is pointing out. well, david wright's point goes on and says, within the past few years, the i.r.s. has used a cadre to pursue a particular type of case. i was assigned one of those cases that was in tax court. i believe we should concede the

case in question because our legal position was incorrect. as a result, i was called a quitter and a coward, was threatened with retaliation and in fact suffered retaliation. the cadre, he says, i hate that term but that's what they call themselves, push cases within an obvious legal defect. taxpayers were denigrated into writing -- in writing as, quote, upper class twits, unquote. and one cadre member stated that despite the weakness in our legal position, the taxpayers in these cases were typically elderly and could be forced into settling their cases. i've stated my ethical concerns to management, and they were answered with a short nonresponse and did not even bother to ask for the name of the cadre member who stated that we could bully elderly taxpayers into settling their cases. he adds, the tax court

ultimately rejected the services' position regarding that legal issue. i mean, it ought to scare americans profoundly that the i.r.s. that's going to be in charge of enforcing the health -- at w thinks it's ok least some -- thinks it's ok to bully elderly because they're elderly and they'll get scared and they'll pay the government rather than have the government come down on them. even though they don't owe it, we can sdare them into paying money because -- scare them into paying money because they're elderly. i mean, americans ought to be up in arms over this kind of abuse. and to think that a majority in congress in 2010 wanted this same government controlling everybody's health care, americans need to wake up. this is a danger to their life

and their liberty. goes on and points out more abuses that shocked the conscience. it is outrageous what the i.r.s. -- i'm sorry -- some in the i.r.s. have been able to get away with. this same government that a majority in 2010 trusted with every american's health care. have a story this week, robert wilder reports, there are reports that reveal the obama administration shut down the world war ii memorial knowing the veterans, the world war ii veterans were coming. one email that they cite, while i understand -- this is -- this is a government official. while i understand that these

memorials have remained accessible to the public during past shutdowns, i'd imagine ith the mall being so open would probably be more manpower intensive to try to completely close them, i wanted to do my due diligence to make 100% sure that people could visit the outdoor memorials on the national mall in the event of a shutdown. and i can say, having been out there october 1, and having pulled one of the two barricades aside so our world war ii veterans could go through the open air memorial dedicated to them and to their friends that died serving with them, and i saw that, wow, they've shut down an open air, open sidewalk, walk through, roll through in your wheelchair, memorial, and it's cost them money to bring in all these barricades, and i've been

there all hours of the day and night to the lincoln memorial, the world war ii memorial, and most of the time it's hard to see a park employee out there, but you'll eventually if you look hard enough see one or two out there. d on the day after steve palazzo and i picked the bare kids up and moved them back, the next day, i counted, they had 16 park service police, many of them on mounted horses, that you never see out there, out there to try to intimidate world war ii veterans from being able to go through the one time they were in washington in their lives and see those places. that were listed where they fought and friends died. and this one man, with tears, told me as he pointed to the

islands in the pacific that were listed, the names of his friends who fought with him and died on each of those islands and this administration that wants to control everybody's health care wanted to deprive those world war ii veterans, knowingly deprive them, of just this one chance to roll through in a wheelchair and see what was dedicated to them. it's tragic what's going on. awoke.me americans ben franklin is credited with saying, in essence, those who are willing to give up security -- give up liberty for security deserve neither. we're seeing that. americans have given up so much

liberty over and over saying, you know, at least it's going to keep me safer. at what point do you say, enough giving the federal government power. we want our liberty that the founders established in the constitution, that war after that s fought to provide, the declaration acknowledged were rights that were endowed ? our creator and some asked, well if these rights are endowed by our creator to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, why doesn't everybody in the world have them? it's real easy. the god, the creator, gave us freedom of choice. free to choose things that would do us harm and free to choose the right way that would lead to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

and we happen to have been blessed by either being born here or have come to a nation where we had those liberties, where they were fought for, where the things that were taught in church, that were spoken of in the bible, the bible is the most quoted back in the history of this chamber, especially in the first 150 years, and especially by those who fought against slavery, saying, how can we expect god to continue blessing america when we're putting our brothers and sisters in chains and bondage? those individuals laid the groundwork, the foundation, for us to have this life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness. we -- pursuit of happiness. we owe them to leave it to the next generation and poll after poll will say, this is probably the first time in american history that a generation will

with a country less free, less opportunity to their children. that's why i ran for congress. i want to do everything i can to keep that from happening. i was taught as a boy scout, especially as an eagle scout, we were never to leave a place worse off than we found it and if we don't turn this thing around, we will be the generation that does that. god help us and god forgive us if we do. we simply cannot do that. and when we have people who have stepped forward as these in the i.r.s. and the health and human services have to say, warning, red flag, red light, stop. there's too much abuse here.

demand your freedom back. quit turning it over to federal agencies. when those people are rising up and saying, wake up america, we better wake up. when we have a president who said over and over as a senator that we cannot allow a president to usurp more and re power away from congress, it showed us that he knew right from wrong in this government. d now the same president is, by executive order, changing the law. repeatedly. and it is time this house rose and said, we're not funding one single part of the executive branch that usurps

power that is not afforded it in the constitution. and we have the power to do that. why? because the founders put it in the constitution. and just like our creator endowed us with certain inalienable rights, just like some parents have plenty to endow to their children when they die, the children don't enjoy those benefits if they won't claim them and be willing to fight for them. there are always people, evil people, who want to take away those benefits. take away those rights. so no matter what someone inherits, if they don't accept it, claim it, and be willing to fight for it, they will not keep those benefits. we owe the next generation what we were given and better, and

until we start holding the executive branch accountable, at least those in it that are not complying with the law, that are violating the law, we re destined to be that evil, narcissistic, self-serving generation that leaves the country worse off than we found it. mr. speaker, i hope and pray enough of us will arise to prevent that from happening. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher sprk -- mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. speaker. for two months, public attention has been riveted on ukraine. today i suggest it is harmful to our security to just focus

on ukraine and ignore the battle against radical islam and the ensuing threat of china that is far more dangerous to us than which direction crimea goes. yesterday, secretary of state john kerry requested that congress approve aid to pakistan. that's foreign aid to pakistan. the administration is $881. million for aid to pakistan. -- $881.8 million for aid to pakistan. congress and the american people should pay attention to this request. since 9/11, the united states has given pakistan over $25 billion. with over $17 billion of that going to the pakistani security

services, services that target and kill american soldiers through helping those elements in that part of the world that kill american soldiers and terrorize civilian populations. our generosity has only emboldened pakistan's military clique. that clique that actually rules the country. that clique that gave refuge to osama bin laden. most importantly, pakistan has not been acting as our friend. not just that clique but the government itself of pakistan. and we don't need to be supplementing the countries and supporting the countries and giving aid to the countries that are hostile to america's interests and hateful of our way of life. it is a charade to believe that our aid is buying pakistan's

cooperation in hunting down terrorists as secretary kerry stated yesterday. frankly that's wishful thinking but that's not facing this -- facing the reality of what we confront in south asia. a pakistani commission reported on the lane raid, the raid that brought lane, the murderer of so many americans, to justice and that the pakistani commission points out, quote, negative developments in the u.s.-pakistan relations in cent years, and it is in their view a growing american threat, end of quote, pakistani interests. these are not the sentiments of a regime that wants to work with us. these are not the sentiments of friends. and remember, when our seal teams went to get osama bin

laden, the pakistani government took the wreckage of one of our helicopters a stealth helicopter, technology, cutting edge technology that was used in that raid, and gave it to the communist chinese and of course the pakistanis call the chinese their all-weather friend and we're supposedly just their fair-weather friend. yet we should be giving, according to this administration, over $881 million more in aid on top of the billions we have already given the pakistanis. indeed a study by the pew research global attitudes project found that 81% of those surveyed in pakistan were favorable to communist china, communist china, which represses its own muslim population, murders christians,

and is a dictatorship of a clique of a crony capitalist clique that controls that country, 81% of those surveyed in pakistan are favorable toward that country while only 11% are favorable to the united states. should we be spending money that we are borrowing from china in order to give money to a country that leeks china more than it likes the united states? and we end up giving money to the country that -- and to the people that don't like us? well, no. we should cut off our aid to pakistan because it is not an ally and any money we send to them only strengthens their ability to act against us and against our friends in afghanistan and elsewhere. we cannot buy the friendship of

the people of pakistan, nor can we buy the friendship of the government of pakistan. these are people who at their -- who feel that their core interests and their values go totally against what we believe in and who we are as a country. at a time of tight budgets, we should reserve our aid for friends and allies. we should never give assistance to those who target and kill americans or even support those elements that do target and kill americans. perhaps we could re-examine our motives and our ability to provide such assistance throughout the world. obviously we can't be supporting our enemies leek this. but even with our friends and friendly countries, we are having to boar re, we are having to borrow money from chi

-- -- we are having to borrow, we are having to borrow money from china and elsewhere to give aid to other countries. that makes no sense to me. we need to restructure our aid situation and yes, america does have a moral obligation to try to help others in need. but perhaps we should focus on emergency situations. limit our aid to those countries who are -- who have tsunamis or earthquakes or other ka fast fees in which much -- or other catastrophes in which much of their population is in grave danger or is suffering, that type of foreign aid is something we can be proud of and channel to any group of people in the world, ordinary people who are in danger and we can then reach out and show our generosity and perhaps receive some gratitude from people who are in a desperate situation, rather than transferring our money to governments that are often

anti--- against everything that america stands for. . how do we know that pakistan has a government -- at least the clique that runs their government, a government that considers the united states less than a friend, perhaps an enemy? it's very easy to see. we should never forget -- and the real bell -- bell weather for this is, let us not forget dr. afritty, the heroic pakistani doctor who was instrumental in the effort to capture or kill bin laden. dr. afriti was arrested on may 22, 2011, three weeks after the united states raid which brought osama bin laden to justice. he was initially held beneath

the i.s.i. headquarters in islamabad. there he was tore turd and kept blindfolded for eight months and handcuffed for a year, leaving physical damage on this heroic friend of america. this man is a hero who risked his life to bring to justice the terrorist monster who attack d the 9/11 a-- that killed 3,000 americans. dr. afridi risked his life to bring justice, and we leave him in pakistan, in a dungeon. we abandon him. we leave him to rot in that dungeon. in may, 2012, dr. afridi was moved to a central jail. after being sentenced to 33 years in jail. dr. afridi told fox news, he helped the c.i.a. out and he

helped them out out of love for the united states and swore that he would help america again, despite the fact that these people were tore during him. we have not only abandoned him but congress is considering, as i say, giving even more, hundreds of millions of dollars -- in fact, total amount of aid they want to give to pakistan this year is $1.3 billion in american aid to pakistan. this is an abomination. it's shameful. it's cowardly. it's a cowardly betrayal of a man who risked his life for us. who else, who will stand with us in the future if we treat our friends this way? america so often treats our friends in a shabby way, abandons them at a time and then our government has the gal to request that we give aid to the people who are the

tormenters of dr. afridi. in fact, these are the men we know this government in pakistan is run by and controlled by a clique of people who hid osama bin laden, gave refuge to the murder of 3,000 americans for years. and then of course they claim they didn't know he was there. right next to where the school of where they train all of their militarysters. pakistan is supporting america's enemies. attacking american soldiers in afghanistan. have targeted and of course brutally murdered other americans and brutally murdered other people throughout that region who are hostile to their radical islamic terrorist agenda. secretary kerry says that we must give support to placate the positive elements in pakistan. you know, sort of reminds me when somebody was saying back

before world war ii, you know, we better try to get with hitler because there are some really bad guys in the nazi party. even worse than hitler. give me a break. hitler was an evil man and the people in pakistan, the clique that runs that country and engages in terrorism is an evil clique and we should not be providing them the resources they need to build their military capabilities. well, pakistan's fight -- ok. pakistan's fight against the against is of course our military is very evident because what we've got is attacks being conducted by, what, by people who are stationed, who are -- their operations -- they're operating out of areas in pakistan. and that's been going on for

years. well, trying to give them money from the united states to the pakistani government is not buying us friendship and is not buying future or even current peace. and what isn't being used, by the way, the money that we give them, that isn't being used to attack americans and friends of ours is being used to butcher their own people and suppress the opposition within pakistan to this brutal regime. they are tare rising the -- whole e tarorizing the population in their countries like the belluccis and the sindis. they are people who would prefer not to be under the heel of a pakistani government run in islamabad. they live in south asia now claimed by pakistan, iran and

afghanistan, but in pakistan in particular they compromise an important segment of the population. they live in the least developed province. unfortunately it may be the least developed province and it is where the poorest of all pakistanis reside, all of that -- if you take a look at being the poorest and least developed , but you also look at one other factor. it is the richest in natural resources of all the provinces of pakistan. looting of ave is a luche stan by that clique -- belluchistan by that clique in a way that doesn't benefit the people of that land. the people organized themselves into sort of a confederation of tribal chiefs. that's where the power was. very similar to afghanistan.

-- afghanistan's tribal and village system, and they -- these people who recognize themselves as a national entity , they'd like to control their own destiny again but the people have been tarorized and beaten into submission -- terrorized and beaten into submission by the pakistani military. we provide the pakistani military with the weapons and the resources they need to conduct their terrorism, not only against their neighbors, not only against christians roughout the world but against their own people. they have been unrelenting in its attack and terrorist target raids against the population. aspirations for independence ve been checked by force and denying of basic human rights and the unleashed of brute force against them by a basically state terrorist repression of their people by

heir own government. one method against them is called kill and dump. that is when the body of a man or woman who has disappeared from a village is later dumped in the middle of that village. this by and who do you think is doing this? we're talking about the pakistani military authorities are conducting this type of terrorism on their own people. even as we've said, the same people who gave safe haven to ben laden who had massacred 3,000 americans. the same people who offer their territory as a staging area to launch attacks into afghanistan supporting the taliban. this abysmal human rights record is the record of the pakistani government and it is slameful and it is shameful that we -- shameful and it is shameful that we are

considering giving a government like this more american aid and we're even going to have to borrow that aid from china to give it to them. it is even worse, of course, because american foreign and military aid contributes to the security -- the security forces which of course are killing the baloch. we are giving military aid as well. the baloch people have a right not to live under the control of islamabad if that's what they choose. no military aid should be given to pakistan to be used against its own people, whether they be baloch or sindi or any other minority. i have proposed legislation to end all aid to pakistan and have added amendments to both the defense and state department authorization bills to end this aid but what needs to be seriously discussed is

ot just ending aid, we need to seriously discuss a fundamental shift in america's policy towards south asia, a strategy. we have had the same strategy since the cold war, but those policies that we established during the cold war no longer makes sense. in the 1960's, china fought battles of both india and the soviet union. the india-soviet alignment at that point alienated the united states during the cold war, and what resulted was clearly an adversaryial relationship with india. when the soviets ininvaded afghanistan in 1979, -- invaded afghanistan nf 1979, we worked to help the afghan insurgents who were battling against soviet occupation troops. yes, during the cold war, pakistan was an ally, but the

cold war is over and even then when we fought with them, when they helped us support the mujaheddin mujaheddin -- mujaheddin, they channeled our money. they channeled a lion's share f support to razzcal islamic terrorists who should never had any support from the united states. .uch of it went to a fellow this man has a horrendous, horrendous record. they knew when this man was in college he would throw acid into the face of young women who refused to wear burqas, and we are giving aid to a man who did things like that? well, the cold war is over and we don't need to give aid to pass on to people like that. yes, the cold war is over.

since the soviet union's collapse in the early 1990's, basic elements of american security have fundamentally changed the pakistani-u.s. -- excuse me -- the pakistani-china friendship since that time has deepened. and who is our adversary today? it's no longer -- russia -- i mean, it's in the news. but who is really our threat? radical islam and an emerging china that is much more aggressive than the russians could conceive of being. it is ever more intense and is w clearer that an alliance with india against pakistan is in the interest of the united states, because pakistan is clearly moving in the direction f becoming a self-declared

enemy of the united states, even as we give them military and other types of aid. pakistan's gut hostility towards india and its shaping of its now ever-increasing alliance with china puts them not only as an enemy to india but as an adversary, at the very least, an adversary to the united states. pakistan is in partnership with terrorist groups like the taliban, and that's very clear to people who are active in that part of the world. we should not be treating this enemy as a friend. in fact, when we should reach out to india and try to re-establish -- just to establish -- perhaps not re-establish but establish a positive relationship that will lead to a stronger -- a stronger stance for peace and stability in that part of the world as we offset the

terrorist support that is coming from pakistan. we should not be treating an enemy country like pakistan as a friend. it will not make them our friend. it will instead make them disdain us. they will disdain our giving people money who are our enemies. they will look at it as we are cowardly, and it is an example of such cowardness. we are giving billions to a military and a government na is controlled by a -- that is controlled by a military clique that despice us and are cooperating -- despies us and are cooperating with those who are trying to destroy us. not one cent to pakistan. the money going to pakistan is going contrary to our interests, to our security and to the stability of south asia.

and countries that truly desire to be america's friends and nowhere of course, is our hess tensey to do that, to reach out and to try to support our friends, nowhere is that hesitancey more evident than in now what we are doing with egypt. i would call our attention of the american people to what's going on in egypt. in terms of the long run it is far more important to american security and stability of the world and world peace of what's going on in egypt right now than what's happening in the crimea right now. the egyptian army is the most potent force standing between radical islam and its objectives to terrorize and subjugate whole populations through the middle east and thus put them selves nto a position facing down and defeating western civilization. we are talking about radical

islamists who believe in what they believe in. just as in the cold war, the communists believed in that gobbledygook. but the fact is radical islam believes that, and they see western civilization as the enemy and the united states as the main foundation of western civilization, and they see any government that's trying to be democratic as their adversary and enemy. it is clear the egyptian people understood that when they rejected the radical islamic overtures of the former regime that was in power in egypt. they rose up against that government, the morsi government, and right now whether or not egypt is sucked into a turmoil and radical islam takes over that country, it is now in the hands of a very few leaders of that country who we are shunning.

it is clear that our reluctance to back the stance of egypt is emboldening the radical islamic terrorist elements who now will target egypt because we are hesitant to get behind the general and egyptian military who, by the way, are committed to bringing back democratic elections and having democratic elections and a democratic process as compared to the regime that they would be replacing which was dedicated to establishing an islamic cali fat and was in the pros -- cali fat -- caliphate and was in the process of trimming back the democratic capabilities of the egyptian people. how ironic is it if when egypt falls we know there will be chaos and radical islamic expansionism in that part of the world and how important it is for us not to have that, for world stability and our own

national security, how ironic is it that we are holding back but russia under mr. putin just last month provided -- maybe two months ago, went over to egypt and provided $2 billion worth of military aid to help them defeat radical islam. russia's proposed arms deal with egypt and its endorsement of egypt's military ruler, general is a signal- azizy, to the arab leaders that unlike the united states russia will back those courageous enough to take on the radical islamic threat to human freedom and human progress. the egyptian people were saved from islamic extremist rule and they were saved by a small group of people who we are putting roadblocks in the way. general azizy who we actually

convinced the egyptian military to be dependent on the united states, over the years, and now when they are in a crisis we are refraining from selling the them the helicopters and the spare parts they need to thwart the radical islamic terrorists who threaten a battle in the sinai desert. and if we let the egyptian military down, and we send that signal, we abandon them as we have abandoned the doctor, no one in the world will ever trust us again. there will be a major expansion of radical islamic terrorist regimes, and the world that we know will be far less stable and far less secure. and our country along with other democratic countries of the world will be in dramatic danger. the egyptian people were saved from islamic extremist rule by that -- by a very group of -- core rainlous group of people. we can't let them hang out on a

branch by themselves. and, yes, the united states and the rest of the world were saved by the actions of the small group of people who stood up as morsi and that former government was cutting away, cutting away and establishing -- the freedom of those people and establishing the rad cam islamic caliphate, a small group of courageous people stepped forward to side with the people who had gone into the streets to oppose that and said, no. we are not going to let this government superimpose this type of regime. it's contrary to the will of the egyptian people. and they have, i might add, put egypt back on a course towards free elections. egypt, of course, is one of the most strategic countries yet, as i said, we don't hear our administration, this administration, coming to hear

to plead the case about giving aid to those brave people in egypt who are fighting radical islamic terrorism. instead they are here asking hundreds of millions of dollars, yes, over $1 billion in aid to pakistan which is aiding radical islamic terrorists and siding with china. well, if you think that none of this makes sense, you're right. it doesn't. but it's up to us, the american people, to hold our own government accountable. to make sure we do not give aid to our enemies, to make sure that our government is doing things that make sense, sticking with our friends, and opposing our enemies. how much more common sense does it take? our government is not -- has not been operating that way. it is up to us, the american people, to make sure that we do not give aid to pakistan and we support those people who would have western democratic government in egypt and to support the people like the baloch and the sindis who are

struggling under the oppression of radical islamic terrorist regimes that have tried to find their own way and have their own government and have their own democratic system. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013,, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, for 30 minutes. mr. engel: i begin by offering my sincere condolences to the family and friends of mr. james roman, a metro employine and constituent of mine who died monday after being hit by a train while performing track maintenance. my thoughts go out to his relatives and all who knew him and i'm deeply sorry for the family's loss.

metro north commuter railroad safety assessment. this report was prompted by the horrific train derailment that occurred in my district on december 1, 2013, which killed four and wounded dozenings. -- dozens. i'm sure i speak for all my colleagues when i say the safety and welfare of my constituents, all of our constituents, is our number one priority. that's why i was dismayed to learn of the profoundly ineffective standards under which net trow north, a rail system thousands of my constituents depend on daily, has been operating for years. according to the f.r.a.'s report, which concentrated on metro north's safety culture, this system is hampered by strict ahere's to train schedules, a safety apparatus that does not seek out potentially dangerous situations, but responds to complications after they arise

and inadequate training procedures. these ailments are indefensible and unwarranted. the report states, i quote, detectible safety issues exist across multiple disciplines and should have been discovered by the metro north management, unquote. that's an indictment of metro north's management. no people should have had to be killed because of incompetence. no people should have been killed because the person driving the train apparently fell asleep. metro north's failure to monitor potential safety hazards is down right reckless. according to the metropolitan transit authority, approximately 281,000 travelers use metro north trains every week, and those passengers' commutes are at risk from these safety hazards cited in the report. getting people in and out of new york city, in and out of manhattan, is a very important task, and if it can't be done

safely, then what good is it? the f.r.a.'s report makes several recommendations that if implemented might help to prevent accidents in the future. according to the report, metro north is plagued by three fundamental problems. a destructive emphasis on timely departures and arrivals, the absence of proactive rather than reactive responses to safety concerns, and effective training procedures. four serious metro north accidents occurred just last year, and that is four too many. i call upon metro north to immediately begin implementing the safety recommendations contained in the f.r.a. report. the safety of thousands of passengers and metro north employees depends on it. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. and i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, march 18, 2014.

take to begin an inclusive international dial that would overcome the deep split within the society, and to implement the institutional reform that should, in our conviction, take part, interest of all the -- from our side we have expressed deep concern with the fact that now necessary measures are being taken to provide security and order. now measures are taken to revent unlawful actions of radicals that escalate -- including armed rovecation with

violence. also to -- we have attracted our partners i'm tension to the very obvious fact that the agreement of the 21st like uary implemented , the conqueredns squares and buildings and our american partners have agreed that the order should be brought in this area. they also agree that the reform that needs to overcome society is -- as to the practical measures that should be taken, could be taken by ukraine, we do not have common vision of the situation. the differences are there. but, the dialogue was definitely

constructive and, it could help -- understand how much from that point of view, the negotiations were very useful. we have of course discussed our position that was expressed by the president of russian federation. we will respect the will of people of ukraine that would be xpressed at 16th of march.

>> [inaudible] of the e already spoken content group that is being offered by our western partners is based on the premise that the purpose of this multilateral rpose should be facilitating direct contact between russia and ukraine. we think that this is wrong approach. the crisis was not caused by russia. we have warned our european partners that ukraine should not be put before the false choice and it was done when the signing of the association agreement e.u. washe ukraine and

bout to happen, and they decided to delay the signing of the agreement. we warned against encouraging illegal and unlawful demonstrations, especially those with the participation of armed groups. so, international community, if to responsible needs appeal to immediate beginning of the process of constitutional reform. ukrainian parliament can initiate that process by inviting all the regents of the country and by providing them with equal participation in the negotiations. we have our own suggestions and offers that we are giving to our western partners about a week

ago, and we would be happy to make them available to the media. but i will repeat, the most important thing is that we do not need an international structure to look into ukrainian, russian relationships. the relationships have never what happened in kiev when the legally elected president was overthrown, we had some complications, but russian encourages the russian government to work side by side with ukrainian minister and the contexts alongside the line of foreign ministers. the frame of record foreign ministers were never stopped. so it could be resolve and raised in direct contact.

to ukrainian side suggested contain the c.i.s. council. ukraine is presiding and they offered to have this counsel in iev. we suggested that we should begin with the deputy foreign ministers and to have it in means. but unfortunately our colleagues dede kleined this offer. we encourage all ukrainians to begin dialogue about the constitutional reform. in understanding that action, long in action, and encouragement of current leadership of ukraine in the direction that they're moving now. to start t caused the

the referendum. we ask the committee to respect the results on the referendum. >> [inaudible] >> what happened there has become subject of common tear from russian foreign ministry. you have a chance to -- it's really a horrible situation. the military, armed people,

militants arrived there and started violent intrusion during the demonstration. russian government has no plans of military intrusion into eastern ukraine. we are based on the assumption at the rights of russians, ukrainians, bullgarians need to be protected. at is happening in ukrainea, there is now serious violations s a result of the self defense groups. be determined not to let repeat what happened. where the camp town, the center of the european city is still there, and i want to ensure you oft we do not have any plans nontransparency in what we are

doing. just a few days ago, the ukrainian party in the framework decided eaty about the to have an extraordinary measure and to fly about, across the territory where the russian military will happen. >> [inaudible] >> we were discussing this subject, this story, what is different is that each case is a separate case, a singular case. and i am convinced that kosovo was a very special case and ukraine is also a very special ase.

>> [inaudible] >> secretary kerry did not voice any threats against russia. as for the sanctions, we live in an information space, we are reading, or we're hearing what is being discussed in washington or in europe, and let me assure you that our partners understand that sapingses is a counterproductive instrument, and if the decision is made, so it will be their decision. as, it certainly won't facilitate, won't be helpful in

the interest of mission, the interest of business developing our operation, that's a fact. will you take any measures? there's no point in guessing now. we have to wait. >> [inaudible] >> as to the referendum that is bout to happen on sunday, we have expressed our position through president putin. we will respect the choice of

the people of ukraine. and as to our attitude towards the results of the referendum, we will express it when the results are known. the ukrainian parliament has already accepted the resolution we ut their independence and have to wait for the result. as to the statements of our western partners, i have already spoken on this subject. we believe that the right for self determination has never been canceled. this is one of the -- of the u.n. stages, and there have been quite a few instances, including the recent history of when people were going -- they were talking about kosovo, but there's another state where at

the end of the last century there was a referendum about the independence from france. d one of the islands was gaines and france insisted on a recounting of the vote so that not the overall number of people who voted in the islands, but each and every island separately. and the island of myota remained within france, first as a clone yill territory, and later on it s included into french republic as another department. what was that? separation. d or the unite nations and africa did not accept the decision of france, but the european union lived with it.

of the o the reaction western partners, let me say again, it will be their decision. russian president is in constant contact with president obama, with the prime minister, with . her european leaders the turkish prime minister, and i'm in a constant daily talks, telephone talks and meetings with our colleagues. we are not hiding our position, we are not evading the questions that we are being asked, but it all needs to be discussed onestly.

>> i cannot answer this question. we never declined and rejected a corporation and diplomatic frame work and if our partners do not want that, we can never force them to do that. but i do hope i hope that they are aware that this is the case that cannot be looked into in an isolated way without looking deep into the history. iner precedence and asia international law and everyone understands crimea for russia is something really important, what it means for russia.

it means immeasurably more for kingdomhan the united or for france, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] london earlier today, meanwhile, eight centimeters, congressional bipartisan delegation is in ukraine for the weekend at of sunday's referendum in crimea. they are led by senator john mccain of arizona. a number of them are sending out tweets and you can follow that om/c-span..c filler today, tom bill americanented on farmers on why the congress and feels they no longer have an advocate in washington. here is a look. will just have to say that i hear every time i meet with farmers, talk to them one-on-one is that there is a huge change.

they don't think the department is on their side. when you look at things like the department of labor, when they come out with a proposed rule so that farm kids cannot help their parents on the farm, the first response from you and the department a sickly is in support of the department of labor rather than the farm and farm families. -- you've got a lot of livestock producers out there. the department talks about meatless monday and the message that sends to what should be the department's constituency, that you are against them, you are not with them. when they are inundated with the regulations e fromps whether it the epa the -- from

whether it is under the clean water or air act, we don't hear anything in opposition from the department to support the farmers themselves and their positions, the renewable fuel standard coming out -- i would like to know what advice or counsel or what the department's position is because it will be devastating to a lot of people in rural iowa, certainly and a lot of places across the midwest and throughout the country as far as agriculture. leaving here, it is very disappointing to see the change in attitude at the department towards what should be their constituents. the farmers themselves. is something that is obviously near and dear to my heart with my background coming from a big town of alexander,

165 people living in the suburbs on the farm outside of town. there is a change. there is a huge change. i hear it every day. i don't know if you want to respond. and that'suncheon why i have the green tie on with the irish ambassador here. i don't know if you have any response but it is very discouraging to me. congressman, i am surprised by your comments. i do want to respond because i think they merit a response. with reference to the department of labor, this department basically suggested it was not the appropriate approach and that we suggested it was an opportunity for us to better educate books about a look safety and farm safety generally

and we work with the labor department to get that rulepulled and create an alternative approach. >> that was not your first response in support of what they were doing. >> yes, it was. our first response, congressman, was to suggest that there was a better way to do this and that we worked with the department to find a better way and we are working with penn state and a number of other land-grant university to develop a curriculum that will make it easier -- and work with the farm can talk toou others who are in the room with me when that alternative was proposed. as it relates to meatless money, i was critical of that effort and immediately so. it was pulled immediately. it was not something i sanctioned. i would point out that livestock exports are at record levels under this administration. spend anlar that we promotion is generating $35 in trade.

we are at record levels of agricultural trade and record levels of farming. in terms of the epa, we are working with them and the waters of the u.s. to make sure they understand and appreciate exactly what will and will not happen based on what they are looking at. we have encourage the epa to talk with farmers and arranged for meetings to take place between farm groups and the epa administrator. we have suggested that epa admin is to just go out and talk to farmers. the dust rule does not exist and you know it. as far as the rfs is concerned, we are working with the epa so they fully understand and appreciate the current situation relative to gas. was established, it was based on the assumption there be increased gas utilization i americans and that is not necessarily been the case. we are focused on making sure that there are continued opportunities to expand exports of ethanol and continued capacity to have higher blends.

i have spoken directly to governor branstad in our homestate to encourage more it's interesting that congress meant it more difficult to do that by restricting funds for blender pumps but we will figure out a way to help expand opportunity for higher blends. i am happy to visit with those farmers who expressed disappointment to you. that is not what i hear. obviously, we must be talking to different groups. >> i think we are probably talking to the same people. >> i don't think we are, with all due respect. and it's what i know very disheartening to me to see the change in the relationship. feeling outabsolute in the country that the department sizemore with the epa and takes the orders from above and is not advocating for farmers. >> that's just not true. that's just not true.

reality ifon can be it's not. that is the reality of the situation. >> part of a hearing held earlier today by the appropriations, agriculture subcommittee and you can see the entire hearing later in our schedule and any time online as www.c-span.org. what are the unique challenges in defining war in cyberspace? what is war and hostility? wefrom a policy perspective, are still trying to work our way through those issues. applicablethat are are the fact that whatever we do with in the cyber arena, international law will pertain. if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that ciber is taking us down an armed conflict scenario that the rules and the law of armed conflict will pertain every bit as much in this domain as it does in any

other. i don't think ciber isn't hardly different in that regard. i think those sets of procedures, those sets of ologies and law as a nation have stood us in good stead and i think they represent a good point of departure. c-span, theend on senate armed services takes up intelligence and military nominations saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. a look at hillary clinton's political career sensor 2008 primary defeat saturday night at 8:15 p.m. on c-span2. on c-span3's american history tv, from march, 1964, poet and novelist robert penn warren interviews martin luther king jr. saturday evening at 7:00 and 11:00. josephrding to general security forces will deteriorate if the u.s. withdraws at the end of 2014.

he is the top commander in afghanistan and added if a security agreement is signed, he international,000 troops remaining in afghanistan after 2014 with the u.s. providing two/three of them. the senate arms services committee is one hour, 45 minutes.

>> a recent public opinion poll on afghanistan shows a large majority of afghans believe the conditions in the country have improved over the last decade. ,ur troops in afghanistan working with afghan forces and the forces of other coalition countries have taken critical steps to deny safe haven to terrorists and ensure that afghanistan does not again serve as a sanctuary for terrorists seeking to harm the united states. indeed, there are a number of encouraging signs of continued progress in afghanistan. during last summer's fighting season, afghan forces prevented

the taliban from seizing control of any urban center or district center. concludedhis month that for a force that is very much still in its infancy, the afghan security forces performance last year judged on its own merits should be considered a success. month,released last large majorities of the afghan people expressed confidence in their army and the national police. has meanturity improvement in afghan society and the economy as well. more than 8 million afghan children are now in school. that is eight times as many as in 2001. under the taliban virtually no afghan girls received an education. now, 2.6 million girls are in school. had 20,000ghanistan teachers all mail. today, there are 200,000

teachers including 60,000 women. u.s. assistance has helped build or refurbish nearly 700 schools across afghanistan. maternal and infant mortality is -- has declined dramatically. the average afghan has a life expectancy now of 62 years compared to 45 under the taliban. only seven percent of afghans support a taliban return to power. how is it that a large majority of the afghan people think that conditions in afghanistan are improving when most americans do not? unfortunately, the american people rarely read about positive developments in afghanistan. instead, the media focuses almost exclusively on negative incidents, depriving the american people of the sense of accomplishment that they would receive if they were provided a balanced view. as a result, our troops have not

received the recognition for the positive changes in afghanistan for which they and their families have sacrificed so much. the positive developments are not the whole story to him of course. real and daunting challenges lie ahead. act willerrorists continues and be the focus of the media. the improving afghan military has proven his willingness to fight but is still in the early stages of building the support functions such as logistics and maintenance and intelligence and air power that are necessary for combat troops to do their jobs effectively. agreementl security providing for protections for our troops is essential if even a modest number of our forces remain in afghanistan. president karzai has refused to sign it i lateral security agreement that he negotiated and

received the strong support of the jurga that he convened. president obama has decided to look beyond president karzai to the next afghan president following elections in early april. each of the afghan presidential candidates has indicated a willingness to sign the bilateral security agreement and any of them would likely be a more reliable partner and president karzai. much continues to be at stake for our national security, for the security of our friends and allies around the world, for regional stability and, of course, for the afghan people. a recent letter by afghan parliamentarian highlighted the extraordinary changes of the past decade, particularly for afghan women like herself. she points out that 12 years ago, afghan women's participation in public life was prohibited and the prohibition

was enforced through harassment and abuse. atkufi was nearly abandoned earth simply because in the afghanistan of that time, the female child had no future. in the post tell about afghanistan, she beat came -- she became a senior leader of the afghan parliament. has been ate it difficult journey marked by blood and violence but we have made significant danes and achievements which would not have been possible without the generous support of the international community, especially the american people. the tell about have announced their attention to disrupt the april 5 election. they will not succeed. the afghan people will stand up to their threats. they do it every day. karzai and thent afghan government permit or perpetuate -- or perpetrate

fail toll be elections be credible. we must not lose sight of our accomplishments afghanistan or we will risk losing them. if we don't maintain a moderate level of support in the years ahead, we will also risk losing the gains that have been made at such a high cost. senator inhoffe. >> i was in afghanistan in february. i observed the same thing that you did. i will not list the things the public just does not know about. there is one thing i would mention that was on my list that was not on yours and that is in going through the kabul airport, there was not one empty gate. there is a lot at stake now. we cannot repeat the mistakes of the administration in iraq where

the drawdown resulted in a did cheery raging security situation. there was an increase in violence and a increase in terrorist groups. decisionsre that about the future of our mission in afghanistan after 2014 are based on sound strategy and the facts on the ground. to do that, we must trust our military commanders on the ground. asnf is an overwhelming majority of doing the fighting against the tell a ban and there is a need to continue to support the development of ansf especially in critical areas of developing and fighting terrorists. in afghanistan, the president karzai refusal to sign the treaty with the -- afghan people has cast doubt about the future of the afghanistan security and stability. his irresponsibility in signing the vsa does not really matter. includingf the people

through the explicit endorsement by the elders and the tribesmen and the loyal jurga make it clear that the next president will sign this. we will talk this one out until that takes place and i appreciate the personal time you have spent with all of us to give us the information of what is going on there. i only wish that the public were aware of what we are aware of. thank you so much. mphrey.ral du >> i appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and represent the men and women of the united states forces in afghanistan. their courage, commitment and performance are a direct reflection of your support and i'm confident that no force is ever deployed or better trigger better equipped. we are now in the final year of the combat mission in afghanistan, mission to deny safe haven to al qaeda terrorists who attacked our

nation on 9/11. we recognize our vital national interests are best served by a stable, secure and unified afghanistan. in afghanistan is a capable and willing partner in the war against terrorism. we have accomplished much in pursuit of those ends. since 9/11, our forces have placed a short art pressure on al qaeda and extremist networks in afghanistan. today as a result of those efforts, al qaeda terrorists are focused on survival rather than on planning attacks against the west. since 9/11 and with increased emphasis beginning in 2009, we focused on developing afghan national security forces. today as a result of those efforts, capable and confident afghan forces are securing the afghan people. since 9/11, we have work to improve the daily lives of the afghan people. efforts,lt of those afghans have increased access to

clean water, electricity, new roads, and education. more important than any sign of her aggressive afghanistan is the afghan people have something today they did not have in 2001. they have hope for the future. we paid the price for those achievements as the chairman mentioned, the over 2200 americans that have been lost and thousands more afghans and members of the coalition. security remained pretty much the same. afghan forces the respond to a variety of challenges since they took the lead in june, i don't believe the taliban insurgency represents an existential threat

to the government of afghanistan or to the afghan security forces. i'm also confident they can secure the upcoming presidential election and the nation's first democratic transfer of power. to make our progress in during the work remains to build long-term, sustainability of the afghan forces. although the afghans require less support in conducting security operations, they still need assistance in maturing the systems and processes and institutions necessary to sustain a modern army and police force. they also make continued support in addressing capability gaps in aviation, and special operations. to address these gaps, trained advisor to this mission will be necessary after this year to further develop afghan self sustainability. counterterrorism mission will also be needed to ensure that al qaeda remains focused on survival and not on regeneration. without continued counterterrorist pressure and i'll bold and -- and emboldened

al qaeda will reconstitute and exploit their perceived victory to boost recruitment, fund-raising, and morale. in closing, it's fair to ask if we are winning in afghanistan. i believe the answer is yes and several facts allow me to say that with confidence. first and foremost, our efforts in afghanistan have ushered the terrorist network and prevent another 9/11. second, we have else afghan security forces that increasingly can produce security incident -- and deny safe haven. we are providing a stabilizing influence in the region that is providing the time and space for a wide range of complex issues to be addressed. finally as a result of our efforts, the afghan people face a decade of opportunity within which they can determine their own future free of the brutality and intolerance of the taliban. despite all the skepticism surrounding our mission, that looks like winning to me.

thank you again for the opportunity to appear this morning and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you much for your testimony and again for your service and for all those with whom you work. i think we have six votes scheduled. we have asked if they can be delayed and another committee is in the same situation and we don't know that will be the case. what we will do is we will have a six minute first round to get as many of us in as possible before that vote. there will still be many of us who will have to work around these votes as we did yesterday and the day before. sodid it very successfully it looks like we will do the best we can. dateal, what is the latest tot we can wait in order find out if there is going to be a bilateral security agreement. in other words, the date we must actually begin to implement a

total withdrawal? if there is going to be no bsa? from a military perspective, whether there would be a withdrawal at the end of 2014 or whether we would maintain a , i would not do anything different between now and july. we have stabilize the force to support the elections in april and we have plenty of flexibility to adjust to either eventuality in july. beginning in july, i think we have manageable risks during the month of july and august and i would assess the risk of an orderly withdrawal that begins to be high in september and that is a function of the tasks that have to be accomplished and how many days. i would quickly add that what concerns me most about the delay b in thes is not the physics of the retrogradea or the redeployment of forces. it's the uncertainty that exists inside of afghanistan with the

afghan people, the uncertainty with the afghan forces, the hedging behavior we see in the region and as importantly, the coalition cohesion in assuring that at the end of the several months of uncertainty, we still have a coalition going into 2015. >> thank you. i understandrd, you presented a range of options to the white house for the size presence-2014 military of our forces as part of a coalition to train and advise and assist the afghans. tell us what range of u.s. troops that you would be comfortable with for a post-2014 military presence? we have used year, the guidance we received at the defense ministerial from nato in 2013 as our primary planning guide.

that guidance was called for for a force of 8-12,000 nato forces to provide an train and assist. i am comfortable with that range and our ability to a compost the mission with that allocation of forces. over and above that, we have assumed on the u.s. side there would be additional thousands of forces that conduct cap to terrorism operations. >> you are talking about an additional few thousand? >> that's correct print >> and 2 /3 of them would be u.s. forces? >> as a general rule, we have provided 2/3 of the nato force. >> you have already characterized the performance of the afghan security forces in 2013. -- you give us the overall your overall assessment?

they were able to maintain the security that was present in the earlier summer when we were mainly in control and they did that although they were now in control in 2013. would you say that control is successful -- how would you give a general military characteristic? >> starting with the summer, the taliban articulated their objective in the spring and we can say that at the end of the summer, they were unsuccessful in a competent their objectives as a result of the performance of the afghan security forces. a couple of events highlight the ability of the afghan security forces. is a good example where thousands of people met in kabul from around the country. the city was locked down and the event was conducted without a security incident. had everye taliban

intent to disrupt that particular event. just last week, there was an event in a province with 6000 people celebrating the islamic festival, people from throughout the region came in afghan forces coordinated their efforts in the ministry of interior and the ministry of defense conducted that events without a security incident. we also know from intelligence that the enemy had every intent to disrupt that event. what we have seen increasingly as afghan forces that are capable of assuming the lead. we no longer conduct any unilateral operations except for our own security, our own sustainment and retrograde. all other operations in afghanistan are conducted by afghan security forces. i would say that the most significant thing i have seen is the sense of responsibility and accountability of afghan leaders. also the pride and confidence that the people in afghanistan have in their security force. that has been one of the biggest second order effects as a result of the transition that took

place last june. >> a recent independence that he by the center for naval analysis concluded the following about the size of the afghan security forces that would be needed. that basedsment is on the likely security conditions after 2014 in afghanistan, that the security forces should be maintained near their current size of around that includes afghan police through 2018. do you agree with that assessment? them i do. the study is consistent with some work we have done over the last two or three years. >> i do to.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. about or youtalked talked about the difference between transition and withdraw. would you like to share that with us? >> we are in the process of transitioning to afghan security forces, assuming forward that -- assuming full responsibility. it allows us to achieve the ends that we outlined some years ago, in which i articulated in my opening statement. jobansition may finish the and allow afghan forces to assume responsibility in --porting the trip supporting the transition. a withdrawal means abandoning andpeople of afghanistan

providing al qaeda space to begin operations. theould it be similar to iraq situation? >> i think that is fair to say. >> one of the difficult things that is so intangible is when we talk about what would have happened if we hadn't done what we had done. i'm thinking a lot of the times and assay information would be directly linked to something that was planned like the new york city subway stuff and the jet storage view. fuel.t storage vi perspective,ry would you say our actions could have prevented another 9/11 type of attack on this country? >> i don't think there is any doubt that al qaeda has an intent to once again attack the afghan-pakistan

region to make that attack. don't think there's any doubt that any pressure we have had in the past few years in particular has benefited from doing that. >> i believe a lot of the people don't and i think it is important that we and the you and the military -- we and you and the military talk about observations. what are we doing that is perhaps not as noticeable today as it should be? i can remember in the beginning one of our guard units was used in the trading. it has gone by the statements that has been made in the a nsf. it is very effective but not fully developed. what does that mean? >> today the afghan forces are providing security for the afghan people. we don't have are the systems

and processes that would be self-sustaining. at the end ministerial level that occludes acquisition and getting parts distributed, pay systems, overseeing contracts. the functions that allow them to be self-sustaining. providing a degree of advice that is different from the past. were partnering with them or providing combat advising. >> we are doing that without putting our people in harms way. are still in combat and people are in harms way. beingsk is increasingly assumed by afghan security forces. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you general for your service.

a great deal hangs on this election forthcoming. -- can you give us an indication of your committee to protect the andtion process in april also there'll likely be a runoff when the election process concludes. >> the afghan security forces began to plan security for the elections. i think one of the best indicators for what we will see the place last summer and during the registration process. i also mentioned the security they provided to the islamic -- those are indicators of the afghans providing security.

one other thing is that during the elections of 2009 there are about 250,000 people in uniform. that is a combination of coalition forces and afghan forces. 375 thousand of which will be afghan. i think that is a strong indicator not only their performance over the past -- not only of their performance over the past several months but there inherent capabilities that will be on display during the fifth of april this year. is we wouldessment have a new president in august of 2014. >> that falls within that time where you are still capable of making a transition or going from several options. operational use to have that flexibility. >> we do. indicated the positive public opinion support

for the afghan security forces. can you give us an indication why that is the case and can that translate to a support of the government of afghanistan. there are situations where might have security forces but it does not translate. >> we began to see the change back in june. we celebrated what was known as milestone 2013, that is on the afghan security forces assumed the lead. i can remember one confrontation -- one conversation i had with the afghan security forces member. during that ceremony he leaned over to me almost with you -- with tears in his eyes. he said, you have no idea what it means to be responsible for the security of your own country. i want to thank you and the american people for making this possible. we have seen through the summer very young men and women

providing security, increasing pride. objectivet a campaign read we wanted to merge with -- we wanted to be emerge with competent afghan forces. but as importantly credible in the eyes of the afghan people. the polling data shows that we are consistently over 80% -- shows that consist way over 80% of people have confidence in the afghan security forces. we had a pretty sad incident take place where 21 afghan forces were killed. aat negative was turned into positive in the wake of that event. the outpouring of pride and support for afghan forces, the desire to take care of the families of the fallen, the outrage the afghan people have felt was actually a great indicator of the developing nationalism inside of afghanistan, the pride the afghan people have their country, but more portly the pride in the afghan forces. that has clearly had a positive

affect on the forces themselves. if the people are proud of them and what they do and they appreciate and recognize what they do and the sacrifice they make, they are more encouraged to actually do that. there are a lot of things we can point to physically in terms of afghan usability development. we can look at helicopters, mobile strength vehicles, weapons systems, tactics, techniques, and procedures. all those things are positive. the human factors are important. is a sense of pride, sense of responsibility, sense of accountability. what the afghan people are seeing is a sense of ownership of the forces. interestingly enough, about 80% of the afghan people have confidence the afghan government is set in the right direction and 52% believe things over the last year have improved.

>> my time is all but expire. >> thank you very much. >> general, i thank you for your service. a great source of pride is your service and those predecessors in afghanistan and iraq. we appreciate your incredible service. general we have heard from several officials from the

department attempting to characterize the status of al qaeda and afghanistan, region and worldwide. how would you describe al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan? flex because of our special operations and the pressure we have put in the network over the last few years, i would characterize al qaeda and afghanistan as in survival mode. >> general allen said he would need 20,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan after 2014. haves i understand it we 10,000 plus a few nato troops. can you state how many troops we need and for how long? thatam comfortable with range we talked about earlier in terms of the nato, 8000 to 12,000.

that would be a u.s. mission only. i think what is important when we start to talk about numbers is what we expect those forces to do as the afghan forces have increased their capability. be doing largely is addressing the self sustainability of the afghan forces. they will clearly be a meet in the fight and the only operations i would envision us is counterin 2015 operation -- counterterrorism operations. beyour view is it would 10,000 plus several thousand nato troops? to 12,000fident 8000 nato mission plus account of net cash plus account counterterrorist mission on top of that. >> according to a wall street journal report, a senior pentagon official stated that a new plan was start with 10,000 american troops at the beginning of 2015 but the number would decline sharply under a two-year drawdown schedule.

the number would be coast to zero by the time to stir obama leaves office in early two any 17 -- in early 2017. does this course of action entails a level of risk to our mission that you would find acceptable?cho -- >> we provide the president with a range of options. their conditions that would to be met over time and the risk of -- and the risk associated with not beating those conditions. >> would you say it is very high risk if we had a sharp decline -- a sharply under two-year drawdown schedule so it would be close to zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017? on the would depend progress of the afghan security forces. >> you are not willing to state whether it would be an increased risk or not? >> it would be increased risks. >> thank you.

i can only speak for myself but if that is the plan, that we would be close to zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017, i would not support -- keepingroops remaining troops behind. it would be a needless risk of american lives. know that you cannot deal any further with president karzai on the bsa? >> i think that is fair to say. there all thew presidential candidates in favor of the bsa and said they would sign it. i general candidates do and will overwhelming majority of the afghan people supported. >> and you are teachable and to make plans for the signing of that bsa sometime after the presidential election. you are capable of adjusting to ?hat eventuality

>> absolutely. >> it would be much harder if there was a runoff? >> if we have a new president by august i am comfortable we will be able to maintain the options throughout that time without any difficulty. hear very disturbing to the president say the longer karzai weights the lower the number of troops will be. i don't get that connection. karzai's intransigence dictate the number of troops and missions that we would want as part of the residual force. senator, i can't talk to that. >> i'm sure you can. are we able to get out all of the equipment we need to get out of afghanistan on schedule? >> i am absolutely confident we will be able to do that. >> even if the russians cut off one of the avenues? >> yes, senator.

due to great efforts we have resilience in a system and i am not concerned at all about a loss of northern distribution from the russian piece of that. >> are you confident with the level left behind that the 10000 that thenato forces afghan military will have capabilities such as air evacuation, close air support, and especially intelligence capabilities. >> two of the things you mentioned are gaps that will exist in 2015. the afghan air force will not fully be developed, the intelligence enterprise will not fully be developed. their special operations keep ability will not be fully developed and we will still have gaps in the ministerial capacity. those are the main areas we are focused on the 2015. >> in your view, if we left afghanistan with no residual

replay ofould see a the iraq scenario? ofif we leave at the end 2014, the afghan security forces will begin to deteriorate. the security environment will begin to deteriorate and i think the only debate is the pace of that interior ration. >> i thank you, general. you're in a long line of outstanding leaders and all of us are very proud of the service that you have rendered and continue to render to our country. i thank you. >> >> thank you. your service, we are very appreciative of that. a whole has identified generation of americans and we have reached a decision point in the conflict. the american people a lot of explanations. senator mccain was is talking about the transitions going on.

we talk about the amount of time you would need if there was a new elected president going in different directions. it is a look like our site is going to release this whatsoever , building his castle or mansion or fortress for him. he remains a force for a long time. i don't see how anything would ever change knowing his intentions and being telegraphed as well as they are. do you acknowledge that? >> i cannot president karzai's intent to remain influential in afghanistan. theso look at all of candidates who have very publicly articulated the need for u.s. coalition presence after 2014. of i'm even more encouraged by my day-to-day with the afghan people and the polling we have done where 80% of the afghan people recognize that their toure is inextricably linked the presence of coalition of u.s. forces. appearancet saying has russian putin all over it

with karzai in afghanistan. that may or may not be president karzai's intend. i'm not sure that reflects his capability. >> let me speak to this. i've been very critical about the amount of contracts we have. contractorss 78,000 in afghanistan and only 33,000 troops. >> senator, the number of contractors also support the nato forces of about 45,000 total forces. thatn you tell me contradict those forces would be reduced? relative to the other forces? >> we would be reduced in the process and reducing contractors. me -- i amlife of understanding about 2000 and arrests over there at $2 million per piece deco $20 million worth of emirates? >> are you referring to the ones

we have declared excess? >> it is hard for me to go home and explain to them how we can build something that cost that much to get over there and disregarded but it wasn't of any value at all. it has to be valued somewhere. curvinge not this dashed escorting 2000 and rest. we have 2000 at the service is declared as excess. >> what will happen with those? >> we are in the process of seeing if there are any of our allies that can use those vehicles. services are also going back to review those requirements. either put a stop on any destruction of vehicles except those that are ballot that i've put a stop on the destruction of any of those vehicles except those that are battle damage. they have to accept them as is where is. it is very extensive for countries to take those vehicles from afghanistan. it cost us less than 10,000 to destroy the vehicle. it would cost us over $50,000 to move a vehicle to another

location. in order for us to give it to somebody else we would have to invest a significant amount of money. >> if we are drawn into another conflict we have to spend another $1 million to replace it. >> services have identified the requirements they will need for future combat. >> can you honestly tell the american people -- do you tell the people in west virginia we shouldn't be in afghanistan, we are on purpose to do that. our mission was to find al qaeda. we are a very hockey state. we like a good fight. this one makes no sense to anyone in west virginia at all. i would assess that if we don't stay there and continue to

train afghan forces, we will actually have a good fight. >> what are the casualties right now? >> we have 14 incidents of insider attacks during 2014. we have 48 in 2012. wounded warrior dinner. i thought he was one of the support staff. he was very distant. when i started talking to him he began to engage more. his story torilla park. he said he was shot but the person he trade for six months. for six months. they live in constant fear and -- i don't think we will ever get that mentality. respect in the world but i don't know how we answer these. >> when i look at where we were in 29 -- in 2009, there were 10

of us to one member of the afghan security forces. completely adverse and with a small presence we have today and continue to have after 2015, we are going to ensure that the investment we made in the past 12 years results in us achieving our object of a stable and unified afghanistan. >> are we to tell the american that we will have to maintain a constant presence for perpetuity as we have done in korea? is this what afghanistan is turning into? >> i would assess that to be the case. >> you think there's a time we can't exit? >> i absolutely do. >> and i'm saying 13 years have not done the job. how many more years will attack to take? in 13 can't do the job years you can't get the job done. the unitedassume

states would be engaged in a region free long time to come. the nature of our engagement and presence would force change over time. >> thank you so much for your service. i would respectfully disagree. >> thank you. for yourl, thank you service. mr. chairman, thank you for your service. it's not hard to understand how my friend from west virginia could have the view that he has. must say i disagree most vigorously with the point of forth.at he has just set remarkable and i hope people listening today -- in the united states and on

capitol hill and afghanistan and pakistan and any place where we have interest, i hope people are listening to the chairman of , who i think made a profoundly remarkable opening statement. i say to my colleagues there's is a frustration on the part of the chairman. people have been given a balanced view of the success we have in afghanistan and a balanced view about the american interest that we will continue to have regardless of the decision of this administration. chairman regrets that a plurality of americans believe that sending our forces to afghanistan was a mistake. think we should forget what happened in 2001.

to afghanistan by a virtually unanimous vote of this congress. i was in the house of representatives at the time. there was one dissenting vote. as far as i know, it was unanimous here in the senate. i am not going to say that every decision that has been made since we went in in 2013 -- since we went in in 2002 has been correct. there was a public opinion poll in afghanistan showing the large majority believes conditions of country have improved over the while the american thele are not being given entire picture of the success story. the afghan people see it on the ground. i think that is reflected by the vote.

tell me is it some sort of elite group that represents only a section of the country or is it a cross-section? in light and the committee about how many factions and tribes and ethnic groups were represented. >> it was over 2000 participants from all of the 34 provinces in afghanistan. all of the tribes were represented. i think it was fair to say there was a representative sample of afghanistan leadership. about thes their view importance of continued american and involvement in the stability of this region after the selection? -- after this election? it points out that is

represented of the sentiment of the aft ghent people. -- of the afghan people. the polling we have done the live -- supports the bilateral security. also likeing i would to say is just 10 days ago i met with nine members of the afghan parliament. the oversight committees of the afghan security forces. i asked which mentz -- i asked what message i should come back and deliver. all of them overwhelmingly said don't let one individual speaker afghanistan. the afghan people appreciate what the american people have done and recognize that their future here in afghanistan is inextricably linked to the continued presence. of thes not the view polling that the united states has invaded this country or the united states of america wants afghanistan over the

long haul. that is not their view, is it? >> we certainly have no intention of doing that. >> i believe you mentioned in that this is the feeling of afghan government officials, civil leaders, and that there is a growing appreciation of the coalition's efforts. i was this message -- i wish this message would get out. on the second page of his testimony. unfortunately the mayor can people read about -- american about -- ity read is exclusively a negative incident, depriving the american people of a sense of

accomplishment they would receive if they were given a balanced view. i appreciate you being here it may be incumbent on as americans to say the troops that have sacrificed -- the american taxpayers that have sacrificed over more than a have resulted in tangible positive accomplishments for the alsoe in this region and affects the american interest in a positive way. just hope we don't lose our resolve. as a body of politics to lose this war nonetheless. we can do it if we try.

we are at the point of having a success. if we don't sent to the afghan people a signal that we are once again going to look another way and get interested in something else. we could have an historic will be missedt there was a very small footprint. the united states still looking out for us national interests, but doing it as you so successfully have done, general, turning this fight over to the locals. having us there as partners, sending a signal that we are not going to forget about them. thank you for indulging me. thank you for your profound , which tells the truth to the american people about the

success of our troops in this area. >> thank you very much. >> i can't imagine the press ever focusing on negative controversy. inky for being here for your service to the country. one of the things that have impressed me on the trips i have was theafghanistan close relationship between what happens in afghanistan and what happens in pakistan. i wonder if you could assess the kind of role you think pakistan can play post 2014.

if you could also speak to the in talks toakistan engage with the taliban and what is happening with that. >> thank you for the question. i find it difficult to envision success in the region without cooperation of pakistan and an effective relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. i have been encouraged on a couple of fronts. i believe pakistan also recognizes the existential threat of extremism to their own sis -- to their own security. i think they recognize that it is not in their own interest to have -- the heads of state have met four times, which is very positive. it hasn't happened in quite some time. new result has come to improve the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. the two areas they have

identified for cooperation are important to point out. one is have a competition that have a common definition of extremism. -- one is to have a common definition of extremism. another is addressing the political issues, economic issues, and security issues between the two countries. on aole is to work constructive military to military relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. i have met with the new army chief of staff. resolvedicated strong to improve the relationship between the afghan security forces and pakistani army. time overend a lot of the next several months doing that. one of the things we want to look on bush by the end of the year is have a constructive bilateral relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. it is actually trilateral. we play an important facilitating role.

certainly maintain an effective relationship between both countries the play less of a role in the important relationship between those two countries. efforts tospeak to engage in talk with taliban on the part of afghanistan. >> we are watching that very carefully. to be honest we don't have any insight as to their status. we have seen continued violence. also seen some limited military operations against the ttp. what we know is what you know. the leadership in pakistan is committed to try to find some peaceful resolution. that is certainly in pakistan as well as afghanistan. what needs to happen, it is not clear to me today. it is clear they are working.

-- working to that end. >> we had a few minutes to chat before the hearing started and one of the things you commented on with the number of women who -- you are volunteering and signing up to help with elections in april. for the first time since the afghan security forces fund was established, money was asked leslie off the right for the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. obviously that is a separate issue from the election and it speaks to the empowerment of women and afghanistan. i wonder if you could talk about how the dedication -- how the dedication of that fund helps assist with recruiting women and keeping them in their services in afghanistan will work and whether we are seeing

any of the benefits of that yet. >> thank you for that question. it is clearly a very difficult issue. there is a strong cultural bias against women participating in security forces and army or police. 10%e is a stated goal of and we are at about one percent. there are some signs of progress. we recently saw the first woman appointed as police chief in afghanistan and there's a second in line to become a police chief. there are some general officers. there are some role models coming up. in the case of these 13,000, it is interesting. that in itself was difficult. in a conversation with the and why, which i think you'll find encouraging. he plans to use these 13,000 as a whole from which to recruit please woman. he gets women that identify themselves as willing to step up and use something as important

as be a volunteer at the elections. analso recognizes that is eligible pool of women who would probably make good please woman and he plans to use that. he has a stated goal of increasing the number of please woman in afghanistan by about 5000 in the next 24 months and 10,000 by 2017. my sense is that the cultural challenges that exist is very real and it will take some time for that to happen. if you look at the prospects for women participation, it is certainly much higher than two or three years ago. if i could just make a follow-up comment, to the extent that we can encourage that sentiment to continue as we look at the new administration taking over in afghanistan, certainly that is something all of us here

support. >> thank you, senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your steadfast leadership in such an important time. all of us admire your leadership and your service to our country. thent to thank you for sacrifice your family has been making during your service in afghanistan. you -- if we were to withdraw from afghanistan happens to the women in afghanistan? >> i think the plight of women would be pretty dire if we were to withdraw at the end of 2014. -- ie actually providing think the support we provided in actually creates the climate in which the other women and members of the society

actually can flourish and achieve their own goals and objectives. i would say the prospects are not very good. >> i don't think any of us will ever get the images of what they did to women. as we look toward the importance of our commitment in afghanistan, let us not forget what you just said, that if we leave and if we abandon the work we have done in afghanistan that we could send women back into those soccer stadiums. i don't think that is acceptable to any of us. >> i did provide you with my own assessment. this is the feedback i have received from the afghan women i have spoken to. i am actually voicing on their behalf. their concerns about 2015 and beyond will not remain a presence.

>> if we don't maintain a presence, what happens with al qaeda? i would ask you how quickly with this happen? matterhear why does it , what happensople with al qaeda and how quickly does this all unravel? i think this is important to understand that we made great but what happens and how quickly? all, i think the deterioration of the afghan forces begins to happen fairly quickly in 2014. where we are today in the campaign is we focused on the quality of the force, building the tie-ins, building brigades, which now our focus is building the process allowing those tactical units to sustain themselves. that happen immediately

after leaving 2015 is units would run out of fully that out of fuel, -- run out of fuel, spare parts would not be available. we are starting to see decreased readiness in the afghan security forces. obviously their operational reach would be less. toalso would not be able complete our work with the afghan air force. we are in the process of actually feeling the afghan air force. with regard to al qaeda. my assessment is the pressure we put on al qaeda virtually every day for special operations in cooperation with the afghan partners is what has kept the al qaeda from recover from -- from reconstituting. they would view it as a great victory. space ton have the conduct operations. i think it's not only would be a physical reconstitution but a huge moral factor for al qaeda

as a movement were we to withdraw from the region in 2015 and allow them to want again stepless preeminence in the region and become the vanguard for the al qaeda movement. to the al qaeda movement and risk to the united states of america. >> i don't think there's any question there would be a risk to western interest. >> no doubt it is so important we get this right. one of the things i have been encouraged by is all the presidential candidates, karzai is gone. he has made a lot of troubling comments. that he is gone. all of the candidates running have admitted to signing. -- how important is it that we announce our follow-on commitment, that the

president do that with regard to the timing of the runoff in august? with the timing there and how important is that timing in terms of us making a commitment on behalf of our country as what our follow-on force would be? >> this is very several issues. i would like to touch upon the very briefly. part of it is the military campaign. i mentioned it begins to be high risk if we don't make a decision by september. we have a high risk against orderly withdrawal. that is because of how long it takes to get all the equipment out and transfer all the facilities. we start to run into a situation where there are as many tasks to do as there are days to do those before the 31st of december. that is what i characterize that as high risk. postnk the real challenge 2015 actually starts in kabul with the leadership of the

afghan people and afghan security forces across the country. i think it is also fair to say the uncertainty of 2015 affects the behavior of regional actors to include at -- to include pakistan. the other issue i'm concerned would be the willingness of the coalition to maintain cohesion and actually participate. i think it is important to point out the contribution of the coalition has been significant and i asked -- and i assess a future mission would be important for us to do. >> i know my time is up but i would say this. i would hope that our president would make an announcement to

give certainty to the situation in afghanistan as to what our follow-up commitment will be and to make that announcement and ensure that the afghan people know that we are committed to following through here. and we're going to ensure that afghanistan does not become a safe haven for al qaeda. i hope the president will come forward and give that certainty. i understand and respect that is contingent on the dsa been signed. i believe the president can make that contingent on that signing. >> thank you. >> good to see you again. i enjoyed our visit in july. i appreciate your service. i echo the comments senator mccain made. i also want to underline points made by the chairman in his opening statement. improving the life of afghanistan has been tremendous. the more we do that the more we

inoculate against extremism. about training the afghan security forces but it is also about making afghans understand they do not have to go back to what they have. one bit of evidence i find staggering, since the taliban fell the life expectancy in afghanistan has improved from 45 years to 62 years. in a country of 30 million people, if you can improve life expectancyin 17 -- by 17 years in a decade. that is millions of years of life that have been the result of the work the united nations and united states has done. byhas been done largely public health investments that has reduced child mortality. you're telling me the polling suggests that afghans like the united states. if you can reduce the risk of my children dying young and increase life expectancy in my

country by 17 years. -- by 17 years, i'm going to like the partnership, two. explainwe do have to that maybe our citizens aren't thinking that the investment we should be making should be about the improvement of life expectancy in afghanistan but this is inoculation against extremist. this is the real-life tangible evidence that afghans can see that will help them not fall backward into the taliban and or other extremists. i want to associate myself with the comments made earlier. the concrete -- the contents of nature of the investment be by the united states made a difference. i met with the foreign minister -- the foreign minister of iraq. he is now very public about this . i wish we had worked out a

bilateral security agreement. he says this publicly. he says we made a mistake. -- he made a mistake by not willing to work out a bsa with the united states. he said that with karzai, to not make the mistake we made in a rock. -- in iraq. we shouldn't stay unwanted. we are not interested in being occupiers. we are interested in being partners. i am happy to hear your testimony that the afghan people want us to be partners. it is the 12th of march. elections are going to happen in the next 3.5 weeks. all the indicated presidential candidates support a bilateral security agreement with the united states.

support't like private where they said we will sign a bilateral security. iny are taken this publicly the midst of an election campaign and telling their voters, their electric. you want the united states to say -- to stay. isn't that correct? very first time they have had a very public campaign process to include televised the dates. public appearances include -- it is absolutely their public position. clearly they would not be saying that if it didn't reflect the electorate. >> i am sure there is responsive to the electorate as we are. this is not a minor issue in the presidential campaign. suggests that the continuing u.s. presence is a

major piece of the public debate. therefore the result of the .lections will be a mandate >> i believe whoever the next president of afghanistan will be, he will come in the office with a mandate. >> that creates a real excited he in the taliban. -- real anxiety taliban. those elections were instructed .o some degree they believe the increased size of security forces should be sufficient to protect against significant violence marring the selections. that is your thought today? assessment -- our

the major events that have occurred in afghanistan where the enemy has a demonstrated intent to distract those intense, the islamic festival really demonstrated to me the ability of the afghan security forces to create a climate in which elections can take place. i am not saying it will be .iolence free there will be high-profile attacks and we will have a concerted effort to disrupt the elections. >> that is good to hear. thank you very much. believe they are take -- they are leaving the senate.

one observation, the room is almost empty. we have a few reporters, thank you for coming. i remember when these roads were full. i am just here to say the decision we are about to make as a nation regarding afghanistan is probably the single most important decision you'll make in the 21st-century in securing our homeland, other than the uranium program. i can't think of a more important decision than how we transitioned in afghanistan. there may not be a lot of interest in the room. thank you though. >> to the afghan people, if we don't have a bilateral security will bet, not one trip left behind. we are not going to put our young men and women in that situation.

the good news is most afghans want us to stay. maybe what you are telling us come if we are smart and and this well we can construct a scenario where afghans will help. >> if you look back at the nations in the 1990's. were ons, many of him the ground -- many of them were on the ground with us. >> what is in it for us is a fair proposition for us to be exploring. would be an for us afghanistan willing to fight the terrorists and defending our nation from an attack. >> i agree. the fight against terrorism is absolutely what we are trying to -- >> you want to help women in al qaeda can'tre kill -- this isn't about afghan women, this is about american women, about american men.

it can be a frontline defense against al qaeda, do you agree? i agree. >> the goal is to keep the enemy away from the homeland and build partnerships. afghanistanree that -- this is where it all started. >> i do. >> do you believe this is the place it all started and we can leave behind a scenario where it ends well. the question is the cost-benefit analysis. 10,re 9/11, on september 2001, how many choose to be have an afghanistan? >> no troops. >> coming ambassadors? >> we did not have an ambassador -- ow much money >> not much money. >> how much did 9/11 cost us in terms of dollars? >> billions of dollars. cost ofu look at the the country in terms of financial cost, going to the

model will not leave us alone. to ignores a lot more afghanistan than it has to be involved. lost in lives afghanistan and iraq are heartbreaking. that signedoldiers up and were willing to defend the nation. 3000 civilians died in the blink of an eye. do you believe if we ignore the threats coming from that part of the world that the next attack on the united states would be on 9/11?han it was >> i absolutely believe there will be another attack. >> do you agree with me the capabilities that are beginning to be available to terrorist organizations are greater than they were before 9/11? >> yes, sir. >> karzai is an outlier. let's leave it at that. he happens to be president but he doesn't were present afghanistan's view of what to do

regarding afghan relations. is that a fair statement? >> it is. the afghans don't see us as occupiers because -- common people are in afghanistan? >> 30 million. >> how many of there are us? --three 3000 americans 33,000 americans. >> how long can they survive if 30 million saw us as an occupier? >> it would be a difficult circumstance. >> it would be. i would not want to be there. the point is you have green on blue. if they didn't want us, we wouldn't be there. it offends me when people suggest that we are the british empire a long time ago or the russians. you have two choices. choices to go back to the pre-9/11, nobody there, no money there.

how much would it cost the aerican taxpayer to maintain 350,000 plus afghan army, how much would it cost to maintain the00 troops, compare benefit we would achieve from leaving,stment versus nobody left behind, and see where the smart play is. >> the cost of afghan security 352,000 in 2015 would be $5 billion. our coalition partners have committed to pay $1.3 billion of that. $500nistan will play million. it would be in the order of $300 million. we are still working the figures for our actual presence overall. it is certainly far less than the cost you just outlined. >> you put that in one pocket. the other cost is the cost of leaving. that correct? >> absolutely. >> final thought.

is it fair to say our national security interests are not going to be judged in history by the day we left afghanistan by what we left behind? >> i think it is how we leave, not when we leave. >> it is how we leave and what we leave behind. and you are going to tell us if we are smart. we do this by conditioned base to draw. we can leave behind a disabled country that can help the fed american homelands or we can leave behind a disaster that will heart -- that will harm us for decades. >> thank you. >> thank you, general for being here today. iwant to talk a little bit -- know i sound like a one note chorus here -- about reconstruction efforts and accountability for that money. what i want to concern that what i am concerned about in the coming months -- what i am

concerned about in the coming months is it hasn't been that it has been indicated that no more than 21% of afghanistan will be accessible to civilian oversight going forward. we had eyes and ears on afghanistan when hundreds of billions of dollars was being spent to build things. we are only going to have eyes and ears in 21% of the country now. do you agree with that assessment, that our ability to oversee any kind of ongoing work is going to be survey early curtailed or limited under the current scenario? >> i may be able to make you feel better about that. in 2015 -- i will speak from the dod perspective --