langevin votes no. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. larsen votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. kline votes aye. ms. bordallo. ms. bordallo votes no. mr. rogers votes no. mr. courtney votes no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. loebsack votes no. mr. shuster votes aye. ms. tso 234 gas votes no. mr. conaway votes aye. ms. pingree votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. kissell votes no. mr. wittman votes aye. mr. heinrich votes no. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. owens votes no. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. coffman votes aye. mr. critz votes no. fwlchlt rooney votes no. mr. ryan votes no. mr. platts votes no. mr. ruppersberger votes no. mr. riggell votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. gibson votes no. ms. sutton votes no. mrs. hartzler votes aye. ms. hanabusa votes no. dr. heck votes aye. ms. hocl votes no. mr. schilling votes no. ms. speier votes no. mr. runyan votes no. mr. scott votes no. mr. griffin votes aye. mr. palazzo votes aye. mr. west votes aye. mrs. roby votes aye. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. young votes aye. mr. jones. mr. jones? >> how is mr.

at a subsequent hearing seven months later, langevin's committee members discovered that almost nothing had been done. >> what do you think we are, a bunch of jerks? >> they--basically, they lied to congress, and i was outraged. >> and they admitted lying to congress? >> that's right. they admit that they misled congress, that they did not give accurate testimony, and they subsequently had to retract the testimony. >> have they made any progress since you caught them out in this lie? >> no, not sufficiently. the private sector has different priorities than we do in providing security. their, in a sense, bottom line is about profits, and we need to change that. we need to change their motivation so that when we see a vulnerability like this, we can require them to fix it. >> langevin and others have introduced legislation that would do just that. >> i look at this as, like, a pre-9/11 moment where we identify a problem, we identify a threat, we know it exists, we know it's real, and we don't move quickly enough to fix the problem. >> and what i'm worried about is, because of so many comp

langevin, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. section 526 basically the federal law states, no federal agency shall enter into a contract procurement alternative synthetic fuel, including a fuel used for non-conventional petroleum sources, et cetera. section 526 does not prohibit production or importation of alternative or unconventional fuels, it points tax dollars from being used to procure fuels that have a higher global warms politician emission than conventional fuels. section 526 has not applied to d.o.d., has not applied to d.o.d. purchasers of fuel and does not anticipate that will change. however, 526 provides for useful framework for the development of alternative fuels. this exemption is not needed or warranted by the department of defense. clearly, if we are going to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels then you want to support the gentleman's amendment. if you want to look at the -- the future needs, alternative fuel needs or fuel needs of our nation, our military, we have to start somewhere. so i believe that --

langevin, mr. larson, mr. garamendi. i'm grateful that you put it in the en bloc, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. is there any other discussion? >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. frank is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just very briefly, i noticed in the en bloc amendment, that there didn't seem to be the space-based interceptor language that we had been told would be in the en bloc. and we have a separate amendment prepared for that. i just wanted for clarification if i could yield to mr. turner to give me any perspective on that. >> could you repeat that? >> mr. franks, that's in a second en bloc package. >> it's a second one. forgive me. never mind, as the lady said. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> any other discussion? gentleman from new jersey, andrews is recognized. >> yes. i'd like the thank you and the chairman and ranking member sanchez for some help with an issue that i wanted to engage in a short colloquy with the subchairman com

langevin recorded? >> mr. langevin is not recorded. mr.angevin records aye. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> the nose are 35. the aye are 26. >> said the amendment is not agreed to. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. kissel and number 177 shall not resume proceedings. question out occurs on the amendment offered by mr. said tree. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> how does mr. brady record? >> mr. brady has recorded us know. >> mr. brady does

. >> congressman james langevin, thank you so much. let me bring michael and ann both in. i think what he says is something that, you know, we've heard from everybody. there's no doubt from pretty much every analyst that i've interviewed that we're safer than we were, certainly getting rid of osama bin laden was an important move not just obviously from a pr, political standpoint, but we're now seeing in some of the papers that were left behind from a strategic standpoint he was still very active from that compound in pakistan. but to the political point of it, you know, mitt romney saying that bin laden, frankly, shouldn't be a political issue, michael, he's scheduled an appearance with rudy giuliani at a firehouse later this afternoon. is there a little bit of hypocrisy potentially in that? >> well, look, i mean, again, i think it goes to sort of what, you know, the political tactics and what both of the campaigns are going to try to, you know, make use of it and how they best make use of it. there's probably an argument to wonder about whether if the obama administratio

langevin: permission to address the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, democrats are committed to reducing the deficit in a balanced way. in contrast the republicans will bring up a bill this week that breaks our bipartisan agreement, erasing the hard work on both sides to reach a compromise. this was the agreement that resulted in us raising the debt ceiling that put in place the supercommittee that could have reached a more balanced approach to budgeting, both revenues and budget cuts, but my republican colleagues rejected increased revenues that were needed. this simply wasn't a gentleman's agreement that was arrived at as a result of it. that's going to put in place see quester, this compromise was signed into law as a pledge to each other and the nation to work together to solve our most challenging issues. the republicans are reneging on that agreement. they decided cutting the programs which would help my constituents to put food on the tables and send children to c

langevin: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the language included in the f.y. 2013 that strips the justice department's ability to prohibit funding for swimming pools, an amendment that was discussed earlier this evening. as co-chair of the disabilities caucus and a person who has lived a disability by over 30 years, i'm more surprised some see such language included in an appropriations bill. in 2010, the department of justice issued regulations requiring public and commercial pools be made accessible by a ramp or fixed ramp. this was to break down barriers to recreational barriers. i understand some businesses believe that meeting these new requirements would impose an cost burden and i would like to dispell misunderstandings. the justice department's regulations require existing pool facilities to satisfy the accessibility standard if it is and i quote, readily achievable, which means it is easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficult or expense. this has been the go

langevin: we started rolling it out -- mr. lankford: the administration asked for 50,000 more a month and has asked for $52 million more to increase the usage of this. path f.t.a. thank you for clarifying that it's not new. thank you. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. dicks: madam speaker, we have someone who wanted to speak on this amendment. can we ask unanimous consent and allow the gentleman from missouri speak, strike the requisite number of words. this would not be a process that will continue. this is a one-time only. the chair: the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clay: the american community survey is absolutely vital. that's why i just -- i'm kind of stunned at what i'm hearing. it was -- it's not