mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. hunter stated it very clearly. the exit strategy should be to win and then bring our forces home. it was stated earlier that general petraeus made a statement that afghanistan has been known over the years as a graveyard of empires. we cannot take that history lightly. that was part of the speech that he made. i'd like to say some other things that he mention approximated in that same speech. we have a hugely important interest in ensuring that afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational terrorists. and to compliment and capitalized on the increased military resources, more civilian assets, adequate financial resources, close civil military cooperation and comprehensive approach that encompasses regional states will be necessary. our objectives are of enormous importance. we all need to summon the will and the resources necessary to make the most of it. it w

mr. mckeon: i yield the time to the chairman. mr. skelton: mr. chairman -- the chair: four minutes. the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, since we have no additional requests, we will yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-182, as modified. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to introduce this amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 111-182, as modified, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california

mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment although i am not opposed to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i don't know that we needed to say this but i'm glad we are saying it. it goes almost without saying that any sovereign country has an inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military attack or threat. and nothing in this amendment prohibits or constrains the -- israel or the united states from discussing the nature of the threat, the logic of the timing, the nature of the response. so i find this amendment a useful contribution. in a way it states the obvious but sometimes stating the obvious is worth doing. and i plan to support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of th

mr. chairman. mr. skelton: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition although i am not opposed to the amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. miller has a request for a colloquy at this time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. the service members service relief act protects service members when their military service hinders their ability to meet financial obligations or defend their rights in a lawsuit. recent court rulings have questioned whether service members have a private remedy for violations of their rights under the scra. the committee included a provision to increase further the rights of service members. that is a step in the right direction. but i am concerned that the provision does not go far enough

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, an across the board cut to this bill of 5% is really disastrous. i would say that just as a general proposition, cuts that are indiscriminate, that affect every account in a bill, whether it's this appropriation bill or any other appropriation bill, are really one of the -- one of the best reasons to oppose them is for that reason. they're indiscriminate. they affect every account in the bill. and that, of course, means that someone has not done a thoughtful precise in going through and trying to find out where might be a few extra dollars with regard to this account or that account. i'd also suggest that that's exactly what this subcommittee has done, both the majority and the minority and we have done it in close cooperation with the minority as we have worked this bill this year and brought it to the floor of the house. we have looked at every single one of these accounts. we have done exactly what this amendment does not do. we have done the hard work of thinking about wh

mr. chairman.since we have an oversight hearing on upstairs it helps me to give my statement. i'm going to give a double statement. we'll talk about the hearing. then i want to comment on your personal comments. first on the hearing before us. it's scare iry when i agree with jay insley. but i do agree. his bill was directed towards clean energy or green energy. once you direct the energy, by wind solar or coal power, electricity is going to go on the same wires. the wires don't know what the source of the generation was. so with do need to update the transmission grid. we started the process in the energy policy act of 2005. i thought we had bipartisan support. it became law. the fourth circuit ruled recently that parts of this are not as they should be. i disagree with the court ruling. i hope the supreme court will overturn it. in any event. i agree with congressman insly that we need to modernize our grid. we do need to give more authority, in my opinion. to make decisions when the states can't

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 79. the chair: is the gentleman the designee of mr. lewis of california? mr. hensarling: yes, i am. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 79 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that would strike an earmark in the bill for the art center of the grand prarie in stutgardt, arkansas. i'm not a big fan of earmarks. it's not to say all earmarks are bad. the gentleman from texas to my left here has proposed several very worth while earmarks. but, mr. speaker, we aren't living in normal times. we are in severe economic stress in our nation today. and as i look at what h

mr. chairman. the lieutenant colonel is a high-ranking field officer and i think the record as he stated stands for itself. he's a legislative officer with the department. lieutenant colonel will not state on the record something that opposes his higher rank. i think we all know that. with that i encourage all of us to defeat this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in house report 111-182. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. maloney: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk, number 39. the chair: the clerk will

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we talked here this evening about the debt and we have talked about the spending. and you know, when you spend, more money than you're taking in in government, you have a deficit. now, most people, mr. chairman, who may be watching this at home, say, i can't do that, because if i spend more money than i'm taking in, i will eventually go broke. they have a business, personal or whatever. mr. chairman, we are taking in more money -- we are spending more money than we are taking in by the federal government by nearly $2 trillion, with a t. i know billions seemed like a lot and now we are talking about trillions. and part of that includes $407.6 billion appropriation bill already passed just this year in this congress, which contained close to 9,000 earmarks. these earmarks totalled almost $11 billion and included $200,000 for tattoo removal and grape genetics, amongst other things. this $2 trillion deficit is the largest deficit as a percent of our economy of any year since worl

mr. chairman. >> mr. alexander. >> may i comment on the issue? >> sure. i means in -- at this point, it's a house matter. but we're always happy to hear from a senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my -- i do appreciate your recognizing me. i was on the floor of the senate when the senate amendment was being written. it was written with discussions with the president. the president supports the amendment. the senate agreed to it unanimously. the conclusion was arrived at because of the extraordinary statements of general petraeus and general odierno about the effect of the release of these photographs. and how they might endanger the lives of servicemen and women. the language of those two commanding officers was filed by president obama in his brief in the second circuit court of appeals in new york in support of his position that these shouldn't be released. the words that general petraeus used were further endanger the lives of soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, civilians and contractors s

mr. chairman, i yield myself the remaining time. mr. chairman, everyone acknowledges that there is no military solution in afghanistan, only a political solution. but we are putting billions of dollars into building up our military presence without a clear vision of how to bring our troops home, an exit strategy for lack of a better term. every military mission has a beginning, a middle, a time of transition and an end, but i have yet to see that vision articulated in any document, speech or briefing. we are not asking for an immediate withdrawal. we are not talking about cutting or running or restreeting, just a plan. if there is no military solution for afghanistan, then please, just tell us how we will know when our military contribution to the political solution has ended. requiring an outline for how our military operations ought to proceed in afghanistan so that congress can effectively wave the level of investment, both human and financial, is called doing our job. something this body neglected to do throughout the past eight year

mr. chairman. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. quoip the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i share a lot of the ranking member's concerns fundamentally about the countries named in her amendment, and about the issue of proliferation. but there's sort of three different levels on which i think her amendment raises serious doubts and causes me to want to oppose it. the first is the assumption that withholding assessed contributions produces the actions we want. we have had test cases of this. wouldn't it have been great if the money we withheld from the u.n. population planning account had stopped coercive abortions in china? wouldn't it be great if the due assessed to pay to the united nations had resulted in the kinds of reforms that eliminated the questionable conduct that the minority rightfully points to? there is a real challenge to this assumption that the withholding is what achieves the goal. we can wish it a lot. it do

mr. chairman. i'm pleased to offer an amendment to the transportation security administration authorization legislation requiring the t.s.a. to report on the status of passenger property claims. between 2003 and 2008, passengers filed almost $3.5 million in claims for property lost after their bags were mishandled by the t.s.a. including jewelry, electronics and other personal effects. this is unacceptable. the american people already deal with numerous hassles at the airports. worrying about theft from their luggage should not be one of them. this amendment ensures adequate oversight of the t.s.a.'s efforts to address passenger complaints and claims. this amendment requires the t.s.a. to report on the outstanding claims, their value and the agency's efforts to enhance passenger property security and provide effective oversight of bag an screeners and other t.s.a. personnel. mr. chairman, the t.s.a. does an outstanding job of protecting our nation's airports and ensuring the safety and security of t

mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge passage and i i yield to yeel. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out something that mr. bilbray, the gentleman from california raised. there have been on several occasions justification for people not allowing to wear masks, the justification seems to be that they -- the airlines and transportation officials don't want to alarm the public. i just want to point out when you travel around the globe, wearing these small dust masks, these are not large evil looking devices. these are simple dust masks that can be used. they look fairly common. you see them a lot overseas. it's quite a common thing, and as they become more widely used, i think it will become commonplace and will not bring alarm. the last point i want to ma

mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> thank you, ms. degette. mr. green from texas opening statement, please. 3 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like my colleagues i'd like my full statement placed in the record. >> without objection. >> i'm glad you're holding this hearing because it's one of the biggest hearings we've had in our district in a long time. i guess the problem i have is the lack of transparency on how the decisions were made. and i think that's hopefully the witnesses today will make some discussion -- or provide that to us. i didn't vote for the t.a.r.p. bill last fall, either time. one of the reasons is i thought it was more of a bailout of wall street, not main street. and now we're seeing what's happening on main street 'cause our dealerships are on main street in our area. and i'll give you a great example. the houston market where i'm from already lost three large volume chevrolet dealerships and yet knaap chevrolet close to the central business district which opened on decembe

mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. >> thank you mr. hairman and well, dr. hamburg, we are so excited to see you in this position and we look for tier teon

mr. chairman. this is my month for witnesses from texas. last week we had the owner of carlisle chevrolet. today we have miss robin beaton, who is a citizen of walksahatchie. so i want to extend to her the very best wishes and let her and the other two panelists on this first panel know that there's nothing to be afraid of. you speak for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of american citizens. and the country is very interested through the auspices of this hearing to hear your story. we appreciate all three of you being here. this is an important hearing. it addresses part of the need to reform our health care system. we're going to hear today about a problem under the current system that can occur in the handling of individual health insurance policies when claims are actually submitted for coverage under those policies. as i just said, i want to extend a warm welcome to our first panel of witnesses, each of you has a personal story that you wish to share. and we know that it's a story

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as the gentleman from texas before me pointed out, this nation right now is awash in debt. the federal deficit is around $11 trillion. i think at last count, but it's going up so fast, about $2 trillion a year. that it's probably larger than that now, and i don't know exactly what it is. but 46 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government, spent by this congress on the budget this year will be borrowed. 46 cents of every dollar spent is going to be borrowed. the deficit will double in five years and triple in 10 years. interest payments on the debt, interest payments alone are projected to be one out of every $6 of federal spending by 2019. one out of every $6 we would spend to pay interest on the debt. our level of debt is projected by 2011 to reach 70% of our gross domestic product. 70% of gross domestic product. most people listening, that may not mean anything. but it's roughly the level where the united kingdom, britain, is at today which resulted in a warning t

mr. chairman. . >> a thank you to mr. sterns and his staff for the excellent cooperation we've had among ourselves as the plans for this joint hearing of our two subcommittees have progressed. i very much look forward to our continued collaboration as we continue the need for legislation and discuss the principles that privacy protection legislation should embody. -- are primary drivers of the national economy and it's fundamentally in the nation's interest to encourage their expanded use. one clear way congress can promote greater use of the internet for access to information, for electronic commerce and for entertainment is to ensure that internet yearses have a high degree of privacy protection. including transparency about information, collection, practices and uses and control over the use of the information that is collected from those who use the internet. i previously announced my desire to work with chairman waxman -- in order to develop legislation this year. extending to internet users th

mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. this is a complex and difficult issue. i want to thank the panel for appearing this morning, in particular the chairman. i had the opportunity to visit one place this week. it was a good use of my time. this issue is complex and difficult as i just said. as economic challenges, technical talent is, and political challenges. i believe the ask.com will be best if we do our homework, consider the challenges, and devise a rational and bipartisan plan. thank you for appearing. i look forward to your testimony. i hope i can stay most of the time this morning. i yield back my time now. >> we now recognize the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we look forward to this hearing today. i want to make a couple of points. if the applicants for the renewable energy mandate are successful, there will be large portions of the midwest that do not have solar, wind power sufficient to meet their needs. . renewable mandate without some feder

mr. chairman, thank you. thank you forolding this hearing. i have met with mr. genikowski and am, too, very impressed. i think he certainly has the capability to handle this job and it is a big one, as the president -- i mean as the chairman has said. eloquently. i want to talk about a couple of areas that i think are very important and where the fcc is going to have a major role. of course, broadband. we know that there was a major commitment to broadband help in the stimulus package and the fcc is currently putting together a broadband map. i believe it is so important that we assure that everyone has broadband access before we go into underserved areas. unserved should come before underserved as a matter of a level playing field where some have already made an investment, but also because our rural areas must be able to have broadband before we go into an area that has some but not enough. secondly, broadcasters have certainly been through a technology revolution and they have provided invaluable services to our nation. i just hope that we will not overburden

mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from mr texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. executive compensation limits to address systemic risk are the wrong remedy for what are probably a nonexistent problem. any compensation legislation considered by congress ought to be driven by two key principles. number one, executives of failed companies who come to taxpayers with income and hand must be subject to compensation limits. period, paragraph, let there be no doubt. principle number two, except for the first rentable congress has no business setting artificial and mandatory limits on anyone's pursuit of their american dream. if someone aspires to be the next bill gates, oprah winfrey, warned buffet or charles schwab, we should tell them the sky is the limit, go for it. not where the u.s. congress, you will not be allowed to go beyond the 10th floor and oh, by the way take the stairs. i will be the first to admit that many compensation arrangements strike me as risky, illogical, unreasonable if not downright defensive. but the solution to any concerns regarding executive

mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, thank you for your testimony. i've just two quick questions. earlier i think i'm accurately paraphrasing your testimony, you indicated that in your opinion that both the t.a.r.p. funding and the stimulus legislation averted a tragedy. is that essentially -- >> that's correct. >> and in response to a question from mr. scott, you indicated that you thought direct government spending was the most effective means by which we would either stabilize jobs or create jobs? >> well, i think it is foreign ha important to have a mix. but upon the immediate impact on the economy, government spending doesn't have the issue that tax cuts do, which is part of it may be saved. but that being said, i think a good mix is useful. >> the stimulus package that was passed had round numbers, $500 billion worth of spending, $300 billion worth of tax cuts, those are round numbers. when that legislation was on the floor, the republican alternative offered was a package of essentially $500 billion worth

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: i'll yield the balance of my time to the chairman. mr. berman: mr. chairman, simply to join the sponsor of the amendment and the ranking member in support of the amendment, and i yield back. mr. bishop: i thank the -- the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: i thank the chairman for his support. i thank the ranking member for her support. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in part c of house report 111-143. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and i would like it -- i request its immediate consideration. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part c of house report 111-143 offere

mr. chairman. we'll reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentlelady who is a member of the armed services committee, the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo. the chair: the gentlelady from guam is recognized for one minute. ms. bordallo: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment helps to build support for the military build yaup on guam by addressing a longstanding issue. we will authorize a substantial amount of military construction in this bill. but to keep out -- up the morale and the obligation to the people of guam, it is only right to also resolve the issue of war claims as part of this bill. the war claims program for guam administered by the u.s. neifi after world war ii had shortcomings. and this amendment would deal with the treatments for war claims who endord the occupation of guam. the house passed this amendment as h.r. 44 in february, but the other body has not cons

mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report 111-127 offered by mrs. bordallo of guam. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 474, the gentlewoman from guam and a member opposed each will control 20 minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. bordallo: i thank congressman thompson and congresswoman jackson lee for their support of this amendment. my amendment is simple and straightforward. it would require the assistant secretary of t.s.a. to conduct a study and make recommendations on specific methods by which airports in the u.s. territories, including the guam international airport in my district, can best and most cost effectively comply with existing security regulations, specifically, it asks t.s.a. to review compliance with part 1544 and 1546 of title 49 of the federal regulations relating to the issue of co-mingling of passengers at u.s. airports. it would evaluate alternatives and identify the costs for their impleatation. it is to identify sources of federal and n

mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman dingell. the gym and from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. doctor hibbert, welcome. i have seen chairman waxman has left the room. i appreciate his comments about there being some discussions. i do have to admit that the discussions that we have had when we point out a point that is correct, they accept. when there is a db of a point, mr. chairman, there does not seem to be any movement in compromiser i would encourage more discussion on some of these issues if we really want this to be a bipartisan bill. you know, the other thing i have trouble with is draft hearings. if we're going to have a legislative hearing let's have the legislation. this is draft legislation. if we had the great draft legislation hearing on climate change and then when the bill came before us, it at 300 additional pages in it. there is fear on our part that this is a sneaky way to say that, we had a legislative hearing, but you really don't have a legislation hearing. if you don't have a legislation before you. this is the democratic majority offering i. we claim a cri

cusekice i want to thank the chairman for -- mr. kucinich: i want to thank the chairman for working with me on this. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield at this time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, ranking member on strategic forces subcommittee, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank and congratulate chairman skelton, ranking member mckeon, its predecessor, john mchugh, who has been nominated as secretary of the army, and lend my support for the fiscal year 2010 national defense authorization act. i'd also like to thank mrs. tauscher, chairwoman of the strategic forces subcommittee. she has provided a strong and thoughtful voice on national security issues. i wish the very best in her new position as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. this bill contains sound, bipartisan provisions that provide key capabilities to our w

mr. chairman. never in the history of congress have so few voted so fast to spend so much and indebt so many. the democrats are in a program to spend more money than we have seen in the history of this institution and apparently they want very few speed bumps along the road to bankrupting america. thus last night, almost 3/4 of the republican amendments that would reform, improve government programs, make them more efficient, save the american taxpayer money, were ruled out of order, but i suppose in a modicum of respect for the democrat process a handful of amendments were made in order, i suppose i'm happy mine was one of them. recently our president has said, quote, without significant change in spending and debt, we are on an unsustainable course. we have to take the painstaking work of every dollar, every spending and ask ourselves, is this program really essential? are taxpayers getting their money's worth? can we accomplish our goals more efficiently and effectively some other way. mr. chair

mr. chairman. and i thank you for holding it. i also think that we should give special consideration to one of our panelists here on the dias. the gentlelady from chicago injured herself yesterday. and has a broken leg. and yet she is here today at this health care hearing. so we appreciate you being here. >> if the chairman would. and for natally with good health insurance. i'm happy about that, too. >> and again, thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. >> thank you, mr. burton. and thank you again in helping us obtain witnesses for this hearing. mr. dingle for an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i commend you for holding this hearing on the rather vicious practice of post-claims underwriting. and the detrimental effect that such practices have on hundreds of americans. and i want to thank the witnesses for appearing in what i hope will be an inform a tiff hearing today on which the committee may begin some actions to correct what appears to be a very serious abuse.

mr. chairman, mr. chairman? >> senator mccain, this is the same amendment offered as the mccain-dorgan-snow language? >> i think the senator from north dakota would prefer to call it dorgan. >> i apologize but that is the same amendment. i know the issue has been raised by senator enzi. that is the question of whether or not, whether it was the cochran or roberts language -- is it part of this bill or not? i don't know the answer to that? >> according to senator mccain's staff, it is not in here. they put safety provisions in there. they always mention that. i have gotten a copy of the cochran-roberts language which places some requirements for safety certification before the bill can go into effect, which is what we've always passed when this bill has come up. at some point they figure that with that amendment in there, it's a worthless bill. but i would ask unanimous consent to be able to offer this second degree amendment to the mccain amendment. >> mr. chairman, it's fine with me. let's have no doubt who wro

mr. chairman, thank you, mr. rogers. our subcommittee on homeland security is a, i think, a terrific example on how the congress ought to operate. i am one of the most dedicated fiss -- fiscal conservatives in the house. our subcommittee is made up of people with very strong beliefs from both sides of the aisle. but we don't work in that committee with regard to party. we don't even mention party labels. i have done my best to really erase that term from my language and focus on what's fiscally conservative and fiscally liberal. but this committee really has focused on what's good for the nation. we have worked together in a way that is, i think, has -- i hope the leadership of the congress would use the work of this subcommittee, the work of all the subcommittees on appropriations as a model. it's an important -- it's important, i think, for this congress in this time of record debt and deficit do what's right for the country, do what's right for our kids and our grandchildren and focus on ways to be fiscally responsibl

mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the vice chair of the house foreign affairs committee, the chairman of the subcommittee on middle east and south asia, mr. ackerman. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. ackerman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 2410, the foreign relations authorization act, and i want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from california for his commitment to this legislation which i believe is a reflection of the gentleman's enormous dedication to this institution and its role under the constitution. for many years the foreign relations authorization act has been held hostage to debates about abortion and family planning, to the inability of the other body to get 60 of their members to agree to anything, and to a general feeling that it just wasn't essential to do. the result has been an insidious decay of the effectiveness of our diplomatic capabilities and our capacity to influence events ar

mr. chairman. i yield back. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hairman, thank you for being here this morning at this critical time. along with congress and the treasury department, the federal reserve has taken action to try to help the credit markets and you talked about that a little bit already. and we thank you for that, to try to in the i was you said, one of the toughest downturns we have seen since the great depression. let me ask two questions. you touched on this some. you touched a little bit on the sectors that have improved. but let me go back to that on the credit markets, which ones are improving, what are the areas that are still lacking that need attention to improve to get there, and specifically thinking more about how long will it take to -- for additional credit to be available for consumers of small businesses. because i was home this past week, and i talked to a lot of folks. they still tight in the business sector. car dealers are having a difficult time and a lot of places in getting people qualified to buy the vehicles th

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. just one question. the version that's in here, does this allow us to take u.s. tax dollars to buy japanese and german and swedish and chinese cars? >> i can answer that question. >> i thought you might. >> the answer is, to be direct -- >> and korean. >> and the reason is, you would have a big w.t.o. problem if you did not. and i believe the house bill has adapted itself to that and included that. the point is, there are plenty of american cars that are eligible under this. there are also foreign-owned car, many of which are manufacturered in this country, incidentally, that this would apply to as well. >> thank you. >> i want to associate myself with the comments made by senator fine steib and senator collins relative to the appropriateness of doing it in this matter -- manner. we've already spend $83 billion on the automobile companies now another $1 billion which is essentially subsidy. it doesn't deal with the environmental issues at all, dealing with the difference between trading in a car that has

mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. burton of indiana. >> the gentleman has the remainder of the time. it's about a minute. >> thank you very much. >> you indicated the comment that he made that at the request of chairman bernanke was changed later on by mr. paulson. but what he said was, and i think this ought to be in the record, his prediction of what could happen, talking about you, his prediction of what could happen to lewis and the board was his language was paulson's language that based on what he knew to be the fed's strong opposition to bank of america attempting to renounce the deal. you were the fed. and he said it was based upon the knowledge that the fed's strong opposition to bank of america attempting to renounce the deal was something that he knew to be the case and that he was in effect speaking on behalf of what you sent him. >> the gentleman's time has expired. chairman bernanke, you are directed to answer the question, though. >> we were strongly opposed to that action for the reasons i've described.

mr. chairman. you know, i ran a company for 22 years, i had 800 sales people in the real estate brokerage business, they were very much like automobile dealers, franchiseees who made money if they sold and seems like me when you close your dealerships, you're fair toing your sales force. they are not a liability. they are an asset and i don't understand the pervasiveness but i have two questions in case they go long and we have to leave i want to make sure these two get answered mr. press on february 5, 2009 you were quoted as n appealing to your dealers to make additional 15,000 in purchases in order to safe the company and you said the following quote, you can have two choices, help us or burn us down we're a bucket brigade 77% of positions are filled and if we don't fill other 30 if you do not decide to do that we've got a good memory of who helped us and who didn't. i think that recognizes the fact that they are the asset i have not seen the list mr. henderson and i appreciate the times you vis

mr. chairman -- >> mr. diehl. >> mr. chairman, with all do respect to the secretary. this was billed as a legislative hearing on a draft. >> yes. >> we have heard the secretary say she did not participate in the draft preparation, nor has she apparently as she said had the opportunity to read it. one of the situations we all labor on in this time frame. i would simply urge you to urge our full chairman of the full committee that it would be mandated that she return to answer questions when we move to a legislative proposal. we're talking about a draft. hear we be allowed the opportunity to answer -- to ask and to have answered questions. you made the statement she was speaking on behalf oaf the obama administration as it relates to the draft. i think there are specifics that we should have the opportunity to ask specifics about. i would urge you to urge our chairman toe ask her to return to this committee. i think it is due diligence for all of us to have the opportunity to explore these questions in person with her. >> well, let me just say, i can't make that commit

mr. chairman. mr. paniati, in your testimony you said that the maintenance of effort by the states was proving to be a challenge. how will dot ensure recovery acts money that they are getting to supplement rather than use it to supplant expenditures that are going to be done anyway? >> what we've done with the maintenance of effort, this is a provision that the state dot's were not used to. so in their first response to providing the certification and the maintenance of effort, when we received those we received a variety of responses. some with contingencies on them and other qualifications that we did not feel complied with the law. the secretary made a determination to go back out and offer additional guidance to each of the states, and a request for them to reevaluate and resubmit their certification. we received in forming certifications back from all but one state, and just recently we issued guidance to our state divisions to go and sit down with each of the state dot's to review with the state

mr. chairman. i think what we need do just to finish, mr. chairman, is that, you know, nuclear power is where we should be putting our efforts to have clean energy in this country, not into an energy tax. thank you, mr. bernanke. >> mr. larsen? >> chairman bernanke, there is escape hoods here in front if you need one. >> that's okay. >> to get away from that question. but i wanted to chat a little bit about -- ask a question, but i want to clear something up. i was just in china as well this week and visiting with a lot of their leaders on the economy, trying to get some perspective. and the characterization that my colleague from new jersey made about mr. geithner's reception was inaccurate. and may have been a little bit accurate when he spoke at peking university but i never spoke to a group of college students that didn't take me on either. so there is perhaps a disconnect there. but in our discussions with folks from the central bank, and from the ministry of commerce and vice premier wong and others, there is a real desire for cooperati

mr. chairman. as i listen to you very carefully i think i get it. you were so intertwined in this thing and following up on mr. mchenry's questions, that it is hard to see for your participation and did and where paulson's began and i tiki to your own statement. one of the first things to say in your background is, bankamerica announced an agreement. i did not play role in arranging this transaction in the federal reserve assistance was promised are provided in connection with that agreement. is that accurate, yes or no? >> yes. >> albright. then you go want to talk about all the things it did do. i am confused. let's talk about this whole situation with one of the things you did. this is your statement. it says, responding to the bank of america in the discussion, i, talking about yourself, expressed concern in invoking the mac would until significant risk and then you go on to talk about that. we had mr. allyssa testified before us that he has been an experienced guy in this whole banking stuff for many years. he took this mac situation very seriou

mr. chairman. i want to thank you and chairman waxman for holding this hearing and thank you personally for agreeing to let mr. frank backer who is a dealer in my district testify and also thank you for being willing to put a statement in the record of congressman allowed to read to isn't a member of the committee but has asked to sit on the diocese and you indicated you except unanimous consent to allow his statement into the record so i appreciate all of those courtesies. in mr. chairman, i have a prepared statement and i will submit for the record. but i want to just kind of speak extemporaneously. i see both sides of this issue, i have a gm assembly plant in my district in arlington, texas that has been in business since 1954. 2400 people that workfare. mannesmann about 250, and the uaw workers around 2200. they have been making cars and trucks in arlington, texas are over 50 years. i've got dealers all over my district about a dozen of which have received closure or termination or failure to re

mr. chairman? i would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, my understanding and please correct me if i'm wrong, the intent of this amendment is that people can find out what the cost of, except for emergency medical condition, the estimated price that the provider of services or supplier will charge for the treatment. is there any-- >> ultimately the quality. >> and ultimately the quality. >> ultimately the quality. >> and the rest of the amendment is to shape agencies so that that information can be provided to the patient. .. >> this is a thick amendment. >> this is the exact opposite of what we're doing here. what we're doing sheer a top down.h a top dowe a top downr e down. a top down.is a top down. what this says is quality parameters throughout the country mean something and we're going to have a quality commission. we're going to have it set or it's going to be available where you can get it. and it's not just going to be who we pick or who somebody else wick picks. we have not one metr

mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. garrett? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you know, the other hat i wear is in financial services and when you come over there, the issue that is often discussed the term the systemic risk, the systemic risk regulator. of all the hearings we had, of all the hearings we had, nobody defined w is, what authority they'll have, what they'll regulate, so on and so forth. one thing, out of tboth of the committees i serve on, i'll take a page out of paul ryan's comments here that is that one thing is a systemic risk is the unfunded debt out there. the numbers vary on that. interesting enough, we had expert after expert last six years come before the committee. they all say the same thing. and we hear it from both sides of the aisle. in the budget we got this year, unfortunately, it really isn't addressed. we spend more of the numbers you already said before, we're looking at a national debt double in ten year, and interestingly on those numbers, maybe somebody else referenced this, what happened over in the united kingdom wi

mr. chairman. -- mr. speaker. as someone who served as a judge and chief justice and had a constantly -- had it constantly drubbed into my head during hours and hours and hours of ethics classes about the appearance and potential conflict of interest, we know our chairman was deservedly getting accolades from crew and others for recusing himself in 2007 because of the reported investigation by the department of justice. this is an elephant in the room. the department of justice budget is being dealt with here and there's been no indications that there has not been an investigation, so i'm hoping that the record can be clear because it does look funny, it smells bad, if someone is under investigation and they're managing the budget for those who are doing the investigation , i thought it was a wonderful thing that chairman mollohan did in 2007, he deserved the accolades he got for recusing himself and i was wondering, i'd be glad time for the chairman to indicate if there is no further investigation, obviously ther

mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman i do think it is important to understand what this quality of life is all about. the most crass terms, what they do in england is, they say that a life is worth 20 to 40,000 pounds a year. and vinnette procedure exceeds that price, you don't get the procedure. i don't think we want to go that way, down that road in this country so i think we have to have an absolute ban on that concept of russian. otherwise, we are not going to be able to control the bureaucracy which looks of england and says, that is a good way to do it. even if it is implied they should not use it, that is not going to be good enough. uft s- tory len whitson says he cannot put a value on a life and have a procedure that exceeds that not being available to that person. it is not the individual approach to that our society depends on. our society is a society which values the individual. >> would the gentleman yield? i just want to comment, this is interesting. one thing we are not doing, we are not adopting

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, if this is june, it must be appropriation season. and so today, i'm pleased to present to the house the first of the appropriation bills for fiscal year 2010, h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriation bill. while the summer may be hot and humid, as is typical in the nation's capital, our days and nights need not belong for the house to fully consider this and the other 11 appropriation bills in regular order, or so we hope. i want to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee with most sincerity for his assistance, help, counsel, guidance in the development of this bill. mr. wolf, mr. frank wolf of virginia was chairman of this committee for a number of years. served on it for a great number of years. we served on it together. he brings to this bill an awful lot of experience and knowledge about it. and that is really helpful as you work up an appropriation bill. and frank, i appreciate your help and assistance on the bill and the credibility and knowledge you bring to it. i also want to thank pu

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman -- may i ask the chairman to yield just for a second -- may i place in the record an article from the atlantic monthly, may 2009 on the financial crisis, please? >> without action. >> ask unanimous consent to insert e-mails i offered on the screen for the record. >> without objection. >> the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and mr. lewis, i'm confused. just picking up on some of the things that the chairman and mr. kucinich were asking about. i can kind of understand your reaction to discovering there was a $12 billion loss suffered by merrill lynch especially coming after shareholders vote to purchase merrill lynch. i can understand you telling the fed and secretary paulson you were thinking of backing out of of the deal. i can understand that. that was based upon your expertise and your experience. i cannot understand the agreement you reported that you made with treasury and the fed which they both denied to disclose the $12 billion loss. if the

mr. chairman and good morning. let me share my condolences with mr. mauer and the other representatives of the families that lost loved ones aboard a the air flight. it is a terrible tragedy. in the airline industry's safety is our highest priority. we try very hard to assure that we never compromise safety because of economic conditions. we were closely with all members of the aviation community including regional airlines to achieve extraordinary records. no fatalities from airline carriers in the past number of years and there really is in that that i appear before you today. with an understanding that no accident is acceptable, we have responsibility to understand through rigorous as searching inquiry the causes of the buffalo accidents and then to take whatever single or multiple corrective measures are needed. in light of that responsibility we are very fortunate that there are three experts government forums in which scrutiny is happening today right now. this is as a should be, the public needs to be confident and responses to aviation safety