mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 13 yays to 33 nays. . >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> the gentleman reserves the point of order. i guess first off, state your amendment number please. >> i've never had a point of order before i started an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have amendment number 103 at the desk. >> i reserve a point of order, mr. chairman. >> apparently mr. ribble reserves a point of order against amendment number 103. the gentleman reserves a point of order, sponsor of the amendment is recognized for an explanation. mr. cardoza. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment strikes the language in the bill that modifies the title of the fresh fruit and vegetable program in order to restore the congressional intent. as you know, the 2002 farm bill included a four-state pilot program that would provide a free, fresh fruit or vegetable snacks during the school day to school children. the intent of the original program has always been to focus on fresh fruit and vegetables, exposing children in low-income areas to a wide variety of prod

mr. chairman, and sincerely with your leadership and mr. lujan that our subcommittee will seriously look at possibility. let's mandate this by the congress, because here's the problem that we have here. when -- congress ultimately does have the authority under the constitution to recognize the indian tribe simply by introducing a bill, but here's the problem, when the will is introduced to give recognition to a tribe, there's objection by some of our colleagues here that say, well, they have to go through the recognition process, a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress, but the way the bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 34 years. so what do we do if the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress. what do we do from here? so i -- i -- it would be my humble recommendation, mr. chairman, that we need to put this in the form of a statute because here's the problem when you have a regulation that can be done by this administration. the next administration will change the regulatio

mr. chairman. there was no hearing on this one. our -- there was no consultation. usually, a member from a particular district would introduce something that affects that district. here we have, you know, this committee making a decision for puerto rico without consulting the resident commissioner or with the government of puerto rico. and it just -- you know, to dub this amendment -- this realization is to harm the people of puerto rico. and i urge members to reject this amendment. and i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any additional requests for recognition? seeing none, we shall proceed to vote. the question is on the amendment. number 89. all those in favor of amendment number 89, signify so by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no. the chair is in doubt. a roll call has been requested before he can acknowledge he's in doubt. the clerk will call the roll, please. >> mr. goodlatte. >> aye. mr. johnson. >> yes. >> mr.

mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 51. >> gentle -- amendment what? >> 51. gentlelady is recognized to explain amendment 51 whenever she's ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say first it is my intention to withdraw this amendment but i certainly would like to be heard along with my colleague and hope that we can work together on this at some other point. mr. chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure our nation's under served urban and rural communities have access to healthy food, that would authorize the development of a healthy food initiative at the department of agriculture. oir senate colleagues included the exact language when they passioned the farm bill a few weeks ago. the healthy food financing initiative will provide the critical assistance, our urban and rural communities need to access healthy and affordable food. by providing a one time grant and loan financing -- grocery stores, food cooperatives and farmers will be given the support they

mr. chairman. strike the last word? >> this appears to be a new program, and i believe we have it in the house rules you can't start a program that cuts another program of equal size or greater and the points made our great and i agree 110% we need to prioritize. some of the gentleman had other programs to cut however many millions of dollars this is rather than adding this on top of the already money that is getting spent i would be much more receptive to it because i just don't think we can continue to add new programs without saying a senate seat let you can't find another program somewhere else it's less important in this, then what you are arguing is this is the least important thing we ought to be doing in the federal government and if that is the case then we really shouldn't do it so if this is valuable, and it looks like this, that we ought to be able to find other programs that are not as valuable as this, maybe good programs but not having the impact that this one does to cut so i would r

mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number two is defeated. are there additional amendments to title two, the conservation title? seeing no additional amoment m to title number two. title number two the conservation title is now closed. title number three, a trade. now it's in order to consider title number three. i ask unanimous consent that the explanation of the title be waived. seeing no objection. seeing no objection. the title is open to amendment. are there amendments to title number three? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from florida seeks recognition. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> gentleman, what is the amendment number? >> 77. >> 77. the clerk will distribute amendment number 77. the gentleman may proceed when he's ready. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to strike the last word. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, today i'm offering an amendment along with with my good friend and colleague, mr. cardoza of california

mr. chairman. i would like to offer this amendment, and i will start, if it's okay, while they're passing it out. it's also supported by mrs. elmers from north carolina. mr. chairman, i frankly was aghast when i heard that some states are allowing s.n.a.p. recipients to claim medical marijuana expenses as a medical deduction in determining s.n.a.p. benefits. i believe this is a gross abuse of the intent of the excess medical cost deduction and there is no reason that medical marijuana should count as the medical expense. i appreciate the position that usda's food and nutrition service has taken in saying households may not take advantage of the s.n.a.p. medical deduction for the cost of any subsi tans that is illegl under federal law. this amendment is simple, it instructs the secretary to promulgate rules to ensure medical marijuana is not treated as medical expense for s.n.a.p. eligibility. it's outside the s.n.a.p. program for states to deduct medical marijuana expenses to inkre increase s.n.a.p

mr. chairman. i'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues in offering aen a optometry set pentagon spending levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation or at $500 billion. i'm offering this amendment for one simple reason. the bloletted pentagon budget must be address -- the bloated pentagon budget mub addressed if we are serious about solving our deficit. our real national security is about rebuilding our economy, it's time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home. it's time to rebuild america and also to provide for the health and economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they live in back here at home. even with the modest cut, and it's very modest, $19.2 billion, the pentagon base budget would still be, mind you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding from afghanistan far outpacing any other nation in defense spending. americans across the country -- country have been forced to cut back and many are barely able to make ends meet while pentago

mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 17 yays to 29 nays. >> the amendment number 85 fails. are there any other amendments to title one, the commodity title? >> yes. i have an amendment. >> number 54. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for amendment number 54. you will restrain for a moment until we circulate the amendment. >> gentlemen from california may proceed whenever he is ready. >> thank you very much. i urge the committee to support this simple amendment. my amendment respects the important role children play on family farms, but it also urjz the united states to follow the widely accepted international labor standard for children. my amendment simply adds and i state simply adds a sense of congress language to the bill urging the united states to follow the standard age requirement for child labor that have been ratified by the united nations international labor organization. the association of farm workers opportunity program estimates that there are between 400,000 and 50

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment reforms the current sugar program. the underlying bill dramaticry reforms nearly every title i program. however, one commodity stands out for a total lack of reform, sugar. in fact, also unlike any other title i program the sugar program was not even debated during the committee's hearings on the reauthorization of the farm bill. the underlying bill demands sacrifices from almost all farmers in our districts, wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, peanuts, rice, these commodities and more are undergoing major changes and contributing most of the deficit reduction in this bill. the bill leaves the sugar program and the sugar program alone untouched as if the sugar program were perfect and in absolutely no need of reform or even debate. i respectfully disagree. the sugar program needs to be re formed for many reasons. studies have shown the sugar program increases food costs. economists at iowa state university estimated that food price increases resulting from the c

mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas, 28 nays. >> since we have most -- i would suggest that we've made tremendous progress working through the schedule. let's stand in recess until 4:30. >>> after starting work at 10:00 eastern this morning, the agriculture markup is in a break. some members can go to the house floor for votes. including a vote on repealing the 2010 health care law. the members spent much of the day yesterday debating the bill and completed debate a short time ago. you can see that vote on the repeal on our companion network, c-span, expected at about 3:30 eastern. and we'll be back here live when members of the committee return for more work on the farm bill. expected back at 4:30 eastern and continuing late into the evening. until then, a hearing held earlier today on capitol hill. the house judiciary subcommittee looked into recent national security and intelligence leaks revealing the obama administration's role and clandestine operation against al qaeda. the expanded us

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us that this is, to quote my good friend from georgia, the unkindest cut of all, but in point of fact it's not a cut at all. if you look at the numbers, it's very clear that food stamps have been increasing. they've increased 270% over the last decade and they're going to continue to increase under this farm bill and when you look at the total expenditures under the farm bill the share of the total farm bill that will go to food stamps will rise and we already know and we hear from farmers and others who say close to 80% of the farm bill goes food stamps. well, under the current law, 77.8% goes to nutrition programs. under this bill, 78.9% will go to food stamps. so it will increase by 2%. they've singled out specific areas where they want to reform the program. it doesn't mean the overall amount of money that will go down, it's not. it's going up, but the reforms are, i think, well called for. if your inco

mr. chairman. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman and i can't help but mention the great service the former chairman of this committee has rendered to the body as well. mr. young: will the chairman yield? mr. rogers: i'm happy to yield. mr. young: thank you for yielding. i want to say the same thing. mr. lewis chaired this subcommittee as well as the full committee. he did an outstanding job, many innovations that came about during his six years as chairman of this subcommittee are with us today and will continue to be with us. the house is losing another great talent, another great, dedicated public official, and i thank you for calling attention to his service. mr. dicks: will the chairman yield? the three of you have greater hair than i do but -- and that means you have wisdom and experience along with it. but i just want to say i've enjoyed working with all three of you, bill young and i have worked together for many years. jerry lewis and i have worked many years, taken many trips to afghanistan, to

mr. chairman. >> at the desk number 76. >> the clerk will distribute number 76. >>> the gentleman will proceed whenever he is ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you can almost call it technical in nature, but i think it's a relatively simple amendment. under this proposed bill the land owners would make the distinction for the next five years that they wouldn't be in the price loss coverage or revenue coverage and the way it stated in the bill it says the majority of the land owners and i think it's easier to see a quick employ xael. we have a lot of farms that have been passed on from generation to generation and you have a lot of farms where you can have siblings that are the owners of an individual farm and without this amendment one sibling in this example could have veto power over the rest of the siblings and what this amendment simply states is the majority of the land owners would make this selection because under the bill if one land owner is an example i'm using, one sibling vetoes it the

mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number 29 is not accepted. >> i have an amendment. >> what is the number? >> it's number 12 on broad band. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 12. the gentleman may begin his explanation when he's prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the bipartisan leadership that's been brought to this bill here today. you know, the need is critically important to my area and upstate new york. i think we share that really across this committee. you look at the data. there are 55 congressional districts that have 10% or more where constituents don't have access to high speed broadband. this is vitally important to the farmers. it's certainly important to the rural areas. i think it's also important to health care delivery, with clinics needing access to feedback from hospitals and more built up areas. when the kids go home, they don't have access to do the homework. well, this committee started a program in 2002, the rus broadband prog

mr. chairman. mr. secretary, pineda, two years ago, the house had a provision that said if you have served this country at war and you come back home in your in the process of a medical review of your condition, but in that period of time he self-medicating future self trouble, so therefore you are given less than honorable discharge before people would finalize their decision, the house position basically said that individual if you're given less than honorable discharge, go back to the department of defense and review your medical records and maybe change and i would like to know how you're handling this issue in contacting those who are maybe given less than honorable discharge. >> congressman, let me respond to directly through the department because this is the first time i'm familiar with the issues presented and i want to give you an accurate answer. let me give you that answer for the department. >> that would be very satisfactory. thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. davis. >> thank you p

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to strike the rapid innovation fund and save the taxpayers over $250 million. a as a veteran -- as a veteran i know how important it is that we use every single dollar that goes to our department of defense in an intelligent way. this fund, this rapid innovation fund, has been never requested by the pentagon. this is money that the pentagon doesn't say that this wants. it was created in f.y. 2011 defense bill in response frankly to the loss of earmarks here in the house of representatives. so far the appropriations committee has put over $700 million in two years into this fund. and yet to date the department of defense has spent only $32.5 million of the $7 million already appropriated and provided. but instead of waiting to see if the fund is working and if it can be successful or if it's any value to the war fighter, the committee is pushing for another $250 million of taxpayer money to go into the so-called rapid innovation fund. i urge my colleagues to reject this

mr. chairman. today we'll examine issues related to leaks of sensitive government information, sometimes classified, sometimes not classified. this hearing is motivated in no small part by a recent spate of stories in the news that appear to have as their basis information of -- leaked information from within the federal government. these stories include details of cyber-warfare in iran, covert mission to thwart a suicide bomber bound for the united states, and the administration's process of nominating individuals as targets through drone strikes in yemen and pakistan. although these stories may have given some members a renewed sense of urgency, it is important to put them in context. the two points to be made here -- first, the obama administration's work to investigate and prosecute suspected leaks is without peer. this administration has prosecuted more leaks than all previous presidential administrations combined. attorney general eric holder has appointed two u.s. attorneys to lead the feder

mr. chairman. mr. powell, you and other panelists have pointed out that the competitive environment in technology has changed and is continuing to change and you recommended re-examining a lot of the rules and the regulatory rules, program access and content carriage obligations as well as must carry transmission content and the duplication rights. some would say, if we were to weaken any of those rules it would give cable an unfair, competitive advantage, given the wide choices available today, how would you respond to that? >> that's a great question. >> i don't think the cable industry's position is we're just looking for a while to abandon deregulation. we're looking for a more regulatory model that more properly reflects the market and the rules that we're living under if you accept the way they're premised would fall under a standard of today's measurements. i'm perfectly willing to entertain that somebody can conceive of a different basis or a different reason for some sort of regulatory rule, b

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the natural resources committee and subcommittee chairman, dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: i want to thank the committee chairman for allowing me to speak. first i would like to agree with the gentleman from new jersey. he is absolutely correct that oil production has increased in recent years and that our dependence on oil has actually decreased over the same period of time. but why? why? because of the private sector. the private sector industry out there has been out there drilling in new areas like north dakota, in my own home state of louisiana. it's the private sector that's driving this, that's producing more oil than we've ever done and there's much more that we can have. on the other hand, in public plans that's been under the control of the president, we've seen a reduction of 15%. so there's no way in the world that we can give our preside

mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa seeks recognition. >> strike the last word. >> recognized two minutes. >> as you know, i con cure with mr. peterson. i chaired the livestock committee. we put a lot of effort in developing this. we should allow it. we should slow down a few pacts 30 years ago there were 1.3 beef cattle operations today there is less than 740,000. in 1980 there are 6006,000. the top four packers have control over 81% of the sales cattle slaughtered in the u.s. we have to allow this to continue to be developmented and watch it closely if you want to do that. i concur with the watch of it. i'll work can chairman willingfully and hope we can keep an eye on it. i don't think this is right thing to do at this time. and i would . >> gentleman yield. >> yes, of course. >> and i -- i wasn't intending to insult ranking member. but we're still getting complaints the rule the went too far. and, you know, it's beyond what the court said. the department of agricultural basically thumbed their

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, who's a member of the ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i thank the former chairman on judiciary for yielding time to me. i rise today in support of h.r. 4078, mr. chairman, standing behind two weeks' worth of regulatory material produced in the federal register, which is the official record keeper of regulations here in washington, d.c. this represents the issue that we are talking about, mr. chairman. we need to stop sending this regulatory burden to our job creators back in the districts, back on the front lines that are creating the jobs of today and tomorrow. what we feed to stand for, and i believe there's a clear distinction between the two philosophies that are on display this afternoon in this chamber, the other side standing up for regulation, standing u

mr. chairman. . the chair: the secret yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. ms. woolsey: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: purr sune to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lo beeon dee -- lobiondo of new jersey. none of the funds may be used except in accordance with the constitution. -- the fourth amendment to the constitution. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: the fourth amendment is clear that the right of the person to be safe in their house and person shall not be violated. i'm a firm believer in this and also in article 1, that congress shall have the right to provide for the defens

mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you in joining the witnesses who agreed to be here to testify, including the two blue ribbon commissioners. most especially, i want to welcome lieutenant general brent scowcroft, the co-chair of the blue ribbon commission. so thank you for your service to our country and for agreeing to testify today. thank you, both. mr. chairman, the issue of the storage of nuclear waste is vital to maintaining and expanding affordable nuclear power in the united states. all of us here know that congress took action 30 years ago to begin addressing the problem of the buildup of nuclear waste stored in nuclear plants throughout the united states. the nuclear waste policy act passed by congress laid out a process that looked at three possible long term storage sites. yucca mountain was deemed the best by the department of energy after a thorough technical analysis. congress has voted a number of times to retain yucca mountain as the national site and $15 billion has been spent on the

mr. chairman. as i said in my opening remarks, whether you're for yucca mountain or against yucca mountain that's the stalemate. you said 25 years is long enough to be sit there can and we need to get on with it. am i not correct, you said even if that as far as -- if yucca mountain were open we'd soon need a second repository. so we have that work to do. you didn't define what you meant by consent based. was that deliberate. you didn't say state legislature has to pass a law and the local city council has to pass. >> we didn't. we said consent based, but also adaptive. it pends on the circumstances. it may be different in different areas. >> did you envision that there would be incentives to local governments to induce consent. >> we did. we talked about some of that. a research laboratory, all kinds of things that can make such a facility attractive to the community. >> basically whatever it took to create an attractive environment so the people want to compete for this, is that correct? >> that'

mr. chairman. mr. frantz, i want to ask you a couple questions. first of all, the chairman referred to this circular a129. that circular bans subordination in making the initial loans under this doe loan program, correct? >> i don't have -- >> in the making of the initial loans, not in the restructuring. >> that is our interpretation. >> okay. >> clearly, the provisions provided to the origination -- >> the energy act of 2005 that the chairman referred to, that also prohibited subordination in the making of the initial loans, not restructuring, correct? >> correct. >> and the do o e lawyers -- doe lawyers looked at this, and they decided that it would be legal to subordinate the taxpayers' interest in the restructuring of the solyndra loan, is that correct? >> correct. >> and can you tell us briefly what, i mean, none of us likes the idea of the taxpayer position being second, to be honest, because in a situation like the solyndra situation where the company goes bankrupt, then the private lenders have

mr. chairman. the amendment i offer today with my colleague jean schmidt, would repeal the authorization of funds advertising the supplemental nutrition assistance program. we have seen the snap program grow, and for better or worse, it's a part of every day life for some citizens, according to estimates, 1 in 7 people are receiving snap benefits. at a time when 1 in 7 people are receiving the snap benefits, i question why we need to advertise. i don't know how we can justify spending $5 million a year to advertise the snap program. it's an ineffective use of taxpayer funds to eliminate hunger. it does not put food on the plates of those that are hungry. our amendment strikes the funding for advertising and would transfer it to commodity payments for the emergency food assistance program. or tfap, i believe food banks do a great job of assisting those in need. tfap commodities are critical to food banks ability to meet the need for emergency food assistance in communities across the nation, it will

mr. chairman. you are to be commended for holding this hearing. as a practicing lawyer, find that justice doesn't always move at the rate we would like it to move. and the collection of facts is absolutely necessary for the rule of law to be applied and for justice to prevail. while we hear on the 11th hour and getting cooperation from the witnesses, i'm grateful for their cooperation. mr. feldman, when you say it should have been done back in july of '09 when the deposition was taken you had better relection of the events, i think back to the witnesses i would have in my cases and grateful for discovery depositions because it allows for a person, it allows for a witness to recollect their thoughts and remember their testimony. again, i'm grateful for you all to agree now. let me go into some questions here. mr. bloom, you indicated in your opening that the bankruptcy proceeding was fair and open. my question to you is was it any different than any other normal bankruptcy proceeding? was this not o

mr. chairman. the beauty of the free market is it harnesharnesses, if you're n using technology to offer new services or cheaper prices, you're not going to last very long. unlike the laws of congress, the laws of economics are exceedingly nimble. if new technologies or new competitors arise, the marketplace begins to adjust almost immediately. legislators and regulators by contrast operate at a glacial pace relative to the speed of technology. even the fcc's data on video competition is six years on a date, let alone the regulations. the laws of economics also encouraged diversity and companies that can't provide the same services and content at cheaper prices and strive to offer different services or content. that's what we call innovation. many regs by contrast drive everything to the lowest common denominator, if everyone is entitled to whatever content is popular at the moment, why would anyone risk, investing in something brand new. and if everyone is entitled to the fruits of your labor whet

mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointing to see that secretary salazar and the bureau of indian affairs has not engaged this committee on this important issue. this is -- i mean, this is and always has been an act of congress under the constitution, but without the administration working with congress, it makes it tremendously difficult to create an even playing field and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i -- i would continue to press the bia and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to resolution on some of these issues. first, chairman gabaldon, i want to understand your issue of termination. more specifically, you were -- you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california ranch act as 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the tillie hardwick decision? >> no, sir. we were part of that case, and we were dropped off that case in 1987 with no prejudices. >> why? why wasn't --

mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair strikes the last word and recognizes himself for five minutes. i want to thank the gentlemen for their leadership on this issue and i appreciate their perspective on dairy reform. dairy has never been an easy issue to tackle on the national level. differences between producers and processors, between regions, even between producers of different sizes have consistently interfered with our ability to reach consensus in national policy. while the last several years have been good for many, if not most commodity groups, let's be honest. dairy's had one of the worst most volatile periods in their history. despite the fact that we do not have consensus among the dairy industry, i do think the recent challenges confronting the dairy sector have led to what we are seeing now, as a broad consensus for many elements of the reform package under consideration in the committee mark. the package we have before us is a good faith effort on

mr. chairman. at thank you for the opportunity to be here with you as the ranking member for the border maritime where we deal with border security and dealing with some of the uav is the u.n. i have worked on together. it certainly gives us an opportunity. also cochair of the unmanned system caucus for informational purposes, members, we do have tomorrow a caucus meeting and we are going to have members representatives from the fbi, dhs, cbp tomorrow night at the rayburn room 2261. this will be an opportunity for members and their staff to learn about current and future domestic use of unmanned aerial vehicles. buck mckeon and myself have spent time with other members of the caucus looking at issues. privacy issues brought up that i've seen a lot of the privacy issues severity been decided by the supreme court. we're looking at use in a type of platform. so whether it's a dirt poor in this case a lot of those privacy issues have been addressed by the supreme court. there's one to page a has anybody

mr. chairman. thank you, chairman. in your opening comments, you mentioned housing refinancing and families that are underwater. we have about eight million families whose mortgages are under water. some can refinance through harp but it's been a pretty small number, only about 200,000 so far. in part because the complexity with second mortgages. if families who are under water could refinance from those higher rates to lower rates, could that be a significant factor and substantial tool, if you will, in helping to move the construction economy forward and stabilizing those eight million families? >> if that were possible, it would be helpful, because it would both reduce the payments and reduce defaults and foreclosures and improve the income of the people who could refinance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to switch to another comment. i believe you made in response to chairman johnson and i didn't catch the exact words but i believe you said you had emails about fixing interest rates to make the banks look more

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you for being a witness and for your efforts over the course of the last several years to stabilize our economy. >> mr. chairman, i read closely and listen to your testimony on the things holding back our recovery can read that monetary policy report here. i just want to dwell for a minute or two. i saw financial strains associated with europe and type wearing conditions for restraining effects of fiscal insurgency in the house he marked it. presuming we are not in the near term going to do a lot about number one and number four, i want to explore refused type are wearing conditions and whether there's anything congress can do to assist in that. i know you're hesitant to make prescriptions to the congress and i understand that. the federal reserve has been clear in the message that monetary policy alone is not enough. i'm going to explore that a little with you. and the report you say still tapering conditions are resulted in certainty and economic outlook and high unem

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank you and your staff and the ranking member and his staff for the hard work that's been done on this farm bill legislation, and i commend you for a great many improvements that are in it. including a number of the provisions in it with regard to the dairy section of title one. however, i offer an amendment today with my colleague, david scott, that would strike the dairy market stabilization program that is included in the chairman's mark and based on legislation, of ranking member peterson and replace it with a stand alone margin insurance program for dairy producers. this amendment is consistent with 80% of the underlying legislation but does not include the controversial supply management piece. it offers a compromise that incorporates the two-tier premium structure that is in both the underlying bill and the senate passed bill while eliminating the stabilization program which is a complex governme reforms in this bill, our amendment gives farmers the tools t

mr. chairman. >> thank you. and the chair now recognizes mr. neil from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary, to follow up with what mr. dogett had to say, one of the reasons that data suggests that the welfare reform act of '96 here worked was in some measure because we added a number of mitigating issue to the overall package including job training child care and not to miss the point, that people were able to keep their health insurance and that had a profound impact on the flexibility that mr. doggett noted. i'm not going to trespass into domestic politics in the uk, but i think just having observed 3,000 miles away, the prime minister during his election cycle, he actually suggested a much more radical transformation of the health care system in the uk that he was actually able to deliver on, and i understand that because that's just the reality of what happens. but i think as a follow-up to what mr. doggett pointed out, i think what the prime minister discovered is that the health care system in the uk was pretty popular. is that a fair same? >> yes. you have

mr. chairman. i know one of the issues that has been raised about the treaty and i heard some of that debate today, has been what is the real authority of the international seabed authority and how would our participation play in that. and i wonder if you all have looked at the authority to the extent that it's operated today and whether you have any views about countries like russia and china and what their actions have been on the authority in our absence and whether they are, in fact, taking advantage of our inability to ratify the treaty and participate on the authority. what impact has it had to have the u.s. not be part of that body? >> i'll try it, senator. first is to us that's very significant. as senator chairman kerry mentioned earlier, the '94 changes, the amendments, were very significant in giving us additional power of permanent seat on that council in the seabed authority. the reason we say that is twofold. number one, any other decisions that come out of there, we essentially have

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is an anti-mining, anti-jobs amendment and it is not a pro sportsman amendment. i believe strongly in multiple uses on our federal lands. it is something as chairman of the natural resources committee i take very, very seriously. and multiple means economic activity and recreational activity. earlier this year this house worked to promote legislation advocating hunting and fishing on federal lands. it was primarily aimed at promoting and protecting sportsman's access to federal lands. sportsman's access including hunting and fishing. this bill had strong bipartisan support from most of america's sportsmans organizations, and it received a strong bipartisan support here in this body. however, mr. chairman, i must note that the sponsor of this amendment, my good friend from arizona, opposed that bill. . that was a hunting and fishing pro-sportsman bill. if the best use is rare earth mine to secure our nation against foreign nationalism and so forth, we should use the land

mr. chairman. i have one more quick question. mr. poole, you cite to a usa today investigation 2007 that filed a tsa screeners at o'hare and lax missed three times as many hidden bombs as privately contracted screeners at san francisco. i am sure you're aware that a 2006 dhs office of the inspector general reported that covenant aviation ee physicians at san francisco compromised covert security testing between august 2003 and august 2004. are you at all concerned that a private company seeking to maximize profits and retain a contract may work to hypotension deficiency such as the officials did within two years after their contract and then, of course, is it not correct for many of us who believe that the federal government who has a pure perspective, their service is to the american people not to their pocketbooks would, in essence, and to the american people's pocketbooks be efficient but to compromise security is a very dangerous perspective. why are you pushing complete privatization of tsa? >> it's not complete privatization, m

mr. chairman. >> you got it. >> mr. chairman, can i ask that you share it with everybody. >> everybody on the committee will get it. >> senator. thank you, senator, casey, for your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing. this is a vitally important issue and it's -- we're spending time on a subject matter i think that sometimes we -- we don't in washington do enough of, and i'm grateful to be part of this. i'm sorry i'm late. at the risk of being redundant, i'd say that redundancy is important in washington, repeating important messages is important, so i might be plowing old ground, but part of what -- part of i think what hasn't been touched on with great detail yet is, mr. mcadam, the -- some of the statements in your testimony that i -- i'm not sure have been -- have been put forth again. i'm reading from page -- page 2, the first page of your testimony labeled page 2, and you say in the second to last paragraph, and i'm quoting. aside from our land-based connections with canada and

mr. chairman. i'm glad we're having this hearing and i appreciate the outstanding panel. i appreciate the extensive testimony. i not only regret that she'll have to kind of reduced as we can stay within the timeframe so we'll have time for questions, to which you provided already is extremely helpful and said not only will have this distinguished panel, but also the former president of the university of tennessee serving on this committee. he's been suggesting ways for a long time that colleges could solve some problems and we could quit laying burdens on the colleges. a thank you, mr. chairman for having this hearing. as we discussed, colleges become too expensive and showed no signs of becoming cheaper anytime soon. at this trend does not change will be also possible to achieve the president's challenge to again become first in the world of college attainment. many would say the solution lies with us, but no progress will be made if institutions don't first lead the way exciting ways to cut costs

mr. chairman. as you said mr. chairman, secretary geithner comes before the banking committee today to report on the work of the financial stability oversight council. the council as we all recall, was established by doc frank and is required to report annually on the state of the u.s. economy, threats to financial stability and the council's activities. in this year's report, the council described a stagnating u.s. economy with a mere 1.9% growth rate in the first quarter and the federal deficit exceeding 7% of gdp. it also reports that u.s. households have seen only modest income growth and access to mortgage credit is constrained and investment is restrained by continued elevated uncertainty, their words. as a council reports the unemployment rate is still above 8% while labor force participation has fallen to its lowest rate in 30 years. nearly four years into this administration, not even the council headed by its own treasury secretary i believe can hide the president's failure to revive the economy and put a

mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i'm sure it won't be necessary in today's case. i want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. no one understands or appreciates the importance of transparency and strong oversight in government more than members of this committee. congress created the office of special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program, t.a.r.p., and members of congress asked t.a.r.p. to perform its delphi audit. unfortunately, the audit has been stalled because they have not been able to interview three of the witnesses here today, ron bloom, matt feldman and harry wilson, who are all former members of the administration's auto task force. in preparation for this hearing, the democratic staff spoke with all three individuals and discovered they are willing to be interviewed. this is a positive development and i am glad that the audit will now be completed. the audit should complement the thorough work gao has already completed on the delphi pension issue. gao publishe

mr. bryant who is the chairman of the national planning commission. mr. justin jibold who is the chairman of the national civic arts society. we appreciate you coming here, i think you have all been here and know the drill. the lights in front of you and the timer in front of you tells you how much you have, we're asking you to confine your oral presentations to five minutes, so the green light means everything is going, when you hit the yellow light it's like when you're driving, and you speed up very quickly so that when you get the red light you stop. so mr. whitesell, if you would like to start off, we appreciate your testimony. >> it is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the future of the national mall. i would like to summarize my statement and submit my testimony for the record. the national mall is a national designed historical landscape and is home to some of the great symbols of our country. i will -- on some current projects to improve the mall. proposals for new memorials in the district of columbia are -- the procedures set north in this

mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have at the appropriate time. my colleague, charles jessik, is also available to answer specific questions regarding pbgc. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. professor zawicki, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman mchenry, ranking member quigley, members of subcommittee, it is my pleasure to testify today on matters related to the obama administration's automotive task force and the refusal of former automotive task force members to cooperate in efforts to understand the tax forces controversial decision to top up delphi corporation's pension plan for delphi employees who were members of the united auto workers labor union. general motors' decision to guarantee the obligations of a completely separate company, delphi, was completely unjustified under current established principles of bankruptcy law and it increased

mr. chairman. i know this is an issue of real interest to you and i'm delighted that you're part of this. >> thank you. thank you for having the hearing and to you and senator barrasso. after you vote, i'll be back so i can hear what the witnesses have to say and hopefully ask questions. general scowcroft, professor peterson, thank you both for your hard work on all of this. my view on nuclear power is pretty well known, i think. to think about using windmills when we have nuclear reactors would be like general scowcroft going to war in sailboats when we had a nuclear navy available. but i won't get into all that day. as the chairman said and as senator barrasso said, we've had a stalemate here for 25 years as you have said in your report. and we in congress have caused some of that. and we need to break that stalemate. your report told us something we know or should have known. it's the obvious that no policy or process involving nuclear waste can be successful unless it's consent-based along the

mr. chairman, and yield back. >> mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointed to see the secretary salazar and that bureau of indian affairs had not engaged this committee on this important issue. this is, i mean is a nose has been an act of congress under the constitution, but without the administration working with congress, it makes it tremendously difficult to create an even playing field, and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i would continue to press the bia and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to some resolution on some of these issues. first, i want to understand your issue of termination more specifically. you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california rancher we act, 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the tillie hardwick decision? >> no, sir. we were, part of that case and we were dropped off that case in 1987 with no prejudices. >> why? why wasn't that? >> well, we believe that the tillie h

mr. chairman. the fact that where the draft bill on no more solyndras act. it's a good bill. the mr. bass' bill is also a good though. i slightly diverged to say i don't think we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i think we can reform these green energy loan programs about terminating them. i think in the process of this legislative hearing that we could disguise. keep the program, but make it more open and transparent. the penalties than for nonperformance and is the chairman and mr. stearns draft bill does come and make it absolutely clear that they have to work with the treasury department and if they don't, they're a big penalties. in any event, i want to commend mr. upton and mr. stearns for their draft bill and also mr. bass for his bill look forward to a productive. today. >> ester texas i recognize. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ideal cell three minutes. >> recognized. >> since i joined this committee has learned a very simple lesson. good oversight results in good legislation and

mr. chairman. the gentle lady's time has expired and miss black burn is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i just have a couple of questions that i want to get to today, but i do thank all of you for your patience and for your diligence in continuing to work on this issue. miss sohn, which you're the only female on the panel and you, we need more women down there. let me go to something. you said previously. you basically endorsed having usage-based billing at one point by saying the isps should charge a flat rate for a certain amount of bandwidth and then charge a per-bit meter grade for usage that goes beyond that limit. so what i wanted to see was if you still agreed with that and should, say if somebody is a netflix subscriber and they're using a large portion of capacity as opposed to someone who just checks e-mail and does a little bit of suffering every day, should they be paying the same amount? where are you on that one? >> we don't endorse usage-based billing or data caps.