tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 7, 2009 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
need to pay us back. host: thank you. this "philadelphia inquirer lead story talks about iraq. also in the "washington journal" -- a "wall street journal" -- >> a segment from today's "washington journal" the u.s. house returns for its legislative work and its suspension of the rules required for a two-thirds majority in order to pass. live coverage on c-span. forces of the nation's capital, it melt like political words on the air. yet penetrates the ground being of all future plans. lord, this thin white curtain
fell on our scene, a seeming call for purrifications of intentions. quite unsure if we are ready to be fully clothed of your victory of total transformation, we beg for more time as if it were not already given freely. send us more gentle snow, lord, if it will awaken within us the hidden child who accepts your surprising sky with a quiet smile. brighten our shortened days, lord, that we may take the light again in your creation and prepare to celebrate the approaching day when you embraced all our limitations and kept loving us anyway.
amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from texas, congressman smith. mr. smith: would everyone join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, here is what jeffrey flier, dean of harvard medical school, has to say about the administration's
health care bill. quote, the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial. speeches and news reports say it will tackle the problems of cost, access and quality but that's not true. there are no provisions to substantially control the cost or raise the quality of care so the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform. whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from congress will marketly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it. the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health care's dysfunctional delivery system. worse, currently proposed federal regulation would undermine any potential for real innovation and insurance and the provision of care, end quote. dean flier has good advice. congress should start over and do it right.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed decisions will be taken later. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 199 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 199, resolution recognizing the 10th anniversary of the activation of echo company of the 100th battalion of the 442d infantry, and the sacrifice of the soldiers and families in support of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i stand in support of house concurrent resolution 199, introduced by my colleague,
congressman sablan from the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands. house concurrent resolution 199 recognizes the valuable contributions of company e 100th battalion, 422nd infantry regimen of the united states army. not many know that they remain the only combat unit in the army reserve. in fact, echo company of the 100th battalion was redesignated on february 16, 1999, on the islands of saipan, rota and guam. as the representative from guam, i appreciate the opportunity to recognize and commend these soldiers for their outstanding and important service to our nation. so today i join my colleague in recognizing the 10th anniversary of the activation
of echo company and commend the men and women who serve in echo company and their families for their designation and their sacrifice. during the second world war, the 100th battalion, known as one puca-puca were comprised of japanese americans from hawaii. they comprised of japanese americans who had parents, siblings and relatives and many who themselves had been forcibly removed from their homes and communities and sent to internment camps in the united states. these highly decorated individuals distinguished themselves on the battlefield of europe, and today those who volunteer to serve in echo company continue to serve with distinction on today's battle fields. echo's companies has served two
tours in iraq from 2004 through 2006 and through this year. in fact, in my most recent trip to iraq i had the opportunity to meet with men and women of echo company who were performing security operations. i appreciated the opportunity to meet with these men and women in uniform and to recognize their service in the theater of operations. unfortunately, three members of echo company have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. staff sergeant will leto, specialist laurence j. jax and our hearts and prayers are with their families and loved ones and those who they left behind. the motto of the 100th battalion is go for broke which continues unabated. today we recognize the 10th anniversary of echo company and
i ask members to recognize these men and women who have volunteered to defend our nation and to support house concurrent resolution 199. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of house concurrent resolution 199, which recognizes the services and sacrifices of echo company of the 100th infantry battalion. i want to thank delegate gregorio sablan for introducing it. it was part of saipan and guam and now serves to protect the citizens of the northern mariana islands and guam. since that time it has served two tours in iraq suffering the loss of two of its men.
it continues to support the people and communities of the northern mariana islands and stands ready to support america. echo company carries on the traditions of world war ii predecessors in the 100th battalion, 442nd infantry regimen and continues to lives by its motto, go for broke. this resolution honors the soldiers of the unit and the families who support them. i urge members to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague and the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our nation can never say thank you too frequently to the men and women who put their own lives at risk
in military service. so i rise today in support of house concurrent resolution 199, thanking the men and women of the 100th battalion, 442nd infantry for their service, dedication and sacrifice. i ask that the house adopt house concurrent resolution 199 honoring company e in this year the 10th anniversary of this distinguished band of soldiers. this year marks the second tour of duty in iraq where they have distinguished themselves for the bravery, always living up to the company motto, go for broke. i appreciate the support of the gentlelady from guam and the other members of the house services committee who support house concurrent resolution 199. i also want to thank the additional 29 members of this house from both sides of the aisle including the
distinguished gentleman from florida who stepped up to say thank you to echo company. i want to thank chairman skelton and ranking member mchugh for working with me to bring this resolution to the floor today. as the first person to have the honor to represent the people of the northern mariana islands here in congress, one of my duties i believe is to educate this house about the people i represent. one distinguishing treat of the people of the northern mariana islands is our devotion to the united states of america. we're unique, i believe, in modern times to become a permanent part of the united states. we could have become an independent nation, but instead we chose to be part of this nation. perhaps nothing -- more than our participation in military service.
30% of our graduating class from our public high schools enlisted in military service this year. and obviously, of course, with this participation in our military, there is an out of proportion level of risk. our small community of some 65,000 people have suffered the loss of two our people in military service since the commencement of the war in iraq and afghanistan. this is certainly one of the highest per capita rates of death in service of any community in our nation. i would like to read their names and honor them today. army sergeant eddie l. chan. jesse i. castro. adam emuel. leroy camacho. john d. flores.
army specialist char jr. navy airman whitfield. and finally, the three members of the eblingo company who gave their lives in combat for their country. army staff sergeant wilgene t. lieto, army specialist derence w. jack and army sergeant julian f. manglona. mr. speaker, i'd like to say that honoring special individuals or a special unit of the military we in no way are forgetting all the men and women from communities all across our nation who serve in the armed services. there are in fact many people from the northern mariana islands who are not members of echo company who service throughout the world today. my prayers go out to them today and my thanks. but echo company is the only unit from the northern mariana
islands composed solely of people from the northern mariana islands and from guam. so as the representative of the northern mariana islands and especially because this is the 10th anniversary of echo company in the northern mariana islands, it is my honor and responsibility to take the floor and say thank you. mr. speaker, i also want to recognize and am honored to have representative and senator-elect of the northern mariana islands in the gallery today. he joins me in paying respect to our troops and i'd like to submit this letter of support for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: god speed to company, and to all our men and women for all that you have done for our people and for the united states of america. and, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. . >> i yield back. ms. bordallo: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: yet is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 199 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended. ms. bordallo: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam requests the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 206, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 206, concurrent resolution commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at fort gordon and their families for their service and dedication to the united states in recognizing the contributions of fort gordon to operation iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom and its role as a pivotal communications training installation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. and ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise today to support house concurrent resolution 206, commending the dedication of soldiers, civilian personnel, and families stationed at fort gordon, georgia. and recognizing the 60th anniversary of fort gordon as the vital training center of the united states army signal corps. fort gordon has a long and a storied history preparing our soldiers to effectively utilize technological advances on the battlefield. now, fort gordon is training our soldiers in the advanced communication technologies needed to execute missions in operation iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. i also want to commend the civilian personnel at fort gordon who are key members of the united states army signal corps team and whose hard work and dedication to the mission are critical to the united
states' army success. to be the best we need soldiers and civilians working together. finally, i want to express my gratitude to the families stationed at fort gordon. while their loved ones train for long hours and deploy overseas for extended periods of time, the families remain supportive and steadfast, understanding the sacrifice that comes from keeping the united states safe and secure. and i also commend to the entire augusta, georgia, community who rally around the great men and women of fort gordon. mr. speaker, i would like to thank my colleague, mr. broun, of the state of georgia for his work in bringing this resolution to the floor. i ask my colleagues to support house concurrent resolution 206. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i
yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of house concurrent resolution 206, which commends the soldiers, civilian personnel, and their families stationed at fort gordon, georgia. and for their service and did case to the united states -- and dedication to the united states. i want to commend representative paul broun of georgia for sponsoring this legislation which has brawn wide support of other members as co-sponsors, including a great number of non-georgians. mr. speaker, fort gordon has been an important site of army training for more than 630 years. initially training area for newly formed combat divisions preparing for battle in world war ii, the fourth infantry, 26th infantry, and 10th armored divisions trained and then at the then camp gordon before they were deployed to combat in europe and distinguished themselves in hard fighting across france, the low countries, and germany. after the war, the newly
designated fort gordon became the home of the army signal corps. in every conflict since from korea through today's wars in iraq and afghanistan, fort gordon has trained army combat communicators and their essential combat duties. this is why it is therefore right and proper that we recognize fort gordon, the home of the army signal corps, for its outstanding contributions to our nation. i urge all members to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: at this time, i have no further requests for time. i am prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back his time. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, at this time i have no further requests for time and i yield
back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 206 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to -- ms. bordallo: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the adjustment guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 940 as introduced. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution
940, resolution recognizing and honoring the national guard on the occasion of its 373rd anniversary. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, miss door dalo, and the gentleman from florida, mr. -- ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, each will control 20 minutes. ms. bordallo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise in support of house resolution 940, introduced by my colleague from ohio, mr. latta, which recognizes the 373rd birthday of the nation's military first responders, our national guard. on december 13, 2009, we will celebrate the enormous contributions that our nation's
citizen soldiers and airmen have contributed to our national defense for over 300 years. our forefathers relied on its citizens soldiers to protect this young nation and today we continue to rely on our citizen soldiers to protect the values and the rights that americans enjoy today. our men and women in the national guard not only volunteer to serve overseas in our nation's defense, they are also an integral part of our local communities providing assistance, support, and protection to their neighbors and loved ones in cases of natural and man made disasters within the united states. the history of the national guard began back during the early days of our nation. the colonists adopted the english militia system which required all males between the ages of 16 and 60 to bear arms and contribute to the defense of their community. in those early years, the
militia provided the first line of defense in our nation, which continues to this very day. throughout our nation's conflicts, the national guard has been an integral part of our country's national defense. during world war i the national guard made up 40% of the america's combat divisions. the national defense act of 1933 established the national guard as a reserve component of the army and the 1947 national security act of 1947 established the air component of the national guard as a reserve component of the air force. more than 300,000 members of the national guard participated in world war ii. and over 180,000 members of the national guard participated in the korean war. and nearly 23,000 members of the national guard deployed in support of the vietnam war.
more than 50,000 members of the national guard were deployed to the gulf states in support of hurricane katrina. today, mr. speaker, almost a quarter of a million members of the national guard have been mobilized in support of operation noble eagle, operation enduring freedom, and operation iraqi freedom. so today we are here to express our appreciation to those who serve in the national guard and their families who are also making a contribution in defense of our nation. and we are here to express our gratitude and respect for those of the national guard who have given their lives in defense of our nation. our sympathy and our prayers are with their families and their loved ones. and their sacrifices will never be forgotten. mr. speaker, as a former lieutenant governor of guam, i came to rely on the national guard to be always there,
always ready to respond to local issues. on september 11 the national guard immediately responded to the new and urgent national requirements to protect our airports. the national guard is a critical component of our national defense and i am also proud to represent the national -- guam national guard which has the most membership per capita of any other state. of national guard in this country. so i urge my colleagues to support the house resolution 940 and join us as we wish america's national guard a very happy birthday. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of house resolution 940 which recognizes the service and sacrifices of
the members of the army and air national guard on the occasion of the 373rd anniversary of the national guard. i want to commend representative robert latta of ohio for sponsoring this legislation. mr. speaker, america is such a dynamic forward moving, ever-changing nation that few i.n.s. tations can -- few institutions can survive for long unless they repeatedly prove their worth and capable of changing to meet new challenges. for more than 300 years the national guard has repeatedly demonstrated its worth and value to this nation and the crises of peace and war. the courage and commitment and sacrifices of the national guard members have been an integral part of every war this nation has ever fought. these citizen soldiers most recently have accepted an entirely new role in our national security and enthusiastically transformed
themselves and their units from a ready reserve to an operational reserve. where repeated deployments to combat have become the norm not the exception. while providing significant combat power to support ongoing wars, the guard has remained true to its mission, to support the individual states in times of of natural disasters. with its dual requirement to support not only the nation but also the people of the states from which they come, the national guard is indispensable to the well-being, safety, and security of all americans. this is why it is therefore right and proper that we recognize the national guard for 373 years of outstanding service. i urge all members to support this resolution. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the jalm reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i would like to yield at this
point the sponsor of this resolution three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. what thea. -- mr. latta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. latta: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, it is very appropriate that we assemble here today on december 7, a day that will live in infamy, words that were spoken by president frankin delano roosevelt on this house floor 68 years ago tomorrow. on that december 7 the united states lost many courageous, dedicated, heroic passionate men and women when the pacific fleet was attacked at pearl harbor by forces of the impieral japanese navy. rise today in support of house resolution 940 which i introduced last week on december 1. as already been pointed out very eloquently about the background of the national guard, the guard dates its origins back to december 13, 1636 when the massachusetts bay colony ordered militias to be
organized into three regments. since then they have fought in every major conflict from the shot that was heard round the world in april of 1774 to our men and women or standing strong today and fighting in afghanistan and iraq, the national guard and its citizen soldiers have been there for us no matter what, always ready, always there. the national guard is the oldest component of the armed forces of the united states. the national guard's number one priority is security and defense of our homeland at home and abroad. americans have relied on their national guard for more than 3 1/2 century, even before the united states existed. i want to thank all of past and present members of the national guard for their service and response to the attacks on september 11, 2001, and their continuing role in homeland security and military operations around the world. in today's world it is essential we honor and support all our service members who have sacrificed so much for us
to ensure our freedoms and liberties are secure in the united states. we need to support and provide our men and women and the national guard and all the armed forces with the necessary resources to ensure their readiness and success. as the national guard official song goes, defending freedom, protecting dreams, this is the spirit of what it means to mee. for my god and my home that i love i guard america, guarding america, america. with that, mr. speaker. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from florida for
yielding on this very important bill. now, mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of house resolution 940, a resolution that recognizes and honors the national guard on its 373rd anniversary. the national guard has a long and proud history as the oldest component of our armed forces. the roots of the national guard date back to our early colonial and state militias with a revival during the revolutionary war. they made up the ruff ryders in the spanish-american war. more recently on this date the japanese attacked pearl harbor and the greatest generation went to war and it's fitting we pass this resolution today in memory of all those who served, but in particular, those who were in the national guard. more than 60 million americans fought in world war ii and about two million of them are still alive today but they are dying at a rate of about 900 a day, according to the department of defense. the national guard is made up 40% of the u.s. combat divisions and include 300,000 members in 18 infantry
divisions in world ar ii. since the establishment of the national guard, men and women have served valiantly in every american conflict, including our recent efforts in the middle east in operations enduring freedom and operations iraqi freedom. as a father of a former national guardsman who served in iraq with the army, i have the greatest respect and gratitude for the national guard and the job that they perform. earlier this year i had the privilege to travel to iraq and afghanistan to meet many of our soldiers and leaders on the ground, and it was there i witnessed the national guard firsthand. i commend and thank the national guard and all our men and women in uniform for their selfless support to our country. i vote in favor of this legislation. with that i yeemed i yield to. -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentlewoman from guam.
ms. bordallo: i will reserve the balance of my time after the gentleman closes. at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: ms. bordallo: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 940. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 845 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 845, resolution recognizing the united states air force and dyess air force base for their success in achieving energy savings and developing energy-saving innovations during energy awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume, and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise today to support house resolution 845, recognizing the united states air force and dyess air force base for their
success in achieving energy savings and developing energy-saving innovations. i would like to thank my colleague and former neighbor, mr. neugebauer, for bringing this resolution to the floor. the air force pledge to become a more energy efficient has facilitated both resourceful engineering projects and simple solutions, such as the installation of dimming lights in hangars at dyess air force base. while the projects at dyess air force base range in size and scope, the end result is a $-- 16.5% reduction in energy usage at a savings of over $1 million in 2008. the diligence exhibited at dyess air force base serves as
a good example of what can happen in energy savings, not only in the air force but also in government and personal households. the men and women at this base in abilene, texas, continue to display a commitment to conserve energy and remain faithful stewards of the taxpayers' money. they accomplished all of this without sacrificing their ultimate mission, to fly, fight, win. so, mr. speaker, i urge my completion to join me in congratulating the united states air force and dyess air force base for their successes in energy conservation by supporting house resolution 845. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reservethe balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of house
resolution 845, which recognizes the united states air force and dyess air force base in texas for their innovative approaches and success in achieving energy savings. i want to commend representative randy neugebauer of texas for sponsoring this legislation. mr. speaker, as the largest user of energy in the federal government, the air force has been the national leader in seeking ways to conserve energy, eliminate waste and seek alternative sources of energy at its 166 large and small installations around the world. with this exemplary group of military installations, dyess air force base in texas was just one of three air force installations recognized by the department of energy as the 2009 federal energy and water management award winner. dyess air force personnel reduced energy consumption by more than 16% and saved over $1 million without sacrificing mission accomplishment in any way. this is why it is therefore
right and proper that we recognize the air force and dyess air force base in texas for their leadership and outstanding accomplishments in energy stewardship. i urge all members to support this resolution, and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, the sponsor of this resolution, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise in recognition of the united states air force and their tremendous efforts as leaders in the federal government's participation in energy awareness month this past october. america depends on the air force to continually provide a number of security to deter our nation's enemies and to provide safe and effective transportation of essential
personnel, supplies to carry out their mission. as the largest single user of energy in the federal government, the air force faces the daily challenge of approving their energy efficiency while continuing to provide our nation and her allies with the most reliable air force in the world. mr. speaker, i would like to also take this opportunity to congratulate dyess air force base, located in my district, dyess air force base was recently recognized by receiving the department of energy's federal energy and waste management award. the federal energy and water management award recognizes individuals and groups and agencies for their outstanding contributions in the areas of energy efficiency, water conservation and the use of advanced and renewable energy technologies at the federal facilities. having earned this award in the past, dyess air force base continues to be a model for smart energy use. as we recognize october as energy awarness month throughout the federal government, dyess air force base has made outstanding contributions in the areas of energy efficiency, water conservation and the use of advanced of renewable
technologies. some of the energy saving technologies includes a pond and ice plant through which water is circulated and used to cool the installation during the hot summer months. reducing energy use by the b-1 bomber simulator over 30%, saving almost $239,000. they also developed a way to use previously unuseable water through an amended pipe -- abandoned pipeline for the use on the installations golf course, thereby saving more than 160 million gallons of water a year. they reduced their total energy consumption 16.5% and saved the american taxpayers over $1 million. i'm proud of this achievement and it is an honor this award brings to the air force and the people of the 19th congressional district into the -- and to the state of texas. as we go towards developing alternative energy sources we must work toward increasing our energy efficiency. i would like to congratulate at following names, tom denslow,
danny dobbs, ron miller and daniel thatcher. it is my -- it is because of their hard work and dedication that america's dollars are better utilized and airmen are best served. and with that, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, at this time i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back his time. and i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i wish to thank my colleague from florida, mr. rooney, for managing the bills on the floor today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 845 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1672, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1672, a bill to re-authorize the northwest straits marine conservation initiative act, to promote the protection of the resources of the northwest straits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown,
will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the adjustment guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, for more than a decade the northwest straits marine conservation initiative has fostered innovative, citizen-driven restoration and conservation programs that protect critical marine coastal and island resources in the northwest straits. despite hugely successful programs such as the dirt lict fishing gear removal program, the initiative's original authorizing statute has lapsed. h.r. 1672 would re-authorize the initiative and codify aspects of the initiative's operating body, the northwest straits commission.
i commend the bill's sponsor, representative rick larsen of the state of washington, for his leadership in re-authorizing the initiative and enhancing the ability of the commission to produce locally driven, coordinated restoration projects with mesh surely results. -- measurable results. with that i urge members on both sides to support the passage of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: mr. speaker, h.r. 1672 re-authorizes and makes modest modifications to legislation which creates a regional citizens advisory board in pacific northwest. northwest straits advisory commission was established to make recommendations to federal and state agencies based on input from the county level and has no regulatory power. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time. would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. brown: no additional speakers. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i then yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1672 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the reconsider is laid upon the table.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2062 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tile of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2062, a bill to amend the migratory bird treaty act to provide for penalties and enforcement for intentionally taking protected avian species, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the adjustment guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 2062 would amend the migratory bird treaty act to establish new penalties for instances
when migratory birds are deliberately killed or wounded in an aggravated matter. in 2007, a 14-month-multistate undercover investigation initiated by the u.s. fish and wildlife service revealed that thousands of protected species of hawks and falcons had been killed illegally. worse, despite the fact that those that had done the killing had used horrific methods, including trapping, poisoning, suffocating, clubbing, and baiting birds with pigeons rigged with fishing hooks, many of the defendants who pleaded guilty to the only applicable charge under the abta, a class b misdemeanor, escaped with minor fines or were merely granted probation. these events confirm that the congress should amend the mbta to authorize new felony
penalties to deter future offenses and to allow the fish and wildlife service to recommend charges appropriated for the brutal nature of these actions when they do occur. i commend our colleague from oregon, representative peter defazio, for his leadership in developing this narrowly tailored legislation that does not diminish in any way the mbta's existing strict liability standard. mr. speaker, i urge members on both sides to support passage of this important bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: 91 years ago in an effort to protect certain avian species, congress enacted the migratory bird treaty act. that law established the criminal penalties for certain illegal activities using a live
decoy to hunt waterfowl, or killing a migratory bird. in most instances the punishment is limited to six months in jail or $15,000 fine or both. what h.r. 2062 is defined to address are inhumane treatment of the migratory treaty act. for example, a number of hawks have been filled by hobbyists in retaliation for those raptors eating their prize pets. while those involved in this illegal activity were tried and convicted on a federal law, not a single defendant received jail time and none of the fines approached the level of the maximum. this is despite the fact that these pigeon hobbyists shot, poisoned, gassed, and clubbed thousands of protected birds and bragged about it on the internet. in an effort to respond to future cases which would shock a reasonable person, h.r. 2062 establishes a new two-tiered
penalty system under the migratory bird treaty act. for the first offense under this new standard a. defendant could receive up to one year in jail, $100,000 fine, or both. for subsequent convictions of the same type, the penalty could increase to two years in jail, fines up to $250,000, or both. these would be available but not mandatory penalties that a united states attorney could seek in future migratory bird consideration -- prosecution. let me emphasize this will not be the new legal standard. we are not talking about protecting birds that are killed by a cell tower. we are not talking about hunters who kill too many ducks or geese. we are talking -- we are not talking about someone who steals goose eggs from the golf course. we are not talking about your grandmother who may shoot a protected wood pecker because
it's constantly tapping on her house. there is no intention that these new penalties would affect in any manner authorize hunting of migratory birdser or take in migratory birds under this order established by the u.s. fish and wildlife service. these enhanced penalties in h.r. 2062 will send a clear message to individuals who behave like the pigeon case also not be tolerated in the future. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i also reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the adjustment guam. ms. bordallo: thank you, mr. speaker. i again urge members to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.
2062 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3940. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady call up the bill as amended? ms. bordallo: as amended, yes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 209, h.r. 3940, a bill to authorize the secretary of interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public
education program for the people of guam. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the jalm guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the adjustment guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 3940 would authorize the secretary of interior to assist the governments of guam, american samoa, and the united states virgin islands in developing and implementing political status public education programs. such programs would aid the people of these territories in understanding the various and viable political status options available to them. with such information they could in turn express informed opinions about their future in
any political status plebiscite or convention. today, guam, american samoa, and the united nations virgin islands are the three united states territories recognized by the international community as nonself-governing. the federal government is obligated to advance their self-government taking into account the political aspirations of their peoples. the secretary of the interior is responsible for these efforts under u.s. law and resolution of status for these territories is a matter for congress to ultimately resolve under article 4 of the united states constitution. although efforts have been made in the past in each territory toward improving its status consistent with the right of self-determination, status remains ultimately unresolved for them. in guam a. local law has
authorized a plebiscite to be held that is to involve a public education program. in american samoa, the work of a locally established commission to assess status options. the third such commission in the history of the territory was recently concluded. a plebiscite on status was also held previously in the virgin islands. each circumstance, however, demonstrates the importance of a public education program for resolving status in each territory and for preparing for future plebiscites or other processes by which their people can collectively express their political aspirations. this bill, mr. speaker, simply clarifies in law that the secretary of the interior can exercise existing authority to provide general technical assistance to these territories for the purpose of facilitating
political status public education. so i ask my colleagues to support passage of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: h.r. 3940 would authorize the secretary of interior to extend assistance to facilitate political status public education programs for american samoa, guam, and u.s. virgin islands. these territories may request grant funds from the secretary to conduct public education programs to assist their electorate in understanding the political status options for each territory. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. brown: i yield back, mr. speaker. ms. bordallo: i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. . the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3940 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended. . for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3603 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 208, h.r. 3603, a bill to rename the ocmulgee national monument. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms.
bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 3603, sponsored by my friend and colleague, representative marshall of georgia. the bill is very simple. it changes the name of the ocmulgee national monumet -- monument. the new name will more accurately portray the resources at the monument which is located in macon, georgia, and which was established in 1934 to protect a collection of native american mounds, including a large ceremonial center that encompassed burial and residential mounds. a large earthen temples and political meeting chambers.
h.r. 3603 has wide support in the community and those supporters believe the name change will help the public better understand the nature of the monument and encourage increased visitation. mr. speaker, i urge all members to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: the democrat bill manager adequately explained this bill and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: the sponsor of the bill, from georgia, i recognize him for as much time and he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i thank the gentlelady from guam, mr. speaker. i just want to add my two cents
here. i am the sponsor of the bill. locally in the middle georgia area when we refer to the monument almost everyone says the mounds. we're going over to the mounds. that's the most significant archaeological and physical aspect of this particular facility. the facility is actually virtually in downtown macon. it's right at the junction of two interstate highways. it's the most frequently visited monument, museum,est, -- etc., in georgia. we believe adding the word "mounds" to the name we will increase visitation to the mounds. this is over 12,000 years old. it may be the site -- the longest site of continuous human habitation in north america. the mounds were added circu 600 to 900, if i recall correctly, a.d., but the cite is of
historical significance that goes beyond the mounds. we encourage the committee -- or the house to unanimously support this request, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: madam chair, do you have any other speakers? do you have any other speakers? ok. with that, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3603 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from
south carolina. mr. brown: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 86 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 86, a bill to eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by bringing the rocks and small islands along the coast of orange county, california, and meet the original congressional intent of preserving orange county's rocks and small islands, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms.
bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 86, introduced by our colleague from california, representative campbell, would correct a situation in which two acts from the 1930's are inadvertently preventing certain rocks, pinnacles, small islands and lighthouses off the coast of orange county from being included in the california coastal national monument. president clinton in 2000 created the california coastal national monument, which spans the entire 1,100 miles of the california coast, and encompasses more than 20,000 small islands, rocks, exposed
reefs and pinnacles. however, the act designated the monument included only unreserved and inappropriated rocks and islands. and under the 1930's acts these natural and cultural sites off the coast of orange county were already reserved. h.r. 86 would strike the reservation language in one act and repeal another act to provide that these areas finally be permanently protected as part of the california coastal national monument. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the passage of h.r. 86, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: h.r. 86 would remove an unused lighthouse resolution currently in place for certain rocks and small islands off the coast of orange county, california. this bill would add them to the california coastal national monument. the lighthouse reservation has been in place since 1935 to -- however, we have been assured that there is no longer a need for this reservation. congressman campbell's legislation would provide for consistency in the management of geological features along the coast of orange county, and i support this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time, and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. brown: no further requests. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i urge members to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time.
the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 86 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: on that request i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1454 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1454, a bill to provide for the issuance of the multinational species conservation funds semipostal stamp. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from guam, ms. bore dalorkse and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, this bill has been authored by my colleague and my friend, mr. brown of south carolina. the multinational species conservation funds support conservation activities in a wide range of countries to protect, recover or restore threatened and endangered species. specifically tigers, rhineos, african elephants, asian elephants, great apes and sea turtles. h.r. 1454 would require the u.s. postal service to issue a multinational species conservation funds semipostal stamp to generate additional funding to support the wildlife
grant programs under these funds. considering the high demand for grants under these programs and the fact that they commonly leverage three or four times as much funding from nonfederal contributions. this additional funding, mr. speaker, will be put to good use to protect these keystone species. with that i ask members on both sides to support the bill's passage. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: as sponsor of h.r. 1454, first i want to thank the chairlady of ow committee, ms. bordallo, for her assistance in moving this bill forward. also, i want to express my
sincere appreciation to chairman rahall, ranking republican member doc hastings to support today's consideration of the multinational species conservation funds semipostal stamp act. mr. speaker, this legislation is a fiscally responsible method for assisting endangered species without costing our taxpayers any money. this bipartisan legislation has been co-sponsored by 154 members of this congress and endorsed by species conservation organizations, including the humane society of the united states, the naffle rifle association, safari club international, the sportsman foundation, the nature conserve -- conservative and the wildlife fund. these groups represents millions of americans and agree with their assessment by allowing the u.s. postal service to sell a semipostal
stamp that would generate funds for the conservation funds and would give them the opportunity to contribute directly to the conservation of keystone species around the world. the u.s. postal service will direct -- will be directed to design and distribute a semipostal stamp like an african elephant, bengal tiger, or sea turtles. these stamps would be available to the public at a premium price. after the postal service has conducted all of itsed a minute -- deducted the administrative costs, the rest will be transferred to the wildlife service who will then equally divide the multinational species conservation funds. this is not a new idea. in fact, the congress has already approved semipostal stamps for the 9/11 response heroes, the victims of domestic violence and breast cancer research. these stamps have been
remarkable and successful. according to the u.s. postal service, more than 860 million breast cancer stamps have been sold. $67.8 million has been given to support this disease. there is absolutely no cost to either our taxpayers or the u.s. postal service. in fact, the postal service will realize the significance profits from the sell of these wildlife stamps because we know based on previous experiences that a large number of people will buy semipostals but will never use them. for the past 20 years, u.s. congress has generously allocated a small amount of taxpayers' money to help african alfants, great apes and marine turtles. we have authorized money to help these species, over $64 million has been appropriated,
leaving 1,500 worthwhile projects unfunded. h.r. 1454 offers us a unique opportunity to establish a new creative funding mechanism for a limited period of time and at no cost to provide a small amount of additional money to help save some of the most iconic species on this planet. finally, i'd like to thank the house committee of oversite and house reform to allow the house to vote on this important wildlife conservation legislation. i'd also like to again thank all the co-sponsors of this bill and recognize my distinguished colleague and friend from columbia, south carolina, representative clyburn, for assisting me in this effort. i urge an aye vote on h.r. 1454, and let's work together. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam.
ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i also reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina is mr. brown: i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i again urge members to support the bill, and i congratulate my colleague for authoring this fine piece of legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1454 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. . for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: i move to pass the bill h.r. 118. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 11, a bill to authorize the additional of 100 acres to morristown national
historical park. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 118 is sponsor bide our colleague, representative frelinghuysen of new jersey. the bill would expand the authorized acquisition ceiling for morristown national historic park which was the first unit of its kind in our national park service -- national park system of the the park is currently limited to a maximum of 615 acres and is under severe pressure from surrounding residential development. er h.r. 118 would allow the national park service to acquire up to an additional 100 acres as land of easements
become available from willing sellers. mr. speaker, this is a good bill and i urge members to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: twice during the revolutionary war, george washington decided to morristown, new jersey, as the place to station the continental army. there were both military and civilian reasons to choose this area. with the road coats in firm control of the new york city and the sea, it was essential that an inland route with the south be be kept opened. morristown was positioned just right to keep this link from being severed. morristown was also the right place because george washington had won over the local population to support the american cause. he won their support by
insisting his troops respect the property of the people, even the property of tori -- torrey sympathizers. not only did washington give strict orders to keep the force from looting in sharp contrast to the british, but he also gave the new jersey militia as its major assignment the mission of protecting the property of new jersey's farmers from the for radging parties of king george's army. the leaders of the ma lish yeah in summerset -- somerset county, was a young 23-year-old colonel named frederick frelinghuysen, it is appropriate of how a 200 -year-old tradition is upheld in the bill by a willing seller provision. the morristown national historical park was established in 1933 as the first national historic park. it includes washington's winter headquarters and other proifed
or preconstructive revolutionary war encampments. it's reached it's statter torrey park limit but there are additional parcels that could be donated to the park. h.r. 118 authorizes 100 additional akers of expansion. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. m brown: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding me time and for his very accurate history lesson. this is indeed new jersey's version of valley forge. from the onset i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and the ranking member, the gentleman from utah, mr. rob bishop, for their work on my bill.
in addition i want to offer my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee on natural resources, mr. rahall and the ranking member, doc hastings, for bringing this legislation to the floor today. mr. speaker, as been stated here this afternoon, h.r. 118 seeks to authorize the addition of 100 acres to morristown national historic park in my congressional district in new jersey. morristown national historic park, our nation's oldest national historic park, has a rich historical significance beginning with washington's encampment there both in 1777 and 1779 and 1780. new jersey was quite literally the crossroads of the american revolution. as america struggle -- america's struggle for independence was won and, yes, nearly lost there. during two critical winters of the war, morristown served as the headquarters for general george washington. to mark the area's impact on
our nation's history, morristown national historic park was established by congress in 1933. the day from time to time property owners with land adjacent to the park offer their property in forms of donations to the national park service. due to an existing acreage ceiling the park cannot accept these donations nor can it acquire additional land. the inclusion of additional lands has significant historical background presents a unique opportunity for our government to express its commitment to preserving our past which may be threatened in these lands go unprotected. i'm also pleased that the committee adopted language proposed by representative bishop that land come from only willing donors or sellers. assuring the property rights are respected. i believe our responsibility at the federal level is to serve with a helping hand, one that
works with the department of interior to secure critical funding. i do that on the appropriations committee. and provides authority to purchase and, yes, accept as donations parcels from willing sellers. this process will allow us to continue to respect and complement greater county, state, municipal, and private efforts already in place to protect these important resources. i want to commend the co-sponsor of this legislation, including the entire new jersey congressional delegation. and members of the committee on natural resources for recognizing the importance of this proposal. additionally, i want to thank the morris county board of chosen free horlsde in new jersey and the local municipalities for their support. with that said i urge passage of my bill. it's a pleasure to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time. and would inquire of the
minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. brown: mr. speaker, if we don't have any additional speakers w that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i again urge members to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 118, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 380 4 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 212, h.r. 380 4, a bill to make technical corrections to various acts affecting the
national park service to extend, amend, or establish certain national park service authorities, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, miss bore talo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i h.r. 3804 is a package of re-authorizations and technical corrections introduced at the request of the 2347s -- national park service by representative paul tonko. the bill includes 10-year re-authorizations for the national park system advisory board and the national park service concession management advisory board. h.r. 3804 also increases the authorization for the popular volunteers in parks program
which provides reimbursement for travel costs and other small expenses to volunteers whose contributions to our parks are enormous. among other provisions, h.r. 3804 also changes the designation of the martin luther king jr. national historic site in atlanta. makes several minor boundary adjustments, and allows park staff at the u.s.s. arizona memorial to work with other organizations to ease visitor's admission to the many historic sites at pearl harbor in hawaii. mr. speaker, representative tonko is to be commended for helping the national park system with this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. brown: although many parts of this legislation are technical, there are a few items thrown in by the national park service. it is a bad practice to enact substantive changes in law or extenses of authority under the guise of a technical correction bill. i want to call to the attention of the house to the provisions of this bill that would have been subject to hearings and thoughtful deliberations. first, the re-authorization of the n.p.s. advisory board is not a technical matter. the board has recently been authorized through annual appropriation bill but issues such conflict of interest, membership qualification, and independence of board members receive funds from the department of the interior should be addressed by congress. the use of this -- of the board itself came into question in the previous park service directive as it was routinely used to solve difficult decisions. second, the concession advisory board has received little if any oversight in a 10-year
re-authorization without any specific inquiresries may be unjustifiable at this time. these boards have use bn used by plums, the national park system has been strong supporters in congress, including me, but i do not think we help the park service by enacting unexplained, unexamined provisions of law buried in a technical correction bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman guam reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. brown: i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i again urge members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3804 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3388 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 211, h.r. 3388, a bill to modify the boundary of petersburg national battlefield in the commonwealth of virginia, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the adjustment guam. -- the the gentlewoman from gum. ms. bordallo: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker,er h.r. 3388 is sponsored by our
colleague, representative forbes of virginia. the nine-month campaign by the union army to capture the town of petersburg, virginia, was the longest of the civil war. today only a fraction of the sites associated with the siege are protected within petersburg national battlefield. the civil war preservation trust has consistently listed this area among the nation's most endangered civil war battlefields. mr. speaker, this legislation authorizes the expansion of the park to preserve approximately 7,000 acres that retain their historic significance. it was the subject of an extensive public planning process and has strong support within the local community. . i commend mr. forbes, and i ask
my colleagues to support passage of this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brown: h.r. 3388 expands the boundary of the petersburg national battlefield in virginia and authorizes the exchange across the equal 100 -- 1,000 acres. the boundary expansion adds an additional 7,000 acres that's been identified as core battlefield sites during the civil war. i want to compliment the sponsor of this bill, congressman forbes, for including language in the bill. private land will fall within the expanded boundary of the park. and those property rights need to be protected. at this point, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to
include in the record the statement from the author of the bill, mr. forbes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brown: and with that i yield back. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. brown: no further speakers. i yield back. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i again urge members to support the bill, and i want to thank my colleague from south carolina for managing the bills on the floor today. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3388 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are
suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. brown: mr. speaker mr. speaker -- mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the day following legislative business and any special orders heesht for entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, december 11, 12, 13 for five minutes each. mr. jones december 11, 12 and 13 for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen today and december 8, 9 and 10 for five minutes. mr. hall, december 8 for five minutes. and mr. deal december 8 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise?
ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes. mr. defazio from oregon for five minutes. and ms. kaptur from ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 7, 2009, at 9:31 a.m. that the senate agreed to senate resolution 370. with best wishes i am, signed
sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each.
poe of texas. woolsy, california. jones, north carolina. defazio, oregon. deal from georgia. kaptur from ohio. moran from kansas. burton from indiana. and ros-lehtinen from florida. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate being recognized and it's a privilege to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives. i just returned within the last few hours from afghanistan, arriving here this morning sometime around 7:00 or so after a long and very busy weekend in places in afghanistan that we know as kabul and kandahar, bagram and
a floating space. and it's been my opinion for a long time and having made at least nine different visits over to theaters that we do call theaters of war, but include six to iraq and three trips to afghanistan and some other trips along there that i haven't chronicled, madam speaker, but i have found that sitting in classified briefings here in the united states congress, here in the alcohol building or over in the -- here in the capitol building or over in the rayburn building and listening to our top military officers, including the state department officers, give us their briefing on what's taking place in a region like that is not a fair substitute for actually going in the theater and receiving the briefings from there from people that are hands on, on the ground, in the field and having an opportunity to sit down and eye to eye discuss these situations
generally people from our own state where we have something in common and where we can get down to the frank matters of fact without hesitation because we naturally trust each other and we know somebody that knows somebody and whether we actually know the troops or not we know the family members or they're related to their family members at a minimum. so we build that level of trust and repour. this trip was similar to a number in the past and included briefings from top military personnel, top state department and civilian personnel, included a meeting that lasted for an extend period of time for president mohammed karzai in kabul. and the trip, i mentioned, out to the fort operating base south -- south and a little bit east of kandahar right on the pakistani border. the position that i have taken over these years has been a strong national defense position, madam speaker. and i would go back and catalog
some of that for the benefit of your attention and that is that from the time we went into iraq and as i watched things, the liberation of iraq and then the stagnation of our operations in iraq, the war of attrition that we fought there for a while that wasn't coming to a successful conclusion, and on one of my trips there before the surge became a word that was used in the common vernacular here in the united states, at least, i had worked through that policy and agreed with the officers who were about to request that president bush order the surge in iraq. so in short, madam speaker, i was for the surge before the surge had a name and it has proven itself, i believe, to be the successful tactic that's brought about what i have also defined in this congress to achieve a defineable victory in iraq. and i will get to afghanistan, but i introduced a resolution in february of this year that defines the victory that we've achieved in iraq, and it goes
through the list of the chronolgy or the history of the incidents that took place in that country, the things that we and coalition forces did to liberate the iraqi people and the milestones along the way that the ups and the downs of the struggle that's taken place in iraq. and yet if you put it all together and you look at the successful ratification of a constitution, successful elections in iraq, the emergeans of the iraqi security forces as becoming an ever more sufficient and ever more stable, this -- the definition of what we were seeking to achieve in iraq has been very closely achieved at this point. now, there's no such thing as a locked in guarantee, free and moderate people of any kind. there's no guarantee in the united states. but comparing what iraq was then and what it is today it is more stable. we expect there will be a continued transition of power in iraq, a sharing of power in
iraq will be brought about by legitimate elections. so this accomplishment in iraq i bring out and make this point, madam speaker, so that should i utter a contrast, i want you and everyone listening to understand the foundation that i built this judgment on. and that's that foundation that i believe we have achieved a defineable victory in iraq. now, that being said, and i could certainly discount some of the things that are going on there and i could lay some conditions on the statement like anyone who might choose to rebut such a position, but by the same token, a lot has been achieved. and on my first trip into afghanistan, which was sometime i believe in 2005, without checking the records, and perhaps 2004, but we were in some of the more difficult times in iraq at the time that i first went to afghanistan. but when i came back from afghanistan, even then in the
middle part of this decade that we're in now, i said then that we'll be in afghanistan a lot longer than we will be in iraq. it wasn't conventional wisdom at the time. people didn't know how we were going to get out of iraq. didn't know how we were going to achieve a defineable victory there but then i said we will be in afghanistan a lot longer because, madam speaker, afghanistan is a lot closer to the stone age than is iraq. iraq has resources, they have oil, they have a tradition of education. they have have a history of a more modern government that has actually a central government that reached out to the corners of iraq. afghanistan has none of those traditions and none of those history. and they don't have the natural resources at this point, at least, that's been developed that will help the treasury of afghanistan. they had a gross domestic product the previous time i was there. i remember the briefing document of $7.5 billion. that's the gross domestic product of afghanistan. now it's reported it's gone up
to around $11.4 billion in the g.d.p. that's only over the last couple of years. almost a 50% increase. and i suspect -- i suspect, madam speaker, that some of that has to do, since it's measured in american dollars, with the fall of the american dollar, the diminished value of the american dollar and when that happens, and it's going to automatically increase the g.d.p. of any country that's indexed to it such as afghanistan. and so the g.d.p. of afghanistan is very minimal. and at one time i compared afghanistan's g.d.p. to the value of the -- $7.5 billion -- i compared afghanistan's g.d.p. to the value of the beer brewed in wisconsin. and this tiny little economy has struggled along. it's very much agriculture base and a large percentage of the
agricultural value output in afghanistan is poppy. poppy is from which heroin and opium is made. and that produces about half of the value of the ag products in afghanistan and perhaps more if one were able to get an accurate contracting. the poppy business in afghanistan, much of it in neighboring kandahar province to a lesser degree. those poppies in afghanistan represents about 2/3 of the world's supply of opium/heroin in the world. afghanistan has been a long producer of poppy. we knew it then. we knew when we went in to liberate afghanistan in the late fall or early winter of 2001 that the heroin trade from popies was a significant component of the funding of our
enemies, the funding of the taliban. and it remains that way today. it may in some respects be worse than it was before, and yet there's been an effort under way to reduce the production of popies in afghanistan. and thereby reducing the amount of dollars that go into it, people we declare to be our enemies. and these would be presumably the people who have attacked the united states and plotted to do so. i advocated, madam speaker, that on the day we went in to afghanistan, the time that american forces arrived there and became a predominant force on the ground in afghanistan was the time that we should have gone in and just simply taken out the popies, just sprayed them. we can eradicate any kind of foilage if we decide to do that. and when i made this argument with every united states ambassador -- one exception because the ambassador wasn't
available, we had an afghanistan since the beginning. the response is we can't upset the economy in afghanistan by taking them out of the poppy business. and besides, do i, as a member of congress, who advocate such a thing understand the difficulty and logistics of spraying that many poppies and certainly i do understand the difficulty. i'm not sure the ambassadors do. they laid out a comparison that it would be something like four football fields wide all the way around the earth of the equaidor the equivalent of taking out that much crop. that's an awful lot of crop, madam speaker. but we sprayed almost the entire crop in iowa on average more than once just last summer, and we have a few squadrons of spray planes in iowa that have the capability of going out in afghanistan and taking out that poppy crop. if they did that it would shut down billions of dollars that goes in the hands of the taliban, billions of dollars that are used against the united states. now, some of these bravings will say it's somewhere between
$7 $1 million and $720 million. if $3.5 billion worth of poppy altogether, if that's what the crop is worth, how does only $70 million to $120 million get into the hands of the taliban and/or al qaeda? i don't think it's possible for us to track that money, and i don't except the values that have been put on that with such confidence in places like afghanistan when i can't, madam speaker, find out from the director of the drug enforcement agency here in the united states how many dollars are spent on illegal drugs in the streets of america in a year. . they tell me we don't know what the drugs are worth that are bought and sold and used in america, we can't put a val une on that within $1 billion, how can the state department tell me in a country that is that close to the stone age that
doesn't have a communication like we have, doesn't have a transportation network as anybody would imagine for any kind of a country, how can we get that estimate close in afghanistan? but we can't even guess that in the united states. i'll submit if they are right that the poppy crop is worth about half of the g.d.p. of afghanistan two years ago, may or may not be right, then we should think in terms of it roughly of half of the g.d.p. of afghanistan today. in any case, it's a lot of money. tens of millions at the minimum. more likely hundreds of millions and maybe billions of dollars and wlarge shares of that go into the coughers of the tally band -- coffers of the tally band and al qaeda. and they pay to recruit that plot and train to fight against us. the number one -- number one
effort to eradicate the terrorists that are in the breeding and training grounds in the areas of afghanistan and pakistan be would be to shut the money off that comes from the illegal drugs that come from the poppy trade. so instead, we have state department personnel, usaid and usda and other personnel that are seeking to negotiate with afghan farmers to encourage them to raise pomegranates and fruits and nuts of all kinds, especially vines and trees so they have to invest in a longer than an annual crop and perennial crop that makes them stick with that single crop longer. we are investing millions in that. we are providing suxdies -- subtsb subsidies into afghanistan -- subsidies into afghanistan, significant dollars. i'll pose this number. a billion dollars. a billion u.s. dollars invested in subsidies in afghanistan to try to convince them that there are crops that pay better than
raising the illegal poppy crop. well, i think a big degree of this is poppycock, madam speaker. to think we can negotiate with people that are raising illegal drugs and convince them if we just gave them enough subsidy they'll stop doing that. they'll always do what pays the best. that's the way things work. the world does have a free market economy. can we imagine going down to pay the people in mexico and central and south america not to raise cocoa or not to raise the tree that produces cocaine. or convince them not to raise marijuana crops? can we convince them not to convert the product that is are now smuggled in from china or shipped directly into the united states into methamphetamines because there's something that pays better? it will always find its way to the market. we need to raise the cost of transaction f we raise the cost of transaction, that means i got these poppies, they will
blossom. it's the nature of a poppy. they are easy to see from the air. we have poppies in places where we don't go with our military and we are looking perhaps as much as 90% of the poppies raised in afghanistan which is someplace 2/3 or more of the world production of poppies taking place down there we are going to send reinforcements. i applaud the president for finally making the decision after three months of, what shall i say, floating trial balloons and deliberating and having discussions at the white house and deliberations when the request finally -- the request that we merged in the public a request that was submitted by general mcchrystal, my date is correct, it would be august 30 of this year, and by the 23rd of september that report was leaked into the media, who knows where it came from, madam
speaker. i'm generally a harsh critic of people inside the military system that would leak anything that's classified information. i don't know if this request was classified, but it was leaked. i have not heard anyone report how it was leaked. but i suspect it was somebody that wanted the american people to know and the request made by general mcchrystal. and i suspect if that request of general mcchrystal, at least the substance of that request that was leaked, that was put out into the press, that was reported to be 40,000 troops necessary or risk failure in afghanistan, if that request had not been submitted, madam speaker, i suspect we would have never found out about what general mcchrystal's actual request was. in fact, back channels tell me that was the lowest number that general mcchrystal asked for. back channels tell me that the number between 40,000 and 80,000 was incrementally dialed
in so that if there were 80,000 troops set rather than 40,000, the odds of success increased in proportion with the numbers of troops between less than 40,000 we risk failure and 80,000 troops would bring us to the highest probability of success. it could be dialed down from 80,000, but -- and still have success, taking the risks of course in proportion, but dialed down below 40,000, i don't understand that general mcchrystal entertained the thought that 30,000 troobs wop enough to do the job. however, our military being the brave and noble warriors that they are do keep a stiff upper lip and none would utter these things to me because they know their orders are from the commander in chief, by rights, by the rights of the constitution, by the rights of the result of the election and president of the united states is the commander in chief of our military and implicitly in the constitution the president
sets the foreign policy. our foreign policy now is, 30,000 more troops deployed into afghanistan, starting sometime in january, and then with a look at 18 months as the period of time to start to withdraw troops out of afghanistan, and having achieved the goals that have been defined to the american people and the speech the president gave a little over a week ago, again i'd reiterate as part of the first delegation of members of congress to arrive in afghanistan after the president's speech when he announced he would send an additional 30,000 troops. this deployment of 30,000 troops and the stuff upper lip that's being kept by our military requires one to read between the lines to draw conclusions of what the real judgment is, because they have their orders. and they will make do. when i see that the lowest number, again this is back channel information to me, it's not classified and it's not a
briefing, back channel information to me says 40,000 was the lowest number asked for by general mcchrystal, general mcchrystal and our troops in afghanistan got a number that was 75% of the minimum number i believe that was offered as the necessary number of troops to conduct the operations in afghanistan with the prospects of, let me say, avoiding, avoiding mission failure in afghanistan. so they will make do with what they have. we have gone out and negotiated with some of our partners, our nato partners. i saw troops there were germany and from great britain and from canada and a number of other countries part of our nato partners. they are there and they are working hand in glove with american troops. so the additional anticipation of 7,000 or more coming from the nato section would be very helpful, madam speaker. and it doesn't substitute for the request, i don't believe, i
don't think we get to say now it's 37,000. i would have rather seen if it's going to be the minimum number asked for by general m mcchrystal, don't think his request was, by the way, you don't need to send me any if nato will come up 40,000. don't think that was part of the equation as all. our commanders value and they should our american troops as being more effective than the troops put together in the coalitions from nato themselves. even though we have valuable partners and even though they have -- they send some very, very good people there. a little aside, i loorked around the airport in kandahar and i hadn't thought about the europeans that were deployed there. had been over a year since i had been there. when i saw the bicycles out there i knew there was a place where there was a lot of europeans deployed, it turned out to be the case, madam speaker. in any case, it would be 30,000 troops, not a minimum of 40,000, it certainly won't be 80,000.
one might argue 50,000 troop short of what the opt minimum would have been as back channels said -- optimum would have been as the back channels say the best for general mcchrystal. now what i find out on the ground is the city of kabul is more stable than i have seen it. the streets of kabul seem to have a certain order to them. if you watch the people moving around they are not looking over their shoulder, they are not worried about an i.e.d. going on. they are conducting the business there as they have for centuries in kabul. little markets and by the way meat hanging on hooks in the open air collecting that afghan dust. if there is one word i would use to describe afghanistan, it's always been dust. dust everywhere, dust all the time. if it rains, there is dust underneath the little layer of crust that forms if it lanes a little bit in afghanistan. dust there all the time. the streets of kabul being i think as stable and orderly as i have seen them and the signs
ever war have diminished some in kabul. same would go for kandahar to a certain degree, although kandahar not being quite as stable or safe. and the sense you get in kabul itself. that tells me we made some progress. 2/3 of the population of afghanistan can be influenced around those urban zones that i have mentioned, cities in afghanistan. the balance of that is out there in the country side. people that live in the valleys and mountains and those that have agricultural base and foundation whether they are raising a crop out of the soil or whether they are herding their sheep or goats, that rural agrarian afghanistan is the hardest part to reach out to. they have never had a centralized powerful government in afghanistan. they have never been able to project power out of kabul out to the corners of afghanistan. and today that's our challenge. our challenge that's been laid out by the president is to
rebuild and some cases just simply go out and construct the institutions in afghanistan that are necessary to get government services out to the corners of afghanistan. and to provide first for security. we have learned and it has been true, i believe, for all of human experience, and sometimes we have to relearn that we can't put down an insurrection if we can't provide -- if we can't provide for stability and security. security is number one. then once you establish security then you can establish the institutions of government. the institutions of education. the institutions of a peaceful society. without safety, without security nothing can flow from it if you have only anarchy and that bloody clash of the power struggles that take place if there is a vacuum for power. so the charge for president karzai, for our american people and for the nato people is, to
be able to clear those areas where the taliban now occupy and control, the taliban are providing actually some function of government, including dispute resolution however brutal it might be, the taliban are providing some dispute resolution. we need to clear those areas. this is going to sound familiar, madam speaker, clear and hold and build and then transfer. . we need to hold them. once we clear a place, we can't leave it. we found out in iraq that if we would go in and clear al qaeda or any of the militia out of a community in iraq and then pull our troops out of there they just form back again. i don't know why we ever thought that would be successful. i remember hearing reports that there was a city or two in iraq that was controlled by the
enemy and i was astonished that we would go in and liberate a country and then tolerate the enemy coming into the city and setting up shop and running the government there and more or less setting up a fortress and a training camp within those cities in iraq. we learned that lesson the hard we and we had to go in with the surge and clean out these cities and restabilize. we brought our own troops and this is according to general petraeus, brought our own troops in and essentially bunked right there in the community so they were involved in the security 24/7. not just a patrol that went in and went back out again but americans that provided 24/7 security for those people in the community. we need to do something like that in afghanistan as well. in iraq we had to go back under the surge and clear and hold those communities and not give that real estate back, clear it and hold it and then we needed to build -- rebuild some infrastructure, not as big a
job to rebuild infrastructure to the prewar conditions in afghanistan as it probably anyplace else that i can think of, but rebuild some infrastructure, establish institutions. the institutions of local government. and any educational institutions that we can set up, outreach to the farmers to try to do the things that we can do with american advisors and whatever comes from the nato people. establish a stability of security and the stability of the unit of the institutions and hold that area. while that's going on we need to go into other areas and clear and hold and build and set it up so we can transfer then to full afghan control. well, here are some contrasts between iraq and afghanistan. iraq, population 28 million. afghanistan, population 28 million. same population as close as we can count. geographical area of iraq, about the size of california. geographical area of afghanistan, about the size of
texas. so those are the differences. it means the afghans are stretched out a little more thinly in their population density. the geography is significantly different in some of the areas. the iraq's geography we know. desert and sand. you get into the north and then you run into some mountains and some green and stuff there in the kurdish area but a lot of iraq looks the same to me when i see it. afghanistan, a sharper difference in the top graphy across the -- topography across the area. stone mountains to the east. around to the south and over towards the west. but also further west you go the more high plains and dust you have out there that way. it is a foboding, topography in afghanistan as compared to iraq. but the security side in iraq we have managed to, working with our partners and with the
full cooperation and support of the iraqi people and the iraqi government, including president maliki, now provided a number of over 600,000 trained security personnel in iraq with iraqi security forces and police forces together. i watched them drill and watched some of their special forces operations. and even though the best that the iraqis have to offer don't match up with the best that america has to offer, they look pretty good. over 600,000, the last number i saw was 60,000 iraqis trained and -- 609,000 iraqis trained and online and up and ready for security personnel. but in afghanistan -- and i'm going to have to work off memory, madam speaker, because it looks as though my notes don't include these numbers, but in afghanistan we're struggling to put together 100,000 afghan army. at the same time around 130,000
afghan police. the afghan police have significant difficulty in achieving the credibility that comes -- the people lack confidence in the afghan police. it comes because of a long history of corruption. police have been -- i'll say not paid a lot except when it came to bribes. they supplemented their income with bribes. the corruption that's been there. and the afghan police makes it hard to stand them up and look like new york's finest, for example. they'll never be that. and the culture and the history of the country won't allow that. but we need to get the afghan police to be as good as they can be. and the afghan army to be as good as they can be. and even then our best hopes will be by time the president has scheduled a beginning of the drawdown of troops in afghanistan, the 18 months, it takes us into the summer of 20 is 1 -- 2011, by that period of
time the goal, the target is about 230,000 afghan army and afghan police that will be providing security in a country that is spread out more than iraq is with the same population of iraq where iraq has 609,000, afghanistan would have presumably 230,000. a good number of them trained within the last 18 months and we know there will be turnover and corruption. we know some will have to be pulled out by their roots and be made an example of. those that have credibility and honor and integrity will have to be lifted up and promoted. well, we look at an afghan army that perhaps 100,000 strong. and an army that has not functioned in a fashion that we would have imagined. we think of the afghan army that goes out and operates independently. but truthfully they're
operating with american or nato advisors in almost every case. and an army of 100,000 for a population of 28 million compared to an army of 400,000, a little more than that in iraq for a population of 28 million. we have many times listened to our military advisors tell us how long it takes to stand up a brigade commander. and they will tell us that it takes about 20 years of training and active duty to stand up a brigade commander for our military. and yet the charge is that we take an army, an afghan army that doesn't have the traditions of the united states has nor the knowledge or the command and control structure and many times they have illiterate troops that can't read or write. in fact, illiteracy rate is 20% among the men and it's hard to
identify the best talent in the population if they can't take the written exam, can only take an oral exam. it's hard to command troops if they can't read. the literate afghans will obviously move up the chain of command. we have a whole society that needs to be educated and taught to function in a literate fashion. but to imagine that we can stand up an army in afghanistan and do so in 18 months by training brigade commanders and on up officers, to do that in 18 months period of time when it takes 20 years in the united states and do so in a language that they understand many of them only orally, that they can't read or write in. it boggles the mind to think about how difficult this task will be to reach this goal where we can start to draw troops down in a year and a half. and as i listen to the strategy
of clear and hold and build and transfer, i'm not surprised to hear it. i expected that's what i'd hear. i look at the number of the troops that we've committed and the number of troops we hope to recruit out of afghanistan and the number of troops that we hope to come to afghanistan from the other nato countries and looks as though we have at least a verbal agreement on that roughly 7,000 additional troops, i look at the geography being stretched out the way it is and i stand and look at the pakistani border and realize that even though we can control most of the real estate in afghanistan and probably will control all the real estate in afghanistan by time those 30,000 troops ariff we don't have lance to go -- arrive we don't have a license to go into pakistan. they still have a sanctuary in the neighboring state of pakistan. pakistan with a population, i believe that number would be 173 million, indicates a high population in pakistan. more resources in pakistan. a lot of big mountains there.
the pakistanis themselves are like people everywhere, they're going to look out for their own interests. well, their own interests aren't necessarily to put all their resources in defeating the taliban and rooting out what's left of al qaeda in the mountains in pakistan. their fathers are in protecting the pakistani people. there aren't a lot of them up in the mountains where we think their military needs to go. and in protecting the pakistani government and not overreaching so that the pakistani government doesn't get overthrown by the taliban. that's the struggle that's going on there. so they will take on the taliban that threaten the pakistanis, but they don't want to go out and pick a new fight with those elements that are there whose primary objective is to damage the united states and damage the rest of the free world. so a lot of the cases, madam speaker, it's where you sit is where you stand, that the position that each country takes is a lot like the position that individuals take.
we'll make our argument at the table for the things that advantage us, and we're pretty creative and we can self-rationalize and sit down at the table and make the arguments that defend our interests. it's true with people, it's true of this congress and it's true when nations negotiate with negotiations. so we should always -- negotiate with nations. so we should always look at the, what is the interests of afghanistan? what is the interest of mohammed karzai? would he like to stay in power? he's the one that says he would not re-elect. he regrets the corruption, but because his nearest opponent pulled out of the race, he was awarded the election by default. he does regret that, madam speaker. at least that's the words that he used to speak to us on this. but president karzai has his interests. and the afghan people that have influenced -- have influence
with president karzai have their interests. the taliban have their interests. al qaeda theirs. there's a different group, the taliban, and others we're fighting as well. it's very complicated, and it's not simple and it's not at all completely militarily tactical. it's very much how do we put together the solutions of first providing the security, maintaining that security, building the institutions and the infrastructure that are necessary so that the central government in pakistan -- or in afghanistan can reach out to the corners of the country such as a place where i was just yesterday. all of that needs to happen, madam speaker, and as general petraeus said, the enemy gets a vote too. and they will be working against us and mounting operations where they can. but my general overall impressions are this, i believe
the strategy that's been put together is one where we have to thread the needle. that we have the very minimal amount of resources necessary to provide the security that if everything works according to time frame and schedule there's a chance this can be successful. but i do not see when i look at the plan that there's a redundancy that's built in,es that three a fallback position, that one comes in that just in case resources don't appear to be there. now, i spent a lot of my life planning logistics and taking on projects and, no, not directing wars. but, for example, if i go into a construction site and there might be 40 acres of cornfield and we need to turn it into a school complex, there are a lot of challenges that go on. and things go wrong. the weather works against you. you have people against your interest that break up the sequence of the scheduling that you set up and machines break
down and sometimes they'll throw a wrench in the works, the permit that wasn't there. you have to always be planning. you set a schedule. you plan to meet the schedule and you have to have reserve resources to make sure you can make up for the difference. it might be bring in more men, more workers we say now. it might be bring in more machines. it might be overlap the duties that are assigned from contractor to contractor. it might be go to a different supplier if one of them can't get the materials in time for you. it might be work seven days a week. it might be work 24/7. it might be double up with crews and go 24/7. but however it is when you have to meet the deadline, when you have the goal, you have to be planning. what you'll do if things don't work out. now, we have a plan in afghanistan, 30,000 more troops starting to insert them in january to get them in position for the beginning of the fighting season, which i guess nobody can really tell you when that is. it's when the enemy attacks us
in a greater number than it is now. but ruffle mid to late march is -- but roughly mid to late march is what we can anticipate. we have 18 months to clear any areas in afghanistan that are held by our enemy. and i am going to define that enemy as the taliban. clear and hold and build the institutions and rebuild the infrastructure and then transfer in 18 months. now, we've been there for eight years, madam speaker. eight years in afghanistan. there's been a lot accomplished and we should not diminish the accomplishments in afghanistan. they have been significant. . in that afghanistan has a constitution that has been ratified. held successful elections. some here would object there was voter fraud in the last election. there was. no one denies that. to the extent that the voter fraud was there, i'd like to know how many votes were stolen or how many ballot boxes were stuffed by the supporters of
either side. i don't think karzai would tell us that it didn't happen on his side. i think it's almost certain that it did. were those numbers great enough to change the result of the elks? -- election? probably not. i'm lament any ballot that's not a legitimate one. but the question then becomes, is this government legitimate? well, it is. among the most legitimate governments that afghanistan has ever had. we know that in the first election, electing nationwide offices and leaders on the soil in afghanistan took place because american and nato forces allowed that to happen. they provided security so people could go to the polls. i remember there were our national guard troops on the ground guarding the polling places for the first time in the history on that real estate for people to go to the polls and vote in a national election. it had never happened before. they have come a long ways, madam speaker. we should not diminish the
accomplishments when you think of the united states of america establishing the declaration of independence in 1776, and we fought a war that went on for years, and i'll say seven years, or eight years. the treaty of paris was signed by john jay and i think 1783, by 1789 or 1787 we produced a constitution. by 1789 we ratified a constitution. 13 years from the date of the declaration of independence until the ratification of the constitution which didn't guarantee the centuries old existence of the united states. it laid down the foundation where we could continue to fight for liberty and freedom and shape the nation. don't think it was imagined the united states of america would become the unchallenged greatest nation in the world. i don't think they knew where the pacific ocean was. i know they didn't. they had to guess how far it was. and lewis and clark chartered it in 1803 and 1804. that's when we found out.
not in 1789 when the constitution was ratified. this dream of manifest destiny, this dream of this great nation wasn't really in the imagination of the founding fathers. yet in 13 years we got where we did with the ratified constitution from the time of the declaration. you look in iraq and afghanistan, both of those countries have outpaced the development speed of the united states of america itself if you measure elections and even if you measure legitimate elections. if you measure the ratification of constitutions where there was no tradition before. so we should be, i think, respectful of the accomplishments that have been made in iraq and afghanistan. it takes a long time to build institutions. we shouldn't just automatically think because when we opened up the geography book when we were studying eighth grade geography and that wooden pointer said here's pakistan, here's
afghanistan, here's iran, we looked at those borders, we envisioned them as borders like we would envision borders of the united states of america. at least those borders don't look like i anticipated they would, madam speaker. but the borders of afghanistan, especially with pakistan are not clearly defined. we have a place that we declare to be the border, but it's not recognized the same fashion by the people that live near the border. they want to move back and forth across the border and do commerce and trade like they always have. and the agreement on exactly where that is is not a handshake even between afghanistan and pakistan. there's still tensions there. there's distrust there. there's the worry that pakistan focuses towards india with a fear of india as their premarry enemy. and they are afraid that afghanistan will make common cause with india. those little tensions play out. just like they play out between people and neighbors and other countries as well.
but of the difficulty of the task in afghanistan needs to be measured with the reality of what's going on there on the ground and within the historical context of what we are living with today. that is that a lot of progress has been made and that the central government in kabul has never reached out to those borders, those borders that we see on the map, that aren't really at all like the borders we imagined when we looked at afghanistan and look at the map itself. we need to understand that many of the enemy are living undisturbed in the mountains in pakistan. and even though we get a report occasionally that an unmanned drone strayed acrossed border and dropped a missile in to a household that happened to have some al qaeda terrorists in it, even though we get some reports of that, operations in pakistan f. they exist, they don't exist formally and they don't exist in any kind of an organized
tactical sense. and so i ask the question, madam speaker, has there ever been an example in the history of the world where a foreign power went into another country and took on an insurgency that operated within that country that also had a sanctuary in a neighboring sovereign nation? in other words, as it was possible to defeat the vietnamese as long as they could pull back to north vietnam or go back up the ho chi minh trail. as long as they could choose the time of engagement, method of engagement, a line across which we would not go, it was i don't believe possible to defeat the vietnamese. same with north korea. we didn't go after them where they planned their operations and therefore we ended up with a negotiated settlement. as i pose this question, i bring it out, madam speaker, so we understand here the great
difficulty in defeating an enemy that has the sanctuary and a neighboring sovereignty. in other words, if am qaeda or the -- if al qaeda or taliban can come into afghanistan and attack the american troops, their police, security personnel, and disengage and go back to pakistan, we can chase them to the border and we've got to stop. if the pakistanis are not standing there to meet them, then they can choose the time and place of their engagement. they can build up and train and a gather munitions and then conduct those operations. they can plan operations all over the world. and they have. because they are protected in the sanctuary. my argument here, madam speaker, is there needs to be political support for going to the sanctuaries of our enemies wherever they may be. to take out our enemies that are pledged to kill us. and i remember sitting in a whole weekend of analysis of
this. it would have been in january, february of 2003 when we brought in experts. it was a bipartisan retreat weekend, democrats and republicans together, and in this retreat weekend tom friedman gave the opening address and raised a series of questions and we sat around all weekend going, hum, what did we ever do to make them hate us? how can we make them like us again so they don't attack us like they did on september 11? what was wrong with us that caused them to attack us? how do we repair who we are as americans? madam speaker, that was the mindset going on here in the united states. especially over on this side of the aisle. to some degree on the republican side of the aisle as well. what if there was nothing wrong with us. what if it was them? we didn't anticipate in 2001 there was an enemy that believed as strongly as they did that their path to salvation is in killing jew, christians, and capitalists probably in that order. and if they could get a twoer
if they almost always did -- a two-fer, they almost always did. they believed they could kill capitalists at the same time. they despise freedom, liberty, capitalism, they despise judeo-christianity. all of that is the enemy of the radical jihaddies that we are seeking to psycho analyze instead of defeat. believing that we can rebuild institutions in 18 months we haven't been able to rebuild in eight years, it smacks of a significant degree of optimism which i'm willing to cautiously buy into provided, provided we have the resources to do that and provided we are willing to go where the enemy is. if that's impakistan, don't want to sit and wait for them to deside to come and attack american troops or plant i.e.d.'s and take out americans trying to rebuild institutions and allow the enemy to hide and in neighboring pakistan.
when pancho villa came into the united states and murdered 17 people back in 1912, in fact, madam speaker, it might have been the other way around, it might have been 12 people murdered in 1917, we sent, we sent our military down there to chase him around. we wouldn't tolerate attacks that came from foreign countries. we knew we couldn't let them have a sanctuary. if we did, they chose the time and place they attacked us. we knew that in the early part of the 20th century. we seem to have somehow forgotten that in the early part of the 21st century. we have to take the enemy on where they live, where they train, where they lay up, where they -- their munitions are, where their equipment s we have to be willing to do that. any country that will harbor terrorists, then, doesn't support the united states of america. i remember president bush saying words to the effect of, if you harbor terrorists, are you a terrorist. you are either with us or against us. he made it very clear at the
offset of this. and the onset of this i should say. now we seem to be reluctant to even declare who our enemies are. another component that i think is significant, madam speaker, for the american people to know is that there's been a significant diminishment in the focus on osama bin laden and al qaeda. it seems as though the position today of the white house and the military is that al qaeda no longer exists in any significant way in afghanistan. i remember about two weeks ago a. little more, general jones, handpicked general, handpicked by president obama, said that the numbers of al qaeda in afghanistan are less than 100. less than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. now, maybe that's true. i don't know. i don't think we have a way of knowing. but if that's the best intelligence that we have, and that's the intelligence that's been delivered in public to the
american people by general jones, then i have to say i don't have any supplemental intelligence that trumps that number. it just doesn't seem plausible to me we would mobilize all of this effort and focus ourselves on an enemy called al qaeda and have the president of the united states repeatedly at least 40 times declare his dedication to going after osama bin laden and al qaeda and defeating them where they are. that was at least 40 times as candidate obama, then united states senator obama sold himself to the american people and sold his national security credentials to the american people. 40 times at least. he said he would go after osama bin laden and that he would defeat al qaeda and osama bin laden and occasionally added the taliban to it. now al qaeda has been pulled out of the dialogue with afghanistan. osama bin laden's name has only
been uttered four times by the president of the united states in the year and a month and three days since he has been elected president. and those four times, three of them were in response to direct questions asked by the press and the other time he brought it into another discussion but at no time has the president said, since he was elected in a year, month, three days, will i go get osama bin laden. i will defeat bin laden and al qaeda in afghanistan. that stopped. that rhetoric stopped abruptly on the third of november, 2008, was the last time president obama spoke of taking out osama bin laden. that actually makes it a year, a month, and four days. to be precise, since the president has said he's going to take out osama bin laden. now here we are with a minimum number of troops minus about 25% of the minimum number to go
in and stand up to security forces in afghanistan, take those numbers up to around 230,000, and then have a goal to take that number up higher than that. but to get that recruitment done and training done with the commanding officers necessary, we'll do it in 18 months. with a minimum number of resources, we are going to rebuild the institutions. we are going to clear, we are going to hold, we are going to build, and we are going to transfer. all of that sounds right and it sounds good to me. i know a plan when i read one. i understand when i read the contingency plans, redundancies built in. i look for that because of success in a mission is part of it is necessary to make the contingency plans because things never go the way you plan them to be. there are always pitfalls along the way. always things that don't work good. sometimes it's just bad luck. i know from my own experience when i plan logistics as
precisely as i could and build in the conagaincy plans -- contingency plans and redundancy, plans fall apart anyway. i have to put a new plan and present that approach. about the third time you do that, i finally got to that point where i realized, i can keep throwing resources at this over and over again and always add just the minimum to get it done, and sometimes just the minimum to get it done is just enough to guarantee it isn't going to work. at a certain point you have to pour enough resources in where you can see, by golly, this will fix it. and i'm done redevising the plan and done dragging this out through days, months, weeks, and years we are going to solve this problem. we are going to solve it with enough resources. if we don't do that. we can't move on to the next thing, the next mission, next challenge for america. so i'm going to stand here proposing that we provide not only the resource that is are necessary for our military to protect and to advance the
destiny of america, but we provide backup plans, contingency plans, redundancy, and that we are ready to order this plan with more resources if necessary in order to achieve what we set about achieving in both iraq and afghanistan, and that is to achieve a definable victory. we have done so in iraq. we seek to do that in afghanistan, president karzai recognizes that the bush doctrine remains intact. that promoting freedom and a stable self-governing country in afghanistan lays out the foundation consist ten with the bush doctrine which is, provide for that foundation of legitimate government. if that happens, the voice of the people is heard, and the voice of the people is heard through the ballot box and other means of self-expression, freedom of press will be another one, then the tension diminishes, we don't have to have revolutions in america because we have elections in america. .
there's dispute resolution and a legitimate means under the rule of the law. president karzai understands the bush doctrine is very much alive, that the directive of the strategy that was laid out by president obama actually maintains and holds the bush doctrine intact. it does so with a minimum number of resources, and we are going to have to look forward to say the utter excellence of our noble american troops to bring about an accomplishment there that i think could use more resources to ensure a successful result in afghanistan. and while this is going on, i want to, madam speaker, continue to press the president of the united states and the people in america to look at a strategy that goes beyond this
line around through the mountains and between afghanistan and pakistan that we cannot defeat an enemy that has a sovereign sanctuary that can choose its time to attack us and to train. and we should pay attention to this global war on terrorism. not a police action. it is a war against people who oppose us. and we are now raising in the united states terrorists from within the united states that are attacking free people in other parts of the world. we've seen these kinds of things come up in places like we have five terrorist operationes that emerged in a single day. one in dallas, two in new york, one in chicago, another one in north carolina. i think that covers most of them. homegrown to some extent. we have the somali terrorist out of minneapolis. homegrown. we have the individual who was just arrested today or charged today with helping to plan the massacre that took place a little over a year ago in
mumbai. these are americans that are now projecting terror around other parts of the world. we need to get with it and understand the enemy we are fighting. we need to put a plan in place to clean this up in the united states of america, eradicate the terrorists and defeats the culture that people think that it is ok to kill freedom-loving people. this is a clash of ideologies. many are committed. we need to be. we need to understand our enemy, madam speaker. and that has been the purpose of my discussion here this afternoon. i appreciate your attention to this matter. all the members of congress, as you tune in and listen in and the american people who have the benefit of this open dialogue, i urge our attention to the matter that educational upgrade of all of the people in this country, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow fo
>> it was on that sunday morning we heard all of this explosion going on and wondered what was happening. i looked up in the sky and it was the direction of pearl harbor. it was all a black puff. it was a bright morning. it was a nice morning. and i could see all this bright puff. and then we heard over the rad radio, "all military personnel report to the stations
immediately." that the japanese had attacked pearl harbor and this is war. and naturally everybody was shocked. and at that time we had our bus station at the army and navy ymca which is located right in honolulu. and from there as we were traveling over to scoffield barracks, where i was stationed at the time, i passed and looked down into pearl harbor. i had a panoramic view of the destruction. it was emblazenned in flames. all other ships were afire. and what stood out in my mind was the oklahoma had capsized. it was on its side. and i saw sailors aboard the hull of the ship just scrambling on it. that was for them to keep out of
the fire because all the water was on fire. >> to watch more extended interviews with pearl harbor survivors, go to c-span.org. the united nations climate change conference begins in copenhagen. here's a conversation with a formal presidential advisor followed by a nasa scientist from today's "washington journal." this is about an hour. host: our guest now, the former chairman of the president's council on environmental quality, under president bush, 2001 to 2009. host: our next guest is james connaughton. they are of the climate summit and you can see them talking about saving the rain forest and little cities, healthy kids, and someone jumps up and says, what
if it is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? guest: the cartoon catches the edge of what is probably correct. there are all kinds of reasons to pursue cleaner energy, climate change being one of them, but good old fashioned security being another one. there's a lot more going on then just climate change going on. host: what is your focus in copenhagen? guest: am very pleased that the major economies, including the developed economies and the developing ones india and china, have declared but there rendition through 2020 can be. and there is a graph -- and there are aggressive levels through 2015. -- 2050 . >> which come -- countries have you watched -- a host: which countries have you watched most
closely? guest: president obama has been set out in -- and ambitious, but reasonably achievable set of goals. i want to see our friends in europe to say we can work with that. then when it comes to china and india and in the other emerging economies, whose emissions already exceed those of the duo of the world, i want to see them carrying out programs that have enforceability and accountability internationally. if they are committing to more domestic accountability, that can be trained -- translated into an internationally controlled much ring system, then i can see numbers for progress. host: the phone numbers are on the screen. james connaughton is now the executive vice president at constellation energy. we will take your calls in just a couple of minutes. one of the story lines of the last several days was the
creation of a special fund to allow certain countries to get on board to make the changes they need with a climate change. can you explain that to us and what your thoughts are? guest: there are a number of countries that say, especially the emerging developing countries and the smaller countries who say, we can only do so much with what we've got, but we can go further in addressing the climate change if we have international assistance. they're talking about $10 billion annually. when i was in the government, the u.s. had proposed the as doug reshma of such a fund. and i think the obama administration -- the establishment of such a fund. and i think the obama administration is talking about more money. if we can get our counterparts to come up with a signature to portion of the money, that is the jumpstart. one other thing we can do immediately -- right now, we have tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on clean energy
technologies, especially countries like china and india. leaders mariko 20 tariffs on energy technologies and that alone -- leaders tomorrow could go to no tariffs on energy technologies and that alone would be a big star. host: first call is on the democratic line, good morning. caller: my question isn't -- leads to science and i complained about it. i went to school for an engineering degree and i went to professors and i said, look, i want to do experiments, and their specialty was a computer simulation of chemicals. i said, don't you know that the scientific method is experimentation? i do not believe that computer simulations of things that you already know, of things that you are ready are projecting to know is really science.
i just want to say that all of this climate change and of corp.'s movie and stuff like that, it is all -- and al gore's movie and stuff like that, it is of computer simulation. i would like to know your thoughts about that. guest: that is an excellent question. as it happens over the past couple of decades, the world has spent about $40 billion on climate change science. we have got the initial sense that humans are contributing to climate change, but there are a lot of questions about to what degree, over what time for it, and where. where you will get a positive impact and negative impact. fortunately, the scientific communityand a lot of the money today is going into ground-based observations to validate the models.
it means that we still need to take this issue seriously and there is more money to do with insurance policy. the more climate change, the more we are cleaning up the air in terms of how it harms people today and also becoming energy secure. those are all, -- , and benefits. host: the politico.com front page, an ice sculpture of a polar standing in copenhagen. they talk about president obama's decision to participate in the end, rather than the beginning. what does that signify? guest: i think it signifies practicality and impact. originally, there were born to have him go at the beginning and most people are not there yet. he will be going at the end when the other leaders will begin their remarks. it is smart to put him there when the top people are there, to show a sign of common commitment.
and i think they're looking at reasonably and bush's goals, which is where we all want to become a couple -- reasonably ambitious goals, which is where we all want to be@@@@@@rr@ @ @ can you tell us more of your opinion on this? guest: what is happening is that the epa, based on a series of lawsuits is about to trigger a series of regulations under the clean air act, which is designed
to deal with pollutants like so2, which causes acid rain, or ozone which causes smog. the one area on which there is strong bipartisan agreement in washington, that is, if you're going to address co2, it is better for the congress to set the rules rather than the epa with the clean air act, which was not designed for that purpose. i agree with that. co2 is complicated to do with on the one hand, and the clean air act was reconstructed to do with these pollutants that have immediate effects, not the long- term air pollution affects. i hope the congressional process will rapidly move past the epa regulatory process, because the other thing that you can be assured of with epa regulations is a decade of litigation. i think more people have spent money on lawsuits than cutting to -- cutting emissions.
host: we go to oregon, robert, an independent scholar, thanks for waiting. caller: first, thank you for letting me ask you this question. and please bear with me. i am just getting into this political stuff and that is why i am an independent. when it comes to the environment, i would like to know what it is that is going on in alaska with the conception rio, or whatever it is that is going on -- conception radio, or whatever it is that is going on and it's possible links to send armies out in the ocean -- to the tsunamis out in the ocean. and i would like to hear you speak about the repercussions in this area for a garment, and yet, in this area we have the highest rate of staff infections.
could you tell us what is going on up there with harp? guest: i'm not familiar with the specific example you're giving up in alaska, so let me speak to your -- your question more generally. we did not manage things so well in the past decade or so. but i have to say after doing in our mcguirk for almost 30 years, we have come light years in terms of levels of production -- during environment work for almost 30 years, we have come light years in terms of levels of protection. a lot of companies do not worry about compliance and more because they have set themselves up or do not create them as a risk. what we're talking about now is how we better clean up the mistakes of the past. we have tens of thousands of old industrial sites cleaned up in
our cities and redeveloped, and new technologies to do with the legacy of the military activities that you have talked about. i really believe we could actually create a lot more power a lot more affordably with a lot lower emissions, for example. the company i work for is focused on that, consolation energy. efficiency, as margaret, new nuclear power, -- the company i work force focused on that, consolation energy. efficiency, this margaret, new nuclear power, things like that. host: san antonio, george, republican caller. caller: good morning, i was wanting to know what the government is doing because we all know that us humans have an impact on the environment, rather than climate. that is natural and occurs every tens of thousands of years,
like the ice melting and the so accounts breaking off, things like that, we have nothing to do without. what actually is the government doing because the carbon tax betancourt was wanting to put on us is ridiculous -- about gore was one in to put on us is ridiculous. guest: you are zeroing in on one issue, which is, how we deal with greenhouse gases and how do we do this with out producing a tax would-result? -- without negative results? we strongly support kurram? regulations, but we want to do it -- strongly support cap and trade regulations, but we want to do it the government program. it lets us work in a way that lets us decide how to do it and
the government does not touch the money. we spent alternately hundreds of billions of dollars transitioning our plants into lower emission plants, but we will do it in the cheapest possible way. again, something that will, in fact, increased costs. if we do it right, it is presumed -- proven to work well. we did it with respect to acid rain. there was a program in the 1990's that used this approach. when you do it right, it is not a tax. the only credit a of those companies that reduce emissions. and we're hoping that congress uses this approach but it is for the congress to declare the goals. that is something that only our elected representatives can do. host: james goddard rights in the "new york times" today, "cap
sa and fade." guest: i disagree with the basic conclusion capt. trade has proven to be the single most effective tool we have got. we have cut acid rain air pollution by 50% at much less than the projected cost. now we are about to cut acid rain pollution another 70% of using the same tool. another thing i would note, if, in fact, the program is working and emissions are dropping rapidly, you're supposed to get to very low cost. that is the point of it.
you are supposed to reduce costs, rather than keeping pollution going. and pres. obama has committed to an 80% cut in pollution by 2050 and that is something that the industry supports. i do not think anyone can disagree that it is a big cut in seven that we have not been controlling before. i think that with patience, we can get all of the emissions cuts that dr. hansen would like to see. he is the scientist and i and the policy guide. host: back to the phone calls, good morning. caller: i think i have a comment more than a question. one of the reasons i think that,
particularly the republicans, are ranting about this being a hoax, i think this is more spiritually based previn and anti science trading. guest: is zeroing in on the dynamics in washington. -- you are zeroing in on the dynamics in washington. like anything else, there is a bell curve. there is science that supports the view that climate change is going to be dire and happen tomorrow. and there are legitimate the scientists that are questioning whether humans are contributing to global warming. but the weight of the science is significant enough to make expenditure on. i do not know if i would get into characterization's of belief structures because i have
dealt with scientists of varying belief structures and i have dealt with non-scientist, a of varying beliefs structures. this requires the kind of political process and debate that we go through. copenhagen underlines the seriousness of the discussion. science must always be tested and we want to be sure that as we go along we continue to do the right thing. host: we hear from mike now from illinois, independent caller. caller: good morning, with this thing going on in copenhagen and a lot of money on the table for the cap and trade, wired we've been there as an advanced nation -- why aren't we've been there as an advanced nation? why are we sending our scientists and engineers to
third world countries or advancing countries to help them -- why aren't we sending our scientists and engineers to third world countries where advancing countries to help them? we have been advancing over the last 30éymkhb years, like we han edison, -- in medicine, why aren't they in copenhagen taken that information that we know already and sending our engineers and other people to developing countries and help them develop them -- help them develop cleaner energy? guest: there is a lot of that going on. there are processes that the u.s. is leading in terms of partnerships throughout the world. but you are right. we have to help countries lift themselves out of poverty, but to do so in a cleaner way.
only about 20 countries are responsible for most of the dirty emissions, if you will. there is not a lot we can do in the next 10 years to really cut emissions, but we can set the stage for it. we can do more efficiency, more renewable, and use more natural gas, which is becoming much more available in america. but about 10 years from now, hopefully we can have a technology that will capture co2 from coal and chief says and available energy, but with -- and keep that as an available energy, but with no emissions. we could cut a big chunk out of our missions and do it safely. and get our cars electrified. even with plug in hybrids, i can cut a a lot of emissions. give us the right time and hundreds and the billions of
dollars can be spent, even here in america to turn our system around from and the meeting went to a non-emitting one. host: loss cruses, new mexico, hello. caller: global warming is not a hoax. there is a real basis for it. however, it is not a crisis either. the observations are on the low end of viva ipcc projections -- the low end of the ipcc projections. guest: i think where you come out is where a lot of people come out, which is, it sounds like we know all the -- enough and what will the impact be? i think the question is one of insurance. there's some possibility of a big effect, but we do not know what the possibility is.
if i can take reasonable cost effective steps to avoid that, of wood to avoid getting cancer in the future, why not do that? the other thing is that i am deeply concerned with energy security. by then we are far too reliant on foreign sources what we do not have to be. and i really care about air pollution, the stuff that actually puts people in hospitals with respiratory distress and prematurely kills people. we still have some room to move on that and that is benefit cost justified. i can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on clean energy and save much more in terms of lives and injuries to people from air pollution. if you look at the whole package, it is worth being aggressive as long as we're on reasonable time once to make the transition. i cannot build a nuclear power plant tomorrow, but my company can get one before the end of this decade. give us the time, we will retire the old coal plants and replace them with cleaner ones and do
that in an effective way for the economy. host: congress has to say yes to anything the president wants to to? guest: i think that is right. and one of the biggest challenges has been the clean technology fund and also helping developing countries become resilience to any of the negative effects to climate change. i think a direct incentive approach is the best way to go. you get some accountability.
your spending and you get to see what you're paying for. i would do a hybrid approach. do the mandate to be sure that we get something for regulatory policy and then incentivize the rest. if we eliminated trade barriers, terrace anna non-to -- tariffs and non-tariff to energy, we could do that tomorrow and sell goods and services at a much lower price to countries that need it. i think the bears that are making it more -- the barriers that are making it more expensive than we already have are absurd. host: if you copenhagen and the participants, mainly those economists that are based on fossil fuels have nothing positive to offer, according to
this article. host: next call for our guest, san diego, a democrat. caller: my question is about hybrid vehicles. do think that will be the source for change -- and do you think that will be the source for change? also, do you think that global warming is the source for your bald head? guest: [laughter] host: booker raton is our last call, carol, are you on the line? caller: thank you for taking my
call. my son graduated from mit and i'm very proud of him. i did read that carbon dioxide is it -- is an odorless gas and is heavier than air and it passes out of our lungs and then is absorbed by the plants convert it into surrender or hydrogen and release it into the air. how could it possibly be a pollutant? that is my question to you. my son lives in the north pole with eskimos and i wanted to ask you, have you ever lived there? and the polar bears are fine, by the way. they are multiplying like bunnies. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: i have been up to
alaska, in your beautiful place on earth. you have beautiful landscape and a lot of development. i think the two can go hand in hand very well. the way that the science shows that there's probably a contribution of humans to an excess amount of co2 -- you are right, there's a lot of naturally caused co2 -- is getting out of bonds. -- out of balance. we can make real progress in being sure to prevent something that from happening if we do it on a reasonable time lines, and we can be aggressive over a long time for income over 40 or 50 years. i look at this like insurance. the science tells me a lot and it is worth taking action. i think that is what the company in talks are focused on now. at the end of the day, the politicians are going to be very careful that we have reasonable goals that are ambitious, but also that we can keep our
economy's sustained. i cannot build a nuclear energy and less i've got a strong economy to pay for it. these thingss work started. go to studentcam.org 4 contest rules and information. >> "washington journal >> the director of nasa's goddard institute for space studies. dr. hanson, you have an op-ed in "the new york times" today. wanted to give you your take on things. instead of cap and trade, you talk about cap and fade. what's your thesis here? instead of cash and trade you talk about cap and fayed. -- cap and trade you talk about cap and fade. guest: how i'm getting a big feed back in my ear. i wonder if we could do something about that. but what i actually recommend
is not capped and trade, but a fee and dividend. because the fund -- fundamental fact is that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, then we will continue to use them more and more. but the fossil fuels are not made to pay for the damages that they do to human health, the environment, and future climate that our children and grandchildren will face. what we should do is put a fee on carbon, that means oil, gas, and cold should have a flat feet applied to them -- a flat fee applied to them and that money should not go to the government. it should be distributed to the public on a uniform basis. that way the person that does better than average in reducing their carbon emissions will actually make money.
if this be gradually increases, then peoplehood -- then people will buy a more efficient car, and so it their homes, and struck down carbon emissions. host: urban tax -- and drive down carbon emissions host:. ahoy our guest is ahoy joining us -- host: our guest is joining us from houston. we're talking climate change and as you look toward copenhagen, dr. hansen, what are you most hope for from the son of feddis -- the summit of the starting today? half guest: we're going to have to get on a very different track and what is being talked about by the political leaders because if you look at the problem and see how much carbon and we are getting from oil, gas, and coal, what you quickly realize is that we're going to
have to phase out emissions from coal. and we're going to have to prohibit emissions from the on conventional fossil fuels like tarzan'tar sands, hot but if yok at what is happening around the world, the united states just signed an agreement with canada related to the pipeline to carry tar sands to the united states, so, in fact, the actions that are needed are not being taken. what is being talked about for copenhagen amounts to what were called indulgences in the middle ages, when the singers at the end of the year could purchase from the catholic church -- wendy sinnerswhen the sinnersa f
the year could purchase from the catholic church. what they're talking about in copenhagen will bring a small amount of money for the countries and developing countries are calling for as much as they can get, but they are not talking about phasing down the carbon emissions at a rate that would solve the crime problem. hong host: our guest -- host: our guest is the author of a new book called "storms of my grandchildren" and it gets released tomorrow. but what are you writing about here, dr. hansen? guest: is about the calamities that our children and grandchildren face if we stay on business as usual, but it is also about the actions we could take that have many other advantages in terms of facing off our addiction to fossil fuel.
but what i show is that we are not taking that path. the government talks about such a path, but it is green wash. if you look at the actual emissions and how they are changing, if you look at the plant for unconventional fossil fuels, you realize that they are not actually on that path. people are going to have to stand upon if they are interested in the future that their children and grandchildren will face, and therefore do have to tell the government they will have to be more honest about this. -- and they will have to tell the government they will have to be more honest about this. host: first,, good morning. caller: i would just like to point ..out of that people who deny climate change, for years we polluted our water and look
what that did. why do people think doing that to our area will be any different? -- doing that to our air will be any different? guest: people have a hard time seeing the connection between the gases and caught a change because so far, the warming is about 2 degrees fahrenheit, and that is small compared to weather fluctuations. but that is partly because it takes the climate system quite a substantial time to respond to the changes, so there is more change in the pipeline. and it does not take a very big temperature change globally to see the effects. we can see them occurring in the arctic mountain glaciers melted are around the world, climate zones are beginning to shift. host: you mentioned a 2%.
what percentage of a figure of warming would travel you the most and what might we see? look ahead, if you could. guest: our mission is not 2% from about 2 degrees. host: i apologize, two degrees you said, yes. guest: what has become clear in the last two or three years is that the dangerous level in the warming or the dangerous amount of atmosphere carbon dioxide is a lot less than what we thought several years ago. in fact, at present, we have increased carbon dioxide from 280 to 387 parts per million. we are already in a dangerous zone. if we leave co2 that high and allowed it to go higher, than it is clear, for example, that the ice sheets are not going to be stable in the long run. we already have this remarkable satellite, and gravity
satellite, which measures the earth's origin -- gravitational field so accurately that we can see the changes in the mass of the greenland and the arctic ice sheet. that was data that begun -- that we began to take in 2002. initially, it was at a rate of 150 to 200 cubic kilometers per year. it is now losing mass at almost 300 cubic kilometers per year. and a and dr. cut, which had been close to mass balance, -- and antarctica, which had been close to mass balance, is now losing nasmass. if we continue, those eyes she to will become unstable and we will get rapid cboe -- those ice sheet will become unstable and to get rapid sea level rise. it will be a chaotic situation for our children and grandchildren.
we will have to decrease of atmospheric co2 back below 350 parts per million. that is possible if we phase out coal emissions and prohibit and conventional fossil fuels like oil shale and tar sands. host: moving on to tennessee. tennessee, are you there? paul, what is the name of your town? caller: petros. mr. hansen, i have a quick call and a question for you. my comment is, i work in the coal mines. we had some scientists come in and tell us that the water runoff from where we had served mind was running into the water
beds polluting. that is a senseless because just as much water was running off the mountain into the water system. but my question is, co2, i understand that as a gimmick -- dangerous chemicals to are out this year. i'm wondering if you would like to have us put on the muzzles of that every time we agreed, we are not -- so that every time we agreed we are not reading this a of pollutants back out -- every time we breathe we are not in his backyard into the atmosphere. co guest: 25 nominal levels are not harmful to human -- co2 at nominal levels is not harmful to humans. but in excess, it traps in the atmosphere in heat radiation and causes the atmosphere to become
warmer. that is the danger, its effect on the climate, its properties in absorbing heat radiation. host: next call, bill, independent line. caller: mr. hansen, i have read your stuff over the years and i appreciate your book and i will go out and get it. two questions, one is, do you believe in the northwest passage melting that have been a couple of years ago, maybe last year, and should be highlighted as one of the media things that we are getting, result of global warming? and two, i do not see a massive pr campaign to the public. you can tell by the calls that we have been getting over the last few weeks. people do not understand that it is not natural because the amount of co2 is equal to seven
mount st. helens and volcanoes. --and co2 is not a pollutant, like you said, but too much and you drowne. guest: co2, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is affected by volcanoes. it is one of the -- one of the interesting things is that if you look at the really long history of climate, there were times when volcanoes were particularly active and when they were -- by shrewd say that the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is determined by the source, which is volcanoes, and the sink, which is the
weathering process that takes the co2 out of the atmosphere and deposits it on the ocean floor. but there have been times -- and the amount of co2 from volcanoes depends on continental drift. when there are continent moving through ocean regions that have a lot of carbon that on the ocean floor, then we get more co2 in the atmosphere. there was a time 50 million years ago when india was moving to the indian ocean and spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that there was so much co2 in the atmosphere that it was much warmer than now. -- there was no ice on the planet. natural changes like that can occur, but they changed -- those changes occur very slowly over long time frames. and the rate at which humans are now changing atmospheric co2
is 10,000 times faster than the national -- natural changes. now the humans are determining the future of climate. that is what we have to pay attention to. we are now in charge of atmospheric composition. host: guest is james hansen, the director for nasa's carter institute -- daughter to institute. the headlines say that businesses are fuming over the epa rule. what does that mean to you? guest: well, it is dangerous in terms of been the principal factor that determines our future climate. it would be great if congress would pass a responsible
legislation that would deal with this problem, but the things that they are talking about now, the waxman-markey bill, the bill and the senate -- in the senate are completely ineffectual and they do more harm than good. i think the administration is wisely using the clean air act to put pressure on congress to come up with more effective legislation. host: houston, our next call commentary on the line for democrats with james hansen. caller: i am one of the few people that have actually developed ap 42 software for emission laws and things like this. they have a storage capacity of over 10 million barris of oil. a lot of these storage plants
like to overstate their emissions losses so they will not lose their capacity. they fear that if they understate it there will be a cap on that and they will not be able to build any more storage or production capacity. i have one more question. there is no human activity on mars. there is no human activity on neptune, and yet, we are observing the ice caps on mars melting and the eyes associated with neptune is reducing. can you -- the ice as you stated with neptune is reducing. can you explain that? guest: with regard to his first comment, indeed, one of the reasons that the fee and dividend makes more sense than cap and trade is that we have
with cap and trade is that a lot of countries are encouraged to keep that pollution because they can sell out to the developed countries as one of the offsets which allows the developed countries to continue their pollution. that system just is not make sense. instead, we should put a price on the emissions, on the carbon emissions. that would encourage both developed and developing countries to reduce their emissions. as far as the planetary temperatures are concerned, there is no inconsistency in any observations of any of the planets and the fact that the earth's temperature is increasing because of carbon dioxide. the amount of ice caps on mars and changes for a number of reasons. there is weather on mars just like there is weather on the
earth. host: steven, illinois, you're on the line with james hansen. caller: the main question i want to ask you is, you were talking about different things that could pollute the air. and what is the u.s. going to do -- you know, we have the nuclear power plants that are operating now. the most of them are on a 40 year contract. these companies are taking bids for more 40-year contracts. what happens if george three of those nuclear plant has an accident -- what happens if two or three of those nuclear plants
has an accident in the next 20 or 30 years? nuclear guest: is actually one of these -- guest: nuclear is -- a one of the safest energy producers that we have. the next generation of nuclear power is inherently much safer. it has the ability to shut down automatically in the event of any anomalies. and there is even a greater potential in the fourth generation nuclear-powered, which would be capable of burning more than 99% of the energy and the nuclear fuel while present nuclear power plants to burn less than 1% of the energy. they end up leaving a large part of the nuclear fuel as a waste product with a very long half- life ended is a big problem.
but the fourth generation nuclear power would be capable of burning almost all of that and of leaving a product with a much shorter half life. and even would be capable of burning the waste from the older generation nuclear power plants. it is very unfortunate that the clinton-gore administration in 1994 terminated the fourth generation nuclear research right at a time when they're ready to make a demonstration plant. it is something that we need to be looking at for the future because it has the potential to produce carbon free energy. host: at a time for a few more calls. dr. hansen, we wanted to get a twitter message sent your way. guest: the carbon feet, we would need to have an agreement with europe and with china to have a
carbon fee in these places and if they did not want to have a carbon fee, then place a duty on the products that are imported from those countries in proportion to the amount of carbon that is emitted in the production of those commodities. in fact, this approach is much easier to get an international agreement, and all countries involved, much easier than what is used for the kyoto protocol and what they're talking about in a copenhagen. host: what countries do you look toward iran the world as well models in the area of dealing with -- are round of the world as models in the area of dealing with climate change? guest: china is getting very
aggressive with renewable energies and looking at nuclear power, both third and fourth generation. we're going to get -- we need to get moving or we're going to lose our advantage. we still have the best expertise in the world with nuclear power, but we need to take advantage of that. we should be developing carbon free products but we can sell to the rest of the world. the way things are going, it looks like we're going to be passed up by china if we do not get off our duffs. host: the next caller is on the independent line. caller: with regard to the summit in copenhagen, how you feel that with the release of these recent 1000 e-mails, what impact you think of all have on the summit? it would seem to indicate intentional of fraudulent
scientific data coming from them, which also implicates the doddered institutes -- goddard institute and phil jones, who recently stepped down. can people believe the data coming from them? host: reliability of data, dr. hansen. it did guest: not have any effect of all -- guest: it does not have any effect at all with our understanding of climate change. in fact, climate changes around the world are very well documented. as far as this specific issue of global temperature is concerned, if there were anything wrong with of those analyses of global warming, that it is completely available, the data from the 5000 weather
stations around the continental areas, the ocean temperature data and the polar regions where temperatures are measured by different research stations. all of that data is well available and is available on our website. if any answer -- any other answer could be extracted from that, don't you think that these deniers, the contrarians would immediately published that result? they are waging a propaganda war. and frankly, those e-mail messages gave them a lot of ammunition. it is unfortunate that east anglia did not want to release aratheir raw data. the way science works, you'll have to release your data so that other people can test whether they agree with your
knossos. the the information is available on our website. with your analysis. the data that we use in our institute is on our web site so anyone can check that if they want to. host: let's go to seattle, on the line for democrats. caller: my question is about your talk of 2 degrees warming already. i have followed global warming pretty closely the last few years and something that caught my attention more than anything is the possibility of a self sustaining warming from the source of carbon dioxide matter in the northern part of our hemisphere. i was wondering what degree we would reach, or maybe what your we would reach a degree at the pace we are on now or we would
reach the possibility of losing control of this completely. host: thanks for calling. guest: what the caller is referring to is what we call amplifying feedbacks. in particular, the one he is referring to is the fact that there is a lot of methane, frozen methane stored in the tundra and on the continental shelves beneath the ocean water. there have been times in the earth's history when some warming has occurred and it has caused this methane to melt and release that nothing gas into the atmosphere. it is a very strong greenhouse gas ended amplifies greatly the warming and affects the possibility of the warming becoming a a an -- becoming out of our control. that is one of our our -- one of the things that we talk about in our book. it is very hard to say when that will occur, but what we can say
is that if we stay on business as usual, then i expect that this century, within several decades, will begin to see the ice sheets become unstable. when that happens, and they begin to discharge more icebergs in the ocean, that will tend to cool the north atlantic ocean and the southern ocean around antarctica and that will increase the temperature gradients between low latitudes, which continue to warm from the greenhouse gases, and these high latitude ocean areas. that increased the temperature gradient will drive stronger storms. and the sea level rises and a stronger storms, there will be chaos in cities in towns located along coastlines all around the world. and i think there is a danger that the economies will be in so much trouble that we will not be able to control this problem.
we may eventually cause the release of these methane hydrates and then the whole system gets our to our control. that is why we need to get on a different path -- but the whole system gets out of our control. that is why we need to be on a different path soon. host: idaho, on the line for the report -- on the republican line for james hansen. caller: i just heard from this gentleman the most blatant, ignored propaganda against the catholic church that i have heard from anyone in the long, long time on the public airways. i would just like to say that we are farmers and we have had such a cold fall this year that we cannot even get -- our wheat is not coming up out of the ground and replanted earlier than --
wheat planted earlier than usual. and personally, his information about the so-called global warming and they have changed it to climate change, of course we're going to have climate change. but really -- can we really have to global warming? can it really be measured? i think this man is doing a lot of propaganda. i am dismayed at his comments. host: dr. hansen, one last comment before we wrap up. go ahead. guest: with regard to religion, and baptized into the latter-day saints church, but i happened to fall in love with a catholic and i married one. and just by coincidence, both of our children married catholics as well. the fact that the catholic church sold indulgences is an historical fact. catholic church does not deny it, but they realize it is not a good thing to do and did
not do it any longer. host: is there anything else you want to add about copenhagen, especially from your book? is there another action that you want to lay out for us before we wrap up? guest: the actions of the government are going to have to take is putting a price on carbon emissions and giving that money, 100% back to the public either in the form of a monthly dividend or a payroll tax deduction or some combination of those two things. but unless we do that, carbon emissions are going to continue to increase and a public is going to have to -- of the public is going to have to look into this problem. it is fairly complicated. that is why i decided to write a book. but we're going to have to put pressure on our government's for our children and grandchildren. they continue to look only at the short time scales, but we
have to consider the long-term future for young people. host: james hansen is in houston, the director of the directorgoddard -- thehe directr of the nasa goddard institute'. >> a few hours later the environmentalprotection agency announced greenhouse gases are a danger. here's a news conference held by lisa jackson. >> good afternoon, everyone. a special hello to those who are
online and to everyone on the phone. the scientific community, the business community, and the policy world have spent decades studying green house gas solution and climate change of scientists in the united states and around the world have tracked in the last century. and in particular the last three decades alarming increases in the amount of green house gases in our skies. that increase is deteriorating the natural balance in our atmosphere and changing our climate. there has and will continue to be debates about how, and how quickly climate change will happen if we fail to act. but the overwhelming amount of scientific study show that the threat is real, as does the evidence before our very eyes. polar icecaps crumbling into the ocean, changing migratory pat yernses -- patterns of animals,
historic droughts, more powerful storms and disappearing coastlines. after decades of this mounting evidence, climate change has now become a household issue. parents across the united states and around the world are concerned for their children and grandchildren. governments rin vesting billions in adeptations, strategies. businesses are investing billions in efforts to cut greenhouse gases. military planners are projecting new hot spots of instability and conflict. they know that if we do not act to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet we leave to the next generation will be a very different place than the one we know today. in 2007, the united states supreme court handed down perhaps the most significant decision ever reached in environment law. the court ruled that the clean air act, the landmark, 1970 law, aimed at protecting our air is written to include greenhouse
gas solutions. that verdict echoed with many scientists, policymakers and concerned citizens have said for years there are no more excuses for delay. regrettably there was continued delay. but this administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren. today i am proud to announce that e.p.a. has finalized this endangerment finding on greecehouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the clean air act. this long, overdue finding seements 2009's place in history as the year when the united states government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean energy reform. in less than 11 months we have
done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened until the last eight years. earlier this year e.p.a. established this country's first and what i believe will be a world leading nationwide greenhouse gas emissions reporting system. next month, large areas of the united states will begin working to monitor their emissions. beginning in 2011 large emitters will for the first time submit publicly available information that will allow us to meaningfully track greenhouse gas emissions over time. this reporting will also bring to light opportunities to jump-start private investment and energy efficiency and new technologies and products, saving money, improving bottom lines, and growing the economy. and it does all of this in a common sense way, without putting a burden on small businesses or other critical sectors of our economy. through the recovery act and the support of strong clean energy
reform legislation, president obama has led the way in cutting green house gas solution and reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil which threatens our national security and our economy. today's endangerment findings provide the legal foundation for finalizing the recently proposed clean cars program. that program was developed in collaboration with the american auto industry and other stakeholders and contains the nation's first ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from american vehicles. and starting next spring large emitting facilities will be required to incorporate the best available methods for controlling greenhouse gas emissions when they plan to construct or expand operations. these are reasonable, common sense steps that will allow to us do what the clean air act does best. reduce emissions for better health, strife technology for a better economy and protect the
future. all without placing an undue burden on the bidses that make up -- businesses that make up the economy. today's announcements and these reforts designed to complement comprehensive clean energy reform. we look forward to working with congress to get a bill to the president's desk and to implementing that bill once it has been signed. we know that skeptics have and will continue to try to throw doubts about the science. it's no wonder that many people are confused. but raising doubts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years. those tactics have only served to delay and distract from the real work ahead. namely growing our clean energy economy and freeing ourselves from foreign oil that endangers our security and our economy. it's time that we let the science speak for itself in
making this finding we relied on decades of sound, reviewed extensively evaluated scientific data. that data came from around the world and from our own u.s. scientists. today's actions is a step towards enduring pragmatic solutions to the enormous challenge of climate change. it is a step towards innovation, investment, and implementation of technologies that reduce harmful emissions. and it's a step towards green jobs, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a better future for our children. it also means that we arrived at the climate talks in copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge. we hope that today's announcement serves as another incentive for far-reaching accords in our meetings this week. in taking action now and recognizing this threat now we join the hundreds of other
countries, thousands of leading scientists, tens of thousands of innovative -- innovators, entrepreneurs and private companies, millions of americans, and billions of global citizens who have seen the overwhelming evidence and called for action on climate change. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> at this time we'll open it up for questions. we'll do it one at a time.
>> my understanding under the tailoring rule that the e.p.a. does not exempt or preempt state action, and many states have 100 to 250-ton limits under the title 5 provisions. will that mean that those states then can or must regulate at that threshold? >> your question is a legal one, so i will not attempt to do the whole analysis here. what i will say about state action is that state action has been critical to getting us where we are so far. we work closely with states. and states ray key player as the legislative discussion continues. my point earlier was in making sure that the american people understand that we here at e.p.a. believe that there are ways to sensibly move forward on regulations. so far what we've done is primarily deregulatory. it's given assurances to small businesses and medium businesses that they would not be regulated
while giving a clear signal to larger emitters. emitters who burn over 131 rail cars a year of coal, for example. that regulations can come under the clean act. >> [question inaudible] why didn't you delay an and on e basis have you moved ahead? >> i didn't delay it because there is nothing in the hack e-mail that undermines the science upon which this decision is based. when you see the decision, and i hope you will review it, you'll see that the responses include responses to questions about the underlying science which are being raised given with respect to this particular issue. but this issue has not raised new scientific questions which aren't address the already in this finding. [question inaudible] >> i think the thing to talk about is the amount of science.
the united states scientists many organizations have been studying this data for years. it's one thread of looking at one data set over many, many data sets and literally thousands of different threads of nal cease, all of which reach the consensus that climate change is happening, made by man-made emissions. and then we look at that and look at the droughts, the flooding. >> the changes in diseases, the changes in migratory habits, the changes in our water cycle and climate that we now find affect health hult and welfare. health and welfare. >> you said that next spring large meeting facilities will be required to incorporate the best available control technologies. is that under the clean air act or are you going to propose a new rule? >> e.p.a. has already proposed a
rule that says that large facilities, those that emit over 25,000 tons per year would be subject to the backed requirements under the clean air act. the clean air act sets out a simple premise which is once you know you have pollution and once you know it's endangering human health and welfare, then e.p.a. must act and it must compel facilities to use the best technologies out there. now, it was pretty smart of people to realize that technology evolves over time. and my belief is that anything done in the future, under the clean air act -- and we have not proposed what those technologies will look like, has to be done with an eye towards what's happening in congress but more importantly, the development of technology. we simply cannot make people implement the technology that does not yet exist under regulations. >> [question inaudible] >> the work that has to be done is that e.p.a. would have to put out technical guidance to tell a facility what that would mean and then work with states, back
to ian's question, to implement those requirements. >> do you still believe legislative solution is better than this? and if so, explain that. >> i absolutely do. i stand firm in my belief that legislation is the best way to move our economy forward on clean energy and to address climate pollution. the reason is because legislation is comprehensive. it can be economy wide, it can move us -- it can transition us, as the president has said. and it can give business absolute certainty that we are on the road to clean energy, that the investments that they want to make either in retrofit or in technology, development, and demonstration and deployment, will be a profitable one because they know that this country is on the road. that being said, i do not believe this is an either/or proposition. i actually see this as a both/and. i believe the clean air act can compliment legislative efforts. and, in fact, the clean car
rules that we proposed is an excellent example of that. >> robin with green wire. several environmental groups have petitioned the e.p.a. to set national air quality standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. i wonder what your plans are with that petition and whether the endangerment finding requires you to set an act for the carbon dioxide. >> nothing in today's action requires any regulatory action. that's an important distinction. thanks, robin. we will review the petition and respond appropriately. i have never believed and this agency has never believed that setting a national ambien air quality standard for greenhouse gases was advisable. that being said, we need to look at the petition. i don't know that there's anything in there that would change my view. but we'll do that. >> [question inaudible]
>> well, today's action, again, is the basis for the rule. you have to find endangerment in order to then be compelled. and it's not a choice to act under the clean air act. further action would certainly be warranted when we talk about a threat to public health and welfare. so e.p.a. continues its work on the regulatory front. and i want to emphasize again, i believe it's not either/or. i don't want anyone to leave here thinking that because we continue our work, i don't stand firm in my belief that we need legislation. that being said, i also believe quite firmly that there are things that the clean air act will allow to us do, clean cars, emissions reporting that we've already done that pave the way for this country to move smartly, sensibly, common sense towards a clean energy future. >> is it your intent that this endangerment finding will push
members of congress who are right now on the fence to get on to your side and to work for climate and energy bill? >> no. no. my intention here is to follow up on an almost three-year-old requirement from the united states supreme court that e.p.a. address climate pollution, that it address greenhouse gases that the clean air act does, in fact, allow us to do so. and as you know, this draft endangerment finding has been worked on for years, predating the obama administration. the other parted of my attention, to be quite frank, is to release the science that so many e.p.a. employees worked on so diligently and i think so effectively to reduce the questions in many people's minds to an answer about public health and welfare. this year, 2009, the united states government is saying once and for all that we are in the clean energy and climate arena.
that with respect to climate pollution, we will act. >> so the stations will have to start recording next year? >> january. >> when will you -- [inaudible] rules that will cut their emission? what's the schedule for rules to cut their emissions? >> i don't have a schedule for additional rules with respect to the clean air act for stationary sources. we have proposed a rule that talks about how we believe the clean air act would apply to stationary sources. that's the so-called tailor rule. >> do you have a fast track? >> no, no. we have a plan to continue working. and we will, indeed -- this is certainly not an ending. we will continue to work under the clean air act because that's what we must now legally do. what's expected in finding, we are compelled to address greenhouse gas pollution.
>> just to follow up on that. you say you will complement what congress is doing, but the senate leadership has indicated they don't plan to get around to a vote on a climate change bill until early spring, which is late march, early april according to the calendar. so it is possible that e.p.a. could issue these rules before they get around to voting on the climate change bill? >> well, i certainly have heard thership -- the leadership in the senate say they do intend to move to legislation. we see very promising engagement by a number of senators. for example, when they turn to those rules, they'll have the benefit of an emissions reporting inventory that's now set in rules that e.p.a. has already adopted because we did that under different authority. this is not an eernlg/or. i have not laid out a timeline. i will make sure that we are watching and working with
congress in their legislative effort. so they are independent in timeline. we don't have a timeline that looks at the senate. but i certainly hope to see them move quickly. >> a couple of questions on the phone. >> we need the best available technology. >> ok. while we wait on that, we'll take other questions from the audience. >> [question inaudible] >> the vast body of scientific evidence not only remains, it's growing stronger it points to
one conclusion, that greenhouse gas there's human activity are increasing at unprecedentedded rates and -- unprecedented rates and are affecting our environment and threatening our health. the findings i make today are firmly grounded in science that come from independent lines of evidence, including by united states scientists. and all of that work has been publicly commented on to varying degrees. and if you need one more point of certainty, it's that critics who have been opposing climate change and scientists who disagree whether they oppose climate change policy or not with scientific findings, commented. e.p.a. received almost 400,000 comments. and many were from scientists who brought up their scientific argument. all of that material is in the record. all of it has been responded to in making this finding. and that's why i stand here certain that the science has been thoroughly evaluated, that the underlying scientists, both in those e-mails and the vast body that isn't addressed in any
one of those e-mails, remains the same. as i said, we have to continually look at the science. >> [question inaudible] >> the underlying data -- first off, there's lots of data from the c.r.u. then there's a data set that's now the subject that -- the subject of some of these e-mails. but then there are several other data sets that have been evaluated by hundreds of scientists. and all of that work is in thousands of different articles, all of that are reviewed. so you're talking about one tiny thread out of thousands of threads of evidence in data and scientific information that lead me to stand here today confident that there was no reason to delay. and, in fact, we could move forward with work that we have. >> we're going to try one last question from the phone. are we ready on the phone? >> your question from the line
with "the wall street journal." >> hi, administrator. thanks for doing this call. i have a two-part question. i know you say that you are not putting out a timeline for the rules on emissions, but could you just give an idea of when you think the earliest would be that the e.p.a. could propose rules covering c02 from existing power plants? and secondly, could you clarify why it is that you're issuing this rule now as opposed to doing it concurrent with the vehicle rule? because i'm told this is the first time e.p.a. has issued an endangerment finding separate from the rule to actually regulate the pollutant. >> the answer to your first question is, no, i have no additional information on timelines, steve. and the second question, yes, this is different. this was the subject. this finding itself was the subject of a u.s. supreme court case. there has been much written. and in fact, earlier this year e.p.a. released the endangerment finding that was put together under the bush administration, sent over to the white house and
never opened. in my mind, in order to show the american people that e.p.a. is on the job it's about doing its job. it was important for our credibility and for the trust of the american people to know that we would put this information out for public comment and act on it in an expeditious fashion. we would keep the ball moving. it's my hope that the ball is in movement, as it moves to congress, they'll keep pace on the ball. >> thanks very much, everyone. >> thank you. thanks, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] captioned by the national captioning institute -- www.ncicap.org -- .
i was sound asleep. we were asleep and the build and started rattling. -- the building started rattling. we did not think much about it, but when we heard a big boom, we thought we ought to get up and see. we went downstairs and looked out and saw that it was more than what we thought. you could see a jet plane go up. we went back, got dressed, and came down. it was roughly 100 yards and watch the arizona sank in nine minutes. you cannot think of what to do. and then after the ship blew up, the sailors started coming ashore with the skin peeling off their back in their arms. we help them out of the water and i remember distinctly taking one man named flanagan, happened to be an instant, took him down
to the hospital. -- happened to be in inan ensig, to come down to the hospital. the doctor looked him over, if he thought he could say them, you took him over here. if he did not, you took into the second line. that was a fellow they did not think would make it. the rule was that if you were physically aboard the ship on december 7, europe remains would be interred in the ship. but we're working on the program so that anybody that was part of the ship's crew on december 7 can have that privilege. >> to watch more extended interviews, go to c-span.org. >> what new rules does the internet need to govern the way information travels over networks? this week, two views on that neutrality in the future of the internet tonight on c-span2.
>> american icons -- three original document is from c-span now available on the day. a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public towards into those rarely seen spaces of the white house. america's most famous home. and explore the history art and architecture of the capitol, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons -- at three disk dvd said. is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org. >> topics in today's white house briefing includes the epa ruling and the 2011 deadline for security transition in afghanistan. press secretary robert gibbs speaks with reporters for about an hour.
>> good afternoon. sorry we got pushed back a couple of times. the president ran a little late this morning due to meetings and we wanted to make sure that people had access to this without stepping on this. >> what can you tell us about the president's decision about copenhagen? why the need to reschedule? >> the president believes -- we announced the trip prior to osl o, believing that talks in
copenhagen would be good for the president to go and give some momentum to those talks at the beginning of the period. i think it is one of last 11 or 12 days in copenhagen. -- is going to last 1112 days. based on developments with the chinese in the indians, i think everyone agrees that we are in a better position -- we globally -- to get some sort of agreement out of copenhagen. and the president believes, having helped to worked with them, annunciating our commitments as well as insuring that the indians and chinese talk about their commitments -- that we can move that to the end of the conference when some agreement is likely to need some help from world leaders. >> how much help are they going to get from the epa decision to cop -- to classify greenhouse
gases as pollutants? >> this was set into motion by 2007 supreme court decision, mass. v. e.p.a., which set in motion the scientific process to determine whether public health was threatened by carbon dioxide as a pollutant. the president continues to strongly believe that the best way poleward -- forward is to the passage of comprehensive climate change legislation which has passed the house and is being considered now on the senate side. but the best way to move forward is through the legislative process, understanding that the court ruled that some action had to be taken based on the lawsuit. >> the timing looks politically convenient. >> the timing is based on the fact that the first step in this process is being completed.
>> on the epa and on oslo. will the president mentioned afghanistan in a troop increase in his speech? can you give a flavor -- can you give us a flavor of what he is saying? >> i do not want to get ahead of him on this. but suffice to say it would be -- the president is under -- we will address directly the notion that many have wondered, which is the juxtaposition of the timing for the nobel peace prize and his commitment to add more troops into afghanistan. that is obviously something that he will address. >> as a war president? >> exactly. >> on the epa issued, if
legislation does not come from the senate next year, they had this in their hand as a backup? >> going back to what i said, that process was set in motion by the supreme court decision on a lawsuit in 2007. what our administration would say and when the president meets later in the week with business leaders that are supportive of comprehensive clean energy legislation that puts america at the forefront of creating millions of jobs based on clean energy, that we do so through the legislative process. that that is what is important to read and quite frankly, we have the ability to do that, right? i think what the president would say and what everyone would say is the power to control the solution to this is indeed in our hands. we just have to use it.
again, this was set in motion almost two years ago. i do not know the exact date. it could be more than two years because the court decision came down in september. this was set by the court two years ago. >> this report that the administration that is sending to congress today about tarp money, one of the less -- one of the parts of the report that the administration has not been talking about as much is the fact that it looks like taxpayers will learned -- lose about $30,000,000,000.-64847366 >> from the bailout of the automaker's third what is the message about that $60 billion likely to be lost? i think the president would say in any dealings with tarp is
that collective lay a number of tough decisions were made to stabilize the economic situation. nobody liked having to make those decisions. but the president believes and the leaders that made the decisions before the president got here believe that steps had to be taken in order to stabilize the financial system. what is important are couple of things going forward, first and foremost, that we get financial reform so that when you have something like an aig, an insurance company with a hedge fund perched on top of it, that using resolution of party you can break this two entities apart in order to stabilize the financial system and ensure that one does not unduly harm the other. but again, jay, he would reiterate that we regrettably had to make some tough
decisions. we have on some of these payments gotten repaid by banks and gotten repaid with interest. but we had to make some tough decisions to ensure the security and stability ultimately of the financial system. i think so. i think the president, not an easy or a decision that he probably believed he would be making, but the president believed that it was important to use a portion of that might help stabilize gm and chrysler and put them on a path toward sustainability by themselves. i think that we have already seen that through recent auto sales figures that some progress
is indeed being made on that. >> on the troops, all of the international troop levels in afghanistan, with very -- >> some of them. >> they come with constraints -- cat gets about no fighting in the south, no fighting at night to, no combat. are you working -- is the administration working to change that so that it is not just a few countries willing to put troops in harm's way? >> first and foremost, we are pleased by the international effort to that has no increasingly stepping up -- nato increasingly stepping up to meet international commitments. i think that what you will hear and see from commanders on the ground from our perspective is that we can now take troops and other parts of the country and
focus them more on the south and east as others ancome in to fill in the north and the west. i think what you see it as a result of the president's engagement on this policy is a half the international commitment that will help meet an international problem as i have said and the president has said numerous times, this is not one country or one region's problem. this is an international problem. and we're quite pleased with the step that the international community has taken to meet this commitment. travelers will be more fair or more in keeping with natal's charter, the statement you just made about how this is an international obligation, not just a western obligation, for other countries to be willing to send troops to combat? >> quite a few will be adding to
those commitments. certain people have -- again, certain caveat are there. we can find ways to use those troops. some of those jurors will be used for training, i did afghan national army or the afghan national police. and without that training, without meeting the force requirements for an afghan national security force, it gets harder for afghans to ultimately assume responsibility. we have got some very important goals that commanders believe can be met. and these troops will help us do that. >> i want to talk about the u.s. forces. admiral mullen saying the july 2011 is not a deadline. you agree with that?
>> secretary gates said that yesterday's and followed up by saying that is the date by which -- on which the transition will begin of our forces ending security responsibility -- handing research -- handing security responsibility over to the afghans. july 2011 comes from the pentagon and admiral mullen. the pentagon gave as part of the process to the security team a number of things including the july 2011 security date. as most recently as this morning, as the commander-in- chief, he is clear about what july 2011 mean spirit that as -- that is the point at which we will transition, and in the security responsibility for afghanistan to the afghans, understanding that as the
president said all little under weeks ago at west point that the troop jet to read that that transition will happen will be based on appropriate conditions on the ground as it happened in iraq. >> why did general john say yes today -- say yesterday? general petreaus says that it is not. >> i think it is a difference -- no, no. having been in these meetings, maybe the word wrap has stripped people out. -- ramp has tripped people up. the ramp george jones was discussing, i talked to general petreaus about this on air force one, but to and from the area. the one we are all referring is from july 2011 that the president has made clear that there will be a transition, there is a ramp at that point
where based on the commission -- conditions on the ground, will decide the pacing for the banning of american forces. but again, the president has made crystal clear that that date of transition is july 2011. >> on copenhagen, one of the republican comcomplaints is that they want better investigation of the e-mailed controversy. others say that they believe that the science is not sound. what is the president's reaction and your reaction to this e-mail controversy? you think is raising legitimate concerns? >> i think everyone is clear and the signs. i think scientists are clear on the sides. -- on the science. i think this notion that there is some debate on the science is kind of silly.
>> on max baucus, it was one of three names that she he sent to the white house for u.s. attorney. degeneracy not play any role in reducing himself from any of those discussions -- did jim mecina recused himself from any of those discussions? >> i do not know. senator baucus did not give us any information about those three names. nobody here was involved in that. well, when i say nobody was involved in it, i do not mean everybody but people know senator baucus. i mean nobody. those are obviously jobs based on who is best for the job. >> on the anniversary of pearl harbor, what is the president's attitude for the japanese wanted
to relocate? >> we discussed a process whereby -- we discussed in japan with the japanese a process of going through those discussions with them. i do not have anything more to had been with the prime minister and the president talked about in japan a few weeks ago. there is a position because there is an agreement. i think that is what both of those sides reiterate. >> why didn't president bring up the public option with congress? >> the president has throughout this process talked about the importance of getting it done. talk about ensuring that those who have insurance will see their costs go down, and we're
serious about addressing the budgetary implications -- not just in paying for health care reform but understanding that we're changing the direction of the cost and providing accessible and affordable insurance to those who do not have it. the president reiterated that message, and the idea to continue to work toward that goal in the senate and get something out of the senate and passed, the president did not get any individual in amendments. >> does not care about these? are the obstacles to difficult to overcome? >> i cannot be so. i think senator reid has deployed in terms of the public option. they are getting together in discussing the issue. by all accounts, those discussions are going well and they are making progress. yes, sir. >> on july 2011, first of all, i
and steny was a date paid by the pentagon, but still, i think that reason people still seem to be struggling with it and we're talking about it on the show's guest today is that it feels so arbitrary. what if july -- what a june 2011 or august turns out to be of better time? we're not changing that date? >> that is an arbitrary hypothetical. i point you to -- this was not an orderly picked by the pentagon. this was a decision based -- this was not an arbitrary picked by the pentagon. this was based on the strategy set by the president, and whatever had to happen in order to ramp up the training of the army in the police at the point at which they are capable of
taking over that responsibility. the pentagon determined that that date was july 2011. >> what they do better than they think? >> that would be a nice problem to have. understand -- in no, it could happen earlier, sure. it will not happen later. the president is quite clear on this. understand -- what happened between the meeting by which this date was originally discussed, what happened in the process moving forward was the ramp up of troops actually happen faster than the original chart that the pentagon had. what that means is our forces, on the president's mission, will in fact get there faster, therefore be there longer, in order to help accomplish the goals necessary for that
thinning to take place. that date starts in july 2011. >> what they say they will not be ready in july 2011? >> will have assessments throughout this process that will measure us attaining the goals leading up to that point. the president has been clear. the transition point begins on july 2011 because the pentagon says that is the point at which the mission will be able to do that. >> that is what they say now. but if they change what is the point, then -- >> you are discussing that and the president is clear on july 20 -- 2011. >> any change from friday -- i was unclear on what the present was just suggesting for using tarp money for a jobs bill. where does that stand right now? >> that is something that this
white house is looking at. i will repeat what the president says and not get ahead of what he will be talking about tomorrow, but one of the things that the report that trait made mention of is that -- that jake made mention of it that you -- if you compare the amount of money consider necessary then and what is necessary now, it will be 144 billion. the white house is looking at whether or not using that for legislation to create an environment for increased hiring for jobs, whether that would be available. >> it was not appropriate for jobs programs. it was appropriated for things like weatherization and the kind of thing that you had in the first in euless.
money to states to keep them from laying off workers, tax breaks for small business, weatherization infrastructure, it sounds like the same kind of stuff that was in the stimulus. is it that silly to say that this is not a second stimulus? how can you use money from tarp to pay for a second stimulus? it's like a slush fund, as republicans say. >> i think republicans are simply dead wrong. you can look it in the number of figures to denote the wild they have continued to criticize the recovery act, we of st. the first positive job growth and four economic quarters, and resolve the -- we saw the first positive job growth in four economic quarters. the president and his team as well as members on capitol hill are looking at these questions to see what are the important
and necessary next steps. some of which, but not all of which, the president will discuss tomorrow. >> you're saying that this is not a secular -- second stimulus. >> it is not. >> even though it covers the same thing as the first time it was. another question, the mumbai situation 3 do you know anything about that? >> yes. [laughter] that is my job. i can actually say that indeed i do. for information relating to those indictment, i wouldn't want you to the department of justice and the -- i would point you to the department of justice and the department then handed down the indictment. we continue to say in the president does, and too, that we will continue to take every step
necessary to protect the american people. today it was an important day in doing that. the oilers won more tarp? the president, when he was asked about the use of tarp funds, he seemed to indicate that there are parameters out about what can be used. he said that the initial reasoning to use the tarp funds was to build up credit markets, and he would look to use that money for that to move credit for small businesses. i guess my question is, does he believe there are parameters on what this money can and cannot be used for? >> no final determinations have been made. when final determinations are and have been made, then we will discuss with those decisions are. >> is the interpretation of the laws it was passed? is that what they will be looking at? >> i did not know the exact criteria of each and everything
except the top line that they are working through this. we will make that determination. it is clear tomorrow, but it's possible but it will not. >> he has ruled out some things? >> tomorrow is not the totality of the president's ideas. the president will discuss a few ideas that he has heard in his discussions with ceo's and small businesses. one of the things that the president talked about today was that even as things are getting better for larger banks, there are many small businesses throughout the country that still have all our problems in getting access to the type of credit that they were normally getting before the economic downturn. we're looking at ways that would
help small businesses get that credit, find access to the capital, and the president will discuss other ways that he believes the government can assist the private sector in an atmosphere that leads to additional hiring of jobs. >> would be a cash for clunkers- style program? >> i will not get ahead of where the president is. >> to other questions. anything new this week remarque >> the two sides continue to take part in negotiations and we believe that we can get something done sen. >> soon, this week, or soon -- >> no. >> would you rule this week out? >> no. i do not expect any european vacation, how about that?
>> and on the iran front, where do things stand with pushing on the sanctions? in the second question is, there has been confusion about -- is iran a supported actor of what we're doing in afghanistan or are they part of the problem? how much you believe that they are playing a role in supporting an insurgency in afghanistan? >> on the first part, the president continues to actively work with our partners in the peacock + 1 -- p5 + 1 in order to as the iranians to continue to live up to their obligations. >> had that not been shut down? >> it is not up to the p5 + 1, it is up to the iranians.
they had a set of obligations that they have always had. those obligations can be met at any time by the iranians. failure to meet those obligations, as the president and others have said, will result in next steps. >> i heard this failure -- had they failed -- they have failed and you are moving on to plan b. >> time is running out. hold on. well, running. the sand in the hourglass is running out. as of this moment? they tell me it is happened since i have been up there, have they feel that -- have they failed to meet their applications? absolutely. that is went -- their obligations? absolutely. >> the president last week held a job summit and invited
business leaders and union leaders to talk about jobs idea. today the epa promulgated its finding on greenhouse gases and the department of labor unveiled an promulgated a bunch of the workplace regulations. does the white house see a potential short-term jobs cost to energy, environmental -- >> there is a long-term benefit to establishing our nation as a clean energy leader of the world. somebody is going to build millions of solar panels. someone is going to build twin towers and wind turbines and create the power that will light our homes in the heat our homes and co are homes for decades to come here to question is, which country is that going to be? the president with the recovery
act incentivized the building of those implements that i just discussed in a way that had not been previously been incentivized. i think the president wants to see us create that type of clean energy economy for comprehensive legislation that would establish us as the leader in the world. it has created a pork -- jobs all over this country and has the ability to create far more. >> i cap-and-trade system like the one that passed the house that you would like to see pass the senate, is it a better instrument to do what you're talking about then a regular approached by the epa? >> again, the president's belief is that the preferred method is through legislation. that is what the president would tell you if he were standing here today. that is what the president and i have said, going back probably since the beginning of this
administration. massachusetts v. epa was not something that was decided last week and the process was started. this was decided back in 2007. the clock has been taking since that time period. but if we incentivize through comprehensive clean energy legislation and economy that puts a premium on alternative energy like wind and solar, we are going to create a lot of jobs, in the short term, in the medium term, and ultimately and the long term. >> on tarp, does the president believed that a jobs bill funded in part on savings from unexpectedly small or tarp payments, does he believe that that is revenue neutral and would not cost the taxpayer money? >> i think it goes to the same pot of money that ultimately would have been used for
something else. a follow up on energy? >> will it create more jobs than it will cost? you are regulating industries across the country but you are talking about one sector that you want to grow. haditha no will create more jobs? -- how do you know it will create more jobs? >> if you are finding incentives in other ways to produce power that is less polluting, then you will do that through solar and wind. i forget the number of electric car factories in this country at the beginning of the year, i think we are between three and four. the largest pollutant emitter of greenhouse gases, the largest sector is transportation. we can create jobs by meeting the requirements of clean energy.
>> what i am asking is how you know you will create more jobs than you'll lose by putting these restrictions across the country? have you studied at the white house? >> we do indeed say that. >> getting back to the copenhagen meeting and the timing of this announcement by the epa today, does the president have to sign off on this himself or was it approved at another level? >> i'll have to check on that. we of stated throughout the campaign and our time here that the science is not -- the science will not be of the dead in the oval office. the science is the science. >> you pointed to the supreme court action on this. it required this endangerment finding. you say it is a coincidence that it happened today? >> the process started more than two years ago, the supreme court
finding that the epa should regulate greenhouse gases that threaten the public health because it is a pollutant. >> and this is coincidentally the week before he goes to copenhagen. >> if the stimulus is going to create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year, in this new environment to foster job growth, how many additional jobs is required? >> that is something he will talk about tomorrow. >> how many jobs with the present like to see added on top? >> understand that we are 7.5 million jobs below what the employment level was in december 2007. that was the last unemployment report released by the department of labor that showed positive job growth. we have quite some way to go.
but the president is not going to unveil the silver bullet idea of which adds all of the jobs that will be made up by the loss of the economic downturn and then some. if there was one idea to do this, i assume it would have been done sometime in the intervening 22 months, by which we have not seen a job reports that shows a job growth. >> back to the tarp funds, some democrats talking about using as much as $70 billion from that plan to go toward new jobs for infrastructure and what not. is that a figure that the president is comfortable with? >> again, when there is a decision on that made here, we will let you guys know. another chip hypothetical. >> what message does that se
nd main street? >> help is on the way. that sends the message that your economic vitality is just as important as anybody that lives or works are breeze on wall street. that is the message the president has hoped and wanted to send for his entire it ministration. and that is what he has done in the recovery plan. that is what he will continue to do tomorrow in his speech. no, she said what would that mean? that is easy. that is both noble and announce. then it is not hypothetical. i think i largely dispensed with that clause. >> when the announcement was made on the peace process, the
white house said that the money would be donated to charity. has a decision been made on the charity? >> no. >> republicans argued that the funds on obligated should go to debt reduction only. >> no decisions had been made and once those decisions are made, we will enunciate those on hypothetical decisions. the boys can you even make that decision? >> i don't have any guidance other than the decision has not been made. >> al mullen said today about the july 2011, there's no exit strategy associated with that. that is a direct quote. is that accurate? that's exactly what he said. >> i do not know the context of
the surrounding -- i understand. i am sure that he said more than that. i'm sure that he had more than six words. >> there is no doubt, right after that, the very next phrase, there is no exit strategy associated with that. >> i can simply again reiterate what i did at many points last week in this week, the july 2011 is the transition date, the date by which our forces will be fanning and responsibility for had scant -- ethinning and responsibility for security will be handled by the afghans. we will begin, based on conditions on the ground, to make decisions about the pacing for that.
not whether it begins. that has been determined. look, there were erroneous reports that day of the speech that the president would say that everybody involved would be out of afghanistan in three years. that was not true then and is not true now. the president does not envision, similar to what is happening in iraq, where there is a drawdown based on what general odierno says, condition on the ground, the same will take place in afghanistan. there is not going to be some drop-off of a cliff. quite frankly, look exactly at what was said yesterday by secretary gates. that is that date in which the transition will begin. i cannot be any clearer than that. the president cannot. i doubt secretary gates can. >> joe barton said today about the epa decision, when the scientist whose work is the bedrock for our global warming
policy use the words like travesty entry to describe their actions, it is time to slow down and consider what we're doing. the epa is hitting the gas instead of tapping the brakes. >> i am not sure what he meant. no offense. he seemed to hit their rhetorical gas instead of tapping on the brakes. it is hard for me to discern for what that meant except to say -- >> will the epa conducted on investigation and is to slow the momentum? >> the science is clear. >> the president's thoughts about a jobs bill, is there a limit? >> that was better news than we
have seen. understanding that the report still mentioned that we lost 11,000 jobs in the previous month, adding onto the already large job losses. i do not think it changed in any way the president's viewpoint on decisions and the speeches that he will make tomorrow, largely because the death of our downturn -- i should have the chart loaded up -- but the sheer depth of the trough in terms of job loss far exceeds anything them we have seen in recent recessions. we have to do and the president and his team have talked about doing everything that is possible and responsible to fill that trot and and that is what the president will talk about tomorrow. >> are we on the right trajectory now? >> i would say, yes. the president believes that we are on the right trajectory. before we can have positive job
growth, you have to have positive economic growth than we saw that last quarter. this report continues -- and we saw that last quarter. this report continues the trend -- the first jobs report that we got here was january jobs figures, which showed 741,000 jobs had been lost in that month. last month showed a 11,000 jobs. the president would continue to be cautious in understanding that there will no doubt be bumps along the way. we should keep in mind that that is going happen in the present will do all that he can -- and the president will continue to do all he can to keep that trajectory going forward. >> if the senate decides to work up to the 24th in the wake after christmas, but the president i just his hawaii trip?
>-- will the president adjust hs wife trip? >> i have not talked to him about that. the present -- if the president can be helpful, the president will be helpful. it is getting into law hawaii hypothetical. >> if the week after christmas is a possibility, why would he not want to rethink being here? would it not be offered for him to be on vacation or is he not needed in the process? >> i think he is needed in the process. he went up and was a part of the process. when the senate makes and scheduling decisions, we would be happy to look at them. jeff, i dare say the president can do his job wherever he is. they invented phones. they are wonderful. there secure video
teleconferencing. if anything was to happen, the president can conduct his business like you would to oslo -- like he would to oslo just this week. the president will not put off his trip to copenhagen in or wages because of the senate. >> [unintelligible] >> if you ask the president whether he is really on vacation or any president, one call, one report, one piece of information i can assure you can change all of that in a heartbeat. i'll come back to you. just to talk through the upcoming trip to copenhagen and his thoughts on that. we will have more information today or later today on a similar meeting with business executives and ceo's that are supportive of comprehensive
climate change -- a comprehensive climate change agreement. i'm sorry. >> what happens to the july 2011 date if they are unable to address corruption and train a significant number of soldiers in time? >> suffice to say, we will not figure that in june 2011. the president addressed a series of steps that would be taken at both that level and underneath the national government level as to how to address the delivery of basic services without corruption. there will be a month by month assessment on our training. this is not going to be a surprise. but what is important is that we create an incentive with the government to take the actions that are ultimately necessary to improve their own security situation the president believed
that that was appointed members of the joint chiefs of staff thought that providing the incentives were important for the pentagon came up with that as a date, and the policy and strategy to fill all that. >> do you think the afghans want to do it? >> i do. they have said that. the proof is in the pudding. we will hold them to that and take whatever steps are necessary to meet those goals if they are unable or unwilling to do that. >> appointed democratic candidates are running against the president's surge in afghanistan. the top four contenders and tomorrows massachusetts senate primary and in the ohio senate race, will this position are your hopes for a transfer of success on afghanistan? >> no, the president will be the
first to tell you that people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions on both the democratic and republican side. that was obviously true for our right. the president put florida up land and a strategy and a mission -- put the full word -- put forward a plan in the strategy and the missus -- and a mission for success. now it is up to the commanders on the ground and others to implement the strategy the president laid out. i think you all know from the guidance later on this afternoon that the president received in the oval office ambassador- be i can very --eikenberry, general mcchrystal, and all of
what has to go into and what is necessary to make this plan succeed. i think you heard from both of them that this is but the right strategy and has the resources to succeed. people can come to different conclusions but the president made his conflict -- his decision based on that. douglas last week, you said the administration had not made a decision regarding a supplemental. what are some of the issues involved in making that decision? >> what they are trying to figure out is the degree to which -- obviously a lot of issues will go into this, put together a budget, and we determined the link of an availability of money that is there now to fund operations in the theater. i think the most important point that the president said in his speech is that we cannot -- we
are unable to walk away from the human cost as well as the cost to our treasury. i think the president said we have to take this into account and we have to take this into our budgetary account, something that had not previously been done for a while. >> robert, sense ben bernanke testified last week, more and more democrats seem to be concerned or offended by some of the comments suggesting that medicare and social security might need some tinkering. does the white house had any concern this kind of pressure within the party -- does the president stand by his nomination? >> he obviously stands by his nomination. truthfully, i have not seen the comments on those issues that had been made, but the president nominated him for a reason. we think he is the best person to serve going forward.
>> of privatizing social security or part of it? >> the president stated his opposition to a plan to do that in 2005 and 2006. >> i know you cannot get into specifics for security reasons, but does the president planned to go to afghanistan personally any time soon -- by the ended the year or the first quarter of next year and what would be the value? is it important to be there person? >> the president visited -- i cannot remember which month it was -- july 2008 and i'm not going to get in the future scheduling decisions about something like that. i think the president would love to honor the commitment, the sacrifice, and the service of all of those that serve in
afghanistan, that serve in iraq, and around the world without getting into some specific scheduling decisions. >> thank you, robert. has the president called president-elect low blow in honduras the way that he is called others? -- president- lelect lobo and under is the way that he has called others? >> i would have to check with him on that. >> were going to kick you out of the secret club, lester. [laughter] i'll go to april and then lester and then i will seek refuge. >> present obama made some comments to some reporters recently. i think it is a mistake to think
that we're all in this together and we're all going to get out of this together. when you have certain groups that are unique, having unemployment rate double that are close to double that of mainstream america, you have to deal with unique approaches. what you say about this? >> i do not think that there is any doubt that what the president will do is seek -- if you go and look through and i did not do this for the most recent figures but the economic team provided me with different -- broken out by high school and college education. one of the things that you see in this recession is that unlike previous recessions, the
joblessness has affected a huge swath of the american people. i think what the president will do and what he has done is look for ways -- understanding as i said earlier that there is not a silver bullet, one solution that will lift everything -- how do we create jobs and bring manufacturing back by that investment in clean energy? how to lay a foundation for future economic growth with education so that people can go to college and get the skills that they need for the jobs of the future? i think what the president is saying is that we have -- we are facing such a large problem that we need to do everything in our power to make it better, and that is what he has done as part of the recovery act and all the mill is part of the job at. >> some of come out strongly about his comments about this
universal approach. is this white house talking which the cbc, because they have opposed -- a grassroots to find out what people are saying? >> we were talking to the cbc last week. one message to everyone would have is that part of getting our economy back in order is getting financial reform moving through congress. whether it is establishing the resolution of a party that i talked about earlier that -- resolution a uthority that i talked about earlier, that is part of financial reform. as is a consumer financial administration that would protect anybody from skyrocketing credit card rates, teaser rates attracting people
to loans that it ultimately did not have the wherewithal to pay. the first that in that is ensuring that that legislation moves for. i think the president hopes that all of congress will come together to support that and move it for. lester. >> senator mark warner, in supporting va's 90-year-old colonel, a medal of honor recipient, whose homeowners association has threatened to sue him if he does not remove the flag pole. my question -- does the president joined senator warner in supporting the colonel? >> i am not taught to the president specifically about this. i've heard this through news accounts. well, i like to resume to finish my answer.
i think all of us believe that at the very least, we can show our gratitude and thanks to somebody that has served our country so admirably. i think it is silly to think that somebody that has done that cannot have a flag pole and show the proper respect and appreciation that any flag deserves by flying in that neighborhood. i dare say we of all had run- ins with neighborhood associations that somehow have forgotten what it means, whether it is to display -- i got into an argument about displaying -- it might add been markhor for governor -- in my yard assigned -- a sign. i've had the same thing happened