Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20100423

>> i think there is a huge lack of knowledge about how congress works. >> when you are doing the actual research, you just have to do that yourself. >> this weekend, richard norton smith and douglas brinkley will talk about their work and their profession and revisit their first appearance on our network. sunday night on c-span. president obama today pressed his case for tougher financial regulations during a speech in n.y. city. he outlined major provisions of legislation making its way through the senate. this is a half hour. >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] everybody please have a sea. thank you very much. it is good to be back. it is good to be back in new york. it is good to be back in the great hall and cooper union. [applause] we have got some special guests i want to acknowledge. the congresswoman is in the house. gov. david paterson is here. attorney general andrew cuomo, state comptroller thomas is here. [applause] the mayor of new york city, michael bloomberg. [applause] dr. george campbell, jr., president of cooper union. [applause] and all the citywide elected officials who are here, thank you very much for your attendance. it is wonderful to be back at cooper union, where generations of leaders and citizens have come to defend their ideas and contest their differences. it is also good to be back in lower manhattan, a few blocks from wall street. it really is good to be back, because wall street is a part of our nation's financial industry. since i last spoke to years ago, our country has been through a terrible trial very good for the 8 million people who have lost their jobs, countless -- has been through a terrible trial. for the 8 million people who have lost their jobs, cal was businesses have been forced to close their doors, -- countless businesses have been forced to close their doors. it has forced entrepreneurs to give up on their dream of starting a company, and as a nation, we were forced to take unprecedented steps to rescue the financial system and the broader economy. as a result of the decisions we made, some of which were very unpopular, we are seeing hopeful signs. ññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ a little more than a year ago we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. today the economy is growing. we have seen the fastest turnarounds in growth in nearly three decades. you are here and i am here, because we have got more work to do. until this prod -- until this is solved, we cannot be satisfied. until the millions of our neighbors who are looking for work can find a job and wages are growing at a meaningful case, we may be able to claim a technical recovery, but we will not have true recovery, and even as we seek to revive this economy, it is also incumbent on us to rebuild it stronger than before. we do not want an economy that has the same weaknesses that led to this crisis, and that means addressing some of the underlying problems that led to this turmoil in the first place. one of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we have known in generations, at least since the 1930's, and that crisis was born from a failure of responsibility, from wall street all the way to washington. it has brought down many of the world's largest financial firms and nearly drive our economy into a second great depression. it was the failure of responsibility i spoke about when i came to new york more than two years ago, before the worst of the crisis has unfolded. that was back in 2007, and i take no satisfaction in noting my comments then have largely been borne out by the events that followed, but i repeat what i said then, because it is essential we learn the lessons from this crisis, but we do not do ourselves to repeat it. make no mistake. that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass, and that is an outcome that is unacceptable to me and to view, -- and to you, the american people. [applause] as i sat on this stage two years ago, -- as i said on the stage two years ago, i believe in the free market. i believe and the financial sector that helps people raise capital and get loads and invest their savings. part of -- is part of what made america what it is, but a free market is never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. that is what happened to often in the years leading up to the crisis. some -- let me be clear, not all -- but some on wall street forgot behind every dollar traded or leverage, there is a family looking to buy a house, to pay for an education, open of business, save for retirement. what happens on wall street has real consequences across the country, across our economy. i have also spoken before about the means to build a new foundation for economic growth in the 21st century, and given the importance of the financial sector, was true reform is an absolutely essential part of the foundation -- wall street reform is an absolutely essential part of that foundation. without it, hoour houses will continue to sit on shifting sands, and our families will be vulnerable. that is why i feel so strongly we need to act to insure accountability on wall street and to protect consumers in our financial system. [applause] here is the good news. a comprehensive plan to achieve these reforms has already passed in the house of representatives. [applause] a senate version is currently being debated, drawing on ideas from democrats and republicans. both bills represent significant improvements on the rules we have in place today, despite a furious effort of industry lobbyists to shape this legislation to their special interests, and for those of us in the financial sector, i am sure some of those lobbyists work for you, and they do what they are being paid to do, but i am here today, specifically when i speak to the titans of industry, because i want to urge you to join us instead of fighting us in this effort. [applause] i am here because i believe these reforms are not only in the best interest of our country but in the best interests of the financial sector. i am here to explain what reform will look like and why it matters. first, the bill being considered in the senate would create what we did not have before, and that is a way to protect the financial system and the broader economy and american taxpayers in the even the large financial firm begins to fail -- in the event a large financial firm begins to fail. how can we respond in a way that does not force taxpayers to pick up a tab, or alternatively could bring down the whole system? in an ordinary local bank, when it approaches insolvency, we have an orderly process through the fdic that insures the depositors are protected, maintains confidence -- confidence in the banking system, and it works. customers and taxpayers are protected, and owners and management lose directly, but we do not have that kind of process designed to maintain the kind of failure like lehman brothers. that is why when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen if some of the largest companies -- companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, had to take part in a hurry discussions in the middle of the night, and that is why to save the entire economy from an even worse capacity, we had to spend federal dollars. much of that money has been paid back. mine in -- my administration has proposed a freeze to be paid by large firms to recover -- proposed a fee to be paid by large firms to recover every dime, because the american people should never have been put in that kind of situation in the first place. [applause] this is why we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and innocent businesses. from the start i have insisted the financial industry, not taxpayers, shoulder the cost and the even the large financial companies should falter. -- shoulder the cost in the event a large financial companies should falter. the american taxpayer should never be on the hope because a company is deemed too big to fail. there is a debate about how best to make sure taxpayers are held harmless in this process, and that is a legitimate debate, and i encourage that debate, but what is not legitimate is to suggest somehow the legislation being proposed is going to encourage future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. that makes for a good sound bite, but it is not factually accurate. it is not true. in fact, the situation as it stands -- [applause] the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive costly taxpayer bailout, and it is only with reform that we can avoid a similar outcome in the future. in other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailout. that is the truth. end of story, and nobody should be fooled in this debate. these changes have the added benefit of creating incentives within industry to ensure no one company can ever threaten to bring down the whole economy. to that end, the bill would also enact what is known as the volcker rule, and there is a guy and a front row, paul volcker, who we named it after, and it places some limits on the kind of risk banking institutions can take. this will not only safeguard our system against crises. this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home across the globe. markets depend upon that confidence. part of what led to the turmoil of the last two years is in the absence of sound practice, people did not trust it was safe to invest or land. that harms all of us, so by enacting these reforms, we will help ensure our financial system and the economy continues to be the envy of the world. that is the first thing -- making sure we can wind down one firm if it gets into trouble without bringing the whole system down are forcing taxpayers to fund a bailout. #2 -- reform would bring new transparency too many financial markets. as you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like aig and others who were making huge and risky bets using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments in ways that defined accountability or common sense. many practices were so confusing, so complex, that the people inside the firm's did not understand. much less those charged with overseeing them. they were not fully aware of the massive deaths being placed. that is what led or in the -- the massive bets being played. that is what led warren buffett to describe it as financial weapons of mass destruction. that is why reform will rein in excess and help ensure these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day. there has been a great deal of concern about these changes. there is a great role for the financial institutions in our economy. they can spur investment, and there are people who use those instruments for legitimate manners. a businessman hedge against rising oil prices by buying of financial products to secure stable fuel costs, so an airline might have been interested in locking in a decent price. that is how markets are supposed to work. the problem is these markets operated in the shadows of our economy. invisible to regulators, invisible to the public, so rampant -- service threatened our financials -- so risk threatened our financial system, and that is why this will prevent reckless risk-taking. that is why we want to insure product like standardize derivatives are traded out and open in the full view of investors in those charts with oversight, and i was encouraged to cease -- and those charged with oversight, and i was encouraged to see if republicans moving forward on this issue. that is a good sign. [applause] without action, we will continue to see what amounts to loosely- monitored gambling, and the only people who ought to fear what we're proposing to those whose conduct will fail this. third, this plan would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever, and that is absolutely necessary, because this financial crisis was not just the result of decisions made in the executive suites on wall street. it was also the result of decisions made across kitchen tables across america, by folks who took on credit cards and loans, and while it is true many americans took on financial obligations they knew or should have known they could not have afforded, millions of others were duped. they were misled by the terms and conditions, very deep in the fine print, and while a few companies made out like bandits by exploiting their customers, our entire economy was made more vulnerable. millions of people have now lost their homes. tens of millions more have lost value in their homes. just about every sector of our economy is self-contained, whether you are paving driveways or selling houses are doing home repairs in california or using your home equity to start a small business in california. that is why we need to give consumers more protection and power in our financial system. this is not about stifling competition or innovation. it is just the opposite. with the dedicated agency setting ground rules and looking out for ordinary people, we will empower consumers with clear and concise information when they are making financial decisions, so instead of competing to offer confusing products, companies will compete old fashioned way, by offering better products, and that will mean more choices for consumers, more opportunities for businesses, and more civility in our financial system, and unless your business model depends on a guilt thing people common there is little to fear -- depends on jilting people, there is little to fear from these new rules -. #4 -- the last key component of reform. these reforms will give shareholders new power in the financial system. they will get a voice with respect to the salaries and bonuses awarded to top executives, and the sec will have the authority to give shareholders more say in corporate elections, so that investors and pension holders of a stronger role in determining who manages the company in which they place their savings. americans do not begrudge anyone's success when that success is earned, but when we read in the past and sometimes the present about enormous executive bonuses at firms, even as they are relying on assistance from taxpayers, or the retaking -- they are taking huge risks that threaten the system as a whole, or their company is doing badly, it offends our fundamental values. not only that, but the seller -- some of the salaries and bonuses we have seen take perverse incentives to take reckless risks that contributed to the crisis. it is what helped lead the relentless focus on a company's next quarter to the detriment of its next decade, and it led to a situation in which folks with the most to lose -- stock and pension holders -- have the least to say in the process, and that has to change. [applause] let me close by saying this. i have laid out a set of wall street reforms. these are reforms that will put an end to a taxpayer bailout, that would bring complex financial dealers out of the shadows, that would protect the consumers, and that would give shareholders more power in the financial system, but let's face it. we also need reform in washington, and the debate over these changes -- [applause] the debate over these changes is a perfect example. we have seen battalions of financial industry lobbyists standing on capitol hill, firms spending millions to influence the outcome of this debate. and we have seen misleading arguments and a tax designed not to improve the bill but to weaken or to kill it. we have seen a bipartisan process boggle under the weight of these forces, even as we produced a proposal that, by all accounts, is a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological approach to target the root problems that led to the turmoil and our financial sector and ultimately in our entire economy. we have seen business as usual in washington, but i believe we can and must put this kind of cynical politics aside. we have got to put an end to it. that is why i am here today. [applause] that is why i am here today. [applause] for those of you who are in the financial sector, let me say this. we will not always see eye to eye. we will not always agree, but that does not mean we have to choose between two extremes. we do not have to choose between markets that are unfettered by even modest protections against crisis or markets stymied by onerous rules that suppress innovation. that is a false choice. we need no more proof than the crisis we have just been through. there has always been a tension between the desire to allow markets to function without interference and the absolute necessity of rules to prevent markets from falling out of kilter, but managing that tension, one that we have debated since the founding of this nation is what has allowed this country to keep up with a changing world, for in taking of this debate and figuring out how to apply well-1 principals with each new age, we ensure we do not take too far one way or the other and that our market remains as dynamic in our economy remains as dynamic as it has in the past, so yes, this debate can be contentious, but in the end, it serves only to make our country stronger. it has allowed us to adapt, and i read a report recently that i think illustrates this point. it is from "time" magazine. "through the great banking houses of manhattan last week ran wild eyed alarm. state bankers stared at each other with astonishment. a bill just passed would rivet on their institutions what they considered a monstrous system. such a system they felt would not only robbed them of their private profession but would reduce all banking to its lowest level." that appeared in time magazine in june of 1933. [applause] the system that caused so much consternation, so much concern, was the federal deposit insurance corp., also known as the fdic, an institution that has successfully secured the deposit of generations of americans. in the end, our system only works, our markets are only free when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excesses', that in sure it is more profitable to play by the rules then to gain the system. that is what the reforms we have been proposing are designed to achieve -- no more, no less, and because that is how we will ensure our economy work for consumers, that it works for investors, and that it works for financial institutions -- in other words, that it works for all of us -- that is why we are working so hard to get this bill passed. this is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. it is what i said when i spoke here two years ago, because ultimately, there is no dividing line between main street and wall street. we will rise or fall together as one nation. [applause] that is why i urge all of you to join me. i urge all of you to join may, to join an us in seeking these common-sense reforms, and for those of you in the financial industry, i urge you to join me not only because it is the interest of your industry, but also because it is in the interest of your country. thank you so much god bless you, and god bless the united states of votes -- thank you very much. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the three democratic candidates running for the u.s. senate seat from arkansas will hold their first debate tomorrow night. incumbent senator lincoln is being challenged by bill halter and b.c. morison in the may 18 primary. live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. also tomorrow night, a debate between the five republicans running for the senate seat for indiana. the candidates for the may 4 primary include don bates common dan coats, -- don bates and dan coats. 75 -- evan bayh is not seeking reelection. >> we really have to get this right, because if we do not, we could stifle innovation. we could stifle the free market. we could stifle the economy and cause more harm than good. >> as the senate moved closer to a vote, see the process unfold with congressional leaders, journalists, and other experts at the c-span video library. searches and share it, every program since 1987, not all on line -- now online. >> the senate committee continued its markup of the resolution. senators debated several amendments including ending the tarp program. this is an hour and a half. >> the committee will come to order. >> i want to welcome staff back to mark up. i understand senator gramm has an amendment he is prepared to offer. i understand senator gregg has some questions he would like to pose, which we would be happy to answer. >> not to me, right? >> no. >> good. that would be a short inquiry. >> you are free to go ahead with your amendments. >> thank you. i look forward to the budget markup. this is an interesting experience every year, and both of you all do a great job for the senate. the first amendment is to basically deal with the tarp program, which was scheduled to expire on december 312009, 2009. there's a lot of -- december 31, 2009. there's a lot of the day. we needed to act, and i am glad we did to create the tarp program, which i believe avoided the financial meltdown around the world. it was set to expire on december 31, 2009. this amendment removes the budget authority and end of lies the unused part of authority. i hope we can pass the amendment, because tarp has taken on a life and flavor no one envisioned. if you would have told me of the time i voted for it it would be used to bail out car companies, i would not have voted for it. the reason i voted for it was to stem what i thought would be a financial meltdown. this has ceased to serve its purpose and has become a slush fund. we are well past the time it should have expired, and we do not want people to believe every time a tough problem comes along in washington, the solution that is controversial never end. it took a long way if -- a long time to do away with the spanish-american war act, and i do not want the tarp program to be around for another 100 years, because it is not needed, and that is the basis of the amendment. >> i thank the center for his evaluation. let me say you and -- say to you this. tarp ends on october 3 of 2010. that is three days into the fiscal year. based on projections, we assume $148 billion of the tarp funds will not be used and will not add to the debt. i think all of us were very reluctant to approve tarp funding, but it was done on a bipartisan basis, and at the end of the previous administration, to avert a global financial collapse, and we now know that the latest projections are that the original will not cost anywhere near that amount. the latest analysis is the $700 billion will cost us $109 billion. that is the most recent credit score. already, $181 billion has been paid back, and we just had the news this week that general motors paid back all of their loans, but we still have to recoup the equity investment. i was interested to see the chairman of gm said yesterday he believes they will be able to sell stock and the united states will recoup all of its money. i hope that is the case. the administration is not that optimistic that we will be able to recoup all of the money, but we also know in terms of the money invested in banks that the latest estimate is we will actually make $7 billion on the money put out to banks. many of the banks have already repaid, and we acquired in addition to loans extended, so the estimate is now that we will actually make a profit of $7 billion. the president has put forth a proposal for the fee to insure all of the money is recovered from the industry so that we wouldn't even be out of $109 billion, so i would reluctantly oppose the someone -- oppose this amendment. the secretary of the treasury has asked me not ended before october 3. >> i share your optimism and analysis . we have a lot of things we were hoping for in terms of getting the money back, and i hope over time all of it will come true. the point of this amendment is there is $44 billion in the fund, and that has nothing to do with getting paid back, but what we're trying to do is make sure the $144 billion does not get spent on things nobody ever envisioned for when they voted for tarp, and i am one of the guys that voted for it, and i feel uncomfortable that it will be spent on things totally unrelated to what the program begins for, and i think it is fiscally prudent to take it off the table. >> that is certainly fair. senator gregg? >> i want to associate myself with the proposal. i was one of authors of the tarp, as was the chairman, when we were facing such a climate. we do not need it anymore. your statement is accurate. it has actually worked out for the tax payer fairly well relative to the money put out to the banks -- not so much for automobiles or aig, but the banks were making money on it -- we are making money on it. there is no reason to continue this program and certainly no reason to carry into the next budget cycle the authorization of this account. we should make it clear this is over, and i think that is what the american people want, and i support the amendment. >> other debates on this amendment? >> first, and support the amendment as it was presented. -- i support the amendment as it was presented. something that seems to as give the people that voted for tarp is the fact that the banks that received tarp money made billions and billions of dollars which that money -- billions -- and i do not think that was the intent of tarp, at least on the committee i serve on end user von -- finance committee richard tarp was presented -- i serve on and you serve on -- finance committee -- tarp was presented, but it was supposed euro extract -- was supposed to extract toxic assets out of the banking system, and it was never supposed to be used for the purposes that have been explained here more than once, so i would hope this amendment would be considered, and i would urge everyone to vote for it. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator gramm, could i get your attention for a moment? >> yes, sir. >> let me make sure i understand the full implication of your amendment. the you want to take a moment and take me through what your intention is? >> it is pretty simple. it is my understanding there is $44 billion in the tarp program, which was supposed to expire in december of 2009 and is staying around in life support. $44 billion that is not obligated, that we all agreed the banks are in good shape, that they are paying this guy, so who would get the $44 billion? -- pay this back, so who would use the $44 billion? none of us appreciate using this money to bail out car companies. i voted for tarp, leaving the financial system was melting down, and the next thing i know -- believing the financial system was nothing down, and the next thing i know we are paying for car companies, and if it is not taken off the table, my fear is it will be spent on things unrelated to tarp or tangential issues that do not go to the heart of the matter, and i think he made the best case that the program did work when it comes to making and we are well on our way to get stability. we have got a lot of needs in this country, and this $44 billion hanging in thin air disturbs me, and i think we should take it off the table and put it to some other noble purpose other than have it potentially misused in the way tarp was never envisioned. that is all i am saying. >> here is the question i have. maybe you can help me understand this. >> i am doing the best i can. >> here is what i am trying to understand. we have $148 billion that will never be used. the number you have got here is $22 billion. is that the number we are discussing? >> let me talk about the numbers. >> the amendment says there is $44 billion in tarp that cbo says will be used by october 3 but has not been used so far, and the subsidy rate on that remaining alone is already 50%, to the budget associated with that loan is $22 billion the treasury has not used, so if it is taken away -- >> let me circle back. i get it now. thank you for that explanation. >> you are welcome. i am glad i was able to help. >> [laughter] is jim on your staff, too? can i say this to your? i personally believe it is important we take off the table top money that will not be used. i have got an issue with the calculation, because my understanding from the treasury is that this money will be used, that there will then be $148 billion that will not be used, and before we end this markup, i hope we are able to address that. that is really a larger number. i did not thing we should interfere with obligations that have already been made -- i do not think we should interfere with obligations that have already been made, which treasury said is the case with this money. >> what are they going to spend it on? >> i do not know. what they have told us is this is money they anticipate will go out, and i do not know if that is part of some long-term arrangement to stabilize finances of certain and it is. >> that is not our understanding of these dollars. our understanding is they are a kitty. they have not made any commitment on these dollars. >> i have been told it has long been obligated. >> it is wanted as a kiddie in case they decide to initiate one of their additional programs like a small loan program. >> my understanding is that is correct. this money has been set aside, but it has not been obligated. >> it is supposed to be taken away. >> i am not certain about that. let me say this. i personally believe the $148 billion that cbo tells us will not be used -- we do need to find a fence before we end this markup so we have an assurance than money goes to pay down the deficit. i would say senator gregg and i in deliberations insisted any tarp money that remains went to pay down the deficit. >> any tarp money that came back? >> and tarp money that came back. we insisted that money go to pay down the deficit. that is the law, but i do think before this markup ends, we want to make certain -- >> i also think senator gramm is exactly right. this money should be taken off the table. they are holding it there as a piggy banks for no other purpose other than they might come up with a great idea as to how to spend it. >> this is a great role for washington. they did not know what they were going to do with the money. they are going to spend it if we let them keep it. let's take it away so we know it will not be spent on something we do not understand where it is going. if they do not know what to do with it on monday, i am not sure they have a plan to spend it, so let's take it off the table and use it for something we all know we need. >> science of the bid with the notion of making certain those moneys -- i am sympathetic with the notion of making sure those monies not being spent on tarp are taken off the table. i have reservations about this particular amendment, but hopefully before we are done today we can take off the table the $148 billion that is out there that is not going to be used for this purpose. >> we have senators with amendments ready to go. >> senator feingold has an amendment as well. why don't we do this? >> [inaudible] >> ok. why don't we go to senator fine gold so we go back and forth. -- senator fine gold -- feingold so we go back and forth. senator sessions will be next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are now in the ninth year of war in afghanistan and eighth year of the war in iraq. to date, we have spend one trillion dollars on these wars, one trillion dollars, anson an astounding figure -- and that is an astounding figure, and every bit of it has added to our deficit. we have paid for none of it. we expect to be paying hundreds of billions of dollars more on these two wars, and unless we change the way we but for these costs, all of that new spending will be added to our deficits, too. this includes an additional $59 billion in spending for the current fiscal year and $159 billion for fiscal year 2011. it also includes $50 billion as a place holder in in 2012 and $50 billion for 2013, but nothing beyond that. this and is its $300 billion in additional costs and is far less rigid this anticipates $300 billion in additional costs and is far more than needed. cbo predicts to enter the $73 billion more than the $300 billion the budget reserve -- $273 billion more than the budget provides. to his credit, president obama has had more discretion. my own preference is that we end our involvement in these wars, instead of focusing so much our attention and resources in two countries. i think we need a more comprehensive global strategy to enhance national security. al qaeda is not a to-country franchise but a nimble, global threat. if we are going to continue facing these wars, my ammon and requires we pay for those costs rather than continuing to -- my amendment requires we pay for those costs rather than continuing to add them to the deficit. it does require we inept policy now that insures deficit neutrality which we enact policy now that insurer's deficit neutrality. -- it does require we enact policy now that insurer's deficit neutrality. certainly these two wars do not meet our definition of emergency. in little more than a year, the war in afghanistan will beginning its second decade, and the war in iraq is not far behind, so i hope my colleagues will support this amendment, regardless of whether they support or oppose these rules -- these wars, to strike an immediate balance and a clear need we all need region we all agree on, which is the need to keep our fiscal -- to strike an immediate balance and the goal we all agree on, which is to get our fiscal house in order. >> let me say that there are certain members that will be on have been -- on happy -- unhappy with what i am about to say, but i think it is important that we take this step to insert it is an emergency four wars that have been -- to ensure it is an emergency for wars that have been under way for years. to say that is an expenditure, i do not believe it. it is not unanticipated. we now know what the expenses, on going, month after month. can we predict with precision? no, we cannot. do we know we are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars? yes, we do, and i believe it is important to send a message we are not just going to put this on the debt, that we are going to pay for it, and i would say senator feingold has, with the responsible way to do that. he does not expect the expenditure -- has come up with a responsible way to do that. he expected to be done over time in what i think is responsible and is also fiscally prudent, so i thank the senator for his amendment. i intend to support it. senator sessions 7? >> we are in a war not of our choosing because we were attacked. we can have a prolonged debate about it. senator feingold is one of the more eloquent questioners of the wisdom of military activity since the beginning, but most of us have supported this activity, and we are in huge deficits, and there is no likelihood we will construct a plan that will get us to a balanced budget in the short term, but there are steps to get in that direction, so i think are appropriate response is to maintain a focus on reducing our deficit, reducing the cost of warne, and the emergency supplemental we have used, and i think that would be the best approach. i really think this would be a vote to -- what should i say -- to try to force a non-military reduction in our effort at this critical juncture, which would not be good for the country. >> let me say i read this amendment entirely differently than you do, and i say that with respect. we have put in this budget every penny the president has requested for the war effort, and i am committed to providing the dollars requested by the military leadership to the commander in chief, but i also think what senator fine gold has said is responsible on the other side as well, because we all know his position with respect to this, but he is saying, over time we have an obligation to pay for this, and for each one year of war costs, he is saying it has to be paid for over 10 years. >> what about the other spending, such as the money spent for emergency school funding? are we going to pay for that? is the only thing we can pay for the fact we're responding for a military attack? if there was one thing that would be more legitimate, it would be a military response to a military attack on the nation. >> there is no question, when a military attack comes, that constitutes an emergency, but when we are in a war for year after year, this suggests that is an unanticipated expenditures -- to suggest that is an unanticipated expenditures i do not think has any merit. we know what this expenditure is going to be within ross limits. it cannot be said it is region within rough limits. it cannot be said it is unanticipated. >> thank you for your comments. let's be clear. this does not prohibit the emergency fund. it is an attempt to do with the chairman talk about, to recognize it is not an unanticipated emergency, creating a process by which we will try to budget in a normal way, and this has been done in other major war situations. in the korean war we switched to the budget process in the first year of the process. in the vietnam war, that included funding less than a year after we send the troops. within three years, 86% of the funding was appropriate, so this is not an anti-war amendment. i voted for the afghanistan war. i voted for some of the funding of the iraq war, even though i voted against the war itself, until i came to the conclusion this was going on too long and we needed to stop it. the point is this is not about whether you are for the war or against it. it is about trying to have responsible budgeting, which is what this committee is about . >> there is a real problem here if you approach it as senator feingold like tuno approach it. we have a baseline budget, and if all the emergency designation were done regular order, where would the defense baseline budget been presently? not where we are budgeting it. it would be extremely higher than the baseline we are budgeting from presently, so if you add up all the emergency designation cents and do it regular order and, you would have an unbelievably high baseline budget for the defense budget, ken -- the defense department, and i only argue this because when we decided to do emergency spending for the war effort in iraq and afghanistan, it was decided we would not go into the baseline because it would become to higher, but we would do it with the emergency spending -- it would become too high, but we would do it with the emergency spending. >> are you finished? senator feingold? >> that is a fair point. that is what we are doing. we're not building a new base line to defense. >> we are not right now korean freighter right now. >> this is the cab adjustment. -- we are not right now. >> this is a cap adjustment. that is not what we are doing. >> just to remember how many years we have done these emergencies, if we had done them in regular order, is it true or not true -- as your staff -- -- ask your staff -- would that not be built into the baseline of the defense budget? >> the point of senator feingold's amendment is threefold. number one, it does not include emergencies . >> ok. >> are you in a feisty mood today? >> let me go back. as i understand it, emergencies are not precluded. is that not the case? >> i agree with that 100%. >> number two, he does have a requirement to pay for ongoing war costs, which we are currently not doing, but he does not do it over one year. he spread it over multiple years. no. 3, he does it as a cap adjustment so it does not go into the baseline. . >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just to talk more broadly about what i think this is about, and i want to commend senator feingold for the amendment, i know we have honest differences about the way we have chosen to go after al qaeda. we all agree that we have a threat and a global threat as it relates to terrorism. we can debate whether or not iraq was a choice or necessity. we agree on afghanistan. i did not support going into iraq because i did not believe that it was where we ought to be fighting in terms of terrorism. but we all agreed that once the commitment was made, we should support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we had stepped up over and over again. we have gone through emergency spending, what was needed to be done to support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we have also stepped up for our veterans and under your leadership we have dramatically increased what we are doing on veterans' health care and so on. i say that as a backdrop to say this is not about supporting the troops are not wanting us to be safe or not supporting our veterans. it really is how we view the economics of how we are going to operate in a country. we are going to hear all day about the concern about deficits. we share those concerns, and we will debate how we got there, not because it is about blame. it is not about going back and climbing. it is about what kind of policy should we use going forward if we want to make sure we do not see the same mistakes that were made in the last eight years, or even before. what happened in the eight years of the prior administration is that they chose to remove revenue by tax cuts for wealthy americans and then create major expenditures which included two wars. the people that were asked to sacrifice for the troops and their families, and they are still sacrificing. we all know that. but in general, after 10 years, we have not said it is time to step up and pay for the wars that we have created and the situation we have gotten into. i think that after 10 years, what senator feingold is talking about makes perfect sense. we are talking about tough choices, but i do not think tough choices are just deciding whether or not in an economic emergency we ought to find teachers or schools. tough choices are howard going to contribute together? how are we going to ask -- how are going to ask those who are most blessed in this country to step up and help us get out of a deficit hole and truly paper wars that are going on for 10 years. i think it is responsible if we want to talk -- talk about tough choices. this is probably the toughest one we will be asked to make. >> senators sessions. >> just to follow on that statement, this is the only part of our deficit as i understand that we are requiring to be paid for. we passed an $800 billion stimulus package and much of it went to social programs and aid to states and things of that nature. that is defined as an emergency. we did not start this war. we were attacked, and i believe if anything in our budget comes close to an emergency, this would be it. i think it is targeting the one particular appropriation that has more justification than a lot of the others that we are using to hit our debt with. that is the reason i was concerned that we are heading in that direction. >> let me just say on that matter -- >> will we pay for these others, are just the defense department spending? >> no, emergency should be dealt with as emergencies and treated as such for budget purposes. but to assert now that war spending -- of war that has been underway for years is unanticipated is not a program budgeting. in previous wars, we did not treat ongoing war costs as emergency funding. we did not do that in vietnam. we did not do that in korea. it was entirely legitimate, certainly when the attack occurred to treat that as emergency funding. and perhaps for some time after that, but at this point, we know what the expenditure rate is, not the budget for it. not to pay for it. it just creates another problem for us, but emergencies really should be emergencies, whether in any category of our spending. >> i am not sure i have been the right procedure but i will call it a side-by-side to his. it is a slight modification. it is to put all the tarp funding -- eliminate all the tarp bunning that has been paid back and put it back to paying down the deficit. the only thing we do is set aside $30 billion for small business lending in my amendment that is being passed out right now. it is almost exactly the same except for one variation, and that is that we put into reserve, put aside $30 billion for small business lending. if the congress in the future decides that is the focus, which i believe it is, it is a huge gap in our market. i know in alaska, with 52% of hiring employment generated by small business, this is a huge gap that is out there. put it toward the deficit, put it back to where the american people see it is having a positive impact now that is being paid back. eliminate the remaining authorization, but leave $30 billion as a reserve for the purpose of small-business lending. why would not be surprised if folks from either side would have 30 -- a problem with $30 billion for small business lending. they will get a decent return, but at the same time, get rid of all that other top money and put it back to the deficit and no longer having that out there, i think that is the right move. the idea is to have something to be available for discussion with his amendment. >> let me say i appreciate very much the senator's amendment. i had reference this concept earlier when we were discussing senator gramm's amendment. i think is very important that we fence the substantial part of that party funds that remain available so we know that it goes for deficit reduction. as i hear you describe it, you are allowing $30 billion to be available for small business credit, which i think all of us have heard is one of the most important challenges remaining in this economy, credit for small business. i have certainly heard it all across my state. good businesses that have had their credit lines extinguished, not because they have not made their payments or even been late with payments, but because the balance sheets of their lenders are impaired and the regulators are requiring them to call in loans. i think that has merit, but even more important that you are fencing the $148 billion and saying that has to go for deficit reduction. >> you are absolutely right. this is my simplistic way of looking at it. the original allocation that when the bush administration put together was $700 million. the goal at the end of the day, there is $30 billion left that will be available only for small business lending. all authorization, all repaid money goes back to reducing the deficit, but what is left is $30 billion available for small business lending our credit, however the congress chooses to use it, but it must be for small business. i met with homebuilders' yesterday. they have presold homes but cannot get extended credit, based on the current market conditions. the idea is to set this aside for congress to make that final call, but for the public that may be interested watching what we are doing here, it complements what you have done in the budget proposal as well as taking it one step further and saying that all of it is going back to deficit reduction except for $30 billion. i know there technical ways to explain that. i am trying to explain it so the people watching clearly understand that all we have done is keep $30 billion for small business lending. all the rest in stock for deficit reduction which is what this is all about. >> i would point out that all this amendment does is spend $30 billion. the tarp lot already says specifically that all money that is paid back has to go specifically to reduce debt. all this does is create a $30 billion slush fund. why not set one up for education? why not set one up for high tech? why not set one up for any number of good social causes that need money? the whole press of tarp was not to use it as a general operating accounts for the federal government's needs or concerns. if you want to set up a $30 billion fund for small business, it should come in the regular appropriated process. it should not come as a part of what was once a crisis situation with funds directed at the financial industry, in which funds are being paid back and bylaw they have to go to reduce the deficit and the debt. this is not a debt reduction exercise. this amendment is a spending exercise and the creation of a new program exercise, using tarp money. we ought to be honest about this. >> if i could respond, your characterization that a small- business lending program is a social program. i have been in small business over 30 years. the business community of this country, who under the gains of the last decade or so have gotten left behind, and this economy is driven by small business. you can call it whatever you want. this is a clear message to the american people, even though you can talk about that yes, the law requires it, we are making it very clear. it is not a slush fund. everyone likes to use terms to get good sound bites. the small business community has suffered. they are the drivers of this economy and they will be the ones that drive this economy into the future. we may disagree, but i would ask in the debate we have here, using terms like slush funds and social programs -- i have had to pay back with interest. that is not a social program. i want to be sure we are talking about the right terms here. i understand you have been on the budget committee for a long time and i am new to this. yes, you are right, it is required to be paid back. we are saying when all is done in said, i know last year a lot of people were talking not using this money for other purposes. 39 republicans sent out a letter and i was the one democrat that signed on at that said this exact thing. all i am doing is what i have heard from both sides here, especially the majority if not all republicans. the difference is on the $30 billion for small business, it should have been the approach in this first page of utilizing this money. it damaged the economy, what the big banks did. that is my ran for the day. >> the accurate terminology is you are taking tarp money and creating a new program. that is what you are doing here. so if you believe this is an essential program, that is fine. it should not come from park money. it should come from the basic mechanism of the federal government. park money by definition and by law is supposed to go -- tarp money by definition and by law is supposed to go to reduction of the debt, so the american public does not have it on their back. we borrow the money from china. we borrowed somewhere around $580 billion. it came from china. what you are suggesting is that rather than paying that money back, we should take $30 billion of it and create a new program with it. if that is what you want to do, fine, but do not wrap yourself in tarp as the just a fire of a source of revenue for this, because it is not. -- do not justify it as a source of revenue for this. >> i was not here when he tarp finding was passed. my understanding was that it was to shore up the financial system that was in crisis, and many parts of the financial system have recovered. one part of the financial system that has not fully recovered has been small business lending, and this is just a question for senator gregg. i thought it was not talking about returned tarp funds, but there is a portion of tarp funds that have not been allocated today. my understanding is that while not creating -- whether this is creating a new program or whether it within the original con fines of part, if part of -- if small-cap debt markets have not returned, i do not understand how this would not fit within the original parameters of tarp, if there were portions that had been unused today. on the return to tarp funds, i agree 100%. $148 billion has been appropriated or budgeted to be put out. to claim to reserve part of that to use for shoring up the financial system which is part of the intentional -- original intention of tar, does that not fit within the parameters? >> my analysis of the men and by the senator from alaska is different -- my analysis of the amendment is different from senator gregg's. >> my analysis is that this extinguishes the authority for the $148 billion. the authority does exist for the $148 billion to be used. if it was payback, it would have to go to deficit reduction. there is no guarantee that if that money were used, it would be paid back. therefore it might not ever reduce the deficit. what the senator from alaska is doing is the authorizing soak it can reduce some can be assured -- what the senator from alaska is doing is deauthorizing it so it can be assured. it is not a social program. i totally disagree with that characterization. it is credit for small businesses that would have to be paid back. you called it a slush fund. i totally disagree with that characterization. or as a social program as others have asserted. others have used the terminology ago social program." if the money is paid back, as we hope and expect it will, it goes to pay down the deficit. >> so it goes on the debt, correct? >> it goes on the death until it gets paid back -- goes on the debt until it gets paid back. we have already seen the money extended to the banks is now expected to make a profit for the taxpayers of $7 billion. >> so you want to use the tarp to borrow money to add to the debt for whatever the initiative is, whether it happens to be small business or some other initiatives. why stop here? >> the part of the financial system that is not normalized is small business. the whole purpose of tarp was to help normalize the financial structure of the country. let me finish if i can. i did not interrupt you. the purpose is to normalize the financial system. the one part of the financial system that is clearly not normalized is small business credit, and it is entirely reasonable to use tarp funds for that purpose. it is not reasonable, in my judgment, to use tarp funds for other purposes. it is also entirely reasonable to extinguish the authority for additional tarp funds to be used for other purposes. that is also part of the senator's amendment, and it assures that that money will go for deficit reduction, not to be used for other purposes. >> if i might respond to that. tarp was not designed for this purpose. the fact that it was not designed for this purpose is reflected in the fact that when the president proposed this concept of using -- creating a small business fund, which is essentially what the senator from alaska has proposed, he said he was going to have to change the authorization of tarp to do it. the testimony was that they would have to change our authorization to do it. the reason was because tarp was never perceived to be basically for the general operation of the government in general activities of the government. it was an emergency fund set up to stabilize the financial structure of the country, and in fact, the envelope was significantly pushed, and probably push beyond the envelope, when it was used in the automobile industry. but it cannot be used for general operation of the government, which is what essentially this program is. the representatives of the president came before this committee and said this cannot be done. what the senator from alaska is suggesting is -- would create a borrowed event of creating debt, which whether it is payback for not, is not consistent with a tarp. >> the need for a change in authorization is because of the way the administration wanted to handle the $30 billion extension of credit to small business. under their current authorization, under the current law, they could extend credit to small business and be within the parameters of existing tarp. senator bunning. >> i sat on the committees when tarp was trying to be sold directly. our former secretary of the treasury, the current secretary of the treasury, the head of the federal reserve, all came and asked for tarp money, but there has been an expansion of the purpose for which tarp was created. i will guarantee you this. if they would have come and asked the committee of jurisdiction for tarp money to be spent on new york banks and other financial institutions, they would not have got one penny. they came and asked the committee of jurisdiction that they needed the tarp money to buy top six securities from banks and other entities to get them out of the system, to stabilize the system. you can go get secretary paulson. you can go get secretary geithner there. you can go get chairman bernanke, and if you can find anything in their testimony before the committee of jurisdiction that explains that tarp was going to be used in the manner it was used, i missed it. so i think the argument is kind of what you do with the existing tarp. there can be many, many other uses. some have been described by the omb director as not available for the use of tarp. others have been used -- the buying of general motors, chrysler stock -- that was unheard of. that was not even mentioned. that was an expansion of tarp money, and the fact that we are going to get a return on it is insignificant, because we had to borrow the money to start with. all of the money was borrowed. i thought all $700 billion was borrowed. to my surprise, only $570 billion was borrowed. $507 billion. tarp was set up to alleviate the problem with credit of all swaps -- credit defaults swaps and other entities that were driving our economy into the tank, and not for other purposes. >> i am not unsympathetic to what senator bunning just said, but it does come down to the fact that we were in a financial meltdown when president bush, secretary paulson, and others came in. i share great concern about that initial $700 billion and how it was structured and so on. but is absolutely true that when the big banks were bailed out, the assumption was that they were going to unfreeze credit, and that in fact the auto companies who were frozen out, small businesses and others would be able to get credit to get the economy going again. i am very proud gm paid back their loan yesterday, five years early. a good investment when you are talking about investing in jobs and people, and what we really were focused on is not -- or should not have been focused on were big banks and wall street. the impact on main street, the impact on people and communities, on people being able to have a job. i strongly support making sure we actually need one of the goals i thought this was originally set up to do, which was to unfreeze credit markets to support small business. we heard over and over again, all of us from all kinds of small businesses that have not been able to get credit, that are laying people off, that cannot meet their obligations, closing their doors because of what happened in this tonnage crisis. -- financial crisis. i cannot imagine anything at this point more significant to move the economy forward and to invest in small businesses. so i want to thank the senator for his amendment and senator warner for his work on this as well. this really is about how you view the economy and what you think is important. frankly, when the money was given to wall street, they did not turn around and landed. a short up their books. they bought other banks and left a lot of small businesses and manufacturers and families hanging, and this is an attempt to right side that. we want the money to go back, but we also want to make sure that the people who did not cause this, the people who were hit the first time because of the lack of credit do not get left hanging out there and hurt again. i view this very much as a jobs amendment, mr. chairman. >> i just want to add my perspective from citizens in oregon. there is little they would like to see more than moving money from wall street's to main street, and to move in a form that is recapitalizing and providing the opportunity for small businesses to get the loans they need to put this economy back on track. it is the local businesses that will create the jobs, the local businesses that have been crunched because of wall street money-management that blew up our country's economy. i applaud this effort to move money from wall street to main street to strengthen our small business, strengthen our recovery, and create jobs. if that is not stabilizing our economy, i do not know what is. >> i just want to say for the record, senator merkley has been a real leader with his legislation on this. >> can we go to the next amendment? we go to senator bunning next and then to senator warner. >> i will wait until the amendment is passed. >> thank you for that. >> i am offering an amendment to the chairman's mark that seeks to curb the abuse of emergency designation for spending bills. my amendment creates a point of order against any bill that is designated as emergency spending that does not first collect the signatures of 16 senators supporting the designation. this would create a process for designating legislation as an emergency similar to a cloture petition. the senate has used emergency declarations too many times for too many things that should not be considered emergencies. we talked about that earlier. they-go rules passed by the majority were supposed to rein in excess spending. however, this has not been the case. as pay-go is consistently bypassed by these emergency designations. since the final appropriations bills for 2010 were passed in december, congress has approved over $90 billion in extensions and designations and designated them as emergency spending, and still has about $140 million in the mix between the house and senate in emergency designations that has not been resolved as yet. for instance, unemployment insurance benefits have been extended three times since december, and so have lending limits for small business. we have even used the emergency designation to extend satellite television copyright fees three times over that period. there were about nine designations for emergencies. i have just mentioned three of them. each of these times, we need these programs were going to expire -- we need these programs were going to expire. none of this was a surprise to us. my amendment requires the 16 senators to sign a document indicating that the legislation is truly an emergency and meets the following requirements. first, it is necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial. the need for it is sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time. 3, it is urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action. four, it is unforeseen, unpredictable, an unanticipated, and five, it is not permanent but temporary in nature. this point of order would not be able to be waived, and it would apply to each emergency designation found in any piece of legislature or any bill. i would also like to know that my amendment does not remove, does not remove the 60 votes appeal of the emergency designation that is currently on the books. the goal of this is to simply add more accountability to the emergency designation process. if a piece of legislation is truly deserving of an emergency declaration, then it will be easy to get 16 senators to sign a document supporting that designation. balancing our budget starts with getting the use of emergency designation for the spending we do around here under control. this amendment would not be able to end all abuse of emergency designation, but hopefully it would enable curtailing a bit of it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> senator, i have not had a chance to fully review it, but from what i understand it, i think this is a pretty good amendment. the only question i have about it is whether it is in our jurisdiction, our rules committee jurisdiction. >> i got a ruling from the parliamentarians and they say it is us. they had another one that they ruled out of order. >> let me just say we will confirm that with the parliamentarian. i completely believe you, but we need to confirm it. it will be my intention to support it. i think it is a thoughtful amendment, and there is no question that what the senator says is true. the emergency designations sometimes have been used for real emergencies, but sometimes -- >> then you would not have any trouble getting those 16 signatures. >> i agree. is a very thoughtful amendment at all for reform. if we get confirmation from what you heard from the parliamentarian, it would be my intention to support it. senator warner. >> it sounds pretty good to me. i want to mention an amendment that i am offering and my staff will be passing it around right now. let me acknowledge on the front end, this may be the result of the opportunity that you as the chair and senator gregg gave me to look at repetitive programs. one of the things that president reagan said that one of the hardest things to eliminate was actually a government program. while i commend you and ranking member for some of the activities in overall lowering the deficit, sometimes we lower but do not actually eliminate programs. what i am suggesting here in this amendment, as we are all aware, every year omb comes out with a list of programs that they think ought to be eliminated. that list often has been summarily put aside and the appropriators ignore that. this past year, president obama's omb put together 50 proposals to be eliminated. most of them continued. let's try to make this a truly bipartisan, so let's narrow that lest to those programs that both the president bush's omb suggested should be eliminated and it president obama's omb suggested should be eliminated. that lowered us to 18 programs. it is only $1 billion in savings, but it is actually program elimination it would set up a deficit reduction program. some of these programs sound good, but if you dig a little deeper, and let me cite one example. we have an enormous duplication. the department of agriculture is broadcasting grant and the telecommunication facilities grant. they sound good, but these varied activities are already done by the corporation for public broadcasting. we are paying three times the overhead, and no basic business function would have that kind of duplication. we are simply taking 18 programs that both president bush and president obama both agreed need to be eliminated and saying, let's put the onus on showing why these programs need to be continued. it is $1 billion. it would not get us all the way there, but it would lead to program elimination. >> this is a very thoughtful amendment as well. i think one of the real deficiencies around here is things get authorized and over time they become calcified and no longer do what the intention was when they started. but they never get killed, and what you are saying is, here we have an agreement between presidents of two different administrations and two different parties. they are in agreement. these are programs that should be terminated. >> a lot of these programs on the surface sound good, but there is a reason you have to dig into why the omb's under both president bush and obama have said they ought to be eliminated. even though their functions may be important, they are duplicates. >> i just want to speak up in support of the amendment as well. i have been working with senator warner for some time. even though this is a small step, it is an important step. it is important for us to start going through and identifying those programs, projects, and are authorizations that have outlived their usefulness or are part of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we have in our government right now. if we have an opportunity to start that process, i say we should do it. >> senator gregg. >> i think he should say that they shall reduce, rather than that they may. you agree to modify that? >> absolutely. >> amendment so modified. >> i would want to look that more closely. i may not be able to support the amendment with that. i do not know. >> i want to congratulate senator warner on this step in the right direction. i would also ask for his consideration going forward with some legislation that i previously introduced, creating in effect a sunset commission that would look more comprehensively at the federal government, federal agencies' spending. we have had successful efforts by sunset commissions to look at agencies and programs that no longer work, that actually have a process to go back and start with zero based budget. what we know in the federal government is, once the program is created, it develops a constituency. that constituency invariably comes in and ask for a cost-of- living increase or some growth in order to justify its existence. i am absolutely convinced that we need a comprehensive way to do with this bill tries to do, and i commend you again for it. >> as governor i was very proud of the fact that we eliminated a number of programs. what struck me as i looked through these and did some of the due diligence, that sounds great and many of these are very were the areas, but what you find as you begin deeper is that they are often functions that are duplicated by another program. what we have tried to do, narrowing this effort so there is not a partisan effort here, is look at the programs that both president bush and president obama both concurred could stand to be eliminated. >> i would again commend senator warner for this amendment, but i would take these comments even a step further. there are things that sound good that may be good, but we simply cannot afford, particularly when it comes to deficit spending, which seems to be more the rule than the exception these days. but i thank you for the amendment. >> i just want to congratulate senator warner on the amendment. i think it is a step in the right direction. it is a first step. obviously there are many other places that we could look, and i am sure we will do just that in coming years, and i will applaud you from the sidelines. >> senators sessions. >> i likewise would applaud the senator's amendment and appreciate the fact that it allowed when the saving occurred, that the money not be reached spent on something else, but actually to reduce the debt. we need to be focusing on how we can contain debt increases. i believe this has some -- i think we need a strong attitude on that throughout the senate to make sure it works effectively, but i appreciate that very much. >> i just had a question to understand, is it accurate to say that this would leave the determination on whether or not individual items should be changed or terminated up to the normal process of committees and so on? what you are saying is if, in fact, things are cut, it goes to deficit reduction? >> we are saying it should go to deficit reduction. we are also saying these are programs that have been designated by the omb, oftentimes repeatedly. it puts the onus back on the appropriators. >> i certainly support having any of these cuts go to deficit reduction. i am looking at the list. great lakes of restoration is on there, and that raises a big red flag for me. i will have to take a look at it more, but i think that as we make cuts, it makes perfect sense to have the savings go to deficit reduction. i am concerned about the process of determining what the cuts are. >> there enough. center court and, for an amendment. -- senator cornyn. >> the chairman, my amendment is straight forward and proposes to rescind $42 billion of the remaining and obligated stimulus funds and to use that for deficit reduction. i remember because it is so memorable, i think speaker pelosi said that the object of the stimulus was to have a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus of the economy, and i certainly understand the need for that stimulus. we had differences of opinion on how to accomplish it, but nevertheless, the bill did pass. according to the congressional budget office, about $70 billion of discretionary stimulus funding remained an obligated at the end of march. -- obligated at the end of march. in june we will likely take action on a supplemental appropriations bill where rican rescind these funds. i am reminded when i look back at the 2009 report of cristina romer, who was chair of the president's council of economic visors, when she predicted that enactment of the stimulus legislation would result in unemployment rates peaking at 8% in the third quarter of 2009 and then declining to 7% at the end of 2010, looking back on that now i am reminded of the quotation from john kenneth albrecht said that the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look good. notwithstanding the hopes and aspirations of ms. romer and economic forecasters of the time, it did not quite pan out. the report projected that a stimulus bill similar to that that was enacted feb. 2009 would add 3.7 million jobs by the end of 2010. instead, the economy has shed more than 3 million jobs since the stimulus bill was enacted, and 48 out of 50 states of the number of jobs for -- saw the number of jobs decline relative to february 2009. in october, ms. rahm conceded that the promised results from the stimulus bill were unlikely to materialize when she testified. she said the current forecasts do not predict substantial employment gains in 2010, and unemployment is unlikely to end 2010 much below its current levels. so i think it is fair to say, to repeat myself, given the hopes and aspirations of those who supported the stimulus bill, which of course was deficit spending, that now we have an opportunity to take what is an expanded by june, $42 billion, and apply that to deficit reduction. i am not only one that tries to figure out both in talking to their constituents and reading public opinion polls and otherwise, what the predominant concerns are of the american people, in addition to jobs. with much higher unemployment in various regions and states across the country, they are very worried about the runaway spending and the deficit and what that will mean to our children and grandchildren. i think this presents a wonderful opportunity for us to take money that was not spent in a timely, target, or temporary way and applied to the deficit, so i would ask my colleagues for their support. >> we have asked senator warner 2 d again to what is remaining -- to be in again to what is remaining in an extended recovery act funds. >> let me first of all say that the conceptual point center cornyn has made, i tended to agree with, the notion of timely spending, when you look at some of the omb numbers that actually had some of the spending appear at all in 2017 or 2018, it raised a lot of red flags with me. it has taken a number of inquiries to get the administration to be forthcoming on the data, to say how much is actually left, and i shared with some of the colleagues on my side that conceptually, if there was an ability to squeeze some of the dollars out, whether it be for deficit reduction or other more immediate job producing activities -- i can cite a number of these programs that even by september 30 look like they are not obligated. they have been awarded, but the contracts have not been signed. one is two major jobs that look like they have been obligated. they have made the awards, but they have not signed contracts. one is for good. -- one is fort hood. we have a similar circumstance at a hospital in virginia. has taken me three or four times to understand it, but within the additions on the food stamp program, where a lot of the dollars look like they are not obligated, it takes awhile for inflation to get back to where it was. perhaps we can get a better explanation than from me on this item, but a lot of the out years spending is mandatory, based on what we did on food stamps. you'd have to dramatically cut back food stamp spending right now, based upon inflation numbers that economists expect inflation to get up to 19. not a good explanation, but we can get somebody better on that. a lot of the dollars were kept driving down was the number that was actually going to be available. it was somewhere around the $30 billion category. a lot of that falls within the energy loan guarantee program, where a lot of the dollars have not been allocated out yet. there's an argument there that you could sweep some of those, but you could hopefully recruit, and i think there is a legitimate policy there. there are a couple of areas around broadband where they have made the announcement that they are going to put out a request for proposals. some cases they have even made requests for proposals, but they have not actually awarded the dollars. i could perhaps go through offline with senator cornyn the program by program area. i thought some of these in the out years could be put to better use. the dollar amount is much lower than what appeared at the top line. i would be happy to share it with you and your staff as we go through this. >> i appreciate the diligence of the senator from virginia. i wonder whether the information that he had difficulty getting, whether you would share that more widely with all of us. >> let me say that it was literally only in the last 10 days or so after repeated efforts that i was able to get some of it. >> i appreciate your diligence. the numbers we had were numbers that came from a staff consultation at the congressional budget office, which congress relies upon. i would just say that since the whole premise of the stimulus was to get the economy moving again, some of the programs i heard the senator mentioned are good programs, but they should be ones we should be paying for as part of the regular function of government, not spending money on under the guise of providing an economic stimulus. again, i would say that if the only question we look at, and i am not suggesting this, but if the only question we try to answer it is if this is a program that has some merit, if we do not look at whether it is actually paid for, then we will never pay for anything. there is an endless list of things, for example, the extension of the unemployment insurance benefit that we all support as a matter of policy, but the point of contention was come are going to pay for it? there are two ways to pay for things. you can raise taxes, or you can cut spending or a three prioritize other aspects of the budget. that is the simple exercise that we are asking be done here, is to pay for things that are meritorious programs that do not continue to run up the deficit. i do not think raising taxes during a recession is a job- creating exercise. i think it is a job killing exercise. so i would love to get access to good information. i guess if it is a question of trying to get accurate information, other than the congressional budget office and perhaps professional staff on this committee, i do not know where we look for the most reliable information. i think the premise of my amendment is still the same, un obligated discretionary funds that could be used to pay down the deficit should be used for that purpose. >> could i just very briefly say, and we have lots of amendments pending, so i will try to be very brief. we have tried to pierce the veil on these numbers as well, because the concept that the senator has i think is the correct one. what we have found is in line with what senator warner said. it depends on the language one uses. i as soon and obligated meant money was unavailable. turns out that in the language of omb, that have programs that have been awarded that are not considered obligated until the contract is signed. and so the difference between what we see and what i thought stuck out there, and i was hoping to put into this budget, was money that was unobligated, i guess making the same assumption the senator from texas is making. let me give you two examples we found. on a high-speed rail program, is 100% awarded, but not yet obligated, because the contract has not been formally signed, because they are in what is called legal review. on the smart grid program, which has potential for very significant energy savings, it is 100% awarded, but much of it not yet obligated, again for this same reason. so that creates an issue. let me just say, -- >> one other thing, because i looked at the top line numbers and bought, even if he said we will give them through fiscal year 2012 or 2013, there were still large numbers. if you look at broadbent, we all have communities that have applied for broadband finding that is not obligated, but there is the expectation that if they have been selected, they will get the dollars. the number is much lower than what the top line look like. >> i say with all respect that the stimulus did not worked the way that the administration and many of those who supported it hoped it would, in terms of keeping unemployment under 8%. i understand, because economic forecasting is a very dicey business. but now, with the benefit of experience, in hindsight, we ought to be able to learn from that lesson that the stimulus did not worked in keeping unemployment low. so the fact that there may be projects still in the pipeline should not dissuade us not to take this money, whatever it is, and use it to pay down the deficit. we ought to learn from our experience not to be condemned to repeat it. . . >> the last quarter of last year, it was 5.6%. we want to learn from history. we want to learn from what has actually happened. the evidence is quite overwhelming that in the series of federal initiatives have worked and, in fact, if you go back in economic history and look at previous economies, you have rarely seen one with a turnaround as dramatic as this one. i think the senator's characterization that this has not worked is fundamentally wrong. >> the facts are what they are but the fact is, as well, the stimulus which was sold as a means to create jobs and hopefully keep unemployment under 8%, has not worked. >i concede some of the other point you made about the stock market rebound and we are all glad that the economy is resilient enough to overcome anything that washington or anybody else throws at it. my point strictly has to do with the effect of the stimulus on keeping unemployment low and i do not think it has worked. >> let me just respond to that and we will go to senator gregg. cbo says the recovery act and treated between 1.5 and 3.4% to the gdp growth of last year. if it had not been enacted, the unemployment would have been in the range of 10.5% to 11.1% without the recovery act. that is cbo's analysis. you are saying we have to use their analysis. their analysis is that the recovery act has preventing unemployment from being much higher. >> i would conclude that you made the argument for his amendment because he represented that the recession is over and the snap back as the fastest in history and we are on a strong economic upturn and all of that being said, i would say we did not have to spend any more of the stimulus money and put it toward the debt. >> if i may briefly point out, the cbo has also said that it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package. given the lack of a verifiable and demonstrated results from the stimulus, if we can recover one seventh of it and ordered to pay down the debt, i think this is a great opportunity to do so. thank you, mr. chairman could of course i understand we need to move on. i feel i need to respond specifically as it relates to michigan. because, and only because, of the recovery act, we have nine new companies that are manufacturing or going to be a manufacturing advanced battery technology to the next generation so we can compete in the global economy which only happened because of the $2 billion that was put in for advanced battery manufacturing. because of the tax credit, which i thank you for extending, 150 companies across the company, 14 companies in mich., have received the ability to create new investments on jobs in manufacturing. we have a longer wait to go in michigan than anywhere else but i can tell you that we are seeing significant investments and changes as a result of the recovery act. i do not know where we would be if we had not done it. >> the committee eventually passed on a mostly party-line vote of 12-10. the plant reportedly cut deficits quicker that the one proposed by the president but postponed major tax and spending initiatives. >> and a few moments, house debate on a bill that would suggest additional sanctions against iran. president obama supports business leaders to support new financial regulations. after that, the senate budget committee continues to markup next year's budget proposal. tomorrow morning, live coverage of the hearing on the 2008 financial crisis and the role of credit rating agencies, particularly standard and poor's and moody's. witnesses include former officers of both companies. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentcam documentary competition, middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strengths for a challenge the country is facing. watch the top of videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 eastern just before "washington journal." meet the students that made them and for a preview for -- review of all the winners, visit studentcam.or.g g. >> we really have to get this right. if not, we could stifle innovation, the free-market, the economy and do more harm than good. >> as the senate moves closer to a vote, see the process unfold with congressional leaders, journalists and other experts at d.c.'s ban video library. search it, put it and share it. -- clip and share it. >> members debated the issue for a little more than one hour. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, this motion comes at a critical time in our effort to prevent iran from dealing a devastating blow to the security of our nation, the security of our closest allies, and to global security and stability. the gravest threat comes from iran's rapidly advancing nuclear weapons program. last week lieutenant general burgess, the director of the defense intelligence agency, and general cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified that iran could produce enough weapons grade fuel for nuclear weapon within one year. about even with this alarming scenario, we may be too optimistic given the iranian regime's long history of deception. last december yet another secret iranian nuclear facility was revealed. an underground ukraine yun enrichment plant. inspectors from the international atomic energy agency or iaea reportedly concluded that this facility's capacity is too small to be of use in producing fuel for civilian nuclear power, but is well configured to produce material for one or two nuclear weapons a year. the regime has already announced that it intends to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants and will start construction on two in this coming year. there is mounting evidence that iran has been working on a nuclear warhead for many years. the iaea's iran's report from february of this year stated that its inspectors had uncovered extensive evidence of, "past or current undisclosed activities" to develop a nuclear warhead. that same iaea report, mr. speaker, raised concerns, "about the possible existence in iran of undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." iran has long been at work in ballistic missiles and already has the ability to strike u.s. forces and our allies in the middle east such as israel and in many other areas. but iran is not stopping there, a recent unclassified report by the department of defense estimated that iran may be able to strike the united states with a missile by the year 2015. the threat posed by the iranian regime's nuclear ballistic missile and unconventional weapons capabilities is magnified by its continued support of violent extremism. according to this pentagon report, iran is, "furnishing lethal aid to iraqi shiia militia militants and afghan insurgents, and iran provide lebanese, hezbollah, and palestinian terrorist groups with funding, weapons, and training to oppose israel." the same report stated that, "iran through its long-standing relationship with lebanese hezbollah maintains the capability to strike israel directly and to threaten israeli and u.s. interest worldwide." we know that iran has a long track record in using these capabilities. the pentagon report confirms that the iranian regime has been involved in or has been behind what the report describes as "some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades ," mr. speaker, including the 1983 and 1984 bombing of the u.s. embassy and annex in beirut, the 1983 coming of the marine barracks in beirut, the 1994 attack on the amia jewish community center in argentina, the 1996 khobar towers bombing in saudi arabia, and many of the insurgent attacks on coalition and iraqi security forces in iraq since 2003, end quote. in other words, when the iranian regime threatens america and israel with disruption, over and over again, they may mean it. today the iranian revolutionary guard is scheduled to begin a three-day exercise involving the missiles and other weapons to demonstrate their ability to dominate the persian gulf and the strait of hormuz, the choke point for much of the world oil supply. 7. diplomacy and engagement has had nothing on tehran. deadlines set by the obama administration for compliance has been repeatedly disregarded. now, the strategy appears to be resting on securing a new u.n. security council resolution. however, russia and china see themselves as friends of the regime in tehran and have public low stated that they will not support -- publicly stated that they will not support a resolution that will put significant pressure on tehran. in fact, "the new york times" reported last week that secretary of defense robert gates, quote, in a secret memorandum to top white house officials that the united states does not have, does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability, end quote. mr. speaker, the congress must fill this vacuum. we must not sit idly by and wait for iran to detonate a nuclear device. in february of 2006, the congress adopted a concurrent resolution citing the iranian regime's repeated violations of its international obligations, underscoring that as a result of these violations iran no longer has the right to develop any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle and urging responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny iran the resources and the ability to develop nuclear weapons. then, we moved to strengthen u.s. sanctions on iran and to render support to iranian human rights and pro-democracy advocates through the passage of the iran freedom support act of 2006. yet again, the u.s. has yet to bring to bare the full supports of -- bear the full support. we have failed to act decisively before. this may be the last chance to apply pressure on iran before it is too late. so the motion to instruct asks the conferees to conclude their work by may 28, it is my hope, mr. speaker, that we will not wait that long. we must strike at the regime's vulnerabilities and do so quickly and effectively. as such, the motion to instruct conferees insists on the house passed version of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, also known as irpsa. chairman berman and i along with several members of the foreign house subcommittee have wanted to deal with imported petroleum products, especially gasoline. the house passed it overwhelmingly on december 15 by a vote of 412-12. the sanctions bill we enact must match the gravity of the grow threat. there are several provisions that the conference report must contain if this legislation is to have any signature impact. because iran's energy sector and its dependence on refined petroleum are the regime's achilles' heel, in the motion to instruct we must insist on sections 3-a and 3-b regarding the development of iran's petroleum resources and the export of refined petroleum products to iran. we must not reward countries that allow their businesses and citizens to provide assistance to iran's nuclear missile or advance conventional weapons program to be rewarded with a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement. therefore, the house must insist on section 3-c, which prohibits such agreements being submitted to congress or entering into force. we must -- we must insist, mr. speaker, on those provisions because the executive branch has not once applied sanctions under the iran sanctions act on investments in the iranian energy sector. this problem originated more than a decade ago when former secretary state albright exercised a sweeping waiver that turned that act into a paper tiger. and the state department continues to ignore mandatory sanctions under that act on those who are assisting iran's proliferation activities. we must also ensure that section 3-d removes ambiguities regarding the president's waiver authority and thereby will ensure the speedy implementation of sanctions. and we must insist on section 3-f which expands the definition of petroleum resources and products and closes loopholes in the original iran sanctions act that have been repeatedly exploited by others. because the iranian threat will continue to grow, the house must insist also on section 3-h, which extends the iranian sanctions act by five years. and because we must not let those who have already violated our laws off the hook, we must insist on sections 4-a-1, 4-a-2 and 4-b-1. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this motion and ask conferees to embrace it and commit to sending the strongest possible bill to the president's desk. the clock is ticking. the centrifuges in iran are spinning. our time has almost run out. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agree to h.con.res 222, recognizing the leadership and hiss tore contributions -- historical contributions of dr. hector garcia to the hispanic community. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ranking member's motion to instruct. the world faces no security threat greater than the prospect of a nuclear armed iran. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: we must make certain that the prospect never becomes a reality. a nuclear iran would menace, intimidate and ultimately dominate its neighbors. it would be virtually impervious from any type of pressure from the west, regardless of any support of terrorism or the question of freedom and human rights at home and would touch off a nuclear arms race in the middle east that would almost inevitably lead to can t.s.a. row free. and -- catastrophe. and worst of all, they may use its nuclear arms against those they see as enemies. iran quite possibly will be capable of developing and delivering a nuclear weapon in the next three to five years. in our -- and our task of preventing iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability is made more complicated by the fact that we all know that our best weapon for fighting this battle, economic sanctions, takes time to work. so we need the strongest possible sanctions and we need them fast. that's why i support this motion to instruct. the house bill, h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, is a good, strong measure, and i and my colleagues will fight for it in conference. we will work with the senate on measures to help iran's brave dissidents circumvent regime efforts to block their communications. the gentleman from florida, our colleague from florida will speak about an additional provision with respect to state decisions to disinvest that we want to include in this conference report. and i want to send this bill to the president by or before the may 28 deadline proposed in the motion to instruct. this bill, along with the senate bill, has already done much good. in recent months in anticipation of our sanctions becoming law, several major energy companies have ceased selling refined petroleum to iran. others have announced they will not make new investments in iranian energy. they are making the sensible choice that our bill encourages, choosing the u.s. market over the iranian market. more will make that choice when our bill becomes law. meanwhile, our bill is goating other nations to intensify their efforts to achieve a sanctions resolution in the u.n. security council, and our own executive branch is getting the message that congress is able and willing to take the grave matter of sanctions into our own hands. april 30 will make one year since we first introduced this sanctions legislation. since then iran has increased the number of its working centrifuges and reached the one bomb equivalent level on the stock of low-enriched uranium. it has reached uranium to 20%, a big step to mastering the process of weapons-grade uranium and has installed 21st century sentry fugse and has built a secret reactor near kohm that could have only been intended for bomb-making purposes and has announced plans to build 10 more reactors. iran is contempt of the international community, and i had hoped that a u.n. security council resolution requiring tough sanctions following immediately thereafter by additional muscular sanctions imposed by the european union would have happened by now. i know the administration is doing everything possible to bring that result about. unfortunately, we're now nearly four months into 2010 with iran on the verge of nuclear weapons capability and a u.n. security council resolution remains an uncertain prospect. we cannot wait any longer. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, i think my colleagues have very eloquently explained the contents of the bill and what we need to do. but the thing i'd like to talk about for a minute or two is the ramifications for america and the rest of the world if we don't do something. we get about 30% to 40% of our energy from the middle east, and if i were talking to the american people i would just say to you that if you look at your lights and you look at the energy you need for your car and for everything else, heating your house, you need to realize that if iran develops a nuclear capability and that whole area becomes a war zone, the persian gulf, where a lot of oil is transported to, we will see a terrible problem as far as our energy is concerned and that would directly effect our energy. it's important we do something and do something very, very quickly. we've waited too long. we've talked about negotiating with iran and putting sanctions on them for the past four or five years, trying to get our allies to work with us. the fact of the matter is nothing has happened and iran continues to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. and this is a terrible, terrible threat, a terrorist state, iran, with nuclear weapons is not only a threat to the middle east, to israel, our best ally over there, but it's a threat to every single one of us. and they're also working on intermediate range missiles and possibly intercontinental ballistic missiles. and if they get those, nobody's safe. so it's extremely important that we take whatever measures is necessary to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons. now, today we're taking a great first step, and i hope that when this goes to the conference committee we will come out with something strong that it will have an impact on what iran does. but if it doesn't, it's important that everybody in the world realize we have to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons because it's a threat to every single person on this planet in one way or another. we got to stop nuclear proliferation, but the first thing we have to do is stop iran, a terrorist state, from getting nuclear weapons. i thank the gentlelady for the time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much both for his leadership and for this opportunity with the ranking member to really discuss and reinforce some of the principles that many of us support in a bipartisan manner. i rise today to simply encourage the conference on this legislation and to be able to chronicle simply efforts that i think were not wasteful but constructive. i do believe the administration's effort at engagement was constructive and not wasteful. it is always important for those of us who are lawyers to create the record. the building blocks for the final decision of the court of law. in this instance the court of law is the combination of the american people, this congress, and this administration. and it is likewise the world community, the united nations. also the people of iran are speaking and they are speaking loudly. no one can forget that fateful picture of a young lady lying in her own blood during the rising of the people of iran, not provoked by any world standards or provocation, but for the people of iran simply saying, enough of the despotism of this administration of their country, enough is enough. and they were willing to die in the streets. they took to the buildings to make loud noises at night. and they continue to pounce over and over again. iran is a challenge and it is a terrorist around the world. having just come back from yemen, bahrain, qatar, and pakistan, everywhere you went individuals, leaders in government were willing to indicate what a threat iran was. just yesterday in a hearing on syria, questions are now rising as to iran's participation in funding hezbollah to go into lebanon. of course some of those particular points are being denied. but frankly i think if there is any reason to move forward on a conference, it is the concept of the disruption of iran in the region. there are those in the middle east who want peace, from jordan to israel to other places around, they want peace. we begin to look at yemen, that is in a distant low case, place where i visited, we know it is an al qaeda cresse pool. we know there are -- cesspool. we know there are young men there susceptible to recruitment. we here in this country must provide the moral standarding of peace and democracy for those who desire so. so i rise to support the people of iran, those who are willing to sacrifice their lives and go into the streets. it is well-known that whatever we have tried to do, the engagement of a cold war, the standoff iran continues to seemingly put forward its nuclear efforts. i ask for support of this legislation and i ask for our colleagues to vote for this motion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time. as ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, i strongly support this motion to instruct. i think it's important for all of us to realize that right now iran is at its weakest point in terms of its capacity to manufacture enough refined petroleum. it has to, it has to at this point for its gasoline import that into the nation. and already the impact, the effect of this legislation even coming up on the floor has been effective in backing companies away from doing business with iran. imagine what the effect will be if we pass this legislation. imagine the impact it will have and the pressure that it will bring to bear, because the threat of this legislation has already produced a situation in iran that is very, very difficult for civil society and is making people understand the costs and consequences for iran to continue down this road. now, this morning the g.a.o. will release a report that shows that foreign commercial activity in iran's energy sector is going to begin to increase. and that will provide cash for iran's nuclear program. that's why this bill is so important. a similar report three years ago showed half as many companies involved in this sector. now it's on the increase. the usual way of doing business, of not standing up to the russians and the chinese and to others, cannot continue. we have to take action. time is not on our side. enrichment capability, the key aspect of a nuclear weapons program is being mastered by that government. not so long ago i remember talking here on the floor about iran's 164 center fugse and now the progress is -- centrifuges and now the progress is measured in thousands. it is working on a weapon design, my colleagues. and may have a missile to carry that warhead to the united states within five years' time. today the world's top terrorist state has its tent cals throughout the region. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. as the chairman knows, i have some reservations about the effectiveness of a sanctions regime, but there's no question in my mind but the worst thing that can happen is military confrontation, because that would, in fact, unite the iranian people against america and on the wrong side of history. you no, 7 -- now, it is too easy to think of iran as a monolithic people. the reality is that iran is the successor to the great persian civilization and is a very diverse civilization. i share the chairman's concern about the current government of iran, which i doubt think is consistent with persia's history. and in fact their actions have been inexplicable and inexcusable. and the chairman is right, obviously, to respond. but the reality is that a very substantial portion of the iranian population, perhaps the majority, in fact embraces american values of democracy and human rights and individual freedoms of expression, collective gathering, and freedom of worship. but they are not able to do that today. and i appreciate the fact that the chairman is determined to allow the technology that would enable the population to communicate, to communicate their ideas. in fact, to mobilize for the best interest of their nation and their future. we also limit the availability of technology that the regime is using for precisely the opposite purposes. to censor and provide -- perform surveillance against those people who would like to empower the iranian people to take control of their own future. this bill will be supported, it should be supported. i appreciate the chairman's leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from -- mr. royce, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, he was about to finish his thought and i wasn't looking up. i apologize. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: for those of us who have engaged this region and watched neighboring countries to iran watched their propensity to react as iran has sped up its development, each of these countries are now looking at going nuclear. and i'd ask my colleagues to think about those neighbors of iran that would create a heavily nuclearized middle east should iran succeed in this and what the impact would be. we can only imagine the turmoil and the tensions that will come to the middle east should we not succeed in this effort to prevent iran from developing these nuclear weapons. tomorrow's nuclear iran would thus have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and as i pointed out earlier for u.s. security. the time for action is long past -- passed. this bill will greatly help because it targets iran's achilles' heel at perhaps the only time that we can effectively do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the author of florida legislation, with respect to disinvestment from iran's energy sector, our newest member, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion before us today is based on the simple fact that a nuclear armed iran is an unacceptable threat to our national security. poses an exy tension threat to our vital ally, israel, and unite a destabilizing arms race. we must take whatever action is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. its president denies the holocaust and openly declared his intention to wipe israel off the map. to be included among the powerful sanctions in this legislation is the removal of barriers that state pension boards raise which prevent the divestment of holdings in companies that help to fund iran's nuclear weapons program. in 2007, the florida legislature passed critical legislation that mandated that workers' pension funds could not be used to support iranian nuclear weapons. in florida alone we removed more than $1 billion from companies that put their profits ahead of this nation's national security. that is but one state. this legislation will permit every state to die vest from iran just as florida and 20 other states have already done. the divestment effort will become a full-fledged movement. the threat from iran is real. this threat is unacceptable and it demands this aggressive effort on the part of the united states and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, a member of the committee on foreign affairs , because that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, iran is the world threat. they along with north korea are working together to plot and build nuclear weapons to threaten the rest of the world. ahmadinejad, the little fellow from the desert, has already said that when he gets nuclear weapons his first target is tel aviv in israel. he's made it clear to the world he wants to destroy israel and he wants nuclear weapons. he wants missiles from north korea to do that. but his threat is not just to the israelis, it's to the entire region. and even to the united states. he continues to rant about how he wants the destruction of the west. he helps hezbollah in the north and he helps hamas in the south. both to engage and cause terror in israel. his answer, our answer has been let's talk to them. let's tell the iranians they are not playing nice. that they are going to cause problems in the world. mr. speaker, we cannot adopt the neble chamberlain philosophy and fool ourselves that the iranians will honestly negotiate with the world. they lie to the world and the united states so they can buy time to build their nuclear weapons. more talking will not bring peace in our time. it will only allow them to build nuclear weapons. so this sanction must work. it must be enforced. prevent companies from dealing with our enemy government, the iranian government, and not allow iran to receive refined gasoline. and we must mean it and we must enforce this. the long-term solution with iran is, there is a regime change. we hope the good people of iran change their rogue government. a government that doesn't even represent the people. a government that had fraudulent elections last year and took over control again. our government, our country, our people must be vocal about the support of the resistance movement and hopefully remove their government by themselves and peaceably set up a government that represents the world and will bring peace to the world. that is the great hope for iran. that is the great hope for the world as a peaceable regime change in iran. but right now we need sanctions. and we need to let them know we mean it because we are not going to continue to talk forever and hope that they will negotiate and play nice. that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. harman: i thank my california colleague for yielding to me and commend him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, in the course of my service on virtually all of the security-related committees in this house, i have visited some of the most dangerous and austere places on the planet, rugged and remote areas that has terrorists. i am asked to name those countries i think poses a threat to the united states. iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, yemen. my answer every time is iran, iran, iran. given the zeal with which it promotes and supports instability in the middle east, it's my -- it's arming of and financial assistance to hezbollah and hamas and its march towards a nuclear weapons capability in my view no other country comes close. the question that confronts us is how to confront their government to abandon a nuclear weapons program. most agree that a multilateral approach is likely to sked. our efforts with the e.u. led by stuart levy have been effective but they haven't yet changed iran's course. our country must continue its leadership role, our efforts to diplomacy and economic sanctions must drive stronger, multilateral diplomacy and sanctions. that's why congress must move to conference on iran sanctions legislation and enact by an overwhelming bipartisan package that includes sanctions on iran and cripple iran's ability to import refined petroleum products. let me be clear, mr. speaker. our problem is not with the iranian people but with its government's reckless policies. iran with nuclear weapons not only poses an exowe tension threat to israel, but to us and to countries everywhere which espouse democratic values. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, an esteemed member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kirk: thank you, mr. speaker. as the iranians accelerate their nuclear program, indications are that america may be losing its nerve. in its latest report to congress, the c.i.a. said iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment. this follows a report by the u.n.'s iaea that iran has enriched uranium and is halfway to its goal of making bomb-grade fissile material. we know that iran's greatest weakness is its dependence on foreign gasoline. they have mishandled iran's economy since 1979 that this leading opec leading nation is depending on gasoline for 40% of its needs. i wrote a material -- an article trying to end gasoline sales. i want to thank chairman berman and ranking member ros-lehtinen for bringing this bill to the floor. in these partisan times now, when have 54 senators and congressmen agreed on anything? but they agree on cutting off iran's gasoline. but now without decisive bipartisan action soon, the security of our children and our allies may depend on the good behavior of a terrorist nation now armed with the most dangerous weapon. so as congress has been sleeping, i think we should wake up. we should finally sign this bipartisan bill. to congress, pass this legislation. to the president, sign it and then seal off iran's gasoline. without unilateral actions to cut off iran's gasoline, no other sanctions policy is serious. we it we have a chance to remove a great danger to the security of americans and israeli children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the chair of the foreign operations subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chair for your leadership on this very important issue, and i want to express my strong support for h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act that mandates tighter sanctions against the iranian regime. with its continued defiance of the international community and the clock ticking on their nuclear capabilities, now is the time for action. this week iran announced testing of various missiles and weapons capability. u.s. officials have said that iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of striking the u.s. by 2015. and iran's continued threats to our strongest ally in the middle east, israel, presents dire global security implications. i urge the conferees to act with haste to address these urgent challenges with tough, crippling sanctions. but the speed with which congress finalizes this legislation, to sanction iran, the message to the international community that time is of the essence if we are to contain iran's threats through security, stability and prosperity worldwide. again, i thank the gentleman from california and the gentlewoman from florida for their efforts. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion to instruct, and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, sir. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, not long ago i was briefed by an official on iran's provocative action and he gave a challenge in that briefing and he said, print out on your computer a red line. print a big, thinking red bar on a white sheet of paper. you think it's a solid red line, but if you look at it up close what you will see is a series of tiny little pink lines all pushed together. but they're individual little lines. he said what iran has figured out is they have figured out a way to break through one tiny little line at a time, just one at a time, one at a time, one at a time. and that is why we're here today, because we in the west, we in the united states are onto what the iranian leadership is doing. they're being incredibly provocative. there is no nuclear ambition for iran. this is a regime that has said that israel, our greatest ally in the middle east, has no right to exist. they said one provocative thing after another. and history is filled, mr. speaker, with examples of weakness and ambiguity in foreign affairs. and what is the result? largely the result is calamity. now, we have a chance to be united, for all of us to come together and say we are not going to stand with this, we have come up with a remedy and it's time for the conferees to move forward and to create this very tough and solid sanctions against the petroleum products going into iran. and i urge the conferees to move quickly, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i support the obama administration's historic efforts at nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security. it's a recognition that our security depends on dialogue and negotiation between nations. it was reflected in a proposal that was made last year to freeze iran's nuclear programs at existing levels. now, in december of last year, i led the effort to oppose h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i stand here today almost five months later to reaffirm my objection to the underlying bill. five months later we have not come any closer to diplomatic resolutions to objections to iran's nuclear proliferation program or attempted to amend the language of the iran sanctions bill to ensure it has not come at the cost of the well-being of the iranian people we come to support. iran imports 40% of its gasoline. leaders of iran are not going to lack for gasoline, but the people of iran will suffer. we have to ask ourselves, will this cause them to turn against their government or will it cause them to turn against the united states and our efforts to bring about a succession of iran's nuclear program? if we cared aboutite rainian people, we would not be -- if we cared about the iranian people, we would not be on the house floor talking about this. we need to focus on efforts to address the egregious human rights, civil liberties and civil rights abuses that they endure. the legislation under consideration will only play into their hands of the iranian regime by diverting attention away from the significant social and economic problems that must be addressed. i fear that this legislation will actually strengthen the hard liners in iran and i'm sure that's not what we want to happen. this legislation will undermine any future references by the administration to engage diplomatic low with iran by limiting the tools the administration can use, reports suggest that had iranians have delayed any agreements with the united states for fuel swap due to internal divisions. we must stand in support of the courageous battle for human rights and democracy that the iranian people are engaged in. many at the cost of their lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, a member of the armed services and judiciary committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: and i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, the ominous intersection of jihadist terrorism and nuclear proliferation has been relentlessly rolling toward america and the free world for decades. we now find ourselves living in a time when the terrorist state of iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, if that occurs, all other issues will be wiped from the table because whatever challenges we have in dealing with iran today will pale in comparison in dealing with iran that has nuclear weapons. and yet, mr. speaker, the obama administration seems to remain asleep at the wheel. we see repeated signals that the obama administration may already be adopting a policy of containment. it is beyond my ability to express the danger of such a policy, mr. speaker. i am afraid that the last window we will ever have to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. and while it is unlikely that the bill before us will be enough to prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons by itself, it is a step in the right direction, and i applaud its sponsors and i only pray that the obama administration will wake up in time to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation and begin to threaten the peace of the human family and bring nuclear terrorism to this and future generations. and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. could i get the time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 6 1/2. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i am going to yield myself -- i am going to yield myself one minute at this time. the speaker pro tempore: one minute? mr. berman: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you. my friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, articulated his reasons for opposing this legislation. we are now, of course, voting on a motion to instruct on the legislation, but i want to just take issue with several of his points. the reason there has not been a diplomatic resolution of the problem is because the regime in iran has refused to engage in any meaningful and serious way in a resolution which would require them to change their behavior, to end their ambition to obtain a nuclear weapons capability and that is where the blame lies. it is not because diplomatic alternatives have been ignored. it's because they've been undertaken and rebuffed by the regime in iran. secondly, i very much disagree with the notion that our response flew hopefully tough robust sanctions, the kinds of sanctions -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: the -- i disagree very much with the gentleman's contention that our effort to seek to change iranian behavior and reverse iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons through the imp position of strong -- imposition of strong, robust, meaningful legislation through tough international sanctions by the community of nations is going to cause the iranian people to turn against us and on behalf of their regime. . these are people who have been subject to execution, murder, imprisonment, all kinds of repression, efforts to suppress their speech and their political liberties by that regime and have taken great risks, notwithstanding the way that regime has reacted. i would suggest that those people will no more than anyone that the consequences that are befalling the people of iran are a result of the regime's behavior not the international community and american efforts -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, our esteemed republican whip and a member of the committee of ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady and thank you, mr. speaker. i want to salute first of all the gentlelady's leadership on this issue as well as that of the gentleman from california in bringing this to the floor. and would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor as well. mr. speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a nuclear iran. by talking to and engaging with the regime in tehran, the administration said we could convince the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. and if that didn't work, america ostensibly would gain the moral authority to galvanize china, russia, and the rest of the world to go along with a regime of crippling sanctions against tehran. 15 months and countless missed deadlines later, the administration's strategy has failed. our lack of resolve has only enabled iran to accelerate its illegal activities. let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. the danger of a nuclear iran is not hypothetical. it is real. it is a direct and serious threat to america. it is a game changer that would set off a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east, permanently destabilizing the world's most dangerous region. top u.s. military officials recently warned congress that within one year iran will have the fiffle -- fissile material it needs to make a nuclear weapon. once iran gets the bomb, the concept of deter rens that underpins u.s. -- deterrence that underpins u.s. national security is no longer valid. the resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. that's why congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world that the united states will not tolerate a nuclear iran. it's time for a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth. and that begins here today with the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. we must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to iran, and we must cut off all international companies who do business with iran revolutionary guard from the u.s. financial system.

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Arkansas ,United States ,Qatar ,Alaska ,Tel Aviv ,Israel ,China ,California ,Manhattan ,New York ,Fort Hood ,Texas ,Syria ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Bahrain ,Arizona ,Tehran ,Iran ,Spain ,Khobar ,Ash Sharqiyah ,Saudi Arabia ,Argentina ,Afghanistan ,Florida ,Illinois ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Oregon ,Lebanon ,As Iran ,Az Arbayjan E Sharqi ,Michigan ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,Beirut ,Beyrouth ,Iraq ,North Korea ,Ohio ,Capitol Hill ,Yemen ,Americans ,America ,Chinese ,Iranians ,Iranian ,Afghan ,Israelis ,Spanish ,Iraqi ,Lebanese ,Israeli ,Persia ,Palestinian ,Russians ,American ,Douglas Brinkley ,Warren Buffett ,Al Qaeda ,Jackson Lee ,Hector Garcia ,Michael Bloomberg ,John Kenneth Albrecht ,Sheila Jackson Lee ,Evan Bayh ,David Paterson ,Cristina Romer ,Richard Norton Smith ,Don Bates ,George Campbell Jr ,