only for life, but for those who defend it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i honor tore honor deputy sean webb. the entire department joined by the people of plumak county are rallying behind this young man and his family as he battles a difficult illness. you don't see this kind of outpouring these days. it's a testament to the impact that deputy webb has had on his department and community. sean's commander writes, we have here in plumas county we have a grade a, true blooded american hero.

i salute the bravery and dedication that deputy sean webb has brought to his professional life in protecting our community, a quality so inconspicuous. and i salute the people of the county who embraced and supported sean during this difficult time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. hill of indiana for today. the speaker pro tempore: objection, -- without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special order heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous

material. mr. paulson today for five minutes, mr. mcclintock, june 11 for five minutes, mr. jones for june 17, mr. moran for june 17, mr. duncan for today, mr. man hsu la for today, mr. olson for june 11, mr. gomeert for today, june 11, mr. broun for today, mr. hensarling for june 11. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, mr. engel of new york, ms. berkley for five palestinians and ms. kaptur from ohio. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. under the speaker's announced spoil of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. unveiled today was a new energy plan that would increase production of american-made energy in an environmentally sound manner. the american energy act is an all of the above solution that offers good-paying american johns and american energy independence and it's safe for the environment. however, what the administration and the taxacrats are proposing is a none of the above approach to energy, they call it the cap and trade bill. their answer to is to tax energy consumption, not find more energy. it will cost the average american family over $3,000 in

additional taxes each year. if you use energy, you'll be taxed that will mean all sorts of energy -- all sources of energy will cost all consumers more money. natural gas, gasoline and the cost of food and consumer goods will rise. everything is going to cost a whole lot more because everything americans buy is produced using the energy the administration is going to tax. their plan is to punish americans who use energy by taxing them, plus there is no real plan for energy that they propose. their new cap and trade national energy tax will financially devastate middle class families across america. it will be especially hard on energy producing states like texas that will lose thousands of jobs. the nonpartisan congressional budget office issued their analysis of the energy consumption tax this week. the c.b.o. reports say that the administration cap and trade tax impoises $846 billion in

new national energy taxes that will affect all of us. not only that, the c.b.o. told the senate the new energy consumption tax will have little or no effect on the climate. now is it -- isn't that lovely? the none of the above energy plan and tax on business hammers what few manufacturing plants are left in the united states. it's going to send countless american jobs overseas to places like china and india. you see, both of these countries have said they're not going to participate in any scheme to cap and tax carbon like america is going to do. thus they'll make what were american products cheaper in those countries. also if all these factories and plants move overseas along with the jobs, the so-called polluting nations, how is this going to have a positive effect on our climate. at the same time they are taxacrats are trying to kill off carbon-based fuel supplies,

things like oil and its derivatives and natural gas. there is no transition fuel that exists at this time. that's at least 10 years iway. now we are really in a fix. no new energy and literally we're going to be in the dark and be taxed back to the stone age. the strange part of all this is the taxacrats say natural gas could be the transition fuel but they're trying to kill the drilling of natural gas, especially offshore. i wonder if they understand that natural gas is a carbon-based fossil fuel is -- that must be drilled for. they want to force us into small little cars, they're too small for people like me or groceries or putting children in these toy cars. and they're unsafe at any speed. the institute for highway safety ran three 40-mile-per-hour car-to-car,

front-to-front crash tests, each involving one of these little bitity microcars and a mid sized car from the same manufacturer. they didn't use large cars or the s.u.v.'s. the results weren't pretty. they found that the weight of just a mid sized car was devastating to these micromini toy cars. these green cars simply do not have the weight to protect the passengers. and they're not safe on american highways. so the government is going to force us to drive small battery-powered unsafe vehicles but they will be cute, mr. speaker. speaking of batteries, if all our vehicles are electric, where are we going to dispose of the millions of larger batteries that will be required to generate these little cars? the other side talks about protecting the environment. but this will create an environmental nightmare when these batteries are trying to be disposed of somewhere in america. it's just common sense to do everything we can to embrace an all of the above approach that's environmentally friendly

as well as affordable for the american people. the american energy act is good for the country. we can drill safely off our shores for oil and natural gas. that will create american jobs and make us less dependent on foreigners. we need to use more nuclear and hydroenergy and eventually we will as an american nation develop alternative energy. meanwhile we don't need the bureaucrats forcing americans into the none of the above energy plan, raising taxes, and forcing us to drive unsafe cars. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. engel: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: i rise today to talk about the unshakeable bond between the united states and israel and i believe that all of us support for israel in

this congress is very strong and very bipartisan. i want to commend president obama for making that speech in cairo, the way he spoke before an arab audience in what is the most important arab capital and said that the bond between the united states and israel is unbreakable. i think those are very, very important words and courageous words coming from the president of the united states in an arena that nothing has ever been said like that before. from the president of the united states. in such an arena. but i want to also focus on some of the other things that have happened. namely, the push in some quarters to force israel to make unilateral concessions, mostly about settlements, but union rat ral concessions in return for nothing. i believe that the

palestinian-israeli problem must be settled by negotiations and a two-state solution. but i believe that forcing israel to make unilateral concessions up front is wrong policy. the agreement will be made ultimately by israelis and palestinians, not by americans, and if israel is going to negotiate settlements and other things as israel will, then simultaneously, the arab states, the palestinians, i should say, should also be negotiating and giving up things simultaneously. people say well, the road map, which israel and the palestinians sign, is a first step, -- say as a first step israel must cease settlement activity. but it also said arabs need to stop incitement and have a sessation of violence. if those two things are done

simultaneously, that's fine. but the public demands put upon israel to halt settlements while the arabs, the palestinian -- palestinians have to give nothing in return, is absolutely wrong. palestinian president abbas said he's going to just sit back and let the israelis make all the concessions. he doesn't have to do anything. well, that's wrong. and if we pressure the israelis to make unilateral concessions, we're never going to have peace. concessions have to be made simultaneously. i know my good colleague from nevada, the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. berkley, feels as i do. i would like to yield to her for some of her comments on this matter. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i'm delighted to be able to share this time with my very dear friend and colleague eliot engel from new york. we, i think he made very clear how anxious we are to see peace

come to the middle east and how we support a two-state solution that has been america's policy in the middle east for many years. but there's a -- there's another component to that. that component is that the palestinians have to show good faith too. by showing good faith that means recognizing israel's right to exist. adhearing to prior agreements and doing other things that would demonstrate, including ending the terror and violence against israel that they are serious partners for peace. eliot, when they talk about sitting down at the peace table you need to have a partner at the peace table, particularly one that recognizes your right to exist. if your peace partner, so-called, doesn't recognize your right to exist, what are you negotiating? for your right to exist for 10 years, 20 year 30, year, when the palestinians show good

faith by truly ending the terrorism, recognizing israel's right to exist, adhering to prior agreements that -- calling for peace and other measures, then the israelis can have the security they need to sit down and negotiate a two-state solution. they have made unilateral withdrawal of land over many, many -- multiple decades and as my dear colleague knows, these have been very, very tough choices for israel. they've made them with very lit until return. i yield back, mr. engel. mr. engel: i thank the gentlewoman. let me say this. it's time for the arabs to step up and normalize relations with israel. i'll have more to say in a little while. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. woolsey of california. mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. jones: to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: earlier this year, congress passed h.r. 1, better known as the economic stimulus package. included in this package was a provision to modify the first time home buyers tax credit language congress passed last year. under the new provision a first-time home buyer who purchased a home before december 1 of 2009 would get a tax credit of $8,000, which can be fully retained by the home buyer so long as the home buyer does not sell the home for 36 months after purchase. if the home is sold prior to 36 months, the credit will have to be repaid. mr. speaker, under this law, it is unlikely that u.s. service persons who buy their first homes will be able to use the first-time home buyer tax credit like other american taxpayers. because many of our military personnel serve at a duty station for only a few years at a time, those who buy a first

home are often transferred and have to sell their first residence before the 36 month holding requirement is met. i recently introduced legislation that would fix this problem by allowing our military men and women the flexibility they need to benefit from this tax credit. h.r. 2398, the service members first time home buyer relief act, would amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow a member of the united states armed forces to retain the first time home buyer tax credit if they must sell their home within 36 months of purchase because the service member is, one, transferred to a new duty station, two, deployed overseas, or, three, required to reside in government quarters during that period. i am very pleased that this legislation has received the support of the national military family association.

the letter of support for this bill states and i quote, thank you for recognizing the mobile lifestyle of service members and their families. h.r. 2398 waves the -- waives the recapture of the first home buyer's tax credit for service members who are transferred to a different duty station or deployed everseas. moves in deployments -- moves and deployments can be stressful for military families and h.r. 2398 helps alleviate a financial concern of military families. mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent to submit the text of this letter for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. jones: i hope my colleagues will become co-sponsors of hrment -- h.r. 2398 and help in joining our service members gain the flexibility they need to benefit from the first time home buyer's tax credit. i have also handed a letter explaining this issue to both chairman charl rangel and ranking member david kemp and i

hope they will join me in supporting our military families. with that, mr. speaker, before i close, as i always do on the floor of the house, because we have young men understand and women in afghanistan and iraq -- men and women in afghanistan in iraq, we have young men and women dying for this country and young men and women who are losing limbs in those fights in afghanistan and iraq, so i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform and i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and three times, mr. speaker, i ask god to please bless america, i ask god to please bless america and again i ask god to please bless this great nation known as america. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. berkley of nevada. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. berkley: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. i'm not sure out of order, though. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to my colleague, mr. engel, to continue our discussion, i want to mention a few things that are very much on my mind. we can talk for hours about the threat of a nuclear iran to israel, but what i'd like to do in the minute or two that i have before i yield to congressman engel is i want to mention the sacrifices that israel has made in the name of peace. when there was an opportunity to make peace with egypt, something that had never been done before, the israelis gave the cyanide to the egyptians and there's been a peace, a cold peace, but a peace for all of these years . when there was extraordinary pressure to leave lebanon, the israelis withdrew from lebanon and what was their reward? they ended up with hezbollah on their northern border and a war. when prime minister sharon

decided that he would unilaterally withdraw from the gaza, one would have thought that the palestinians would have used this opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of self-governance. instead of that, they have rained 8,000 rockets on israel proper over the last three years. i believe that israel exercised extraordinary restraint before they finally went into the gaza to end this bloodshed and carnage against their own people. i understand how the israelis feel, how tentative they are right now about sitting down and moving towards a two-state solution without any assurances, what is the guarantee after they've left lebanon and got hezbollah, after they left the gaza and got hamas, that if they leave the west bank, what is going to happen then? do you want a terrorist state living side by side with a democratic state of israel? i don't think anybody wants another failed terrorist state. we have to make sure that doesn't happen and at this time

i yield to my good friend, eliot engel. mr. engel: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. she makes an excellent point. israel withdrew from gaza. people say israel needs to withdraw from the tertries, from the settlements and -- territories and settlements and there will be peace, land for peace. israel withdrew from gaza and got land for war. that's what's happened. with rockets being fired on israel from the very part in gaza that israel left. the arab countries, as a whole, need to start normalizing regulation -- relations with israel. we can start with saudi arabia on down to show that they are really serious about peace. they need to stop the terrorist infrastructure and end the incitement and you know what? gaza, as ms. berkley pointed out, is a terrorist organization in control -- i'm sorry, hamas is a terrorist organization in control of gaza. and what hamas needs to do is recognize israel's right to

exist, abide by all previous agreements that the palestinians have signed and renounce terrorism personally. and permanently. renounce terrorism permanently. otherwise why should israel negotiate with a government that deny thes its very right to exist? the united states -- denies its very right to exist? the united states is right to call it a terrorist nation. we do not believe we should provide aid to gaza until hamas meets these conditions. so, you know, there are people who also say that the palestinian-israeli problem needs to be settled before there can be peace in the region. that is nonsense. the problem with iran has to be settled before there can be peace in the region. we all know that iran is developing nuclear weapons. we all know that ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth. we all hope he loses in his election this week, but whoever replaces him is not going to be much more of a moderate than he

is. and so israel has the absolute right to defend its security. and the united states is israel's greatest ally, should not be putting pressure on israel to make unilateral concessions up front. that is very, very important. when president obama said the bond between israel and the united states is unbreakble, then we ought to do that in our actions as well as our words. so i thank the gentlewoman for sharing this time with me. i know we're going to continue to fight for a strong u.s.-israel ties. again, i'm glad there is bipartisan support in this congress for israel and i'm glad that we pointed out that israel has made many, many concessions for peace and has only gotten war. we hear a lot about what the israelis must do. let us hear about what the palestinians must do. the palestinians must stop the incitement, stop the sensation of violence, stop the terrorist

infrastructure and say that it recognizes israel's right to exist. the not all right for president abbas to say he recognizes israel's right to exist. let hamas say it. let the palestinians say it. and let them mean it. i yield back. ms. berkley: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. duncan: i ask unanimous consent to assume the time of mr. poe of texas and speak out of order and address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, thank you very much. and, mr. speaker, three or four years ago, as i had told people that we would be facing this year a budget of $3 trillion and facing a deficit of $1.8 billion, people would have thought that i was crazy. but that is what we're facing and because of the terrible

financial condition of the federal government, all of our expenditures are related, even though they may sound at first like they're unrelated. but -- and so i want to speak tonight briefly on two issues of national significance, even though they may sound unrelated at first. president reagan used to say frequently in speeches that government was not the solution, government was the problem. and certainly there also is an expression called the tyranny of good intentions and that cannot be seen more clearly in anything than in the federal student loan program. when i go to speak at the university of tennessee or other colleges and i tell them that my first year at the university of tennessee cost $90 a quarter and then $105 and then $120 and then $135 a quarter, $405 for the whole year my senior year at the university of tennessee, gasps go through the room.

but back when i went to college, anybody who needed to could work part time and pay all of their college expenses. nobody got out of college with a debt. but around that time or maybe a little bit before the federal student loan kicked in and the colleges and universities across the country have used that as a means or an excuse to raise their tuition and fees three or four or five times the rate of inflation. if i went to any college campus and told those students that the federal student loan program is one of the worst things that ever happened to them, they would stare at me probably in disbelief and yet it really is one of the worst things that ever happened to them. because throughout our history college tuition and fees went up very, very slowly and went up at the rate of inflation or even less until that loan program came in and now ever since that program came in, today tuition and fees are three or four -- 300%, 400%, 500% higher than they would have been if we'd left the thing totally alone.

it's called the tyranny of good intentions. the only way to correct that now is to punish colleges and universities that continually raise their tuition and fees at three or four or five times the rate of inflation by saying that we're going to limit or cut off the loans at those universities and colleges that continually raise their tuition and fees above the rate of inflation. the second thing and it seems a little unrelated except as i say when you're talking about the manners that there are significant federal expenditures on, all of these things are somewhat related. i'll give another example from my own life. in the early 1990's i went at to a reception in tennessee and the doctor who delivered me brought my records and he said he charged $60 back then for nine months of care and the delivery if they could afford it. and i told him that he probably didn't get anything for me then because my parents didn't have hardly any money at that point.

but we took what was a very minor problem in the mid 1960's and turned it into a major problem for everybody. nobody by bill gates and warren buffet and people of that rank should -- could afford or survive a catastrophic medical expense of some sort. we took what was a very minor problem for a very few people and turned it into a major problem for everybody. before the federal government got heavily into medical care, medical care was cheap and affordable by almost everyone. i started following politics and government very closely in the mid 1960's and i remember when they came in with medicare and they said that was going to be the savior of the system. instead it exploded. i remember in the mid and late 1970's when they started talking about medicaid and they came in with that, that was going to be the savior of the system. instead costs exploded.

now we're talking about the government getting even more moo medical care now and costs will explode again and they will explode to a level far higher than the predictions of what the costs will be because when they first started medicare they said it would cost $9 billion after 25 years. and now we're at $442 billion, medicare, the same thing has happened in regard to medicaid and it's really sad what we have done to the american people and especially to the poor and the lower income and the working people of this country in these two programs. and if we don't -- if we aren't very careful and if we don't put many free market and free enterprise type measures and reforms into these bills then these costs are going to explode and the poor and lower income people and middle income people are going to be hurt even more by programs, as i say, the tyranny of good intentions and i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. burton of indiana. without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, in less than 48 hours the doors of hundreds of g.m.c. dealers crossed -- across the nation and chevy dealers will be closed. general motors, now a state-owned intersurpriseworks 60% of the stock belonging -- enterprise, with 60% of the stock belonging to the american people, with the directors appointed by the auto task force ,